By how much is being under points is acceptable?

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.

**DeathwingCrusader**

If games are set for a certain point value, and someone fields an army, say 40 points under (for example, in a 1500-point game my Deathwing force may only be 1460 points), is that acceptable?

I don't know if anyone else's army has this problem but my unit and upgrade options are so restricted that I am often as many as 40 points under. Are there any rules, official or tourniment, regarding this? Maybe stating that armies must be within 5 or 10 points of the set total?

**A Lictor... BLOR!!!**

It is always OK to field less than the agreed points number, but never greater than it If you want to handicap yourself that is perfectly fine.

**Owain**

Your screen name just made me lawl.

**Orkeosaurus**

Yeah, there's generally no restrictions on how few points you can play with.

If you show up to a 1,750 point tournament with a 500 point army there might be some problems (you're clearly not prepared to enter the tournament) but in general no one will mind if you're under.

**don_mondo**

Local tourney actually established a "no more than 50 points under" rule after I almost won their 2000 point tourney using an 1850 list............ I was play testing a GT list.

**FoxPhoenix135**

I can't imagine why they would care... If you are under-points it is a handicap not a benefit... unless you were playing KP only missions.

**12thRonin**

It doesn't really matter how far under you are though if you're not playing VPs. If you are, that can really screw your opponents over since that's the ultimate in points denial.

**Iron_Chaos_Brute**

I just found out the other week that I've been 60 points under for all my lists for the past year...

**karimabuseer**

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:I just found out the other week that I've been 60 points under for all my lists for the past year...

Lol. How? I usually like to get as much outa my points as possible.

**IyandenWarhost**

I would think it's ok to go under, but not to go over. I mean, if it is a fair fight like assault on black reach. In AoBR, the orks had 450 pts and Space Marines had 585, but the orks still had a fighting chance.

**Dracos**

Yea. I really hate to see lists that are a couple points over the limit. Why have a limit at all if you can't abide by it? If you say okay, 1500 points but you can go up to 10 over, then its really just a 1510 point game.

Under is of course always okay.

**Steelmage99**

Under is fine.
Any degree of over is unacceptable.

**H.B.M.C.**

I've never really cared much either way.

We've played games where one person had 1851 points vs someone with 1856. Never really got hung up on being 100% exact.

**Makaleth**

In a tornie,
I would say that being under not an issue,
being over even 1 point is an issue,

In casual games (Really, is there any other true way), I'd say 5-10 points over is ok but under is totally fine.

**03bbrevenge**

my local area, under is fine and over by a little is OK if you ask in a causal game, not be the guy who is 100+ points over for at least 3 consecutive games

**Flashman**

Yep, under basically ok.

It's only really an issue in Fantasy where the points total determines unit selection.

**warboss**

i doubt anyone would have a problem with you being under unless it was a significant amount in a kill point game (like 200+ points short). otherwise, it's to your disadvantage to be under 60pts. personally, i don't care if someone is over up to 1% of the point total (i.e. 20 points in a 2000pt game). if they are, i expect them to tell me but i won't add another model to my list; i'll probably just upgrade a vehicle or character with something i wouldn't otherwise have.

**dietrich**

Privateer Press had some problems with this. People would show up with like 3 models that were really, really hard to kill, snipe 1 Victory Point, and hide for the rest of the game.

If you knew that you were playing only KP missions, it'd be a huge advantage to show up under points.

Space Wolves -
1 HQ
3 Lone Wolves
2 Troops

At worst, it's 6 KPs (assuming the troops and HQ die, but the lone wolves don't), but it's possibly a 0 KP army - Lone Wolves die but the HQ and troops don't. Which, you could take like Logan and two 10-man WG units in TDA with a metric buttload of Storm Shields.

OK, I know what I'm doing with the 20 Terminator models that I know own...................

**don_mondo**

FoxPhoenix135 wrote:I can't imagine why they would care... If you are under-points it is a handicap not a benefit... unless you were playing KP only missions.

4th ed, so mostly VP games. I dunno why, but one of them told me it was due to my playing 150 points under.

**Iron_Chaos_Brute**

karimabuseer wrote:
Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:I just found out the other week that I've been 60 points under for all my lists for the past year...

Lol. How? I usually like to get as much outa my points as possible.

I somehow got it in my head that 10 Zerk, AC, PF was 280 pts-and I run 2 squads like that...