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.

Bharring wrote:
"So why is a person obligated to add more points, when they were already following the rules at hand, rather than the other person removing an upgrade so that they DO follow the rules?"
They are not obligated to add more points.

What rules did the player who wants 2006 points break? None. He's discussing what points level to play at with a potential opponent.

"Is there a small upgrade you can drop?"
That is almost always the better answer. But not always.

For instance, at one point I wanted to play a small game. Someone said sure, how does 1000 sound? I said about right. THen noticed all my Harlie models (at the time) came to just over 1000 points. I told him I could drop down to 1k, but would rather he added another Marine or something, so I could play all my Harlies. He added a Power Fist, wound up 2pts above me, and we had a fun game.

In that case, I would argue that renegotiating the points cost was the better option than dropping points. Because "all mah Harlies".

It broke initial point limits. You agreed to a 2000 point game, and for whatever reason you didn't have lists ready to go and all the sudden you say "Oh I'm over is that fine".

No matter list construction, it is for that player to gain advantage. That's not fair to those that construct their lists correctly.

For all the slinging that the casuals here do at "netlisters", they certainly can't build an army themselves to limits.

"It broke initial point limits."
Well, the *other* player broke the 1k points limit. So isn't he necessarily a dirty cheater too?
You agreed to a 2k game. To back out of a game is to back out of a game. Assuming you are *unwilling* to cut down to 2k, and your opponent doesn't accept the change in venue, then you are backing out of a game you agreed to play. That's certainly a negative event. But it is nowhere close to cheating.

As for "and for whatever reason you didn't have lists ready to go", I usually make my list on the spot. Other metas usually have lists of all the "normal" points levels ready to go, and pair off. So not having a list ready to go isn't some strange dubious corner case; it happens regularly in many metas.

"No matter list construction, it is for that player to gain advantage."
So when I added my VoidWeaver to the game, or took 3xHarlie troops from the Index instead of bringing some CWE Codex units, that was so I could win?

"That's not fair to those that construct their lists correctly."
Define 'Correctly' in this case. You believe that "Wow, for just a few more points, I can do all my Harlies!" is incorrect? My opponent certainly thought it *was* correct.

"For all the slinging that the casuals here do at "netlisters", they certainly can't build an army themselves to limits."
So because from time to time a casual or narrative list might be better off not conforming to a nominal number, people who play that way are unable to conform to said nominal number? In other words, just because they didn't do something means they couldn't do something?

This is like bizarro world to me. Every game I've ever played went along the lines, "I want to use these minis." "Cool. And I want to use these minis." "Awesome. How about this terrain?" "Sure. How about this rule set." "I'm not that familiar with it." "Neither am I. We'll just read up as we go."

I haven't made a list since 4th edition, if even then. For me and the people I game with, the game is just a beard for the modelling and fluff-reading hobby. We push minis around going pew-pew-pew AAAAaaarrrgh so that we can tell people we used the products for their intended purpose with a straight face. And laugh at hilariously bad rolls.

I will never understand this thing where people make a big show of how stupid and childish they think their hobby is and how little they care about it. What's next, ITS JUST A GAME I SMASH MY MODELS FOR FUN LOOK AT HOW LITTLE I CARE ABOUT THESE STUPID TOYS? Why even bother playing a game if you're so proud about not knowing or caring about the rules? Do people who build model trains feel compelled to put their finished models on a table and play some kind of game?

 Peregrine wrote:
I will never understand this thing where people make a big show of how stupid and childish they think their hobby is and how little they care about it. What's next, ITS JUST A GAME I SMASH MY MODELS FOR FUN LOOK AT HOW LITTLE I CARE ABOUT THESE STUPID TOYS? Why even bother playing a game if you're so proud about not knowing or caring about the rules? Do people who build model trains feel compelled to put their finished models on a table and play some kind of game?

Well, I did try to help you understand, but contempt works, too.

Fun, Peregrine. It's about what people find fun. I enjoy the modelling and the reading. Getting together with friends to socialize is fun. However, if we want to discuss something other than politics or Star Wars, we need some sort of stimulus. How about a game involving those things we like? We can talk about the hobby while playing the game, and then laugh at the unexpected turns the game takes, finding bleak humor in the obvious metaphor for our own lives. It's a riot. You should try it.


Why does fun need to be all serious and grown up?

Fun is subjective. Some people find it fun to work within the limitations of rules systems (games) and take that part more seriously, because that's what's fun for them. I have to agree with Peregrine that some people (not necessarily you, Bob) really go out of their way to denigrate and devalue that kind of fun, as well as those who seek it out.

It's like staying home on a weekend night to read and having people try to convince you that you need to go to the bar instead.

"Why are you reading? Everything doesn't have to be so serious all the time, you could try having fun,"

"Yeah, I'm trying."

I got involved because the reverse was happening, with Peregrine citing other ways of funning as cheating and such. She has a very narrow approach to the game and what is acceptable, that all others are illegitimate, and I was challenging it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I got involved because the reverse was happening, with Peregrine citing other ways of funning as cheating and such. She has a very narrow approach to the game and what is acceptable, that all others are illegitimate, and I was challenging it.

I already demonstrated how it's cheating and you people keep saying "Nah because it's fun".

Apparently I just have friends that can have a good time without needing to have some random activity to give us any common ground? We hang out, and if we do an activity it's something we really like, not just something to kill time and cover the fact that we have nothing else to talk about.

I get enjoying painting over gaming, what I don't understand is playing the game anyway and going LOL LOOK HOW STUPID THIS ALL IS. It's like if the person who likes reading over bars went to the bar anyway and spent the whole time talking about how childish and pointless alcohol is and dumping beers on the floor to prove how much they don't care about it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I got involved because the reverse was happening, with Peregrine citing other ways of funning as cheating and such. She has a very narrow approach to the game and what is acceptable, that all others are illegitimate, and I was challenging it.

I didn't see what Peregrine said that got everyone riled up way back in this thread, but after participating for a few pages a couple days ago, I can understand why Peregrine might be frustrated. A lot of posters on the "casual" side are heavily implying that things like adhering to point limits, not wanting to play Power Level etc. makes you, at best, a selfish curmudgeon, and at worst a "toxic" and immoral individual. Peregrine may be directly stating that the way other people play is cheating or whatever, but many if not most of the people on the other side of the debate are casting aspersions on the character of anyone who doesn't play the way they do, even if it's done in a more indirect manner. Let's be honest, this thread would not be 19 pages long if everyone's attitude was to "play and let play," so to speak.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I got involved because the reverse was happening, with Peregrine citing other ways of funning as cheating and such. She has a very narrow approach to the game and what is acceptable, that all others are illegitimate, and I was challenging it.

I already demonstrated how it's cheating and you people keep saying "Nah because it's fun".

That you repeat a lie doesn't make it any less of a lie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I got involved because the reverse was happening, with Peregrine citing other ways of funning as cheating and such. She has a very narrow approach to the game and what is acceptable, that all others are illegitimate, and I was challenging it.

I didn't see what Peregrine said that got everyone riled up way back in this thread, but after participating for a few pages a couple days ago, I can understand why Peregrine might be frustrated. A lot of posters on the "casual" side are heavily implying that things like adhering to point limits, not wanting to play Power Level etc. makes you, at best, a selfish curmudgeon, and at worst a "toxic" and immoral individual. Peregrine may be directly stating that the way other people play is cheating or whatever, but many if not most of the people on the other side of the debate are casting aspersions on the character of anyone who doesn't play the way they do, even if it's done in a more indirect manner. Let's be honest, this thread would not be 19 pages long if everyone's attitude was to "play and let play," so to speak.

Just no. It has gotten utterly absurd. Peregrine and Slayer are saying that people cannot change their mind about the point limit, and doing so is cheating. Or that playing anything that is not divisible by 250 is somehow wrong. Their stance is so blatantly bonkers that it has sailed past the ludicrous straight to the surreal.

Peregrine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Considering your obsession with equal point values, should that be a question YOU answer? For all we know, 1337 is the maximum force the one player can field. They may be new, transitioning, or just over 600 points got attacked by the cat earlier that day with no time to repair. I knew plenty of people who would be willing to work with a new player's maximum built list just to have a game and even one that was lower on the pressure scale. They would even consider it a list-building challenge as well.

Ok, sure, 1337 is their maximum, play a 1250 point game. But that's not the scenario that was presented, it was about a player who selects a specific list out of their collection for fluff reasons and then wants to set the point limit exactly to fit their list. A player who is working with a limited pool of models and can't build a list for higher point levels can always play a smaller game, and there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't have much stuff, can we play at 1000 points".

And renegotiating to a different point value, even lower, is perfectly fine and is no more cheating than trying to up the point value of the game.

But still the point is asked, why is a point value that is not a factor of 10 cheating or bad? Because that is the list they want to play? S what? I have had people choose not to play me because I didn't have 1750 points. Were they cheating or bad? Was I when I wanted a lower point value?

To me it indicates a rather obsessive compulsive nature on your part more than any problems on another person's part.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:It broke initial point limits. You agreed to a 2000 point game, and for whatever reason you didn't have lists ready to go and all the sudden you say "Oh I'm over is that fine".

No matter list construction, it is for that player to gain advantage. That's not fair to those that construct their lists correctly.

For all the slinging that the casuals here do at "netlisters", they certainly can't build an army themselves to limits.

Renegotiating a price point isn't cheating or WAAC, though. Sometimes things just end up a certain way and a choice can be made. To speed up the point of getting in to a game, they ask if they can change the point values. Nothing is really broken as the game hasn't really started at this point.

Peregrine wrote:I will never understand this thing where people make a big show of how stupid and childish they think their hobby is and how little they care about it. What's next, ITS JUST A GAME I SMASH MY MODELS FOR FUN LOOK AT HOW LITTLE I CARE ABOUT THESE STUPID TOYS? Why even bother playing a game if you're so proud about not knowing or caring about the rules? Do people who build model trains feel compelled to put their finished models on a table and play some kind of game?

Considering that you are the one trying to enforce non-existant rules, that is a rather hypocritical statement. Here's something that I used to say when I rampage through the YMDC board, "I argue the Rules as Written here so everyone is aware of what the rules actually say. If you choose to have different rules, that is fine and up to the concession of your opponent or the TO, more power to you. There are a lot of rules I don't play as written because they are poorly written. Knowing what the rules actually state helps you be aware of what changes you want to communicate with someone when you meet. Just don't try to push your House Rules as the written word." You have repeatedly stepped over that line numerous times here, presenting your views on point limits as hard written rules of the game.

And if someone wants to play the game differently, so what? Why does that drop ants in to your pinfeathers? You can either hear them out and give it a try (you might actually find it enjoyable, SHOCKER!), or decide to find someone who wants to play the same as you do. They are no more required to hold their hobby hostage to your desires as you are require to hold your hobby hostage to theirs. So long as there is effective communication before and during the game, that is all that is required in making a game enjoyable for everyone.

 Luciferian wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I got involved because the reverse was happening, with Peregrine citing other ways of funning as cheating and such. She has a very narrow approach to the game and what is acceptable, that all others are illegitimate, and I was challenging it.

I didn't see what Peregrine said that got everyone riled up way back in this thread, but after participating for a few pages a couple days ago, I can understand why Peregrine might be frustrated. A lot of posters on the "casual" side are heavily implying that things like adhering to point limits, not wanting to play Power Level etc. makes you, at best, a selfish curmudgeon, and at worst a "toxic" and immoral individual. Peregrine may be directly stating that the way other people play is cheating or whatever, but many if not most of the people on the other side of the debate are casting aspersions on the character of anyone who doesn't play the way they do, even if it's done in a more indirect manner. Let's be honest, this thread would not be 19 pages long if everyone's attitude was to "play and let play," so to speak.

You really did miss out. No one was shaming people who played with lists and points. It was only when Peregrine and others shamed people who choose to play without strict adherence to those things that the arguments began. Peregrine simply couldn't admit anyone could play the game without strict point limits without that person being a terrible cheater. You have this exactly backwards. Go back and see who was using terms like "cheaters" and "unsportsmanlike". I don't care that other people have different fun until they tell me I'm having wrong fun. Then, of course I'll push back.

 Crimson wrote:

Just no. It has gotten utterly absurd. Peregrine and Slayer are saying that people cannot change their mind about the point limit, and doing so is cheating. Or that playing anything that is not divisible by 250 is somehow wrong. Their stance is so blatantly bonkers that it has sailed past the ludicrous straight to the surreal.

I haven't read the last few pages, but I can see their point. If you're playing a basement game with friends then nothing like that really matters as long as you're both cool with it. But if I were to go looking for a pick up game, after having agonized over whether or not I can afford to get rid of this or that to fit that last upgrade in and be under a certain, widely accepted points level, and someone comes up to me not having made the same concessions or with a strange points value that is clearly meant to advantage some weird list, why should I be happy about that? And is it more inconsiderate to deny that game, or to be the person imposing things on people that they couldn't possibly have planned for?

Not that I'm saying it's cheating, because if someone agrees to play the game then it's on them. However, it could absolutely be seen as deceptive or manipulative.

 Peregrine wrote:
Apparently I just have friends that can have a good time without needing to have some random activity to give us any common ground? We hang out, and if we do an activity it's something we really like, not just something to kill time and cover the fact that we have nothing else to talk about.

Yes. You have one class of people as friends. From your posting history, I know exactly how you feel about judging all people by the circumstances of one class of people, about assuming everyone should be treated as if they have the same mindset and values.

I get enjoying painting over gaming, what I don't understand is playing the game anyway and going LOL LOOK HOW STUPID THIS ALL IS. It's like if the person who likes reading over bars went to the bar anyway and spent the whole time talking about how childish and pointless alcohol is and dumping beers on the floor to prove how much they don't care about it.

Did I say it was stupid? You are confusing not taking something deadly seriously with disparaging it. Do you never act silly or watch bad movies with a group of friends so you can laugh at (or with) it? And the bar example is way off. It would be more like insisting on going to a hipster bar in a bad Christmas sweater--perhaps not what you or I would consider ideal, but clearly fun for somebody.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Just no. It has gotten utterly absurd. Peregrine and Slayer are saying that people cannot change their mind about the point limit, and doing so is cheating. Or that playing anything that is not divisible by 250 is somehow wrong. Their stance is so blatantly bonkers that it has sailed past the ludicrous straight to the surreal.

I haven't read the last few pages, but I can see their point. If you're playing a basement game with friends then nothing like that really matters as long as you're both cool with it.

Stop here. Stop right here. This is the issue. You see, basement games that are cool are unsportsmanlike cheating. That's the issue. Your fun basement game does not exist. You cannot play that way. You must be a deceptive cheater lying for advantage.


That is the argument you didn't go back to read.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Just no. It has gotten utterly absurd. Peregrine and Slayer are saying that people cannot change their mind about the point limit, and doing so is cheating. Or that playing anything that is not divisible by 250 is somehow wrong. Their stance is so blatantly bonkers that it has sailed past the ludicrous straight to the surreal.

I haven't read the last few pages, but I can see their point. If you're playing a basement game with friends then nothing like that really matters as long as you're both cool with it. But if I were to go looking for a pick up game, after having agonized over whether or not I can afford to get rid of this or that to fit that last upgrade in and be under a certain, widely accepted points level, and someone comes up to me not having made the same concessions or with a strange points value that is clearly meant to advantage some weird list, why should I be happy about that? And is it more inconsiderate to deny that game, or to be the person imposing things on people that they couldn't possibly have planned for?

Not that I'm saying it's cheating, because if someone agrees to play the game then it's on them. However, it could absolutely be seen as deceptive or manipulative.

To add to what others have summarized for you nicely - the very act of asking is inredeemable flaw of character, no matter the reason for the ask, because it is assumed up front and argued all way round that the only motivation you may have for deviating from "proper way" (not rules, as apparently "widely accepted house rules sets" like ITC are allowed and Narrative and Open modes are not) or "standard accepted values" is to bully other players. Period.

I mean my specific example was suggesting a 1350ish point game for a friend days in advance and this was deemed unacceptable because it wasn't 1250 or 1500 points. It would be hilarious if there wouldn't be a pretty strong chance that these people are serious.

nou wrote:

To add to what others have summarized for you nicely - the very act of asking is inredeemable flaw of character, no matter the reason for the ask, because it is assumed up front and argued all way round that the only motivation you may have for deviating from "proper way" (not rules, as apparently "widely accepted house rules sets" like ITC are allowed and Narrative and Open modes are not) or "standard accepted values" is to bully other players. Period.

Let's be honest, though, if you're shopping around a 2005 point list for pickup games, at some point you had the thought that most people are going to be expecting round points values and making their lists accordingly, whereas you decided to just stick that extra thing in and expect everyone to be cool with it. If you only have 1359 points worth of models and just want to play a loose game with what you have that's one thing, but this argument is kind of weird because typically violating points values or trying to get people to agree to weird restrictions that most likely benefit your list over theirs is exactly the type of behavior you'd expect from a real-life WAAC player.

Again, I'm not going to say that it's cheating, or even that it's underhanded in every case. That's up to whomever plays against such a list. But it's definitely rife for exploitation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
I mean my specific example was suggesting a 1350ish point game for a friend days in advance and this was deemed unacceptable because it wasn't 1250 or 1500 points. It would be hilarious if there wouldn't be a pretty strong chance that these people are serious.

In that case I see nothing wrong, if you let someone know beforehand what type of game you want to play and they have time to come up with something for their own list then there would be no foul at all. You could play whatever points level you wanted to no matter how arbitrary.

 Luciferian wrote:

nou wrote:

To add to what others have summarized for you nicely - the very act of asking is inredeemable flaw of character, no matter the reason for the ask, because it is assumed up front and argued all way round that the only motivation you may have for deviating from "proper way" (not rules, as apparently "widely accepted house rules sets" like ITC are allowed and Narrative and Open modes are not) or "standard accepted values" is to bully other players. Period.

Let's be honest, though, if you're shopping around a 2005 point list for pickup games, at some point you had the thought that most people are going to be expecting round points values and making their lists accordingly, whereas you decided to just stick that extra thing in and expect everyone to be cool with it. If you only have 1359 points worth of models and just want to play a loose game with what you have that's one thing, but this argument is kind of weird because typically violating points values or trying to get people to agree to weird restrictions that most likely benefit your list over theirs is exactly the type of behavior you'd expect from a real-life WAAC player.

Again, I'm not going to say that it's cheating, or even that it's underhanded in every case. That's up to whomever plays against such a list. But it's definitely rife for exploitation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
I mean my specific example was suggesting a 1350ish point game for a friend days in advance and this was deemed unacceptable because it wasn't 1250 or 1500 points. It would be hilarious if there wouldn't be a pretty strong chance that these people are serious.

In that case I see nothing wrong, if you let someone know beforehand what type of game you want to play and they have time to come up with something for their own list then there would be no foul at all. You could play whatever points level you wanted to no matter how arbitrary.

You are assuming quite a lot of things here, but it is understandable, as you clearly try to find a reasonable rationale behind this absurd discussion. It really cannot be easily summed up in a short post, you have to read through all that nonsense on previous pages. The most absurd part is that you are not allowed to grant those 4 points to your opponent and be cool with it. Apparently having no problems with playing your own 1982 points against standard 2000 is strictly forbidden and you should model some mortars to fit into nice round 2000.

nou wrote:

You are assuming quite a lot of things here, but it is understandable, as you clearly try to find a reasonable rationale behind this absurd discussion. It really cannot be easily summed up in a short post, you have to read through all that nonsense on previous pages. The most absurd part is that you are not allowed to grant those 4 points to your opponent and be cool with it. Apparently having no problems with playing your own 1982 points against standard 2000 is strictly forbidden and you should model some mortars to fit into nice round 2000.

I'm definitely not going to push hyperbolic equivalencies or anything like that. If you and your opponent discuss the points limit beforehand and agree on it then you've done your diligence.

For me, personally, building lists is one of my favorite parts of the game. I love being forced to make hard decisions about what I want to leave in or take out, and then actually ordering, building and painting that list is all icing on the cake. Nothing like it. That's why if someone asked me if it was OK that they were a few points over the limit, at game time and not beforehand, I'd probably scoff and wonder what makes them so special. Even if they offered to give me the extra points as well, I already have modeled and painted my list at that point and I prefer to make everything strictly WYSIWYG. Just the way I have fun. If someone did ask me beforehand I'd probably ask them to drop something but I wouldn't make a huge deal about it, and if they asked to play a 1982 list against my 2000 list I'd just drop something or other to make it more even.

So yeah, I don't agree that playing at arbitrary points values or going over the limit is cheating per se, and I would do it with a friend without any issues, but I would definitely consider it inconsiderate TFG behavior coming from a stranger looking for a PUG.

 Crimson wrote:
I mean my specific example was suggesting a 1350ish point game for a friend days in advance and this was deemed unacceptable because it wasn't 1250 or 1500 points. It would be hilarious if there wouldn't be a pretty strong chance that these people are serious.

No, your example was a 1350 game selected because you had a game-winning combo and tailored the point level to meet it. Please do not remove context to build straw men.

 Luciferian wrote:

nou wrote:

You are assuming quite a lot of things here, but it is understandable, as you clearly try to find a reasonable rationale behind this absurd discussion. It really cannot be easily summed up in a short post, you have to read through all that nonsense on previous pages. The most absurd part is that you are not allowed to grant those 4 points to your opponent and be cool with it. Apparently having no problems with playing your own 1982 points against standard 2000 is strictly forbidden and you should model some mortars to fit into nice round 2000.

I'm definitely not going to push hyperbolic equivalencies or anything like that. If you and your opponent discuss the points limit beforehand and agree on it then you've done your diligence.

For me, personally, building lists is one of my favorite parts of the game. I love being forced to make hard decisions about what I want to leave in or take out, and then actually ordering, building and painting that list is all icing on the cake. Nothing like it. That's why if someone asked me if it was OK that they were a few points over the limit, at game time and not beforehand, I'd probably scoff and wonder what makes them so special. Even if they offered to give me the extra points as well, I already have modeled and painted my list at that point and I prefer to make everything strictly WYSIWYG. Just the way I have fun. If someone did ask me beforehand I'd probably ask them to drop something but I wouldn't make a huge deal about it, and if they asked to play a 1982 list against my 2000 list I'd just drop something or other to make it more even.

So yeah, I don't agree that playing at arbitrary points values or going over the limit is cheating per se, and I would do it with a friend without any issues, but I would definitely consider it inconsiderate TFG behavior coming from a stranger looking for a PUG.

Your position is perfectly reasonable and I wouldn't really expect any different from you, remembering our previous exchanges of posts here on dakka. It is perfectly clear from what you wrote in those last posts were exactly we differ in our approaches to 40K (for one, I own collections of minis, not precise lists, and while I very much like the process of shaping armies from my collection, I do not feel the need to limit myself to "standard values" if those force me to drop or include something that do not fit the theme I have in mind, as long as my opponent is also into such kind of "kinks"), but I'm fairly certain, that if we were to meet at the table, we would have a good time. I cannot say the same about Slayer-fan or Peregrine.

Yep, I think I have a very different approach from most people. I start with a specific list in mind and then build and paint that exact list. I actually find it fun to force myself to adhere to the standard limits. I wouldn't hesitate to play you at all though and I'm sure we'd have fun.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I mean my specific example was suggesting a 1350ish point game for a friend days in advance and this was deemed unacceptable because it wasn't 1250 or 1500 points. It would be hilarious if there wouldn't be a pretty strong chance that these people are serious.

No, your example was a 1350 game selected because you had a game-winning combo and tailored the point level to meet it. Please do not remove context to build straw men.

You just invented the "game winning combo" context yourself here to build a strawman about powergaming/TFG reasons behind odd sized lists. Let me remind you the exact quote:

 Crimson wrote:
I'm sure I've often arranged games with 'weird' point totals. I gather some models I want to use, then make the list. 1337, Cool. I message my friend: 'Wanna play 40K on Saturday? I made a 1337 point list." They then make their list. It might be 1300, 1350 or 1362. It really doesn't matter, the points are not that accurate to begin with; the goal is just to achieve a rough parity.

But it is not my joke to explain...

(you gotta admit, you guys have brought this discussion far and wide, huh?)

I'd like to add that clearly a lot of you have entirely different paradigms then me. To be clear: I, and friends in my local meta, build lists *on the spot* at store pick up games, to which I have brought much of my favorite pieces from my collection. I suspect others in this argument go about it similarly, though I don't know for certain.

Either way, in my paradigm it's usually the most polite to build the list (built on the spot) in a timely manner, as they are building theirs. The goal is to finish at the same time, so nit-picking about being 2 points over and agonising over what to drop is more rude then asking "Is this acceptable to you?" and explaining the list. If I do wind up building my list in advanced, I build it generally lower then the points level, or right at it.

Also, not to be rude to you guys, but why are you insisting that if someone has a few points over budget their ONLY motive MUST BE to gain some pathetic advantage? That's a grossly pessimistic thing to say, not to mention rude to the other person in this discussion. Surely that can't be easier to believe then that we just draw as much enjoyment from the models on the table then how our build performs?

The thread topic is mildly inflammatory, the bait was taken, and the masticators of the bait continue masticating.

Just goes round and round. A big circle of bait masticators.

 Lazzamore wrote:


Also, not to be rude to you guys, but why are you insisting that if someone has a few points over budget their ONLY motive MUST BE to gain some pathetic advantage? That's a grossly pessimistic thing to say, not to mention rude to the other person in this discussion. Surely that can't be easier to believe then that we just draw as much enjoyment from the models on the table then how our build performs?

That trully is the question.

Peregrine wrote:I will never understand this thing where people make a big show of how stupid and childish they think their hobby is and how little they care about it. What's next, ITS JUST A GAME I SMASH MY MODELS FOR FUN LOOK AT HOW LITTLE I CARE ABOUT THESE STUPID TOYS? Why even bother playing a game if you're so proud about not knowing or caring about the rules? Do people who build model trains feel compelled to put their finished models on a table and play some kind of game?

I don't want you to understand. I want you have a shred of politeness for people who don't fit in the same box that you like to fit yourself in.

Also, the fact you point out "stupid toys" is probably the most ironic thing you could say. You act like it's ridiculous that people "smash them together". They're toys. That's no more ridiculous than saying someone's a cheater because their toys were "worth more" than yours. They're toys. Let people do what they want with them. What's wrong with smashing them together?

(And, I can't speak for trains, but Gaslands is a car game which uses things like die-cast cars as the playing pieces. Kinda Mad Max-y, I guess, I've never played it, but it literally is people taking their toy cars and playing "some kind of game".)

Luciferian wrote:Fun is subjective. Some people find it fun to work within the limitations of rules systems (games) and take that part more seriously, because that's what's fun for them. I have to agree with Peregrine that some people (not necessarily you, Bob) really go out of their way to denigrate and devalue that kind of fun, as well as those who seek it out.

It's like staying home on a weekend night to read and having people try to convince you that you need to go to the bar instead.

"Why are you reading? Everything doesn't have to be so serious all the time, you could try having fun,"

"Yeah, I'm trying."

Oh, absolutely. I've stated often here that people's enjoyment of the game can come from absolutely ANYTHING, and all are valid. The only time I've defended myself with the "because my way is fun" argument wasn't to suggest that other ways weren't fun - they were to defend WHY I do something.

Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, the party doing the "denigrating and devaluing that kind of fun" are incapable of understanding that rules aren't everything. As the first quote in this message shows - thanks Peregrine.

Peregrine wrote:Apparently I just have friends that can have a good time without needing to have some random activity to give us any common ground? We hang out, and if we do an activity it's something we really like, not just something to kill time and cover the fact that we have nothing else to talk about.

And I have friends that I can enjoy my favourite hobby with. That's WHY it's my favourite. Hell, I play 40k with friends who know nothing about the actual rules, and just borrow my models and just roll some dice at Warhammer World. Great scenery, painted (to a workable standard) models, plenty of dice and beer. That's what I like.

You like keeping your friends and your gaming separate. Good for you.
So why do you seem to have an air of superiority when you say that? Why is that inherently better? Better for you, yes, but why does your point seem to sound like "I'm a better person than you"?

I get enjoying painting over gaming, what I don't understand is playing the game anyway and going LOL LOOK HOW STUPID THIS ALL IS. It's like if the person who likes reading over bars went to the bar anyway and spent the whole time talking about how childish and pointless alcohol is and dumping beers on the floor to prove how much they don't care about it.

Or they're the kind of person who goes to the bar because they like the bar atmosphere? They don't go to get smashed, they go to enjoy the atmosphere and activities there with their friends.

Heck, of all your "comparisons", this one is actually probably the most likely to be a real thing (and in fact, I know it is. My brother fits this perfectly - goes to the pub with his mates, but isn't fond of drinking. He goes because he likes being with his friends, and casually flexing at pub quizzes).

Luciferian wrote:I didn't see what Peregrine said that got everyone riled up way back in this thread, but after participating for a few pages a couple days ago, I can understand why Peregrine might be frustrated. A lot of posters on the "casual" side are heavily implying that things like adhering to point limits, not wanting to play Power Level etc. makes you, at best, a selfish curmudgeon, and at worst a "toxic" and immoral individual.

I don't think I've seen that. I've seen a few posts saying things along the lines of "if you can't handle a subpar list being 4 points over you, with a well built competitive tier list, then there must be something wrong", but I've never seen anyone suggest that not wanting to play PL was a bad thing. Please, I may be wrong, but I've seen nothing of the sort.

Peregrine may be directly stating that the way other people play is cheating or whatever, but many if not most of the people on the other side of the debate are casting aspersions on the character of anyone who doesn't play the way they do, even if it's done in a more indirect manner. Let's be honest, this thread would not be 19 pages long if everyone's attitude was to "play and let play," so to speak.

Most of the people on the other side of the debate to Peregrine have espoused the "play and let play" belief. Unfortunately, that falls on deaf ears.

Lazzamore wrote:Also, not to be rude to you guys, but why are you insisting that if someone has a few points over budget their ONLY motive MUST BE to gain some pathetic advantage? That's a grossly pessimistic thing to say, not to mention rude to the other person in this discussion. Surely that can't be easier to believe then that we just draw as much enjoyment from the models on the table then how our build performs?

It really is depressing if the only thing that they can possibly consider is combat potential.
If that's all they can think of, even with so many quite rational posters trying to show how there could be myriad other reasons, then I honestly do have to question if winning is all that matters to themselves.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:This is like bizarro world to me. Every game I've ever played went along the lines, "I want to use these minis." "Cool. And I want to use these minis." "Awesome. How about this terrain?" "Sure. How about this rule set." "I'm not that familiar with it." "Neither am I. We'll just read up as we go."

Right?

I haven't made a list since 4th edition, if even then. For me and the people I game with, the game is just a beard for the modelling and fluff-reading hobby. We push minis around going pew-pew-pew AAAAaaarrrgh so that we can tell people we used the products for their intended purpose with a straight face. And laugh at hilariously bad rolls.

This has been my intention with every game I've played both back in RT and 8th(didnt play inbetween).


Wait a second, when did everyone's individual weird sense of fun make another's invalid?

Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I mean my specific example was suggesting a 1350ish point game for a friend days in advance and this was deemed unacceptable because it wasn't 1250 or 1500 points. It would be hilarious if there wouldn't be a pretty strong chance that these people are serious.

No, your example was a 1350 game selected because you had a game-winning combo and tailored the point level to meet it. Please do not remove context to build straw men.

Look, just because you see scarecrows all around doesn't mean they don't have any brains. I could just as easily reverse it right back and say that someone would only want to play at 2000 points even because that is a game-winning combo and they refuse to play anything else. When was the last time you actually had a decent conversation about the game at your game store/club? From the way it sounds, a long time to never. You all seem the hyper-competitive bunch that do nothing but prep for tournaments. You should switch to WMH, it's far more common there.