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.
DrGiggles wrote: Why do you ALWAYS attribute malice (trying to weasel in an advantage over the other player) to the person wanting to make a change?
Because if you aren't trying to weasel your way into an advantage, and the extra points genuinely aren't a big deal, you can just bring a legal list and not ask for extra.
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,
I believe the gap comes from seeing 'advantage' to be the only currency for 'value'.
Others might value aspects that don't correlate neatly to, or sometimes at all with, advantage. In other words, others might think a different point level might bring more value while not impacting advantage.
Again, back to the "All My Harlies" example. I wanted to go over in points. I had several options, but two of them were:
-Go over, work it out with the opponent
-Rework my list by dropping the VoidWeaver and taking some Codex CWE instead of some of my Index Harlies
The going-over option here clearly was not an "advantage" within the game (CWE were much better than Index Harlies).
The extra points were "worth" enough discussing it with my opponent despite being a net negative on the "advantage" spectrum.
What would have been gained by not doing so? I would have higher chance of winning without having done so, but I don't value that too highly. However, the enjoyment of both players would have been lower - and I do value that higher.
Should I really just have done Harlies/CWE instead of All Ma Harlies?
DrGiggles wrote: Why do you ALWAYS attribute malice (trying to weasel in an advantage over the other player) to the person wanting to make a change?
Because if you aren't trying to weasel your way into an advantage, and the extra points genuinely aren't a big deal, you can just bring a legal list and not ask for extra.
It's a legal list, just not for the point value you prefer. That you insist on playing a point value you are familiar with and have practised building list for, or playing in tournaments with, might be an advantage for you.
I would strongly disagree with you. The public gaming environment (that being what games you see out in the open in stores in public and public events) has changed quite a bit.
The change started roughly around 2012 or so, when 6th edition 40k was becoming its own thing. It really really became a new thing in 2015 with AOS and what AOS did to the community.
While there has always been differences from year to year, I can say from 1998 - 2012, years I was very active in both campaigning and tournamenting in both WHFB and 40k, public games were relatively standard and straight forward, and forums discussions were always defaulted to competitive tournament play.
2012 it started creeping towards narrative play, which I loved as a narrative player. But this caused a huge angry rift with players that were concerned that the default way to play (the competitive standard) was being challenged.
The AOS narrative drop in 2015 crystallized that. Things got VERY heated on forums. This is where I noticed facebook groups started banning people that didn't agree with them, forums like warseer started banning people for things like "trolling" by promoting AOS, and largely carried into today where many forums and facebook groups will flat out ban you for debating as that is now a form of negative toxicity.
That is something I believe rooted in the extreme fragmenting of what is "standard" which has caused quite a bit of angst, where as before in 5th ed 40k if you were to discuss your cities of death campaign, you'd get some snide commentary about how its not true 40k, but nothing to the levels we get today.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/20 22:48:44
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Whether or not the Terminators make the list in question better doesn't matter in the situation presented. The list is "submitted" in that both players had the armies ready to go, and a last minute switch is dishonest and likely done for some benefit.
And if the unit those Terminators replaced isn't available for some reason? Or the person had a discussion between leaving their house and arriving at the table and they were just reminded of an idea they wanted to try out? There are many reasons for making a change at the last minute which don't even approach WAAC or cheating activity.
You have an overly strict definition of "last minute switch", and actually represent some of the worst types of competitive players who aren't WAACers. Though, I'd have to say, you group are still a bunch of WAACers, you just are a different type of it since you won't allow for any win condition but one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Because if you aren't trying to weasel your way into an advantage, and the extra points genuinely aren't a big deal, you can just bring a legal list and not ask for extra.
That's an assumption. It may be an assumption born of experience with your group, but it is still an assumption.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/20 23:13:45
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.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Whether or not the Terminators make the list in question better doesn't matter in the situation presented. The list is "submitted" in that both players had the armies ready to go, and a last minute switch is dishonest and likely done for some benefit.
And if the unit those Terminators replaced isn't available for some reason? Or the person had a discussion between leaving their house and arriving at the table and they were just reminded of an idea they wanted to try out? There are many reasons for making a change at the last minute which don't even approach WAAC or cheating activity.
You have an overly strict definition of "last minute switch", and actually represent some of the worst types of competitive players who aren't WAACers. Though, I'd have to say, you group are still a bunch of WAACers, you just are a different type of it since you won't allow for any win condition but one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Because if you aren't trying to weasel your way into an advantage, and the extra points genuinely aren't a big deal, you can just bring a legal list and not ask for extra.
That's an assumption. It may be an assumption born of experience with your group, but it is still an assumption.
The models you brought are suddenly unavailable to use? You SUDDENLY remember an amazing idea you wanted to try instead of being excited to try it?
Yeah I'm not buying the former of that unless they were literally stolen, and you've probably gotta take care of that before playing a game. That's literally the silliest thing I've read on this forum in a while. The latter makes no sense for someone who is supposedly that enthused to play a game. These are all reasons that won't actually happen, sorry.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. The game starts basically the moment army lists are created for the mission. You deciding you want extra points for that fact is therefore cheating and done for an in-game advantage. No excuses.
2. EVERY new player I've met (and that's several) has been more prepared with their lists than the people in this thread defending cheating. In fact that's my main accommodation: I already have a list for those points. New kid brings in 1000 points? Yep I already have something to use, so let's get started.
So by your logic a game with you starts before your opponent even knows that they're playing against you...
I'm trying to prepare TAC lists for every point level based on what I might expect. It isn't like I'm list tailoring.
1. The game starts basically the moment army lists are created for the mission. You deciding you want extra points for that fact is therefore cheating and done for an in-game advantage. No excuses.
2. EVERY new player I've met (and that's several) has been more prepared with their lists than the people in this thread defending cheating. In fact that's my main accommodation: I already have a list for those points. New kid brings in 1000 points? Yep I already have something to use, so let's get started.
In fact that's why I always recommend new players ask to see what point levels typically come up in particular shops so they can be prepared.
3. Research your product purchases or man up and accept your army doesn't get everything you want at specific point levels. Either one works. I mean, you think I have every model ever? Of course not. I'm still prepared though.
Also I'm not trying to say you need to netlist, but if making a list at 2000 points is so hard for you maybe you should look to them for guidance? I won't judge.
4. Tournament styles are house rules and typically means those tournaments are organized. I'd like to see you go to an ITC and ask if you can make your list real quick. Ya know, when the other bunch of people came prepared. If locals use those tournament rules, they will adhere to a same point level.
Not hard to adjust to at all.
5. Why should we make special permissions for people who can't make a list properly? Why do we need to cater to them instead of teaching them they can't always get their way?
I've got to ask, would you consider this scenario cheating per #1.
Two players agree to play a PUG at 1850 points, SM vs Orks. Both players show up and have NOT seen the other persons list. At the last moment before deployment, the SM player decides to swap out a unit in his list with a unit of terminators. Would that constitute cheating because his list isn't EXACTLY the same but is still at/under the agreed upon point limit?
That would be cheating, yes.
What exactly is it in your mind that makes this cheating, especially since in this situation he doesn't know what the ork player is going to field? Also how is this any different than having 4 lists ready to go at any time (something that you have said you do) and picking one over the other arbitrarily right before deployment?
Whether or not the Terminators make the list in question better doesn't matter in the situation presented. The list is "submitted" in that both players had the armies ready to go, and a last minute switch is dishonest and likely done for some benefit.
Based on that response here is my last question (and this applies to Peregrine too). Why do you ALWAYS attribute malice (trying to weasel in an advantage over the other player) to the person wanting to make a change?
If it weren't such a big deal and if you're so casual, you'd be able to stick to the original game, simple as that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/21 00:46:27
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.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The models you brought are suddenly unavailable to use? You SUDDENLY remember an amazing idea you wanted to try instead of being excited to try it?
Yeah I'm not buying the former of that unless they were literally stolen, and you've probably gotta take care of that before playing a game. That's literally the silliest thing I've read on this forum in a while. The latter makes no sense for someone who is supposedly that enthused to play a game. These are all reasons that won't actually happen, sorry.
When people build their lists at home, they often to not bring in their whole collection. If they do not bring in their whole collection, things can get misplaced, especially if they do not verify their collection before they leave their home, and packed it up in another bag/box the last time they use the replaced unit. While this is not a common occurrence at any LGS I have been to, it is hardly unheard of. It is especially prevalent in those who only bring a portion of their collection to the store to play as their collections are too large to justify bringing the lot. I've even heard people have to change the army they are playing with because they brought the wrong bag.
I often have ideas in moments where I am not in a position to document it or take immediate advantage of it, and then remember or are reminded of them later on. Inspiration does not always come at the whim of the mind providing it.
Whether you choose to believe them or not, it matters little, as they have occurred. They were not the cheating types, either, just human, unlike the Necrons who seem to frequent your locale.
DrGiggles wrote: Based on that response here is my last question (and this applies to Peregrine too). Why do you ALWAYS attribute malice (trying to weasel in an advantage over the other player) to the person wanting to make a change?
If it weren't such a big deal and if you're so casual, you'd be able to stick to the original game, simple as that.
An insufficient answer and an attempt to shift blame.
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.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. The game starts basically the moment army lists are created for the mission. You deciding you want extra points for that fact is therefore cheating and done for an in-game advantage. No excuses.
2. EVERY new player I've met (and that's several) has been more prepared with their lists than the people in this thread defending cheating. In fact that's my main accommodation: I already have a list for those points. New kid brings in 1000 points? Yep I already have something to use, so let's get started.
So by your logic a game with you starts before your opponent even knows that they're playing against you...
I'm trying to prepare TAC lists for every point level based on what I might expect. It isn't like I'm list tailoring.
1. The game starts basically the moment army lists are created for the mission. You deciding you want extra points for that fact is therefore cheating and done for an in-game advantage. No excuses.
2. EVERY new player I've met (and that's several) has been more prepared with their lists than the people in this thread defending cheating. In fact that's my main accommodation: I already have a list for those points. New kid brings in 1000 points? Yep I already have something to use, so let's get started.
In fact that's why I always recommend new players ask to see what point levels typically come up in particular shops so they can be prepared.
3. Research your product purchases or man up and accept your army doesn't get everything you want at specific point levels. Either one works. I mean, you think I have every model ever? Of course not. I'm still prepared though.
Also I'm not trying to say you need to netlist, but if making a list at 2000 points is so hard for you maybe you should look to them for guidance? I won't judge.
4. Tournament styles are house rules and typically means those tournaments are organized. I'd like to see you go to an ITC and ask if you can make your list real quick. Ya know, when the other bunch of people came prepared. If locals use those tournament rules, they will adhere to a same point level.
Not hard to adjust to at all.
5. Why should we make special permissions for people who can't make a list properly? Why do we need to cater to them instead of teaching them they can't always get their way?
I've got to ask, would you consider this scenario cheating per #1.
Two players agree to play a PUG at 1850 points, SM vs Orks. Both players show up and have NOT seen the other persons list. At the last moment before deployment, the SM player decides to swap out a unit in his list with a unit of terminators. Would that constitute cheating because his list isn't EXACTLY the same but is still at/under the agreed upon point limit?
That would be cheating, yes.
What exactly is it in your mind that makes this cheating, especially since in this situation he doesn't know what the ork player is going to field? Also how is this any different than having 4 lists ready to go at any time (something that you have said you do) and picking one over the other arbitrarily right before deployment?
Whether or not the Terminators make the list in question better doesn't matter in the situation presented. The list is "submitted" in that both players had the armies ready to go, and a last minute switch is dishonest and likely done for some benefit.
Based on that response here is my last question (and this applies to Peregrine too). Why do you ALWAYS attribute malice (trying to weasel in an advantage over the other player) to the person wanting to make a change?
EDIT: Bharring pretty much sums up how I feel about this.
What a palaver, some seem to have their heads so far up their own backside no one knows which end they are speaking out of.
I will refer you to page 2 5th ed.
"It is important to remember that the rules are just a framework to create an enjoyable game"
"The most important rule is that the rules aren't important! So long as both players agree you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines"
I'm sure all the other editions include the same important note.
Based on that, everyone is right, it not just breaks but smashes the rules to take even just 1 point over or under. It's also fine to have totally mismatched armies or to even forget about points altogether. Have a game where both players take 100 troops and a HQ, basic weapons, no upgrades. It's fun or why not have 10 ravenwing (or other alternative) as independent characters trying to evade capture by planetary defence foot troops (say about 500 v 1500 points) on a 10x5 table with cover just out of range for the evaders to jump between in single moves, so for ravenwing about 16" apart. Some would see that as unbalanced, one player has 300% of the other, others would be at the table, waiting to roll the dice.
If it weren't such a big deal and if you're so casual, you'd be able to stick to the original game, simple as that.
I love this tortured logic. If you are so super casual why don't you just doggedly adhere to my own misguided strict sense of how the game should be played. What makes it worse is you are not saying that this is just how you prefer to play everything take it or leave it, you are implying that everyone else who might consider things different is wrong and/or cheating (and btw your definition of cheating is just flat out crazy).
I gave an example scenario a few pages back of a 1000pt vs 1005pt, that was perfectly reasonable and got ignored. Your insistence that these things are always nefarious or self-interested under every condition just makes it seem like you yourself are always Machiavellian in your own actions, because you seem unable to comprehend nuance.
Let me be as generous as possible. There have been some people within this thread who IMO put casual play on a pedestal. There are some people who bemoan balance as something that damages narrative or open play, and I disagree with these people. There have been arguments about what consitutes a "wargamer" that I think were unhelpful. And yet it is your stance on what cheating is and how the game should be played that I find almost offensively ludicrous.
Whether or not the Terminators make the list in question better doesn't matter in the situation presented. The list is "submitted" in that both players had the armies ready to go, and a last minute switch is dishonest and likely done for some benefit.
I strongly disagree with that idea.
Submitted lists that can't be changed before starting to play are only a tournament thing, there's no rule that impose players to show up at a club with a list that cannot be changed for any reason. Yeah there's some benefit in doing that of course but I'd always consider the attitue behind that and the power level of that list: I'd definitely prefer a SM player that brings 2-3 units that can be switched before starting to play than a submitted list with all the power creep in the world like the castellan combo or the nastiest aeldari soups outside a tournament. I also bring ready-to-go lists with some reserves so I can tone up or (more often) down my lists in order to get a more balanced game if the difference in the power level of the two lists is clearly too wide.
For many players the most important thing is to have a balanced game, if that involves some list tailoring I don't see any issue in that. The attitude after the game starts is way more important. I can't stand those WAAC dudes that stare at you when you're moving your models since they fear you might cheat and ask to double check any possible rule or profile for the same reason.
auticus wrote: I honestly don't understand why you guys keep feeding this conversation lol. Its the same endless loop thats been going on for years.
The only thing missing here is to suggest to use Power Level instead of points for extra lolz that the next 20 pages of extreme angst will produce over that subject.
One reason of my involvement is that I'm currently preoccupied with regrowing my leg and cannot participate in games and even painting time is limited and I'm bored as hell.
The other is that while discussing 6pts over may be an excercise in absurd argumentation and I could and did somewhat let it pass, when it comes to narrative gaming and value of dakkadakka.com as a resource in this regard, Peregrine is actively taking away possibilities of cultivating a healthy narrative oriented subcommunity here and hence diminishing my "personal fun". All while believing he actually acts in my best interest. That is simply too much to not react with at least symbolic response.
nou wrote: Please, just stop acting like some narrative savior... You have not defended narrative gaming, you have defended your misguided concept of what narrative gaming is. You have actively derailed every rare narrative thread on dakka since I'm logged in by ranting about inadequacy of any 40K edition to narrative play and name calling people who actually can have a narrative games using GW base rules fanboys or "pretend to play narrative while all you do is playing unoptimized competitive games" CAAC and you actively continue to do so even in this very thread.
Seriously, what you think you represent in your head and how other people see you through your posts are two completely different things. Try to look at yourself from an outside perspective sometimes, it might be a revelation to you...
Spoiler:
Sorry, I forgot that for some people "narrative" means "white knight everything GW does and FORGE A NARRATIVE BEER AND PRETZELS". Unfortunately the reality is that "narrative" means something more than publishing a matched play mission pack and a suggestion to use a less-accurate point system, as GW has done. A proper narrative game includes things like rules for creating and advancing your own characters, guidelines on designing army-specific scenarios that are balanced enough to be fun, etc. Hell, even previous editions of 40k used to have more narrative content. There used to be whole expansion books dedicated to narrative-style games (Cities of Death, etc), FW campaign books with piles of fluff and a whole set of campaign missions to let you play out the story of the book, etc. But the reality of 8th edition is that if you're playing a legitimate narrative game it's because you've done all the work of creating those game elements for GW, turning the generic matched play core game into something more story-focused.
The only question with 8th edition "narrative" gaming is why so many narrative players are willing to defend the garbage GW is publishing instead of being outraged and demanding better treatment. But I guess as long as they publish something that's bad for competitive play that makes it "narrative" enough...
You mean like what they did by adding custom character creation rules, battle honors, and Cities of Death rules in the latest CA?
*mic drop*
word
Marmatag wrote:How is this thread still running?
I just bought Xiphons because they're OP at 220 points, does that make me WAAC? Or perhaps Win-At-Very-Clearly-Quantifiable-Cost?
kinda? I do want one so maybe I am one too? oh no
had an interesting thing happen tonite. I had a prearranged game where I would be facing custodes bike spam w loyal 32. to prepare i actually decided to write a list to counter his net list with what i had(something i have never done). I show up with 1999pts and he didnt show. my buddy came over the hill to play a pick up game. he doesnt have a ton of models and is just getting into the game. he wanted to play, so I chose to not take the anti custodes spam list which would have wrecked him. we played a little plWysiwyg game where he learned some practical application of resources and understands dealing with tactical problems.
had a great game and going forward are adopting the new terrain rules going forward.
I been reading a bit, and it makes me a little sad at times to read and see.
Thinking about it I wonder if a lot of this is just poor design from GW over the years.
It’s not just poor balance of the different factions, but access to even basics within the what the game plays. Some factions lack any real thought to basic narrative play in design.
In some cases two players can turn up playing completely different games against each other :(
The current terrain rules I think are not well suited for it at all.
Even things like the new character creation rules are ok, but it looked like something that could have been done with more robust HQ selections.
Basic, but not really doing much for the game itself from a real narrative.
But I have only read so much of those, since paying for the book is too much over other things.
Cities of death, I do not think will be that great until they seperate terrain rules from the terrain they sell. Or start selling better cities terrain.
Now they are going for soup as the default, they should use that I think to put in some smarter mission rules, that encourage a diverse unit selection.
And make sure that each full faction has access to everything needed to make a Deverse and thoughtful list.
If a player wants to turn up with a list that is clearly a bit silly, but could be fun. That should be fine, but players should be able to see they are playing something a bit out there.
(This is something that most marine forces seem to get, even if often not top tier powerful)
For the points thing, I think it’s rude to do it 5 mins before a match if you have had time to make a list. If it’s a throw together match then it’s more part of the moment to moment discussion.
In the end, I think 40k is forced into a rather poor fit, with the company pulling 3 different ways at all times.
With something like war machine, we set up a nartive game in 30 seconds. The normal missions work well enough, and we have rules to support some of the more wild thoughts with still little issues.
Infinity I think is even better at it, we have set up some fantastic games completely from narrative.
Things like kill team is looking to be good as well, since everyone is turning up on mostly the same page.
Necromunda I am thinking will be great as well, and even age of Sigmar now is looking to be really great for narrative play with little effort to push it in.
These are just some thoughts I have had reading the discussion, more so than to any specific post.
Also I think the very topic title itself is quite bad, as I will often put as much thought as I can into trying to play the models I want to play with.
It’s why I am now so distant from 40k, as often that can be very hard. And it’s the casual players I have found to be the most toxic in this wider community :(
Not all, but enough to make me shy away enough to despise the game just a little.
Peregrine wrote: Because if you aren't trying to weasel your way into an advantage, and the extra points genuinely aren't a big deal, you can just bring a legal list and not ask for extra.
That's an assumption. It may be an assumption born of experience with your group, but it is still an assumption.
No, it's indisputable fact. Outside of stupid forum-only scenarios like playing a 50 point game every player is capable of bringing a legal list without breaking the point limit. The only reason to ask for extra points is to weasel your way into getting extra stuff instead of bringing a legal list.
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.
Whether or not the Terminators make the list in question better doesn't matter in the situation presented. The list is "submitted" in that both players had the armies ready to go, and a last minute switch is dishonest and likely done for some benefit.
I strongly disagree with that idea.
Submitted lists that can't be changed before starting to play are only a tournament thing, there's no rule that impose players to show up at a club with a list that cannot be changed for any reason. Yeah there's some benefit in doing that of course but I'd always consider the attitue behind that and the power level of that list: I'd definitely prefer a SM player that brings 2-3 units that can be switched before starting to play than a submitted list with all the power creep in the world like the castellan combo or the nastiest aeldari soups outside a tournament. I also bring ready-to-go lists with some reserves so I can tone up or (more often) down my lists in order to get a more balanced game if the difference in the power level of the two lists is clearly too wide.
For many players the most important thing is to have a balanced game, if that involves some list tailoring I don't see any issue in that. The attitude after the game starts is way more important. I can't stand those WAAC dudes that stare at you when you're moving your models since they fear you might cheat and ask to double check any possible rule or profile for the same reason.
This.
But, as ever, there are caveats.
Showing up to a game, and tweaking your list last minute is fine by me - provided it's not being done in direct response to my own list. That's just poor gamesmanship.
Unless, it's because your list would clearly struggle against mine. Consider if someone brought a Little Bug Army to a game against my Imperial Knights. Having a re-think then is perfectly dandy with me, as I'm more likely to get a satisfying game in turn.
In the past, I've had people wait to even write their list, or choose which army they want to field, until they've seen what I've brought. That is right out. That is trying to gain the advantage of coming up with an army that's always a hard counter to your opponent. That is clearly not sportsman like behaviour. And in Oldhammer, I even extend that to your selection of Magic Items. No 'I've allowed 100 points to kit out my general, but will decide what they're actually packing at deployment'. No no no. That is cheating.
Other examples when it's ok by me? When you've grabbed the wrong carry case on your way out the door. I've done that on occasion. Honest mistake, and nothing else to be done about it.
But again, that's because I don't really do tournament games, because of personal preference. Anyone trying this where there's no 'side board' allowance should be ejected from any tournament
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Showing up to a game, and tweaking your list last minute is fine by me - provided it's not being done in direct response to my own list. That's just poor gamesmanship.
You're right, I was referring to the tailoring thing as a concept, I'm not against tailoring generally speaking and I actually think that it's impossible to enjoy a real TAC game without some house rules, house limitations or actual tailoring. If a player doesn't have the tools to compete in his actual meta and needs to tailor a bit in order to have a fair game I honestly don't see any issue in that and I'd definitely prefer that tailoring than proxying the models or their loadout. If that dude is already quite competitive and yet tailors at the very last moment it's a different thing. Still legal, but definitely poor gamesmanship.
The over-points issue can be literally distilled to the bird's point of view. You are asking to exceed the points total so that you can bring extra stuff.
The "extra" stuff you bring may be for aesthetic purposes, or because you just don't feel like crunching the numbers that hard, to figure out what to remove and you'd rather just get on with the game.
A prime example I can think of from my own past was being 4 points over, and not wanting to remove a melta-bomb from one unit, because then I'd have one unit without and keeping track of which unit would be a nuisance. So I asked my friend if it was cool, and per our usual agreement he informed me that if I won, it wouldn't count. And then we played our game in which he was 6 points over because he didn't want to rejig his upgrades, and it was fine, and we had a fun game.
In harsh reality, we both cheated. We both exceeded the points limit we'd agreed to... and then agreed to disregard and raise upon finishing up our lists. We both had the option to say "Screw you, no dice, trim your fat." but we didn't, and we still had a fun time.
Done maliciously? No. Done out of laziness? Yup. Done to get to the fun part of moving models and rolling dice faster? Yup. Fun times had by all? Yup.
Perry and Slaya are taking a literal stance on this. Literally, they're correct. In practice, a few points over in an non-prize game doesn't make much if any discernible difference to the outcome, so in my experience I don't worry about it and it seems most others don't either.
My suggestion to those in favour of allowing... be aware that you're engaging in argument people that are being literal. And that, literally, they're correct. Feel free to express that you don't mind not following the literal rules, like me. But be aware that the argument on the other side is valid if you take a literal view of it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/21 12:10:31
greatbigtree wrote: A prime example I can think of from my own past was being 4 points over, and not wanting to remove a melta-bomb from one unit, because then I'd have one unit without and keeping track of which unit would be a nuisance.
It says something that, when you decided that you didn't want to have a mix of units with and without melta bombs, instead of picking the option (removing all of them) that would give you a legal list you asked to get extra points so you could keep them in your list. I guess it's fortunate that your friend has a similar attitude towards the game and you both break the rules, but it's a pretty poor move to even ask.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: If a player doesn't have the tools to compete in his actual meta and needs to tailor a bit in order to have a fair game I honestly don't see any issue in that and I'd definitely prefer that tailoring than proxying the models or their loadout.
It's worth noting that list tailoring works against the players with the most limited tools, especially if you also enforce WYSIWYG. Players with a large pool of models have lots of options for tailoring exactly to a particular opponent, and have lots of options for changing their list to counter a tailoring attempt. Meanwhile the player with limited options can maybe swap a weapon or two but isn't going to get nearly as much out of it. If you want to help players with limited models available the best thing you can do is have a strict no-tailoring policy and require TAC lists.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/12/21 12:42:16
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.
But they are not literally correct. In harsh reality you didn't both cheat. There is no fixed rule within 40k that says you have to adhere to a strict point limit, and even if there was, agreeing before a game to deviate from certain rules is not cheating. You can't break rules you agree to change. Every rule that you think exists in any game is one that you've arbitrarily agreed by mutual consent to follow. If you both agree to play by different rules AT ANY POINT during ANY GAME, then you are essentially playing a different game with different rules with eachothers consent (which is fine!). The old rule that you've decided to change is no longer a rule and cannot be broken. The only thing you lose is the ability to say that the game was following a certain rule, which luckily is absolutely meaningless outside of tournaments.
They are only literally correct if the question was "In this example, are these 2 players playing an official matched play match at a strict X pts limit?" Which nobody is disputing. Most peoples answer to this question for these 5pt discrepancy examples would be "No, but thats not important".
Peregrine has already jumped in to say say that what you did was bad, because they assume the worst intentions of everyone.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/21 13:03:11
And we keep having this bs peddled where it's wrong to even dare to ask about going over, instead of that being a part of the pre-game social contract.
This whole thread is going around in circles with everyone except for 2 people having reasonable opinions, and said 2 people shouting down the rest insisting that everyone else is wrong.
It's worth noting that list tailoring works against the players with the most limited tools, especially if you also enforce WYSIWYG. Players with a large pool of models have lots of options for tailoring exactly to a particular opponent, and have lots of options for changing their list to counter a tailoring attempt. Meanwhile the player with limited options can maybe swap a weapon or two but isn't going to get nearly as much out of it. If you want to help players with limited models available the best thing you can do is have a strict no-tailoring policy and require TAC lists.
It depends. Think about players who own 2200-3000 points collections and want to play at 2000 points. If their meta is quite competitive they can't usually have fair matches and it's totally legit if the tailor against lists that are clearly superior. I mean, that's exactly what happens in my meta, there are some dudes that are ok with their limited armies and not interested in buying more models or proxying their collections, sometimes they can't afford expanding the army. In a completely TAC competitive or semi-competitive meta they would be tabled in turn 1 though, that's why I think it should be ok to let them tailor if they need to.
Even a 2500 points drukhari collection can be total garbage in terms of competitiveness. Tipycally people who don't own large collections can't bring full optimized lists.
I like to play optimized lists but apparently I'm currently playing two of the most effective stand alone factions and outside the small group of competitive players I can't face the other dudes without toning down my lists. I don't see any point in auto winning a game. In fact I always bring some reserves to do that, but I definitely prefer the scenario in which the opponent has his own reserves to tailor my list in order to compete a little bit more.
Isn't it conditional though? I'd say it's not >cheating< to bring more points than agreed upon. Besides, what if one person unknowingly tallies up their list of points a little wrongly and reports 2000 instead of 2005, etc.? I see it happen quite often and with no malice. Generally the conditions should be if it's friendly or competitive and you proceed from there.
Announcing your intention to go over on a list once you meet up is not cheating, and at most could be considered bad taste, but purposely going over without telling your opponent is considered cheating.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/21 13:10:02
Tibs Ironblood wrote: I never understood the conflict on this issue. Some people like to be competitive and play the game as a game and win. Others care more about the narrative and social aspect and winning is secondary. Both are equally valid approaches. Some people prefer power level others prefer points. You can argue one is superior to the other from your perspective, but from another the opposite may be true. Enjoyment is relative and trying to make objective statements on this topic does not really work beyond what you yourself find enjoyable.
If you like competitive games play with people who likes competitive games. If you like narrative games play with people who like narrative games. Neither side is good or bad for their preference. Just be clear when setting up games the type of game you want and how you define that kind of game. Communication is key.
The conflict comes from competitive gamers doing things that narrative gamers find unfluffy or unfair both with their lists (here's my 32 guardsmen allied with a knight army, making them twice as powerful) and their gameplay choices (I have occupied this ruin, you now cannot assault me) but which are totally legal, and narrative gamers generally doing things outside the confines of the game to make it harder for competitive gamers to get a game. Usually, choosing not to play them.
As long as narrative players and competitive players do not mix up what kind of game they are playing then there is no conflict. Like I said communication is key. You need to communicate what kind of game you want to play if you intend to have a good time. This was the case before and it's the case now.
auticus wrote:It wasn't too long ago that there was only one real way to play though. You could walk into any store anywhere in the country and the 40k that was being played was largely the same from coast to coast.
That has changed over the past few years and that has some people rattled. THere have been many posts in many forums on that very topic about how people that travel hate not knowing what flavor of 40k is being played at present when before they knew it was the same and they liked that.
It's not changed. I started in 7th so I admit I am still relatively new compared to many others here, but from what I have read the following applies to pre 7th as well. You've always need to establish what kind of game you want to play in accordance with how strong of lists you are bringing. If you want to have a balanced game you need to establish to what levels are both guys playing. Back in 7th my group would say what kind of power level they were aiming for when setting up a game. Did they want a fluffy game? Did they want a moderately competitive, but not tournament level game? Did they want to go full out cutthroat? All modes of play are perfectly fine when both armies play to that level. I couldn't set up a game in 7th without be specific as to what level we were playing at and the same goes for 8th. I can't just take my Primaris marines to the store and set up any game with anyone and expect to get a good game in balance wise. Same goes for dark eldar for the opposite reason.
You always needed to have a common understanding of what kind of game you wanted and that is still the case today.
Except that this is 2018 and apparently there is no such thing as a reasonable level of social contract.
on one side you've got people like ol' Slayer Fan, who for several pages in the thread has basically argued that "only points value and mission should be specified, there is no other expectation that is reasonable". This is what I typically see from the cutthroat competitive crowd, at least the segment of it that is absolutely overjoyed when their opponent in a random PUG starts pulling out an uncompetitive model collection and they get to enjoy a nice 2-turn win by tabling.
Then, on the other side, you've got individuals and groups that enforce "casual" gaming to an incredibly absurd degree, basically expecting anyone who wins a game to buy a bunch of less powerful models to bring in the next game, and establishing a massive list of written and unwritten rules to preserve their safe space so they don't have to make any adjustments to their lists or playstyle.
A reasonable mix, where everyone comes together because of a shared love of 40k and sense of community, but where competitive gamers enjoy the challenge of playing against each other and casual players can bring out their collections and enjoy custom missions, people check with each other about what they're bringing and mutually make adjustments to try and get the game to be as close as possible, is apparently not allowed.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Tibs Ironblood wrote: I never understood the conflict on this issue. Some people like to be competitive and play the game as a game and win. Others care more about the narrative and social aspect and winning is secondary. Both are equally valid approaches. Some people prefer power level others prefer points. You can argue one is superior to the other from your perspective, but from another the opposite may be true. Enjoyment is relative and trying to make objective statements on this topic does not really work beyond what you yourself find enjoyable.
If you like competitive games play with people who likes competitive games. If you like narrative games play with people who like narrative games. Neither side is good or bad for their preference. Just be clear when setting up games the type of game you want and how you define that kind of game. Communication is key.
The conflict comes from competitive gamers doing things that narrative gamers find unfluffy or unfair both with their lists (here's my 32 guardsmen allied with a knight army, making them twice as powerful) and their gameplay choices (I have occupied this ruin, you now cannot assault me) but which are totally legal, and narrative gamers generally doing things outside the confines of the game to make it harder for competitive gamers to get a game. Usually, choosing not to play them.
As long as narrative players and competitive players do not mix up what kind of game they are playing then there is no conflict. Like I said communication is key. You need to communicate what kind of game you want to play if you intend to have a good time. This was the case before and it's the case now.
auticus wrote:It wasn't too long ago that there was only one real way to play though. You could walk into any store anywhere in the country and the 40k that was being played was largely the same from coast to coast.
That has changed over the past few years and that has some people rattled. THere have been many posts in many forums on that very topic about how people that travel hate not knowing what flavor of 40k is being played at present when before they knew it was the same and they liked that.
It's not changed. I started in 7th so I admit I am still relatively new compared to many others here, but from what I have read the following applies to pre 7th as well. You've always need to establish what kind of game you want to play in accordance with how strong of lists you are bringing. If you want to have a balanced game you need to establish to what levels are both guys playing. Back in 7th my group would say what kind of power level they were aiming for when setting up a game. Did they want a fluffy game? Did they want a moderately competitive, but not tournament level game? Did they want to go full out cutthroat? All modes of play are perfectly fine when both armies play to that level. I couldn't set up a game in 7th without be specific as to what level we were playing at and the same goes for 8th. I can't just take my Primaris marines to the store and set up any game with anyone and expect to get a good game in balance wise. Same goes for dark eldar for the opposite reason.
You always needed to have a common understanding of what kind of game you wanted and that is still the case today.
Except that this is 2018 and apparently there is no such thing as a reasonable level of social contract.
on one side you've got people like ol' Slayer Fan, who for several pages in the thread has basically argued that "only points value and mission should be specified, there is no other expectation that is reasonable". This is what I typically see from the cutthroat competitive crowd, at least the segment of it that is absolutely overjoyed when their opponent in a random PUG starts pulling out an uncompetitive model collection and they get to enjoy a nice 2-turn win by tabling.
Then, on the other side, you've got individuals and groups that enforce "casual" gaming to an incredibly absurd degree, basically expecting anyone who wins a game to buy a bunch of less powerful models to bring in the next game, and establishing a massive list of written and unwritten rules to preserve their safe space so they don't have to make any adjustments to their lists or playstyle.
A reasonable mix, where everyone comes together because of a shared love of 40k and sense of community, but where competitive gamers enjoy the challenge of playing against each other and casual players can bring out their collections and enjoy custom missions, people check with each other about what they're bringing and mutually make adjustments to try and get the game to be as close as possible, is apparently not allowed.
That is because this third group is perceived exactly as the second group by the members of the first group, and there is no argument to be made to convince them otherwise, and members of the second group are so insecure at their core, that they refuse any external input at all. There was a member here on dakka, who was basically a mirrored Peregrine, just on the "unoptimized at all costs" position, I do not remember his username right now, but he made a lot of useless polls and was famous for his "significant minority" arguments...
I wouldn't consider it "cheating" to go over. Between my buddies it's our joke as we just play for bragging rights.
However, if an initial agreement is to play at 2000 points, then changing that agreement is done to improve the gaming experience. Again, I don't consider it cheating if both players are aware, as I frankly don't think that points are balanced within 10% of accurate. so a less than 1% deviation means nothing to me in the scope of a game, but I'm a bit of a rule-bend-break-avoider in real life, so the notion that a game is going to dictate my behavior when I have the agreement of my opponent is nonsense.
But I do acknowledge that when I do this, I do it for my convenience. Not out of malice, but as a convenience or to be able to use something I think will be fun, rather than rejig my list to fit an arbitrary limit. Or for time saving convenience as my friends and I have lives outside of the game and if we all show up and decide to play a certain level on the spot, then we don't consider it worth the hassle if one guy's over by 10 points... we just get playing.
So if your opponent is cool with it, run with it. I don't consider it poor form, but other people would. I consider it an element of the game related to etiquette or common consensus. Some people find it rude to ask to borrow gaming supplies. I'd find it weird if my buddy walked back around the table to grab his tape measure instead of using mine that's right in front of him. Different strokes for different folks.
I'm cool with a small leeway. Basically enough to top up a unit, or add that one extra power fist you really want to play with. That's fine in my book, but I'd expect someone to mention it, because that's my line in the sand for etiquette. I'd do the same. Because then my buddies can rib me for going over, and I can do the same to them.
(If I know ahead of time, I'd build a list to the limit, but sometimes an extra guy shows up and rather than play with 2000 each, we do 3x 1500 or something like that.)
Peregrine wrote: Because if you aren't trying to weasel your way into an advantage, and the extra points genuinely aren't a big deal, you can just bring a legal list and not ask for extra.
That's an assumption. It may be an assumption born of experience with your group, but it is still an assumption.
No, it's indisputable fact. Outside of stupid forum-only scenarios like playing a 50 point game every player is capable of bringing a legal list without breaking the point limit. The only reason to ask for extra points is to weasel your way into getting extra stuff instead of bringing a legal list.
I am surprised this thread does not stop at these very words.
There has not been a single time I could not trim off something from my army list to comply to the points limit... not once since I started in 2nd edition 40k. Think hard on that.
A common set of rules that are published allows us to play pickup games with utter strangers at the hobby shop and is a nice option to have than being "stuck" with your buddies only with your unpublished house-ruled games.
It is "inferred" we follow these rules because the #1 intent is to be able to play with "minimal" fuss.
For those who think the rules do not "matter" because you can talk to your opponent and agree on house/alternative rules: it typically becomes a brow-beating session for a player to get his way on a rule that will give advantage (or why bother even mentioning it?).
The number one rule for me in gaming is: "I come to enjoy the game, I will not, shall not, put up with hassle, brow-beating, whining, underhanded, pushy anything."
Show where it says it in the rules or shut-up and play unless you have something nice/entertaining to say.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
The number one rule for me in gaming is: "I come to enjoy the game, I will not, shall not, put up with hassle, brow-beating, whining, underhanded, pushy anything."
Show where it says it in the rules or shut-up and play unless you have something nice/entertaining to say.
Yep. It would be nice if people wouldn't try to push their houserules such as using tournament suggestions or ITC rules in normal matched play.
Going over a point or two or whatever is something I guess I've seen as very common and really doesn't require brow beating or whining. I've never seen that... ever... in 30 odd years of playing these games and dealing with that common scenario.
99 times out of 100 its "hey I went over a couple points is that ok?" and the answer 99 times out of 100 is "yeah whatever thats fine".
auticus wrote: So much chest beating and alpha signaling.
Going over a point or two or whatever is something I guess I've seen as very common and really doesn't require brow beating or whining. I've never seen that... ever... in 30 odd years of playing these games and dealing with that common scenario.
99 times out of 100 its "hey I went over a couple points is that ok?" and the answer 99 times out of 100 is "yeah whatever thats fine".
Yeah. Sadly I tend to see more along the lines of Peregrine and Slayer-Fan's groups. "How DARE you try to not build a list to exactly the points, sirrah!? How dare you impune my good nature to play this game for fun with you by thinking you can get away with this!"
I find it completely stunning, that in a game, where a single failed dice roll for first turn advantage is easily an equivalent of having 500 points handicap people are actually considering 6 points to be game breaking and inexcusable cheating in every possible scenario.
Even if that scenario is played by two friends who play 40K literally half way around the world from their "local meta". Heck, I think that even the total physical space of just all FLGSs in the world combined to one single huge hangar, in an odd world where 40k could be only played there under death penalty, would provide enough space for people with drastically different attitudes to 40K to never bump into eachother. And yet this seems to be a point of intolerable insult, that anyone can be cool with his opponent being 6 poins over... NOT being the player who asks, but the player who agrees seems to be an abomination to be expunged. Fascinating.
some seem to have their heads so far up their own backside no one knows which end they are speaking out of.
or why not have 10 ravenwing (or other alternative) as independent characters trying to evade capture by planetary defence foot troops (say about 500 v 1500 points) on a 10x5 table with cover just out of range for the evaders to jump between in single moves, so for ravenwing about 16" apart. Some would see that as unbalanced, one player has 300% of the other, others would be at the table, waiting to roll the dice.
