PDA

View Full Version : Going over points limit



Adman
11-05-2010, 01:49
I was wondering what your opinion is on going over the points limit. I never do it and if i'm 1 point over i'll drop something. Now i'm not a powergamer at all and my main aim in a game is always to have fun, i play brets and take the units i like and use them in a way i think is fun; such as charging a stegadon with a unit of men at arms:p

However it does irritate me when people go over the points limit, though i'll always let them for the spirit of the game. But c'mon a limit is used for a reason and i feel that if you try to get away with a few extra points its being a bit disrespectful to your opponent. What do you guys think? Am i on point? Or am i a big baby? Cheers

SamVimes
11-05-2010, 01:50
I think you can let a few points slide in a friendly game, but it's a dead no-no in a tournament.

Tarian
11-05-2010, 01:53
I had a poll on this a while back, result were... well, people get a bit carried away with it. Interesting results, but could be dangerous. I can dig up a link...

EDIT: Here we go: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=219859

Tarian
11-05-2010, 02:01
Considering my post was about an year ago, I doubt anyone (but me!) remembered it.

Laurela
11-05-2010, 02:02
I never go over the point limit, but generally I follow the rule of. If you're over the limit by the cheapest model from your army, you should remove a model, otherwise it's fine.

PANZERBUNNY
11-05-2010, 02:08
I never go over the point limit, but generally I follow the rule of. If you're over the limit by the cheapest model from your army, you should remove a model, otherwise it's fine.


Limit if there for a reason. I doubt 2 swordsmen or 4 goblins will ruin the performance of your army.

SamVimes
11-05-2010, 02:11
@SamVimes: you definitely should let it slide and you'd be a bit of a dick if you did, but does it irritate you?


Naw, doesn't irritate me in the least. I get irritated when I pay 90 bucks to got to a tournament and one of the players I play against doesn't have any painted stuff and no army book. I'm not a good enough player for a shield on the oppositions lord to make or break my game, so I really could care less. But, in tournaments (especially ones that are pay to play) I think it's more a matter of respect for someone who spends a weekend (which is very valuable time for most of us) and expects a certain level of professionalism (Yes, I realize that professionalism is about the stupidest term to apply to a game with tin soldiers, but it fits) to play a game they love and respect.

Adman
11-05-2010, 02:11
@laurela that's a good rule, i'll keep that in mind.

Also what's the most amount of points someone has tried to get away with over you guys?

Ultimate Life Form
11-05-2010, 02:13
Considering my post was about an year ago, I doubt anyone (but me!) remembered it.

I do, and also the epic war that ensued. :rolleyes:

(I'm not gonna revisit the topic, only pointing out that my opinion, as always, is the correct one. :shifty:)

shakedown47
11-05-2010, 02:30
I never go over the points limit, and I can't understand why anyone would. As has already been said, if you've got to over the points limit to give command to a unit or that extra magic item, drop a single man out of one of your ranked infantry units.

Also, let's say you go over the limit by 2 points to be able to put a musician in an infantry unit. They tie an outnumbering grave guard unit in combat, and both sides have musicians so it's a push. However, if you didn't have that one musician, it would have been an autobreak. Small points can make a huge difference in a game where nearly every imaginable scenario can happen. The limit is there for a reason.

Tarian
11-05-2010, 02:45
I never go over, had someone try to go 1k over on me, and I don't like it when my opponent goes over. (Even by 1!)

Grand Warlord
11-05-2010, 04:11
I am in the same boat. Largely my only gaming comes from tournaments anymore so I guess I am stuck in that mindset. If I had some notice of the overpoints list that would be fine, gives a reason to increase the lists on both sides :)

Going over the points limit isn't something to really get crazy over, but don't expect people to necessarily be ok with it.

Tambarskjelve
11-05-2010, 04:52
I never go over the point limit, and neither do any of my friends. I once asked an opponent 10 years ago if I was allowed to go 2 pts over, and he said that would mean a character would get an extra hand weapon for free. Which was precisely what I had done. So I dropped a goblin and never made the mistake again :P

edit: Yes, it would really annoy me.

Tenken
11-05-2010, 04:58
A point or two? Once in a while? Sure. But why not just drop a musician or something? It's not that hard to be in the points limits. Opponents who habitually ask "Is it alright if I'm x points over" though get annoying. I only allow it if they afford me the same benefit (thus changing the actual points limit), but usually I'll just ask them to drop something.

Nicha11
11-05-2010, 05:06
I really don't mind if my opponent is up too three points over.

I feel limiting more then this would be a bit unsportsmanlike.
I hope people who don't let their opponents over are also exactly on the limit themselves (if you are <1999 I wouldn't let you use a lord!).

ftayl5
11-05-2010, 05:33
In a friendly game, I'll go over with permission of my opponent (sort of like special characters) but never in a tourney.

Generaly I dont go over but if I've got 2001pst, I call my mate and say are you cool with me going 1pt over? he says yes, iz all good

Lordsaradain
11-05-2010, 05:41
+-10pts is always ok in my gaming group.

TMATK
11-05-2010, 05:51
I never go over. Part of the challenge in list making is putting together a force in the points limit.

Gorbad Ironclaw
11-05-2010, 05:56
I hope people who don't let their opponents over are also exactly on the limit themselves (if you are <1999 I wouldn't let you use a lord!).

So basically if your opponent doesn't let you cheat you throw a hissy fit and don't want to play?

What's the different to between agreeing to playing to X points but then having a Y number of fixed points you are allowed to go over and just playing a X+Y game? Sticking to the new limit is no harder or easier than sticking to the original one so why is there a need to go over in the first place?

As an aside, whatever you are allowed a lord or not have nothing to do with the actual point value of the army and depends entirely on the agreed point limit.

Zaustus
11-05-2010, 06:46
When I started playing I would sometimes make lists a couple points over, but over time I decided that was cheating. Now, I make sure that all of my lists are at or under the point cap I'm playing.

In a friendly, one-off game I'd probably not quibble over a couple points, but if it's habitual I'd probably ask the person to drop a model from a unit somewhere. Saying "oh, it's just a little over" is a slippery slope. It's on the same line as "my charge is only a little out of range, can't we count it?" and "the die is only a little cocked, I'm not re-rolling it." The line in the sand, once drawn, should be respected.

Avian
11-05-2010, 06:54
Whenever I'm some points over, I fiddle with the coding on my custom spreadsheet to hide it. My opponent almost certainly won't notice and I don't have to alter my list to get it under the limit.

I've become so good at it over the years that nowadays I frequently field 2300 pts in a 2250 army, but my printed list still claims to be 2248. :D

It really is the only way to play if you want to win. If you aren't working the numbers, you're probably some fluffy-fluff player who only cares about "fun" and has no idea how to play the game.

Heimagoblin
11-05-2010, 07:02
I always stay under point limits myself but will allow my opponents to go over by up to 3 points unless they are using filth.

Balerion
11-05-2010, 07:18
It's not a big issue in my gaming group. I'd let my opponents go 10-15 points over if they needed to, and I'm comfortable going 5 points over myself.

To the people wondering why it would ever happen; well, for me it's usually a matter of preserving symmetry in the army list. eg. fielding two units of 20 Skeletons instead of one unit of 20 Skeletons and one unit of 19 Skeletons.

enyoss
11-05-2010, 07:26
Considering my post was about an year ago, I doubt anyone (but me!) remembered it.

Oh I remember it alright. At least, I remember a thread about going over on points limits which got surprisingly heated. Batten down the hatches, because this might get ugly!

On topic: my group used to permit going over the limit to some degree, but then realized that we all just went to, say, 2020 points as standard. We had out own little Nikea moment and decreed that from then on the limit was the limit, and no going over was permitted at all.

yabbadabba
11-05-2010, 07:28
As I have played many games without points limits (or even points written down for each unti), going a few over is only a big issue at events.

Nicha11
11-05-2010, 07:49
So basically if your opponent doesn't let you cheat you throw a hissy fit and don't want to play?

What's the different to between agreeing to playing to X points but then having a Y number of fixed points you are allowed to go over and just playing a X+Y game? Sticking to the new limit is no harder or easier than sticking to the original one so why is there a need to go over in the first place?

As an aside, whatever you are allowed a lord or not have nothing to do with the actual point value of the army and depends entirely on the agreed point limit.

Well it was nice your response was intelligent and considered, way too keep the debate at least (moderately) intellectual:eyebrows:

It seems a bit hypocritical to me to be as strict as possible in one direction (1 point over is cheating!!!1)
And so lax in the other (Yup you can take a lord in your 1998pt list, it isn't 2000 but who cares?)

On a side note:

I've always had this image of an OPTM (One Point Too Much) player ringing up GW.

"Hi this is Matt Ward"
"Hi I’m calling to enquire about your last battle report, as I recall you had a 2003pt list in a 2000pt game"
"Yup we were trying to play Warhammer in the spirit that we (the designers) believe it should be played"
"...... Do you realise how much you cheated?!? Why not go 50 points over?!"
"Because we recognise that going 3-5 points over is not a problem and enables us to enjoy the game more"
".... But you still cheated:mad:"
"..... *phone hangs up*"

But I can appreciate how for some people the points limit is a really big deal (maybe lack of friendliness/discipline in their gaming environment?)
So I’m not going to criticise how you want to play Warhammer. If you want to stick rigidly to the rules limit then go ahead, quite possibly your group only benefits from it.
I'll try not to be petulant and accuse you of having "hissy fits"

speedygogo
11-05-2010, 08:02
It doesn't bother me at all, as long as it is a just a few points and not in a tournament setting. I will say that a person's adherance to a points limit is relational to how much a rules lawyer they are. I don't break rules but I try not to be a nazi about them either. Many warhammer players forget that the game is supposed to be fun win or lose and instead try to powergame the crap out of their opponents. All that does is kill the hobby.

I wish those people could game against themselves so they could realize what horrible sports they are. In case my experience with warhammer comes up, I've been playing for 9 years and have beaten good tournament players and lost to teenage girls and nine year olds. I'm at a point where I just play for fun and story. If I win great but I don't need to win to enjoy a game of Warhammer.

enyoss
11-05-2010, 08:05
And so lax in the other (Yup you can take a lord in your 1998pt list, it isn't 2000 but who cares?)


But this is covered explicitly in the books anyway. For example, on p89 in the 7th edition High Elf book it says players must agree on a maximum points total which dictates the slots, but then goes on to say that you can (and no doubt will inevitably) spend slightly less than this when making your army. So I don't think the reverse argument you give holds up.

The agreed limit is, by definition, the maximum amount you are allowed to spend on your army. Even so, I wouldn't make a fuss if my opponent went over, but likewise, I would expect them to make adjustments to get under the limit should I ever raise the point... but then I guess I'd wonder why they hadn't just done this in the first place. Surely, working within the limits is one of the strategic challenges of the game?

EDIT: I should probably add that most of the time I am actually over the limit, but that is because I can't count properly :p.

theunwantedbeing
11-05-2010, 08:10
Whenever I'm some points over, I fiddle with the coding on my custom spreadsheet to hide it. My opponent almost certainly won't notice and I don't have to alter my list to get it under the limit.

I've become so good at it over the years that nowadays I frequently field 2300 pts in a 2250 army, but my printed list still claims to be 2248. :D

It really is the only way to play if you want to win. If you aren't working the numbers, you're probably some fluffy-fluff player who only cares about "fun" and has no idea how to play the game.

Much easier to just "forget" your list and play the nice guy card.
Back it up with a few rules solutions with page references and eveyrone will think you'de never cheat so you can be way over the limit.

Fun is for sissies :P
Real men go home and cry if they lose, which is why real men never lose!

Steal Rokker
11-05-2010, 08:12
i rekon 10 points and under is fine with friends though i'd still check with the person im playing with if its alright. except tournements.

Tymell
11-05-2010, 08:45
Not really fussed about a few points here and there, tis only a game after all.

Hypaspist
11-05-2010, 08:52
My friends and I always stick strictly to the points limit that we set out (in terms of going over) If I was playing a pick up game with someone and they were within 1% of the agreed points total I probably wouldn't fuss (I'd rather play than not). If they were over that I might start asking questions...

However, whilst I would *advocate* sticking to agreed points limit's. It's about whatever works for everyone's groups/opponents.
However, sticking to the agreed total leaves no grey areas in pickup games, as opposed to the inevitable "Hypaspist, why are you ok with 1% but not ok with 1.5%" that leniancy will inevitably lead to.

In truth, I doubt this is *that* much of an issue apart from where people truly do not have any kind of regular opponents/friend group/club.
Regular opponents, I am sure, will come to an agreeable accomodation.

Woodsman
11-05-2010, 08:59
I never really think about whether my opponents within the limit, maybe I'm just naive?

On the other hand I never go over, just like I've never turned up to a football match and tried to get 12 players on the pitch.

sorberec
11-05-2010, 09:16
I never go over on purpose. The couple of times I have done it's normally been because I've done my army list in a hurry and forgotten to update a line in my spreadsheet when I've made a change. I normally only realise if I've gone over if I'm doing a battle report and am totalling things up for that after the game.

The worst I've gone over by was 30 points, although that wasn't actually a problem with the list. Packing stuff into my transport box in a hurry (beginning to spot a theme here) I picked up my tray of Sword Masters and forgot to take two off the back of the tray. Fortunately it didn't really have any effect on the game as the Sword Masters spent most of the game either running away after having Comets dropped on them, or fluffling all their attacks.

Anyway, in friendly games if my opponent came to me before the game and said they were around 10 points over I'd probably let it slide, but for tournaments where you've normally had a couple of months to think about your army list I don't think there's any excuse for being over (although I'd expect whoever is checking the lists to pick that up and ping the list back if it's not valid anyway)

RanaldLoec
11-05-2010, 09:35
I mainly play friendlys because its a hobby and a past time for me to relax and have fun so most the people I play are of the same mindset. If my opponent is a few points over I ain't bothered, in the same way if he gets carried away and forgets to move a unit starts shooting then wants to go back to movement I'll let him. I do expect them same open and friendly attitude in return though.

I tend to find that its power players and rule lawyers that push the limit, which is fine its their style of play but I find if I match there attitude and style of play theres little fun left in the game win lose or draw.

CrystalSphere
11-05-2010, 11:21
I never go over the point limit, mainly because the limit must be somewhere. If we start allowing "a few extra points" (say 25 max) then everyone will start making lists with +25 points to their army, so they are not at a disadvantage. Then the cycle start over...

Imho it is better to just adjust to the points accorded, and learn to make the most of the points you are allowed to use.

Deathjester
11-05-2010, 12:21
You realise that we're discussing a finite and definable value here:


limit
noun
1. The point, edge, or line beyond which something cannot or may not proceed.
2. limits The boundary surrounding a specific area; bounds: within the city limits.
3. A confining or restricting object, agent, or influence.
4. The greatest or least amount, number, or extent allowed or possible: a withdrawal limit of $200; no minimum age limit.

Now i would argue:
a) That the initial agreed points limit would be the defining value for Rare, Special, Core, Hero and Lord choices.
b) The points limit is just that a limit, the maximum number of points you can use in your army

If you withdraw your limit from a cash machine (say £350) in one day you can't get any more, stroking it and asking it nicely will only result in weird looks from passers by!

Or ordering a titan from forgeworld (£296) and telling the guy on the phone "Oh is it ok if i only give you £275? that's all i want to spend?" Yeah... that's going to happen!

As soon as you let people begin to play above the points limit, are they going to ask you to increase the character limit next? or more special choices? or while we're at it why can't i choose my army from 4 different books?

Oh i only failed that spell by one... doesn't that mean i still cast it?
Er NO, you need 9+ and you rolled 8....

Oh i didn't roll any wounds... but i get one for free right?
Er NO.

As you can see what i'm endevoring to do is not be a frustrating pain the proverbial, it's attempting to keep you playing within the rules defined by the game to ensure that the game is fair for everyone.

Just as a note:
As soon as you let someone go over the limit, it is no longer the limit, the new allowed value is the limit (clearly, else the definition of the word limit is incorrect).

Tymell
11-05-2010, 12:44
I do understand what people are saying with a limit being a limit, end of, and there's nothing wrong with that. Anyone is well within their rights to say "No, you're over the limit, cut it down or I won't play you". So in all I respond to below, I'm not having a go.

But there's nothing wrong with the other way either, with saying a few points doesn't really matter, and the arguments which seem to be aimed at saying that are a little inconsistent:


If you withdraw your limit from a cash machine (say £350) in one day you can't get any more, stroking it and asking it nicely will only result in weird looks from passers by!

Money is just that: money. A different thing entirely.


Or ordering a titan from forgeworld (£296) and telling the guy on the phone "Oh is it ok if i only give you £275? that's all i want to spend?" Yeah... that's going to happen!

Again, money, very different thing. Plus, that's a difference of 9.3%, if someone turned up to a 2000 point game asking to use 2186 points, I would indeed say no.


As soon as you let people begin to play above the points limit, are they going to ask you to increase the character limit next? or more special choices? or while we're at it why can't i choose my army from 4 different books?

Oh i only failed that spell by one... doesn't that mean i still cast it?
Er NO, you need 9+ and you rolled 8....

Oh i didn't roll any wounds... but i get one for free right?
Er NO.

As soon as you let someone go over the limit, it is no longer the limit, the new allowed value is the limit (clearly, else the definition of the word limit is incorrect)

The "If you start doing this, where does it end?" argument doesn't hold much water, because it ends at just that: a few points.

If I allow someone to go over the limit by a couple of points that doesn't mean I've decided 2002 points is the new limit: it means I still feel 2000 is the limit, I'm aware that is the rule, but I have chosen to allow leeway on it. If someone then said to me the next day "Mind if I now use another few points on top of that?" I would say no.

And the examples given are again a bit more significant than a couple of points over the limit. Re-rolling wounds, passing spells, extra slots, etc, those are all much more significant than a 0.1% difference in the army points.


As you can see what i'm endevoring to do is not be a frustrating pain the proverbial, it's attempting to keep you playing within the rules defined by the game to ensure that the game is fair for everyone.

And again I'll stress: I'm not saying there's anything wrong in that :) It's every player's choice to say they're going to stick to the limit strictly or no game. There's no need to have a go at someone if they won't allow you to go over, but there's nothing wrong in allowing it either.

Sand
11-05-2010, 12:45
(if you are <1999 I wouldn't let you use a lord!).This is obviously not an apt comparison, but that's already been covered.

I generally don't mind if people are a few points over. Although it sometimes depends a bit on what army they're playing. If you're 2,5 pts. over, I might ask you why you don't just remove a Skaven Slave. I generally don't mind though.

I also habitually allow charges that are arguably 0,20 inch short and the sky in my playing area has not yet fallen, nor have people taken to field lords in 500 pt. games. Yet...

The internal limits, I feel, should be strictly enforced. There's a reason why you can only take "X" points of magic items on your character and the magic items are priced with this in mind, so as to disallow certain combos (in theory, at least). I can't see myself budging from that.
But that's perhaps another discussion.

yabbadabba
11-05-2010, 13:00
As soon as you let people begin to play above the points limit, are they going to ask you to increase the character limit next? or more special choices? or while we're at it why can't i choose my army from 4 different books? Can't see a problem with that at all as long as it has been discussed and a scenario set. Not all games should be equal.


As you can see what i'm endevoring to do is not be a frustrating pain the proverbial, it's attempting to keep you playing within the rules defined by the game to ensure that the game is fair for everyone. Helpful if you are playing someone for the first time. If it is with mates, then the rules become more of a guide to lead you to a broader, more personalised hobby nirvana.

Deathjester
11-05-2010, 13:14
Can't see a problem with that at all as long as it has been discussed and a scenario set. Not all games should be equal.

Helpful if you are playing someone for the first time. If it is with mates, then the rules become more of a guide to lead you to a broader, more personalised hobby nirvana.

But what you are doing here is REDEFINING the limits which i agree has it's place in certain scenarios and the like, IF that's what you're doing. However I would never turn up to a gaming club with a 2002point army and ask people if they wanted to play 2000point games, it's plain and simple cheating.

You are agreeing (when you ask how many points are we playing) to sit within those defined limits, not outside them.


I do understand what people are saying with a limit being a limit, end of, and there's nothing wrong with that. Anyone is well within their rights to say "No, you're over the limit, cut it down or I won't play you". So in all I respond to below, I'm not having a go.

But there's nothing wrong with the other way either, with saying a few points doesn't really matter, and the arguments which seem to be aimed at saying that are a little inconsistent:
-----SNIP-------
The "If you start doing this, where does it end?" argument doesn't hold much water, because it ends at just that: a few points.

If I allow someone to go over the limit by a couple of points that doesn't mean I've decided 2002 points is the new limit: it means I still feel 2000 is the limit, I'm aware that is the rule, but I have chosen to allow leeway on it. If someone then said to me the next day "Mind if I now use another few points on top of that?" I would say no.

And the examples given are again a bit more significant than a couple of points over the limit. Re-rolling wounds, passing spells, extra slots, etc, those are all much more significant than a 0.1% difference in the army points.


So what you're saying is that it's a points guideline rather than a limit?

But assuming that you roll 1000 dice over the course of a tournament and you ask your opponent to disregard one of them, that is a 0.1% difference, however that 0.1% difference could be devastating.

In your overall army points 2pts is indeed only 0.1%

however if we look closer (IE an additional hand weapon on a hero) takes that hero to a total cost of 52pts that's 4% cost increase or even closer that's a 25% increase to his total attack output / turn.

Hardly the 0.1% that particular instance



Money is just that: money. A different thing entirely.

Again, money, very different thing. Plus, that's a difference of 9.3%, if someone turned up to a 2000 point game asking to use 2186 points, I would indeed say no.


Totally, however it's an equally quantifiable value. As are speed limits, i know that people break speed limits but they do so at their own risk, the risk of being caught and getting points on their licence or worse having it revoked.




And again I'll stress: I'm not saying there's anything wrong in that It's every player's choice to say they're going to stick to the limit strictly or no game. There's no need to have a go at someone if they won't allow you to go over, but there's nothing wrong in allowing it either.

There are 2 choices for going over points Either you're playing a 2002pts game (Not 2000) OR you're encouraging them to cheat.

I'm NOT saying that the 1st choice is the wrong choice, however I AM saying that the 2nd choice is not the right choice

yabbadabba
11-05-2010, 13:21
However I would never turn up to a gaming club with a 2002point army and ask people if they wanted to play 2000point games, it's plain and simple cheating.If you turn up to a pick up game, with 2002pts, tell your opponent you have 2002pts, your opponent plays with 1995 and it is all based around a scenario and victory conditions for 2000 then obviously there are no issues.

If you turn up at a club with 2002pts, tell everyone you have 2000pts and then play a game - thats cheating albeit on a very, very minor level.

Ozorik
11-05-2010, 13:22
Something that gets lost in these discussions is that points values are in no way exactly balanced, indeed there are so many variables that they would be nearly impossible to balance with a high degree of certainty. Armies at a given points value are only approximately equal in terms of cost effectiveness (and often are no where near).
With that in mind going upto say 5% over is unlikely to have a huge impact on the game in the same way that going under by 5% isn't going to be game breaking. List tailoring around rules loopholes and undercosted elements are far more damaging to balanced games than a few points over or under.

Obviously there needs to be a limit but that only needs to be strictly enforced in regulated environments such as tournaments where there are prizes and an entry fee.

Personally I really don't care, I have never asked to see an opponents army list and unless they are blatantly over points I won't even have an issue.

Tymell
11-05-2010, 13:23
But what you are doing here is REDEFINING the limits which i agree has it's place in certain scenarios and the like, IF that's what you're doing. However I would never turn up to a gaming club with a 2002point army and ask people if they wanted to play 2000point games, it's plain and simple cheating.

You are agreeing (when you ask how many points are we playing) to sit within those defined limits, not outside them.

Again, as I say in my post: I agree, you are completely within your rights to refuse to play an army over the points, but at the same time there's no need to get worked up over a 0.1% difference over the limit. You can refuse it, and there's nothing wrong in doing so, but there's nothing wrong in allowing it either.

Avian
11-05-2010, 13:26
But what you are doing here is REDEFINING the limits which i agree has it's place in certain scenarios and the like, IF that's what you're doing.
And that's what proper gamers do - they redefine the game because that gives them a better chance to shine. When people told Columbus that the horizon was the limit of the earth, he redefined it, went to the Caribbean and achieved wealth and fame. Had he stuck by other people's limits he'd never have gotten anywhere and nobody would know who he was now.

TheLionReturns
11-05-2010, 13:37
I'm pretty relaxed about exceeding the points level. Whether it is right or wrong will vary from gaming group to gaming group. I think my attitude stems from my early days in the hobby, before there were tournaments, where the ruleset was simply a starting point for creating a fun gaming experience amongst friends, and any tinkering was encouraged if it helped enhance the experience (assuming it is with opponents consent of course).

With this mindset exceeding the points limit for an extra swordsman so you have a symmetrical infantry block is perfectly reasonable if visual neatness is important.

Back before tournaments I think it was the norm to be over or under by a few points, certainly WD battle reports from back then were frequently over by a few points. The norm now is strict point limits so personally I tend to keep things under the limit for pick up games against strangers, but amongst friends with whom I have been gaming for many years then I will go over from time to time as we all do.

Tymell
11-05-2010, 13:42
So what you're saying is that it's a points guideline rather than a limit?

I would say the entire game is more like that, in the sense that (for me) it's just a tabletop game, not a sport or anything like that.


But assuming that you roll 1000 dice over the course of a tournament and you ask your opponent to disregard one of them, that is a 0.1% difference, however that 0.1% difference could be devastating.

Again, a different thing. 2 points out of 2000 is only ever 2 points. A dice roll doesn't have a set value.


In your overall army points 2pts is indeed only 0.1%

however if we look closer (IE an additional hand weapon on a hero) takes that hero to a total cost of 52pts that's 4% cost increase or even closer that's a 25% increase to his total attack output / turn.

Hardly the 0.1% that particular instance

But all we're talking about here -is- the army overall. The 0.1% thing is just to illustrate that it's a miniscule difference.


Totally, however it's an equally quantifiable value. As are speed limits, i know that people break speed limits but they do so at their own risk, the risk of being caught and getting points on their licence or worse having it revoked.

Again, not a good comparison: speed limits are legal requirements and potentially result in death if broken. This is a miniscule difference in the points value of a tabletop wargame.


There are 2 choices for going over points Either you're playing a 2002pts game (Not 2000) OR you're encouraging them to cheat.

I'm NOT saying that the 1st choice is the wrong choice, however I AM saying that the 2nd choice is not the right choice

It's not cheating if I allow it, it's more like redefining things as you say. If it makes you feel more comfortable to think of me saying it's a 2002 point game and me taking 2000 instead, then go for it.

But this is a game of toy soldiers, not a matter of national law and order or a competitive sport. If you choose to stick rigidly to the rules that's entirely up to you and there's nothing wrong in that, but if someone chooses to allow a couple of points over the limit they aren't cheating or harming the game in doing so.

PANZERBUNNY
11-05-2010, 14:30
IN the end, its a BAD habit to get into. Always going over by "just a little bit". Doesn't matter what game system it is.

Drop a skaven clanrat, drop a gobbo, drop a beastman, get on with the game.

Usually, the only reason people go over is because of their magic item loadout for their character.

The_Bureaucrat
11-05-2010, 14:45
3 points is usaully what we play but I wouldn't care if it was 200 as long as they told me before hand. My opinion may change depending on how fluffy/themed the army is tho.

Mart007
11-05-2010, 15:03
I play 40K but the thread is still relevent to me.

I never go over the points limit whats the point you can always shed a couple of points somewhere.

I think its one of the whiney excuses people who pretend they want to play in a friendly non competeitive game. They use that kind of excuse on people who really do want to play in a friendly manner - if you get me...

Q: who's going to look like they are kicking up a fuss over nothing? A: The guy who made a list according to the rules....

Small points do make a difference. And if you really do want to play a friendly then at least make your army hit the right points!

I find you can play people who go on about friendly games who try to put the game in there favour by tweaking stuff here and there and, just because its a "friendly"! And really its just power gaming in many respects...

(not in all cases - I have just come across it...)

AFnord
11-05-2010, 15:10
In a friendly game I don't care if someone goes over their point limit by 1-3 points, after all, finding a decent spot to drop those points might require quite a bit of list fiddling, and I would much rather play a nice game than wait for my opponent to finish fiddling with his/her list. I go by the same philosophy when designing my own lists, and I always inform my opponent if i'm a point or two over. Going over by a significant amount on the other hand is not ok. In a tournament I expect people to play more seriously tough, and not go over the point limit.


As soon as you let people begin to play above the points limit, are they going to ask you to increase the character limit next? or more special choices? or while we're at it why can't i choose my army from 4 different books?
A single point or two in a friendly game really won't have much of an impact. An extra lord on the other hand might have a huge impact.
And to continue your money example, if a friend of mine notices that he is 1€ short when we are supposed to split the cost of something that costs, lets say 15€, then i'll of course say that I don't really care about a single €, and pay slightly more than my share, it evens out in the long run anyway. If the person working in the store suddenly wants 1€ extra, i'll say that I won't pay the extra 1€ over the listed price. That is the difference between a friendly game and a tournament.

StarFyreXXX
11-05-2010, 15:10
I would say just for the assumed GW testing sake.

For example, it could be that the way an army book is designed is that it is impossible to take, let's say, a specific lord and a specific hero in the same 2k pt game since the smallest # of core models will use some some points, but with that, the lord is so costly, that last hero can't fit in. And this may be designed that way on purpose since maybe that hero allows a messy combination with that lord which at 2K is a bit too powerful.

If you let people go 1 or 2 pts over, there may be specific combinations for some armies (mainly the ones that have lower models that cost alot) that are not meant to be together (this is just based on theory; logically this could happen but don't know if it does considering 2k is quite a lot of points).

Sanjay

SamVimes
11-05-2010, 15:11
I play 40K but the thread is still relevent to me.

I never go over the points limit whats the point you can always shed a couple of points somewhere.

I think its one of the whiney excuses people who pretend they want to play in a friendly non competeitive game. They use that kind of excuse on people who really do want to play in a friendly manner - if you get me...

Q: who's going to look like they are kicking up a fuss over nothing? A: The guy who made a list according to the rules....

Small points do make a difference. And if you really do want to play a friendly then at least make your army hit the right points!

I find you can play people who go on about friendly games who try to put the game in there favour by tweaking stuff here and there and, just because its a "friendly"! And really its just power gaming in many respects...

(not in all cases - I have just come across it...)

Yes, because there are 2 types of gamers :eyebrows:
I don't go over, but I don't care if someone is over. Sure, they can drop an option or a guy here or there, but at the end of the game it's not going to be relevant for me. I'm still more than likely going to get my butt handed to me, and that extra few points wasn't going to make a difference, so in a non pay-to-play environment, I fail to see why I should be all broke up about it.

Mart007
11-05-2010, 15:16
I wouldnt stop someone doing it... as it makes you look like the guy who cant stand losing... but thats my point people can use the friendly game "it doesent matter" excuse on people who do really want a friendly game... thats more my point...

mdauben
11-05-2010, 15:41
I was wondering what your opinion is on going over the points limit.
I never go over the agreed to limit, and I expect my opponent's to do the same. There never a good reason for exceeding agreed to limits. There is always something you can remove from your list that will get you within the agreed to points (one RnF figure, one weapon, etc,). Honestly, I see the "little bit over" syndrom as less cheating and more lazyness on the part of the player, that he can't be bothered to revise his initial list until it no longer exceeds the agreed upon points limit. :shifty:


(if you are <1999 I wouldn't let you use a lord!).
I would find that pretty poor sportsmanship. I and everyone I know has always played (and indeed the rules have said) that the points limit determines if you can use a lord, not your points total. I seldom see exactly 2000 points played in a 2000 point game, yet such players Lords all the time. :rolleyes:

Griefbringer
11-05-2010, 15:44
For myself: agreed limit is an agreed limit, and I will not go over that. It is not exactly a hard thing to keep the army under the agreed point limit.

For my opponent: if he/she feels that there is a need to field some extra points (be that five, ten, hundred or thousand points) worth of stuff, then I will gladly let him/her field them. Perhaps he/she really needs them to have a chance at winning the game.

SamVimes
11-05-2010, 15:46
I wouldnt stop someone doing it... as it makes you look like the guy who cant stand losing... but thats my point people can use the friendly game "it doesent matter" excuse on people who do really want a friendly game... thats more my point...

Yeah, but I don't care if the guy going over is the WAAC type, either. As long as I didn't pay to play, it doesn't matter to me. But that's most likely because, by and large, I'm not the best player in the world and I write pretty crap lists

Mart007
11-05-2010, 15:46
For my opponent: if he/she feels that there is a need to field some extra points (be that five, ten, hundred or thousand points) worth of stuff, then I will gladly let him/her field them. Perhaps he/she really needs them to have a chance at winning the game.

Exactly. I always let people do what they feel what they need to do..

Idle Scholar
11-05-2010, 15:51
"dude, I'm like 1, 5, 50 points over. Do you mind?"
"Sure no problem, (and maybe) let me just quickly add something to my list."

Seriously, does no one else ever have this conversation?

Ok to be fair it is kind of rude to knowingly write a list to fight a stranger or acquaintance that's over points but among friends or with a quickly knocked up list it's really not that big a deal.

Mart007
11-05-2010, 15:57
I think its more a reflection on the player.. alright bad players still can work within the points limit. But with my close gaming friends not one would go over.. the conversation has never come up because we all want a fair game. It would niggle me if I won a game and i was over the points level.

I think its so easy to make you army within so why not? Thats the question..

Dont get me wrong, im not a rules nazis... its just soemthing I find slightly annoying and is coming across as a major gripe in typed form!

willowdark
11-05-2010, 15:58
Overshooting the points limit seems... I dunno... lazy. I think that's pretty fair. What could you possibly have in your list that you couldn't drop to come in under the cap?

A Rank bonus? A musician? A Champ? How about units of 12 missile troops instead of minimum 10.

I would expect you to answer this question honestly, and then I'd appeal to your reason.

You could be over by a musician, but have the Rune of Immolation on your Bolt Thrower. That's a clear advantage to you.

Sand
11-05-2010, 16:06
"dude, I'm like 1, 5, 50 points over. Do you mind?"
"Sure no problem, (and maybe) let me just quickly add something to my list."

Seriously, does no one else ever have this conversation?

Ok to be fair it is kind of rude to knowingly write a list to fight a stranger or acquaintance that's over points but among friends or with a quickly knocked up list it's really not that big a deal.I often do.
Pretty often, when my gaming circle gets together it'll go something like this:

X: hey Y, wanna play 2250?

Y: Sure thing!

*frantic scribbling*

X: Darn! I'm out of points, how about we go 2500 instead?

Y: Sure! That way I can fit my überDeathbeast in too.

*more frantic scribbling, followed by game of WFB*

yabbadabba
11-05-2010, 16:13
You could be over by a musician, but have the Rune of Immolation on your Bolt Thrower. That's a clear advantage to you. Sorry, I can't see how this is relevant as an illustration, or even accurate. If you are over by a musician, then you are over by that much. The Rune of Immolation has no bearing.

I am an old fashioned wargamer, and not a competitive gamer. There is far too much line-em-up-and-knock-em-down gaming and no where near enough time spent on challening scenarios and table set ups. Conveniance wargaming seems to be the norm instead of the exception. The scenario and the army list are king, the points are just for beginners, or for tournaments.

jullevi
11-05-2010, 16:21
The way I see it, points limit is a limit no different than say, written unit options or slot limits using the current army composition rules. Or rumoured percentages, for that matter. Personally, I don't take it that seriously, but I cannot see any justification to go over the limit either.

Slightly off topic: one of the most enjoyable Warhammer games in which I have participated didn't have points limit at all. It was a demonstration siege game in which we bought whatever we had painted. It was early 7th edition and as a result of defended obstacle rules change (compared to 6th) we also had to come up with several new rules as we played. Yet the game was balanced, which shows that balance does not have to be written in the books - it's up to players to aim for balanced game.

willowdark
11-05-2010, 16:22
Yabbadabba. A point limit by design forces you to make sacrifices for the things you want. The Rune is powerful, so I should be able to expect you to trim the fat on your list to make room for it.

Edit: a points limit is a frame of reference. You could be over by the equivelent of a musician, or 3 quarters of a musician, but shelling out for the 15, 20 or 50 pt upgrades to your units is likely what put you over the edge. So, in all fairness, you're edging out an advantage, albeit indirectly, by being greedy.

Tarian
11-05-2010, 16:24
I don't mind uneven point values, as long as it's agreed upon. Some of my best games were outnumbered 2:1, try to inflict as much damage before you go down.

That said, I don't know why people who want to play within the (agreed upon!) limits are suddenly power gamers, WAACers, or rule lawyers. If a rule lawyer says that Elf M is 5 and not 5.25, then I guess I'm a rules lawyer...

For me, if you're (generic you, not specifiying anyone here) going over, have the courtesy to tell me *before* the game. I brought a list that is at or under the value, and I'm assuming my opponent did the same.

Honestly, when not playing a "serious" game, like a tourny or prepping for tourny, I'm a pretty lax gamer, allowing new players to get that extra .5" on their charge, etc. What I don't want is people coming to expect it. Each time I allow that, it should be *my* choice. I dislike it when people come to assume that an extra .5", extra 3 points etc. is alright.

Seabo
11-05-2010, 16:42
If you have a points limit then stay under the points limit? This doesn't seem like rocket science to me.....
How many out there have managed to get exactly 2,000 or 3,000 etc points on their armies? I generally tend to run 4 to 1 pt below as it is a limit right?
Say you were pulled over after a night at the club and you blew .09 on the breathylizer? "I'm sorry officer but i am only a tiny bit over the limit right?"
Not thinking that would fly to well ;).
.
..
...
Ooohk totally offtopic but you see my point right?
Points Limit....
Deal with it.....

Agnar the Howler
11-05-2010, 16:43
I'm not sure about Fantasy. In 40k my limit would be under 5pts over, 5pts+ would require allowing me to take something of that cost to add on to my own list. Since not much in 40k costs under 5 points, it's relatively easy to let slide, but when you can get a whole model for 4 points or less, or even upgrade several models with new equipment, it's harder for me to let it slide.

If it's a 1-time thing and there's not enough time to re-think your list, I might let it through, but if it's going to become a regular ocurrence, or there is a good amount of time left to shuffle your list around a bit and re-think some slots to let it in legally, then I will make no exceptions. Unless you're making a list up on the spot, I expect it to be exactly or under the points value.

SamVimes
11-05-2010, 16:44
If you have a points limit then stay under the points limit? This doesn't seem like rocket science to me.....
How many out there have managed to get exactly 2,000 or 3,000 etc points on their armies? I generally tend to run 4 to 1 pt below as it is a limit right?
Say you were pulled over after a night at the club and you blew .09 on the breathylizer? "I'm sorry officer but i am only a tiny bit over the limit right?"
Not thinking that would fly to well ;).
.
..
...
Ooohk totally offtopic but you see my point right?
Points Limit....
Deal with it.....

Because apples and oranges are both fruit:p

Balerion
11-05-2010, 17:02
I never go over the point limit, mainly because the limit must be somewhere. If we start allowing "a few extra points" (say 25 max) then everyone will start making lists with +25 points to their army, so they are not at a disadvantage. Then the cycle start over...

Only if the people you're playing with are *******.

A group of mature, honourable adult players can reconcile the ideas of building with a limit in mind and allowing a list to go slightly over the arranged limit. It doesn't mean you start building all of your armies for 2005 points. It means you build for 2000, but if you happen to go slightly over you don't fret about changing it (in exactly the same way you wouldn't rearrange a 1995 point list in order to max out your allotted points).


I think its more a reflection on the player.. alright bad players still can work within the points limit. But with my close gaming friends not one would go over.. the conversation has never come up because we all want a fair game. It would niggle me if I won a game and i was over the points level.

As Ozorik pointed out on the last page, the system has plenty of inbuilt unfairness. There are units that are incorrectly priced, armies that are more powerful than others, and a measurement system in which it is virtually impossible to obtain perfectly accurate readings. If you believe that a game is legitimately "fair" simply by virtue of equal points on both sides, I submit that you are deeply naive.

Ultimate Life Form
11-05-2010, 17:06
If you believe that a game is legitimately "fair" simply by virtue of equal points on both sides, I submit that you are deeply naive.

I suppose fair as in, 'we both agree to abide by the rules'.

willowdark
11-05-2010, 17:09
I'm amazed at the eagerness here to justify fudging a rule that is absurdly easy to follow.

2k isn't enough? What about 2250? Can you manage to come in under that limit?

Sand
11-05-2010, 17:14
I'm amazed at the eagerness here to justify fudging a rule that is absurdly easy to follow.

2k isn't enough? What about 2250? Can you manage coming under that limit?On the other hand, it's not like there's any bad consequences to "breaking" the rule. Or any huge benefit or reason to follow it, if you'd rather not and both you and your opponent agrees.
It's not a big deal to me either way, honestly.

Malorian
11-05-2010, 17:16
I never go over points as I see it as a critical rule.

However I will let my opponents go over if it's only by a bit and if reworking their list would take too long (not everyone is keen to just drop 1 guy as easy as it sounds).

Ultimate Life Form
11-05-2010, 17:17
That's what separates the moral players from the WaaC bunch. ;)

willowdark
11-05-2010, 17:21
Making sacrifices cultivates character. fudging a rule for no reason other than sheer laziness, which no one has offered a better reason to go over the limit than that, will ultimately lead to sloppy gaming, which drags down the quality of the experience.

Is there a reason to exceed the limit? So far, most justifications have revolved around avoiding that question and focusing on the reasons why someone should allow it.

If I asked you to drop a musician, or a standard, or a model of you back rank, why would you refuse?

Firmlog
11-05-2010, 17:28
as I remember in 2nd ed. 40k there was a rule of 2% you could/should be within 2% of the total points.

Nowadays, I find we should always be below the point value, while its very easy in current 40k and fantasy, there are some game system that it is very difficult to be under the total, for example AT-43 and confrontation, there is no points play for units, and most cost uneven amounts say 375-380 for a unit, one army I know for certain minimum points for units is 500, with advanced units being upwards of 575 to 685. At that point it becomes very different to be within a points spread without giving yourself a clear disadvantage.

With models costing 3-14 points with possible upgrades costing as little as 1-5 I see no reason to exceed points limits. of course theres very little advantage or disadvantage of being over or under by those points, but it becomes a problem if they are over by 20-50 pts.

Tymell
11-05-2010, 17:29
Making sacrifices cultivates character. fudging a rule for no reason other than sheer laziness, which no one has offered a better reason to go over the limit than that, will ultimately lead to sloppy gaming, which drags down the quality of the experience.

Is there a reason to exceed the limit? So far, most justifications have revolved around avoiding that question and focusing on the reasons why someone should allow it.

If I asked you to drop a musician, or a standard, or a model of you back rank, why would you refuse?

Actually, most "in defense" of it are just following the point that it doesn't really matter. I don't see many arguing that you -should- go over the limit, just that it's such a minor thing when it's a couple of points that it's not worth getting worked up about.

Call that "laziness" if you like, I call it just wanting to get on with the game and have fun.

willowdark
11-05-2010, 17:34
You're just arguing my point for me. The justification is in avoiding the question of why.

Again, if I ask you to drop the shields from your RxB's, or the musician from you Warriors, or the shield off your Lord, why should you refuse?

Tarian said it well in his point about assuming it's OK, which is why I submit it as a question of character, and why I call it lazy.

It is so easy to follow, so why shouldn't you?

Balerion
11-05-2010, 17:41
Actually, most "in defense" of it are just following the point that it doesn't really matter. I don't see many arguing that you -should- go over the limit, just that it's such a minor thing when it's a couple of points that it's not worth getting worked up about.

Call that "laziness" if you like, I call it just wanting to get on with the game and have fun.
Yep, this is it.

I have enough confidence in my generalship and ability to roll with the punches that an opponent going slightly over simply doesn't register with me as any sort of breach. It won't impact the outcome of the game, or our enjoyment level, so I see no need to question it.

Sand
11-05-2010, 17:42
Making sacrifices cultivates character. :wtf:
Quite aside from never imagining Calvin's dad to be a Warhammer player, I don't really think playing WFB builds character ;)

At any rate, we don't play it to become better or more productive human beings. We play it for fun. Personally I don't see my fun getting damaged by someone having an extra goblin spearman, honestly.



fudging a rule for no reason other than sheer laziness, which no one has offered a better reason to go over the limit than that, will ultimately lead to sloppy gaming, which drags down the quality of the experience.

Is there a reason to exceed the limit? So far, most justifications have revolved around avoiding that question and focusing on the reasons why someone should allow it.

If I asked you to drop a musician, or a standard, or a model of you back rank, why would you refuse?I think that's quite a bunch of weird and/or unfounded assumptions, to be quite frank.

Also, I think it's fair to say that if there's no reason to disallow it, that's a de facto reason for allowing it.

That said, I don't go over points myself and if I did I definitely wouldn't have a problem with someone who insisted that I bring my army in line by dropping a model from some unit.

willowdark
11-05-2010, 17:42
That argument is so transparent, it's laughable.

You haven't answered my question. Why is your musician so important to you?

Edit: Nijna'd by Sand. This post is more appropriate to Balerion, but is only not relevent to Sand based on his last Statement.

Ozorik
11-05-2010, 17:50
That argument is so transparent, it's laughable.

You haven't answered my question. Why is your musician so important to you?


While your argument is so insubstantial its laughable.

Perhaps you have a musician model and leaving it out would create uneven ranks, it is only a handful of points after all. A few points over means absolutely nothing.

Sand
11-05-2010, 17:54
Willowdark, I think you're making a mistake by assuming that people who don't think it's A Big Deal™ are by definition defending themselves.
It's not a question of anyone's musician being important to them, personally and so they have to argue in favor of going over points.
I'd wager most of us just don't think it's all that important.

I see how it might be considered "bad form" to go over points in some environments, but the guys I play with it just isn't an issue. Once in a while someone is a few points over and it doesn't really matter at all. It doesn't impact our fun one bit, so why should we care?

TMATK
11-05-2010, 17:55
I would be cool with my opponent going a few points over, if I could throw in a few extra dice in my attacks. Maybe a few extra +1's here and there as well. I mean it's just a few...

Sand
11-05-2010, 17:56
I would be cool with my opponent going a few points over, if I could throw in a few extra dice in my attacks. Maybe a few extra +1's here and there as well. I mean it's just a few...
If someone's a few points over you could try telling them to drop something? Or to add a model yourself? That way you'll get your extra attack.

willowdark
11-05-2010, 17:57
Again, a points limit is a frame of reference. You might be over by 5 or 10 points, but it's just as likely that you're over because you wanted the Ring of Hotek or a magic banner. It's a matter sacrifices. You can keep that magic item or unit upgrade by dropping something somewhere else, so why shouldn't you.

And having a musician model and wanting a neat unit is hardly a substantial reason. I've played many games where my opponent has said, "This unit has a musician in it, but I didn't have the points for it so just ignore it."

Dvil
11-05-2010, 18:03
With my group we don't turn up with list over the limit, but if we end up playing a scenario or something on the spot, then this sort of conversation often occurs:

Player 1: It it okay to go 2 points over for a magic banner?
Player 2: Want to make it 4? That'll get me an extra wound on my spearman unit.
Player 1: Sure, why not.

We do make a point of capping this at 5 over though, so all of you scared of the slippery slope of leniency needn't be worried.

TMATK
11-05-2010, 18:04
If someone's a few points over you could try telling them to drop something? Or to add a model yourself? That way you'll get your extra attack.

I was being sarcastic :)

Mart007
11-05-2010, 18:04
If a player is prepared to fudge over such a simple rule what other things would they be prepared to fudge over due to laziness?

Sure you can argue it wont make a difference but thats not necessarily the point...

Sand
11-05-2010, 18:09
I was being sarcastic :)
So was I :)

Sand
11-05-2010, 18:14
If a player is prepared to fudge over such a simple rule what other things would they be prepared to fudge over due to laziness?

None. In my experience.

As for the whole "magic item" (or whatever we want to make it) argument; there's a world of difference between "violating" the overall points limit (with permission, of course) and violating the internal rules of army construction.
If someone asks "is it ok that my general is 5 points over his magic item allowance?" I'd say "No, that's not ok, because those boundaries are in place for a lot of reasons, not least in order to restrict certain item combos that I bet you've violated with those 5 points, you sneaky little git" faster than you could say "Hell no!".

If he has an extra Goblin though, that's another matter entirely.

willowdark
11-05-2010, 18:15
Where the rubber hits the road, a musician is a very powerful model. +1 to rally for fast cav, not to mention how many times I've seen units break because they tied but didn't have a musician, especially in the current game where loosing by one to a Fear causer can be an autobreak.

Shields on RxBs? Enchanted shield on your lord? Look at it objectively. going over the limit is careless at best, greedy at worst.

So, if it's not a big deal, why would you refuse if I asked you to drop the points?

Balerion
11-05-2010, 18:15
That argument is so transparent, it's laughable.

You haven't answered my question. Why is your musician so important to you?

Edit: Nijna'd by Sand. This post is more appropriate to Balerion, but is only not relevent to Sand based on his last Statement.
I actually provided one answer to the question of "why do people want to go over?" back on page two, and got no responses.


Where the rubber hits the road, a musician is a very powerful model. +1 to rally for fast cav, not to mention how many times I've seen units break because they tied but didn't have a musician, especially in the current game where loosing by one to a Fear causer can be an autobreak.

Shields on RxBs? Enchanted shield on your lord? Look at it objectively. going over the limit is careless at best, greedy at worst.

So, if it's not a big deal, why would you refuse if I asked you to drop the points?
What you're not considering is that oftentimes the cheapest upgrade would not be the one that would be dropped in order to get under the points limit.

For example, if I had to choose between dropping a musician and getting to 2000 points, or dropping a Skeleton and getting to 1996 points, I would tend to drop the Skeleton. It may be the more costly purchase, but a single Skellie is less valuable than a musician in the scheme of things.

But dropping the Skellie may leave me with a unit of 19, compared to all my others which have 20. It has little in-game effect either way, but some people like to have things "just so" and field evenly sized units.

It is also important to note that people who play with flexible points caps usually expect each other to be honourable about it, and not build for the uncapped value. For example, if all my units were at 20 Skeletons, with musicians in every unit, and my points total came to 1996, it would be unseemly to add an extra Skeleton and create one unit of 21.

Edit: Lastly, I would not refuse if you asked me to drop the points, but I would probably chuckle at you, and then remove significantly more points that you requested in order to (hopefully) illustrate the insignificance of such small deviations in points equality.

Sand
11-05-2010, 18:18
So, if it's not a big deal, why would you refuse if I asked you to drop the points?Has anyone said they would, though?

willowdark
11-05-2010, 18:27
Yep.

Belarion, Somewhere in your list is something you can lose to come in under the cap. Post it, you'll see. And I bet it will be important enough in game, yet reasonable enough for me to point out, that you'd rather drop the 20th skellie instead.

A 20th skellie, which is a rank bonus or a wound buffering a rank bonus which is hardly insignificant, especially when you can regrow your troops.

yabbadabba
11-05-2010, 18:28
The game is unbalanced at its core rule set. A table set up will be unbalanced. The amount of time spent on each turn will be unbalanced, the armies are unbalanced - games have so much inbuilt imbalance its almost a joke. A couple of points will make no difference to that imbalance.

Its quite funny how much people get wound up about somethings and not others. There are people on here who are firmly behind the idea that if GW doesn't create it, then it doesn't exist in GW's world. There are people who believe this game cannot be played with unpainted miniatures. There are people who call themselves vet hobbyists without ever making a piece of scenery.

Exact points are for beginners. Exact points are for tournaments. Exact points are for gamers who need that surety that everything was "fair" so as to prove their superiority or prepare their excuses. Exact points are a matter of manners between strangers. Exact points aren't needed for players confident and relaxed about their generalship. Exact points are not needed for people who are scenario/objective driven. Exact points are not needed for friends who trust each other. Exact points have a very strong, and important defined role within the hobby, but the inability to move beyond that role is a concern. The game won't break down due to an imbalance in points.

The rules aren't laws, and even GW advocates that players should change them to suit their needs. The politeness that goes with understanding someone's need for sticking to the limit and the rules, also should extend to someone's need to play a more looser form of the game.

willowdark
11-05-2010, 18:32
Except that meeting the limit is so absurdly easy and reasonable that asking you to lose a muso is hardly impolite of me, and itchingly stubborn of you, especially if you come to expect it, as Tarian pointed out earlier.

For the record, I've never been in this situation before because the etiquette is so obvious it has never come up in my group.

Mart007
11-05-2010, 18:34
Not true, thats rediculous completely...

The point is yes you can agree diferent rules whatever in a friendly game - thats great - but if your taking a 2k list and someone turns up with an army with 2005 that is more a reflection on them than me...

People play the "friendly" game talk to enhance there armies far to often...

Von Wibble
11-05-2010, 18:35
I actually provided one answer to the question of "why do people want to go over?" back on page two, and got no responses.


What you're not considering is that oftentimes the cheapest upgrade would not be the one that would be dropped in order to get under the points limit.

For example, if I had to choose between dropping a musician and getting to 2000 points, or dropping a Skeleton and getting to 1996 points, I would tend to drop the Skeleton. It may be the more costly purchase, but a single Skellie is less valuable than a musician in the scheme of things.

But dropping the Skellie may leave me with a unit of 19, compared to all my others which have 20. It has little in-game effect either way, but some people like to have things "just so" and field evenly sized units.

It is also important to note that people who play with flexible points caps usually expect each other to be honourable about it, and not build for the uncapped value. For example, if all my units were at 20 Skeletons, with musicians in every unit, and my points total came to 1996, it would be unseemly to add an extra Skeleton and create one unit of 21.

Edit: Lastly, I would not refuse if you asked me to drop the points, but I would probably chuckle at you, and then remove significantly more points that you requested in order to (hopefully) illustrate the insignificance of such small deviations in points equality.

Ironic example with skeletons - after all that use of ION your skellie units won't be equal in size anyway! But oc removing such a model if the unit weren't raisable is losing 1 rank bonus point and is important.

My take is that I always ensure my own army lists are not over the points limit. It can often take a good while tweaking the list at the end to ensure this doesn't happen. If I have to put this effort in, then so should my opponent. Often my unit sizes are specifically chosesn and adding/ removing 1 model will have a big effect - either costing me rank bonus, or simply because the unit started at minimum size. Removing a lance from a character will make a big difference in their combat potential.

I therefore do not like seeing the opponent being lazy and taking an illegal army when they can so easily rectify this as has been pointed out in previous posts - and if they don't like this (because of the points in my previous paragraph) then they need to take some time to reorganise the list.

The exception is if its a friendly game where both players are writing lists at the same time - often I've found we have agreed to play a game at 2003 points instead of 2000. An alternative is that we have said that the smallest army in points gets +1 for first turn (so in a 2000 points army, a 1998 army gets +1 over a 1999).

At the end of the day it is only a game. If it makes the game process smoother I will apply more lax limitations, but I really would prefer that it were done properly in the first place.

TMATK
11-05-2010, 18:35
...

Exact points are for beginners. Exact points are for tournaments. Exact points are for gamers who need that surety that everything was "fair" so as to prove their superiority or prepare their excuses. Exact points are a matter of manners between strangers. Exact points aren't needed for players confident and relaxed about their generalship. Exact points are not needed for people who are scenario/objective driven. Exact points are not needed for friends who trust each other. Exact points have a very strong, and important defined role within the hobby, but the inability to move beyond that role is a concern. The game won't break down due to an imbalance in points.

...

If exact points aren't a big deal, why not just go a few points under rather then over? Then we can close the thread and go home! :)

Sand
11-05-2010, 18:38
People play the "friendly" game talk to enhance there armies far to often...Sure. If you play with jerks.

I genuinely don't "get" this thread. I guess I should just be happy that this is not an issue within my gaming circle at all and move on.

Gaargod
11-05-2010, 18:44
Depends.

My group tends to mostly play at 2k (or 2.25k) games, full on competitive style. Not WAAC, but enough to note the difference. If someone asked me to play at 2001pts when we're both using 'tournament' level armies, i'd of course state no.

The other type is when someone is still in the process of building their army (or we're short on time), which means scratch building your list there and then. I'm then much more likely to say yes, and match that new points limit.


However, that is the difference. There is a limit, regardless of whether it is moved or not. A friend recently tried an empire army and asked if we could play with an extra 6pts, at 500pts level. Despite the fact i know for certain he could have dropped those extra 6pts, i was happy to MOVE the limit. If he'd just brought the extra 6pts without telling me, i'd have been a bit miffed.



As others have said, the limit is just that. You don't go over it - cramming what you want in is a major part of list building. 'Going over by a few points' is actually changing the points limit. Saying otherwise is kidding yourself.

yabbadabba
11-05-2010, 18:49
Except that meeting the limit is so absurdly easy and reasonable that asking you to lose a muso is hardly impolite of me, and itchingly stubborn of you, especially if you come to expect it, as Tarian pointed out earlier.
For the record, I've never been in this situation before because the etiquette is so obvious it has never come up in my group. Willowdark, I have played so many games in other wargames - particularly conventional ones - where points were never used, looked at or even a facet of the rules. It made no difference to the enjoyment of the game, how it played out or whether people thought it was fair or not. The reasons were simple. The scenarios were well thought out, the forces felt balanced and looked appropriate, the players were mature in attitude; youthful in fun and keeness. Points aren't important if the two players are happy and if the scenario is well thought out and the objectives and victory conditions equally challenging.
Stubborn has nothing to do with it, its about ideology and enjoyment. Stubborn would be turning you down for a game because you didn't have exactly 2k points, even if you came under.

willowdark
11-05-2010, 18:51
Sand, I certainly feel like I've over committed to this thread and can relate to your frustration. My only point was that coming in under the limit is so simple, reasonable and obvious that I was surprised so many people were eager to defend going over it, and I've been compelled repeatedly to defend my own position.

We've all become entrenched in our opinions which has divided us a lot more than it should have.

For me, it boils down to why a person would refuse to trim his list to meet the cap. In that situation, we both made a choice. You (the hypothetical 'you') chose to overshoot the limit by something you considered to be reasonable, and I chose to ask you to fix it. If the issue goes any further, then we are both guilty of something, equally stubborn and equally belligerent.

But, only the first time. I can't help but think that if we play regularly, it should be reasonable that the one who overshoots the limit should fall in line more often than not. Consistently exceeding the limit just feels like bad form.

It's right there with players who forget the magic phase and say, "oh wait, can we go back?"

Sand
11-05-2010, 18:55
Sand, I certainly feel like I've over commited to this thread and can relate to your frustration. My only point was that coming in under the limit is so simple, reasonable and obvious that I was surprised so many people were eager to defend going over it, and I've been compelled repeatedly to defend my own position.

We've all become entrenced in our opinions which has divided us a lot more than it should have.Yeah. No hard feelings from me at all :)

(and of course, as I've repeatedly stated, I think everyone's well within their rights to tell someone to bring their army in line with the stated limit. I just don't personally consider it a big deal at all.)

Malorian
11-05-2010, 18:55
I always find it funny to overhear other games that go something like this:

Gamer 1: Oh, I'm over 1 point... is that ok?
Gamer 2: Sure, ok. I'm over 5 points anyway.
Gamer 1: 5 points? Can't you drop a spearmen or something?

Ozorik
11-05-2010, 18:55
It's right there with players who forget the magic phase and say, "oh wait, can we go back?"

I generally let them. I strongly suspect that we have very different gaming outlooks.

Balerion
11-05-2010, 18:58
However, that is the difference. There is a limit, regardless of whether it is moved or not. A friend recently tried an empire army and asked if we could play with an extra 6pts, at 500pts level. Despite the fact i know for certain he could have dropped those extra 6pts, i was happy to MOVE the limit. If he'd just brought the extra 6pts without telling me, i'd have been a bit miffed.

As others have said, the limit is just that. You don't go over it - cramming what you want in is a major part of list building. 'Going over by a few points' is actually changing the points limit. Saying otherwise is kidding yourself.
Nah man, the "limit" is whatever variance in points value both people will still agree to play under.

I don't get this hardheaded refusal to acknowledge the idea of a flexible points limit. It can easily exist if neither player is locked into the idea of a hard cap.



It's right there with players who forget the magic phase and say, "oh wait, can we go back?"
If you would refuse to let a player go back and correct something that is easily correctable (eg. his magicians haven't already charged away from their original positions, etc.) than you're have a rotten sense of sportsmanship.

Mart007
11-05-2010, 19:02
@Sand

I have had experience of this and although I am a player that goes to tournies (I am VERY bad at them tho!) I also have a strong gaming group where this issue never comes up as we all go to the pts. I have had experiance of this in the past of people who I plan on not playing again. My group would stand by that as well.

willowdark
11-05-2010, 19:02
I generally let them. I strongly suspect that we have very different gaming outlooks.

I don't think so. In games with beginners, or when I was a beginner, We would let people go back and make up for carelessness or forgetfulness. However, at some point my most regular opponents and I agreed not to be so forgiving with each other, as a matter of personal standards. I can say that those games are infinitely more enjoyable to me than games against the more casual gamers in the groups peripheral to my core group.

So it just becomes a matter of standards, which is why I'd be more forgiving the first time, but would expect the offender to figure it out. That's what I mean by building character and avoiding laziness. The games will be better in the long run if you hold each other accountable for the quality of the game.

Mart007
11-05-2010, 19:05
If I forgot I wouldnt ask and I would just say "doh" or something.. you forgot dont ask... again my group would not ask to go back.

yabbadabba
11-05-2010, 19:05
I generally let them. I strongly suspect that we have very different gaming outlooks. Same here. I've agreed to restart a game because of a forgotten phase and my opponent felt it would reduce the value of the game for him if we played on. Even done it at a tournament.

zak
11-05-2010, 19:07
There is no need for flexibility in a points limit. If you are over then drop something. It may be harsh, but it's simple!

Sand
11-05-2010, 19:13
@Sand

I have had experience of this and although I am a player that goes to tournies (I am VERY bad at them tho!) I also have a strong gaming group where this issue never comes up as we all go to the pts. I have had experiance of this in the past of people who I plan on not playing again. My group would stand by that as well.Just to be on the safe side (my earlier post may have been somewhat ambiguous): What I mean is, people who'd pretend to want a friendly game but are secretly only looking to get an advantage are jerks. But I don't think that's a fair default assumption when people say they want a friendly game.

As I said, to me and the people I play with, it's just not a big deal and we genuinely do just want friendly games. It's not meant as a knock on people who feel that it's more fun to stay at or under the exact points limit at all (and obviously, you should go for whatever suits you and your group best).

TMATK
11-05-2010, 19:13
Same here. I've agreed to restart a game because of a forgotten phase and my opponent felt it would reduce the value of the game for him if we played on. Even done it at a tournament.

While I never go over the point limit, I would let my opponent go back if he forgot something as big as the entire magic phase. I would more likely remind him about it before it past.

Ozorik
11-05-2010, 19:15
I don't think so. In games with beginners, or when I was a beginner, We would let people go back and make up for carelessness or forgetfulness. However, at some point my most regular opponents and I agreed not to be so forgiving with each other, as a matter of personal standards. I can say that those games are infinitely more enjoyable to me than games against the more casual gamers in the groups peripheral to my core group.

So it just becomes a matter of standards, which is why I'd be more forgiving the first time, but would expect the offender to figure it out. That's what I mean by building character and avoiding laziness. The games will be better in the long run if you hold each other accountable for the quality of the game.

As I said, different outlooks. I don't play wargames as some kind of competition, I am happy to push little toy men about in a relaxed atmosphere.

People forget things, irrespective of their experience, and if it is possible to allow them to take a phase out of sequence or move a charging unit after beginning normal movement etc then I have absolutely no problem with doing so. Obviously there are certain caveats but in general I don't mind in the least, people will also learn by this method.

Sand
11-05-2010, 19:16
There is no need for flexibility in a points limit. If you are over then drop something. It may be harsh, but it's simple!
Conversely, there's no "need" for inflexibility either.

In fact, there is no "need" for anything in WFB. There's just preferences and (hopefully) fun.

zak
11-05-2010, 19:27
Inflexible yes. But how difficult is it to get your army under a set limit. I don't think this has any bearing on how fun the subsequent game is.

Sand
11-05-2010, 19:30
Inflexible yes. But how difficult is it to get your army under a set limit. I don't think this has any bearing on how fun the subsequent game is.
I just don't think it's a big deal. If people agree to go a few points over, they agree to go a few points over. If not, they don't. People should do whatever they think is best.

Col. Dash
11-05-2010, 19:35
One point isnt a big deal to me, 2 if its a bigger game. No more than that though. Also if its a 1999 game and he is over by one point, again not a biggie, on the off chance that this guy is pushing it and tries to throw a lord in, thats a different kind of cheating.

Agnar the Howler
11-05-2010, 19:35
To be honest, if you don't like it, don't play people who do it, then you can't complain. If people want to let others go a point or two over so they can squeeze their favourite champion in, then let them and ignore it, play with people who stay in accordance with the limit.

puppetmaster24
11-05-2010, 19:56
i don't mind if i trust who i am playing.
But if it is a tornament or someone who i know has a reputation for "garnishing" the rules i expect them to stick to the limit like i do.

vega528
11-05-2010, 20:15
When I first started playing I used to go between 1-5 points over all the time, but as I gained experience that happened less and less until now I never go over points. In fact I'm usually a few points under. It just seems better for me to make lists that way because I know some people don't like being over at all and a small concession on my part can keep the game from starting off on the wrong foot for anyone.

That said I never understood the big deal about being between 1-5 points over. No one cares if there army is 1-5 points under. If you lost a game you wouldn't say that it didn't count cause you were under points so it wasn't fair, or at least I hope you wouldn't. So why should it matter if your opponent was 1-5 over. The dice rolls provide enough randomness that even a extra hand weapon on a lord won't help that much, especially since that means he's not using a magic weapon or a shield.

Tymell
11-05-2010, 20:30
You're just arguing my point for me. The justification is in avoiding the question of why.

I already told you why: because I'm more interested in just getting on with the game than arguing over a 0.1% difference.

Yes, you can enforce it if you want, yes there is nothing wrong in doing so, but you seem to have an unnecessarily hostile attitude towards those who say they don't care about such a miniscule difference.


Again, if I ask you to drop the shields from your RxB's, or the musician from you Warriors, or the shield off your Lord, why should you refuse?

I never said I would refuse, nor have most. If I happened to be over for whatever reason I'd quite happily take something out to lower it.

willowdark
11-05-2010, 21:10
Tymell,

What has happened in this thread is that I have offered my opinion of why I wouldn't want to let someone get away with overshooting the cap. My point is that it is so obvious and easy to stay within the limit that overshooting it is careless. And if a person establishes a habit of this it would be careless to a fault.

Now, I have been repeatedly compelled to defend that position by people who insist that they wouldn't go over the limit themselves. Somehow, I've been painted as the belligerent one when my own, very simple opinion has been repeatedly attacked.

If you personally would drop the extra points to fit in the limit, why should you feel compelled to answer, or insist that you have already, a hypothetical question I've posed to a hypothetical person? If the points don't matter, shouldn't it be reasonable of me to ask a person to drop them?

Why should you feel like you have to defend yourself when you say that you wouldn't do it yourself?

Tymell
11-05-2010, 21:24
Now, I have been repeatedly compelled to defend that position by people who insist that they wouldn't go over the limit themselves. Somehow, I've been painted as the belligerent one when my own, very simple opinion has been repeatedly attacked.

You most certainly shouldn't be attacked for it. There's nothing at all wrong in sticking to the rules if you so choose. I'm not trying to attack your choice to do so in my own responses, certainly, all I'm doing is pointing out what appear to be innaccuracies in some of the arguments.


If you personally would drop the extra points to fit in the limit, why should you feel compelled to answer, or insist that you have already, a hypothetical question I've posed to a hypothetical person? If the points don't matter, shouldn't it be reasonable of me to ask a person to drop them?

Yes, it is reasonable. As I have already said several times.


Why should you feel like you have to defend yourself when you say that you wouldn't do it yourself?

Because you asked me to? :eyebrows: You asked why should I not drop points if you asked, I said I would.

My own original reply to you was because you suggested that those in defense of this thing were avoiding the question. I explained how most weren't doing that.

Neither you nor anyone else has to explain themselves for simply sticking to the rules, so I'm not challenging that. What I'm challenging is the notion that those who choose to let it go are somehow doing something wrong or "avoiding the question".

smallgreenguy
11-05-2010, 22:23
I never go over the points limit and would never play with someone who did. If I have to not take that extra musician or scroll because of points there's no way in hell my opponent should be able to. I think it's the epitomy of disrespect to your opponent to play with a list that you know full well is a few points over.

some_scrub
11-05-2010, 22:24
I personally have never gone over the limit. I've never been in a position where I absolutely could not find a way to cut the last few points. You can never fit everything you want into a list, so what's the problem with getting rid of a musician, champion or other upgrade?

That said, I often let my opponents play with a few extra points if they ask. It's partly out of a desire not to be a jerk, but mainly I just want to get the game started, instead of waiting while they figure out what they want to cut.

brendel
11-05-2010, 22:58
Wow, hot topic.

It would all depend on who I played, if i knew they would get upset by going over a couple of points, I would not go over, but the people I play and my self included have up to a 5 point overdraw on or games, I would not call it cheating as we all have the option of doing this.

Personally im not worried about the points, i would perfer if you people play with what they had its very satisfying to bet a 3000pt army with a 2000pt one.

Imagine if King leonidas had said to Xerxes, " I'm afaid you have far more men than I do, mind dropping a few and play fair".

Adman
12-05-2010, 01:46
I guess this thread has more or less shown all of the possible opinions. Thanks guys I was just curious. For myself i tend to think along similar lines as willowdark and tarian and that's:

'I am happy to let an opponent to deviate from any rules in any way that helps them enjoy the game more. However I enjoy the challenge of playing within restrictions as a sort of test for myself and also a sign of respect for my opponent who is willing to spend potentially hours of their precious time pushing around toys with me. Therefore I am even happier when me and my opponent show each other an equal level of respect and have a great game.'

So yeah I wont go over but if for any reason having an extra point or two makes you a happier person then go ahead. If you've decided to drop something in order to stay under the limit then thankyou very much. If my opponent forgets the magic phase i'll remind him or if I forget then permit him to go back to it. However if I forget it I won't ask to be able to do it I'll just move on. That more or less summarises my attitude towards the game, take it or leave it:D

ChaosVC
12-05-2010, 02:28
Well...this should always be an agreement between two or more players involved. And if one of them dislike the idea, you can always chose to, a)hate him. b)shrug and redo your list. c) Use Jedi mind trick on him.

meneroth
12-05-2010, 02:35
maybe i am totally on crack but wasnt there a rule or maybe it was just a gentlemans agreement that you could go over your pts value by like .5% or something? maybe it was just 40k or maybe it was just the group i played with but thats how we did things. now granted in 40k where our battles were hardly over 1500 pts thats only 8 pts and that cant buy much it is different with fantasy and higher pt values.

Justicar_Freezer
12-05-2010, 04:48
In my gaming group we tend to aim for a certain points limit however we have a 25pt float system. Where either player or side can be up to 25pts over and no one really cares. So I guess technically we play the limit+1-25pts. We've found it never really affects the game in any major and noticeable way.

Though we've been gaming together for roughly 10 years now maybe alittle longer and anymore we tend to look at the rulebooks as guide lines on how to play the game instead of hard set rules of how we must play. Needless to say we don't go to tournys or the like.

In the end we tell each other if we've used any of the float points and if we have our opponent will add something if they want. It's a game and we're just trying to have fun. Some people's outlook on fun is different then others. For some a play by the rules follow the limits game is more fun and for others a more laid back game where a few points over and going back when you forget a phase is fun. In any case it's a game between two people and that means you need to communicate with one another. This is doubley true when playing someone you've never faced before. You should sit down before the game and discuss what each wants to get out of it. Come to an agreement and then, "Get your game on."

just my 2 cents though.

Blink
12-05-2010, 04:57
I'm okay with it when it's a single model or configuration that throws it over the amount. I feel that way because human bias tends to put things in increments of 50 or 100 when dealing with large numbers (hence we never see a 1338pt game), yet smaller point values are seldom that consistent. So I'm okay with turning a 1250 game into a 1253 game if my opponent wants.

minionboy
12-05-2010, 04:59
I've always played with very casual people, some of them the whole 15 years I've been playing, and we have never had a problem with this.

0 points over at most.

It's a point limit, not a point suggestion. Part of the challenge is to make a list that works within the limit.

Alathir
12-05-2010, 12:13
4 is the maximum allowed in our gaming group.

willowdark
12-05-2010, 12:59
Because you asked me to? :eyebrows: You asked why should I not drop points if you asked, I said I would.

My own original reply to you was because you suggested that those in defense of this thing were avoiding the question. I explained how most weren't doing that.

Neither you nor anyone else has to explain themselves for simply sticking to the rules, so I'm not challenging that. What I'm challenging is the notion that those who choose to let it go are somehow doing something wrong or "avoiding the question".

Tymell,

Again, there is a misunderstanding here. It is probably my fault for not being judicious enough in my use of the word 'you.' I wasn't referring to _you_ per se, but a hypothetical 'you,' the person who feels inclined to go over the limit.

We in this thread have, collectively, been acting like two parents arguing over how to treat a child. I have been playing the part of a stricter disciplinarian, positing that holding them to a standard will make them a better player. But somehow my comments have been misconstrued as an attack on the people who don't have a problem with going over. This is confusing because most people have ultimately maintained that they personally wouldn't go over the limit.

So saying that you wouldn't personally refuse to trim you list isn't avoiding the question, because you aren't personally refusing. But saying that you don't care if someone does doesn't answer my question either, because it doesn't address the issue of why someone _would_ refuse.

Notable examples of people who would refuse in this thread have been Belarion and Ozorick. Both have said that having neat units of 20 models in tidy ranks is all the justification they need for going over the limit. I disagree.

Specifically, I asked Belarion to post his list, and challenged him that I could find a way to trim his list that doesn't force him to take asymmetrical units, like a mount on his Vamp, or a command group on his Knights. If these things are important enough for him to insist on keeping them, then they clearly have an in-game significance. A musician or a magic standard is in fact a very powerful model.

This is what I meant with my example of the Rune of Immolation. If you want musicians on your Thunderers, or you've assumed that your infantry blocks would be symmetrical units of 20 with command, then those aren't the reason you're over. It's working in the Rune of Immolation, or the Rune of Fear or Speed (which are probably not the right names but I know those things exist) that caused you to go over the limit. It's the individual unit upgrades.

My point is that if you want to upgrade your units, or your characters with a barded steed or a Vampire bloodline Power, I should be able to expect you to sacrifice a musician or a rank bonus or some such to get it, which is why we have a points limit in the first place.

So, saying you would drop the points isn't really relevant to my point. My original opinion on the subject was that if someone told me they were over the limit, I'd appeal to their reason and ask them to trim their list.

jamesterjlrb
12-05-2010, 13:12
If someone's hurriedly putting together a list and we want to get going i have a general rule of 0.5% of total points value, i.e. 7 points at 1500, and 10 @2000, but at tourneys or printed lists where they've had time to make sure it adds up, no.

Heimagoblin
12-05-2010, 13:25
By this logic you should never play scenerious either. They are not in the rule book and can favour your opponents army over your own? Sound familiar?

I personally own a 2k mounted woc army where every unit is at the minimum size it can be and the only gear I take is stuff that is absolutley neccessary. Guess what it comes to 2001 points. When I ask to play I tell my opponent I want to play a 2001 point game. I have to explain why but never had a problem before. That is my solution to this problem.

willowdark
12-05-2010, 13:36
I'm not sure what scenarios have to do with it. I love scenarios, and play them often, including the ones where the attacker has less points then the defender, or vice versa. But a points limit is still easy to come in under, so I don't see why you get to claim some kind of moral superiority when you're the one who has gone over.

If your list is truly minimal, and there is nothing you can do trim the list without completely dropping a unit and reorganizing it, then sure. I'm easy. At gaming night or Sunday afternoon I'm not going to be pigheaded about it, but standards are good things.

If your list is all mounted chaos and everything is minimal, I'm sure you could drop a unit of Marauders Horsemen for 2 units of dogs. And I can't believe you don't have a few extras on your characters like shields, or a command group somewhere, or a mark on your Horsemen.

Post your list. I've been fabricating meat in the restaurant business for a long time, I'm sure I can find some fat to trim off.

Edit: My favorite scenario is "sheep herding." If you've never played it, you should look into it. If you charge the sheep with a chariot you smash them and they get removed as a casualty. Good stuff.

theunwantedbeing
12-05-2010, 13:40
No going over the limit.
Unless your a newbie with a new list to try, then we play whatever points value you can make(and I don't go over that limit).

I always bring paper, a pen & a calculator with me.
So if you havent got a list I can provide you with everything barring rules you need to create that list quickly and easily.

If your over, well you're just lazy and I'll tell you to make your list under.
If you still have trouble I'll ask what troops you have and will point out exactly where you can remove the minimum amount of stuff that will create the smallest effect on your list.

The points limit is a rule your supposed to stick to.
Your welcome to flaunt this rule provided you both agree, but when I game I will never agree to it (unless your a newbie in which case your the one setting the points limit and I'm the one having to stick to it).

Griefbringer
12-05-2010, 14:25
your just lazy

And once again, irony was thick in the air on Warseer...

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You%27re-and-Your

Llew
12-05-2010, 14:40
I hope people who don't let their opponents over are also exactly on the limit themselves (if you are <1999 I wouldn't let you use a lord!).

I don't recall precisely where, but I believe there's a reference to the points referring to the agreed upon points limit, not the specific points of the army. (It may be in the section on determining victory after a game.) I think it would be safe to imply that the character choices are based on the agreed-upon points limit, not the final points of an army.

Personally, I use the points limit as a test of my design skills and I make sure to be under it -- I consider it as a hard cap. I usually mock anyone who lacks the math skills to get under it, since it's really not difficult. However, if my opponent was so inept that he really, really needed that one little item or extra trooper he just couldn't give up, I'd happily let him play over the points limit if he wanted to cede 50 VP's per point over the limit.

Balerion
12-05-2010, 18:25
Notable examples of people who would refuse in this thread have been Belarion and Ozorick. Both have said that having neat units of 20 models in tidy ranks is all the justification they need for going over the limit. I disagree.

Specifically, I asked Belarion to post his list, and challenged him that I could find a way to trim his list that doesn't force him to take asymmetrical units, like a mount on his Vamp, or a command group on his Knights. If these things are important enough for him to insist on keeping them, then they clearly have an in-game significance. A musician or a magic standard is in fact a very powerful model.

If, in your mind, a player should typically have access to something they could call "my list", we probably view the hobby in a fundamentally different ways.

I don't have "a list" and never will. Instead I have 6000+ points of WE and 6000+ points of VC that I distill into different combinations each time I play a game.

Also, you're either ignoring or have misunderstood my comment about asymmetrical units vs. upgrades. I will repost the key portion, and then briefly address it again.


What you're not considering is that oftentimes the cheapest upgrade would not be the one that would be dropped in order to get under the points limit.

For example, if I had to choose between dropping a musician and getting to 2000 points, or dropping a Skeleton and getting to 1996 points, I would tend to drop the Skeleton. It may be the more costly purchase, but a single Skellie is less valuable than a musician in the scheme of things.

But dropping the Skellie may leave me with a unit of 19, compared to all my others which have 20. It has little in-game effect either way, but some people like to have things "just so" and field evenly sized units.
So, obviously, I agree that a Musician or a Standard Bearer is a very important model, and so I acknowledged that if I was forced to play under a hard points cap with a list that was 4 points over I would remove an extra model, and not the upgrade.

So it doesn't matter if you could show me how to remove something while retaining symmetry, because symmetry is the least of my concerns. Only after everything is satisfactorily upgraded does symmetry come into the picture, and then only when the points overflow would be minor and inconsequential (eg. no one would try to add a free Blood Knight to a 2000 point list to keep his unit the desired size).

Also, the specific unit sizes in all my examples are irrelevent. I could just as easily be trying to field two squads of 13 Skeletons as two squads of 20 Skeletons.

I can try to dig up an old list to illustrate the situation, but may not be successful due to the fact that most of the time my lists come in at or under the limit

vinush
12-05-2010, 20:37
We usually allow 5 points as an absolute maximum but you have to inform your opponent. If you had a 5 point magic item then we would expect you to drop it to be within the limit, or drop a shield or weapon option on a character to reduce the point total wherever possible.

as a rule however I tend to try and stick to the points as far as possible, however with some armies I have to (My VC army, as it's really hard to keep to 1k or less).

THE \/ince

AFnord
13-05-2010, 00:46
Again, if I ask you to drop the shields from your RxB's, or the musician from you Warriors, or the shield off your Lord, why should you refuse?
I might lack the correct models to do so. I would rather play with the correct models, where it is clearly visible what everything has than drop that 3 point item. I find that the visual part often has a far greater impact on the game than a single model. It is far too easy to in the heat of battle forget what proxied models have.


It's right there with players who forget the magic phase and say, "oh wait, can we go back?"
I let people do this, even in WAAC tournaments (I've been in a few in my days, and I have yet to face anyone who does not allow people to go back and fix something that they forgot).

Master Jeridian
13-05-2010, 01:14
I may have waded into this thread last time it came up- and just as then it is a surprisingly hot topic.

It still staggers me how many justify knowingly going over a pts limit you agreed in good faith with your opponent.

First, going over the pts limit accidentally and realising after is fine. This being that the actual pts spent very rarely are massively game changing- as the pro-fudge players say pts limits aren't perfect, GW wargames are far from balanced.

But for me, it is the 'principle' of knowingly spitting on the agreed pts limit between players, and how incredibly easy it is not to do so.
It is so, so easy to drop a tiny bit of wargear or model to get under the pts limit again- but your opponent isn't worth that little bit of respect to come in at the agreed pts limit.

It's that 'laziness' as others put it, that means I never go over pts limits (requires so little effort to respect the pts agreement my opponent is abiding by) and don't expect my opponent to either.

I have to echo Willowdark's question- what legitimate reason can you have for going over the pts limits?
-Bad maths: Use calculators, get friends to check it, etc.
-1-2pts don't matter: So go 1-2pts under the limit by dropping something, funny how when things are 'for fun' and 'too trivial to matter' they stack in your favour.
-Symmetry, I want my army 'just so': This is the best answer given, and it's still pretty poor IMO, I want my army to field 50 Dragons, but we've agreed to a pts limit with official GW army book armies, sacrifices must be made.

Can anyone give a better reason for going over pts limits when you've agreed them with your opponent?


I have to add that this seems like one of those 'internet urban legends' in that I've never knowingly witnessed it, hopefully because my opponents can do maths, but perhaps also because it's very rare to inspect opponents army lists in finite detail.

willowdark
13-05-2010, 01:25
I let people do this, even in WAAC tournaments (I've been in a few in my days, and I have yet to face anyone who does not allow people to go back and fix something that they forgot).

Try it some time. It has a little to do with being competitive, but nothing at all to do with being WAACy. Have a gentleman's agreement among your regular gaming group to hold each other to a higher standard of gaming. Agree not to blithely forgive each other for fudging the rules, in good humour, and watch the quality of your games steadily increase. I bet you'll appreciate the new level of excitement that comes about and you won't want to go back.

yabbadabba
13-05-2010, 07:28
Well I have enjoyed being insulted by my lack of standards, mathematical ability, lack of manners, lack of respect and laziness. Apparently I play an inferior version of the games. Who would have though that a 0.1% variance could cause such a disruption in the rules mechanic and synergy of a game as to render it impossible for your opponent to play, let alone win.

This is about choice. There is no moral high ground or superiority. Sticking to the limits doesn't make you a better gamer and says nothing about you as an individual except in the most extreme cases. Nobody has proved that 1 or more points has made a significant, traceable difference to their game. Nobody has proved that taking 1 more point breaks the rules mechanic, unbalances the scenario or destroys the synergy of the game. No one has proved that it actually stops the game being able to function.

For me Willowdark you lose your position, and the argument, not through lack of fact or proof or through a slavish and blinkered dedication to the rules, but because you try and claim through inference a moral and technical superiority that doesn't exist. You try and show that you are a superior gamer and person by suggesting that those who do not follow your point of view are not. Not only is that wrong, but it is also insulting, ignorant and patronising. I am sure you as a person are not like that at all, but that is how you are coming across is your point of view, and that is why you are not right.

As much as I would respect a gamer's decision to stick to a limit and play that game, I would expect a return match at some point where they respected mine or there should be no game. This hobby is open ended and the creators of this aspect of it have always emphasised that, although in my opinion they could do it substantially more. To deny that is to deny part of the ethos of this hobby. To claim that ignorance places a person in a moral or technical superiority is wrong.

Mart007
13-05-2010, 07:29
The points Master Jeridian and Willowdark are spot on in my book. I would say

I have been a "friendly (I think that means rule fudger ;) ?)" gamer for ten years and only started tournies last year... I have to say Willow dark is right - its completely enhanced my gaming experience at home as well and I really think about army lists now instead of just buying a load of models...

Tymell
13-05-2010, 07:40
But somehow my comments have been misconstrued as an attack on the people who don't have a problem with going over. This is confusing because most people have ultimately maintained that they personally wouldn't go over the limit.

But saying that you don't care if someone does doesn't answer my question either, because it doesn't address the issue of why someone _would_ refuse.

If someone flat out refuses to alter their list, that's a different matter, I agree that's cheeky. But the point is I'd never come across that scenario (within this framework of a couple of points difference) because I wouldn't challenge it. But I've also said that everyone has the right to insist on a strictly within-limits game.

So, maybe we are arguing over nothing after all :p if I was ever over (say through some error on my part) I would quite happily trim it down, and I think anyone should be prepared to. But at the same time, I have no problem if someone I face is a couple of points over.

The only thing I'm opposed to in any of this thread is the suggestion that those allowing a few points difference are doing something wrong (which I'm not saying is one you've made).

Deathjester
13-05-2010, 11:35
Ok here is a prime example of why i don't like people going over points:

This is an army i WOULD like to have used:

Karios - 625

Blue Scribes - 81

Masque - 90

Herald of Khorne - 190
Juggy
Armour of K
Firestorm Blade

3 x Horrors - 360

5 Furies - 60

5 Flesh Hounds - 175

6 Flamers - 210

6 Flamers - 210

2001pts

There is a distinct reason that this army SHOULDN'T be allowed that extra point and it's really quite easy to fix:

drop 1 flamer & HoK, and take Skulltaker on a Juggy and 2 Horrors and you're at 2000pts on the money.

Thinking about it this question becomes more interesting as soon as you start looking at percentages, would you allow your opponant to have 505pts of Characters in 2000pts game? would you let them have 499pts of core in the same game? how about 1002pts of special? or 505pts of rare?

If you say i can take 505pts of Characters that means i can take Thorek Ironbrow in 2000pts which i wouldn't normally be able to do.

And with only 500pts of characters missing a 2point shield, to get inside the points value can be the difference between a really hard to kill lord (1+ save with re-roll & regen or 3+ save with re-roll & regen) which is really huge thing in a game of warhammer

It's the same with a whole armylist, however the points can be shaved in other places, not just on characters... If it does go to percentages these little differences here and there on an army list can make a massive impact on the game.

But i think that the best option is to stick within the points limit, that way you'll always have someone to play rather than asking someone for a game who then says "No i'm not playing until your list is legal".

Let's be honest here; there is only person that you're truely affecting by going over the points, yourself. You're damaging your options to get games, and you could )if you don't tell your opponent and it comes out later) damage your credibility as an honest player.

yabbadabba
13-05-2010, 12:22
Thinking about it this question becomes more interesting as soon as you start looking at percentages, would you allow your opponant to have 505pts of Characters in 2000pts game? would you let them have 499pts of core in the same game? how about 1002pts of special? or 505pts of rare? If you say i can take 505pts of Characters that means i can take Thorek Ironbrow in 2000pts which i wouldn't normally be able to do. Why not - as long as it is discussed before hand. There has already been people who have said they will ignore the percentages.


But i think that the best option is to stick within the points limit, that way you'll always have someone to play rather than asking someone for a game who then says "No i'm not playing until your list is legal". No, that maybe the best option for you, for a pick up game or a tournament etc, but it might not be the best choice for everyone. That you choose to endorse and enforce the points limit is up to you.


Let's be honest here; there is only person that you're truely affecting by going over the points, yourself. You're damaging your options to get games, and you could )if you don't tell your opponent and it comes out later) damage your credibility as an honest player. See, here comes the same attitude as willowdark - implying that someone is a cheat and somehow letting themselves down - rubbish and not part of the discussion. Lets leave the morals and amateur psychology out of this shall we? And as for "damaging your options to get games" again an unnecessary scare tactic.

Nothing wrong with your first paragraph here as long as your opponent is aware and they have time to adjust.

Deathjester
13-05-2010, 12:53
Why not - as long as it is discussed before hand. There has already been people who have said they will ignore the percentages.


That's fair enough, assuming it has been discussed before hand. And your choice within your gaming group, however it's not something i'd take to play an unknown opponent.



No, that maybe the best option for you, for a pick up game or a tournament etc, but it might not be the best choice for everyone. That you choose to endorse and enforce the points limit is up to you.

But if you're discussing in advance you're renegotiating the terms of the game, which i have no problem with.

What i am talking about is going to tournaments, or going to GW or a gaming club with an army for a pickup game, which is how i play 90-97% of my games.



See, here comes the same attitude as willowdark - implying that someone is a cheat and somehow letting themselves down - rubbish and not part of the discussion. Lets leave the morals and amateur psychology out of this shall we? And as for "damaging your options to get games" again an unnecessary scare tactic.


But if your army list is over the agreed points limit you ARE cheating, it doesn't matter how much by it's still cheating, especially if you're hiding that fact from your opponent. And I personally WOULD feel that i was letting myself down, the ability to make an army which works, and is within the prescibed points limit is one of the premier skills of any general.

Moral grounds & psychology are perfectly valid arguements against cheating and foul play of any form.

Moving on the 2nd part of your arguement: Assuming you turned up to my local gaming club, and everyone was there playing games and you're standing watching and i turn up with an army, you ask me for a game, and i agree, you tell me you're a few points over, i'd either decline your offer, or ask you to adjust your army list so it was within the points. Thereby reducing your chances of actually getting a game at all. If after the game you told me you were a few points over i would feel that you cheated and probably never play you again.



Nothing wrong with your first paragraph here as long as your opponent is aware and they have time to adjust.

There is a lot wrong with that armylist, the most important being that it's incredibly easy to make it less than or equal to 2000pts by fiddling the model count slightly, there is NO reason to leave it as is. I can't even argue that it's fluffy or what ever as everything is not at it's chaotic size, had i been playing with 9 flamers in each of those units then i could have argued it on fluff grounds (so long as everything else fit). but then messing with some magic items and the numbers of furies would have worked just as well....



The biggest issue i have with this arguement as a whole is that the 2 sides are coming at it from very different angles but also with very different perceptions of what type of game is being played:

So here's a quick breakdown of my views on this as a whole:

Casual: (Definition: organizing a game with friends a few days / weeks in advance including replaying historic battles, or different scenarios) Rediscussion of the points value being played (including being a coulpe of points over)

Totally acceptable

Pickup and Play: (Definition: Turning up to a club/store to play an unknown opponent) If we're playing a points value then that is the maximum that i would expect you to be playing

Unacceptable, and if discovered after the game i would be very upset

Tournament: (Definition: Turning up to an organized play event where army lists are required by the organizers) Almost all tournaments i know of state that you must have an army list of the prescribed number of points or less

Totally Unacceptable, I'd expect tournament points to be lost, and you to have something removed from your armylist to make it legal again before the next game

I have defined this as Yabbadabba and others are coming at this topic from a purely Casual perspective.

yabbadabba
13-05-2010, 13:47
What i am talking about is going to tournaments, or going to GW or a gaming club with an army for a pickup game, which is how i play 90-97% of my games. First, I have played games in a GW with over the limit :eek:. Second this is kind of an empty argument as everyone has agreed it would be bad manners or against the terms and conditons of a venue to turn up and play outside of the rules. Everyone agrees with this. What was a simple look at who would and wouldn't agree to being slightly over the limit has degenerated into a question of morals, standards and unwarranted personal criticism. To whit:


But if your army list is over the agreed points limit you ARE cheating, it doesn't matter how much by it's still cheating, especially if you're hiding that fact from your opponent. Its only cheating if you have hidden it from your opponent If your opponent agrees, there is no issue - hence no moral stance needed, and no need to implicate that someone going over the limits is a cheat. They are not.

And I personally WOULD feel that i was letting myself down, the ability to make an army which works, and is within the prescibed points limit is one of the premier skills of any general. That is your personal approach and standards to your gaming and has no right to be imposed on others.

Moral grounds & psychology are perfectly valid arguements against cheating and foul play of any form. Against cheats yes, but what you haven't proved is that if nobody is talking about cheating, why does it have any place in this discussion?
Nobody has condoned cheating. Hence no moral superiority needs to be claimed or implied - or technical superiority. I can claim that only generals totally at ease with their skills, abilities and army lists have the courage and ability to take on armies above the points limits - easy to say, but ultimately baseless as is the counter argument.


Moving on the 2nd part of your arguement: Assuming you turned up to my local gaming club, and everyone was there playing games and you're standing watching and i turn up with an army, you ask me for a game, and i agree, you tell me you're a few points over, i'd either decline your offer, or ask you to adjust your army list so it was within the points. Thereby reducing your chances of actually getting a game at all. If after the game you told me you were a few points over i would feel that you cheated and probably never play you again. Again, pointless as this is not what is being discussed. Nobody condones cheating. Would you accept playing an army over the points limit? No. Does that make you in anyway superior to me? Absolutley not. Does that mean I have a decision to make if I want a game with you? Yes and the hobby is full of those decisions.


There is a lot wrong with that armylist, the most important being that it's incredibly easy to make it less than or equal to 2000pts by fiddling the model count slightly, there is NO reason to leave it as is. I can't even argue that it's fluffy or what ever as everything is not at it's chaotic size, had i been playing with 9 flamers in each of those units then i could have argued it on fluff grounds (so long as everything else fit). but then messing with some magic items and the numbers of furies would have worked just as well... Again, there is nothing wrong with that army list if your opponent is aware of your intentions beforehand.

This where I am coming from. Playing the game how you want is at the core of this hobby. Wanting and insisting sticking to limits is not a problem. Claiming that somehow that makes someone a better person, morally or technically, is utter tripe. So lets drop the talk of "standards", "laziness" and "cheating" and get back to who does let point limits slide and who doesn't.

the Nurge
13-05-2010, 14:06
I never take any extra points. I think if you are 2 points over, you should do some juggling to end up under the limit. IMO its better to be 4 points under, than 1 over.

However, I play O&G mostly, so its easy to get really close to the point limit w/ 3pt troops. :p

Deathjester
13-05-2010, 14:28
First, I have played games in a GW with over the limit :eek:. Second this is kind of an empty argument as everyone has agreed it would be bad manners or against the terms and conditons of a venue to turn up and play outside of the rules. Everyone agrees with this. What was a simple look at who would and wouldn't agree to being slightly over the limit has degenerated into a question of morals, standards and unwarranted personal criticism. To whit:


What it has turned into is a misinterpration of the arguement from different sides, i'm trying to approch this from all sides (see my definitions at the end of my last post).

So pretty much this is a none arguement as we're both saying the same thing?



Its only cheating if you have hidden it from your opponent If your opponent agrees, there is no issue - hence no moral stance needed, and no need to implicate that someone going over the limits is a cheat. They are not.
That is your personal approach and standards to your gaming and has no right to be imposed on others.
Against cheats yes, but what you haven't proved is that if nobody is talking about cheating, why does it have any place in this discussion?
Nobody has condoned cheating. Hence no moral superiority needs to be claimed or implied - or technical superiority. I can claim that only generals totally at ease with their skills, abilities and army lists have the courage and ability to take on armies above the points limits - easy to say, but ultimately baseless as is the counter argument.


You totally ignored the last few paragraphs of my arguement which define the whole point of what i was trying to say to reitterate:



So here's a quick breakdown of my views on this as a whole:

Casual: (Definition: organizing a game with friends a few days / weeks in advance including replaying historic battles, or different scenarios) Rediscussion of the points value being played (including being a coulpe of points over)

Totally acceptable


Man i hate quoting myself :(



Again, pointless as this is not what is being discussed. Nobody condones cheating. Would you accept playing an army over the points limit? No.
See quote above:
Does that make you in anyway superior to me? Absolutley not. Does that mean I have a decision to make if I want a game with you? Yes and the hobby is full of those decisions.

Again, there is nothing wrong with that army list if your opponent is aware of your intentions beforehand.


The only time there is something wrong with that army list is in either a pickup and play or tournament enviroment or if your opponent doesn't agree to it (as i previously stated).

yabbadabba
13-05-2010, 14:46
What it has turned into is a misinterpration of the arguement from different sides, i'm trying to approch this from all sides (see my definitions at the end of my last post). No its not. If you read Willowdark's comments and others, and the post of yours I responded to there is quite clearly an attempt, deliberate or unintended, to imply that letting a few points slip is something wrong, and therefore the person doing it is in someway inferior.


So pretty much this is a none arguement as we're both saying the same thing? Now, between you and I, yes.


You totally ignored the last few paragraphs of my arguement which define the whole point of what i was trying to say to reitterate:

No I didn't. I just didn't feel the need to address them rather address your previous comments.


Man i hate quoting myself :( Then don't :rolleyes:

Tymell
13-05-2010, 15:34
Here's a point I really thing should be considered:

When talking about cheating/rule-breaking, the important thing to bear in mind is what is the actual motivation behind the rule being broken?

Now, I think we can all agree on why we have points limits: because without them the games would be unbalanced, and thus for a lot of people not very fun.

So, if we take that as the core reason behind the rule, we then have to ask ourselves, "Is 1 or 2 points over the limit going against this core reasoning? Does it unbalance the game?" And the answer is no.

This is why some like myself and (I presume) yabbadabba don't have any problem with it, because even if it goes against the letter of the rule, a couple of points doesn't go agains the spirit of the rule, and that's the important thing.

Again, I stress this very important point that I've emphasised in most of my posts: I am not having a go at those who choose to stick to the limit. There is nothing wrong in that whatsoever, and I'm in no way trying to criticise or condemn it. I also completely agree that it's best to agree on it beforehand as a matter of courtesy. Only to explain why some like myself don't play that way.

maze ironheart
13-05-2010, 15:46
I don't do it but if my opponent dose it and tells me it's ok as long as it's not over by 10pt's cause theirs magic items that could be dropped to make the list fair

willowdark
13-05-2010, 15:48
For me Willowdark you lose your position, and the argument, not through lack of fact or proof or through a slavish and blinkered dedication to the rules, but because you try and claim through inference a moral and technical superiority that doesn't exist. You try and show that you are a superior gamer and person by suggesting that those who do not follow your point of view are not. Not only is that wrong, but it is also insulting, ignorant and patronising. I am sure you as a person are not like that at all, but that is how you are coming across is your point of view, and that is why you are not right.


Yabbadabba, you fail completely.

I have never once claimed a moral or technical superiority. What I have done is testify that my personal _gaming experience_ has been enriched and rewarded by my personal commitment, and the commitment of my fellow gamers, to not gloss over the rules or backtrack during the game. Because I hold myself accountable, and am held accountable by my fellow gamers, the game has taken on an inherent standard of challenge.

Somewhere, deep down in side, each of us plays a game because it is challenging. No matter how dormant that perception is in you, or how much you've watered down the experience, something inside you understands that a challenge is fun. So for me, being accountable to myself for my mistakes has made the game more challenging, and therefore more fun. That is what I mean by standards. It is not, in any way, an attempt to tear you down in order to gratify my own ego.

The irony here is that I have been repeatedly characterized as being abhorrent to the people who have disagreed with me. You and Belarion in particular have attempted to tear me down as gamey, and that thankfully for you you don't see the game the same way I do, even though I've said that "At game night or Sunday afternoon I'm not going to be pigheaded about it."

In your comments, directed towards me personally, you've vomited bile in your characterizations of my opinions, and you have the nerve to talk about how I have insulted you.

Master Jeridian
13-05-2010, 15:49
If both people agree to fudge pts limits, of course there's no problem.

If both people agree to stick to the pts limits, of course there's no problem.

If one player wants to stick to the pts limit, and one wants to fudge it- who has priority?

I think that is where the heated debate arises.

On the one hand the 'strict' player has agreed with his opponent to bring an army of no more than X pts and expects to face the same.
On the other the 'fudge' player takes it upon himself to decide the 'real value' of his army since pts limits are imperfect.

My point though, is that there has not been in this thread any reasonable reason to go over points that cannot be fixed with "Err, drop that shield/grot/drum set, mate".

If pts are imperfect, then they are equally imperfect if you have a 1995pts army at 2k limit, rather than 2005pts. Why is this apparently unimportant fudge boundary always stacked in your favour?

I just can't see the logic? If you don't care about the pts all that much, then you won't care if I suggest you play with slightly less to come in under pts?

What I find confusing is that this rule is crystal clear, it's not like it can be vaguely misinterpreted.
Flipping through my Dwarf book, Choosing An Army.

"Both players choose armies to the same agreed points value...
..Whatever value you agree, this is the maximum number of points you can spend on your army. You can spend less and will probably find it impossible to use up every last point..."

It is a crystal clear rule, and unless both you and your opponent agree- it is in fact cheating to break this rule.

It's the principle of cheating that bugs me, rather than it being a very powerful cheat. It says that I, as your opponent, am not worth the tiny bit of effort to stick to the pts limit we agreed to.

willowdark
13-05-2010, 15:52
No its not. If you read Willowdark's comments and others, and the post of yours I responded to there is quite clearly an attempt, deliberate or unintended, to imply that letting a few points slip is something wrong, and therefore the person doing it is in someway inferior.


No. I said that the gaming experience by those standards, that I do often participate in because there is an extended family of gamers in my area that weren't part of the "gentleman's agreement," is inferior. Not the person themselves, or myself superior by comparison.

That is the straw man that you've made of my argument. It is not supported by my actual comments.

AFnord
13-05-2010, 16:04
Try it some time. It has a little to do with being competitive, but nothing at all to do with being WAACy. Have a gentleman's agreement among your regular gaming group to hold each other to a higher standard of gaming. Agree not to blithely forgive each other for fudging the rules, in good humour, and watch the quality of your games steadily increase. I bet you'll appreciate the new level of excitement that comes about and you won't want to go back.

To be perfectly frank, I would think that someone who would not let me go back and move that single unit, even if I've fired my first spell, would be a bit of a jerk. Because of this, I won't do it to someone else. If I win the game, I want it to be because my tactics & list was superior, not because my opponent has poor memory.
This should all be within reasonable levels though. If that spell managed to break/kill a unit, which suddenly made it entire safe for another unit to move forward, then it would of course not be ok for a person to say that he/she forgot to move a unit, and then move it into this once exposed position.


It is a crystal clear rule, and unless both you and your opponent agree- it is in fact cheating to break this rule.
It is a crystal clear rule... one that GW often breaks in battle reports (not that battle reports are known for their rule accuracy though ;) ). Yes, the rule as it is written says something, but then again, it is all up to each individual group how strict they want to be with this. Neither way is right or wrong. Wish for symmetry, lack of proper models for any decent fix (one point over or 10 points under. I would rather face the 1 point over list), laziness, all of these are viable reasons to break the rule, and as long as neither player mind, then there is no problem.

Meriwether
13-05-2010, 16:09
All people who disagree with me eat children.

-----------------

In my gaming group -- and every gaming group I have been a part of, points limits are considered a "hard limit".

That said, if two people want to fudge it a bit when putting together a game, and they're both fine with it, who the heck are we to gainsay them?

The_Bureaucrat
13-05-2010, 16:24
That said, if two people want to fudge it a bit when putting together a game, and they're both fine with it, who the heck are we to gainsay them?

Meriwether, this is not 'Nam. This is Warhammer. There are rules. ;).

But in all seriousness telling an opponent before hand that you are over is basically the same as saying "hey you want want to play 2001 point game instead?". It's altering the agreed amount of points. If its a tournament that I can see people having a problem as they don't have the authority to do that.

And I can see holding yourself to higher standards could lead to a better quality game (I wouldn't think so personally). Holding others to a higher standard about the most pedantic **** seems to me like absolute torture. And I have way too little free time to waste it torturing myself.

yabbadabba
13-05-2010, 16:24
In your comments, directed towards me personally, you've vomited bile in your characterizations of my opinions, and you have the nerve to talk about how I have insulted you.
Really?

I am sure you as a person are not like that at all, but that is how you are coming across is your point of view, and that is why you are not right. I think this explains it enough.

So, to everyone else, I remain true by my opinion. I haven't seen anything yet that proves to me why keeping to the points limit is universally necessary outside of personal choice or the requirement of a venue/event. Experience has shown me that even in unplanned pick up games its not that important. Generally I can't see anyone turning down a game because they are unwilling to shave a couple of points off, but I am disappointed that so many are unwilling to bend the other way.

Sign of age I suppose :cries:

willowdark
13-05-2010, 16:47
Yabba,

You quoted one sentence in defense of yourself. However, you've inferred from my comments that I meant to imply that I viewed myself as superior, and I inferred from your comments that you held my point of view in contempt. If you'd like me to delineate the quotes from where I got that impression, I'm sure I could.

Either way, because we are debating, we're both guilty on some level of pushing the other down in order to raise ourselves up. So perhaps we can have a gentleman's agreement right now?

Can we agree that from this point on we won't try to prove ourselves right by proving the other wrong? For my own part, I was only echoing the OP, and since I don't see that anyone in this thread would refuse a game based on either position, perhaps we can just put the whole thing to bed.

jayzerus
13-05-2010, 16:48
My opinion on the subject is this:

First, if you are going to go over the points limit, fine. But you need to tell me before the game, because I'm not going to. The argument for that: you're over by 5 points? That could be an extra bowman for me. Or man at arms. Not a big deal, not as much as the great weapon you just decided to put on your Lord last minute that put you over by 5 points, but you never know.

Second, I don't go over the points limit (unless first part above happens). I don't see it as a rules-lawyerish situation, or a moral situation. I see it as a respect problem. I respect both my opponent and the game enough that I am going make an army that fits in the point level we decided on. If someone shows up 5 points over, I feel like they didn't care enough to spend any time building an army list.

My opinion - take it for what its worth.

Llew
13-05-2010, 17:03
Usually, a willingness to abide by an agreement that you made is a sign of age, or at least maturity to be more accurate. It's a simple thing. Renegotiation of terms is usually a sign of immaturity: it's a perspective that says, "I know what I agreed to, but now I want to change it."

For those in favor of exceeding the points limit, would you do that at a till? Would you let a customer come up with an item that cost $19.00, hand you a $20 and then turn to you and say, "Hey...can I have $1.05 back? It's just a nickel. It's really not a big deal."

Admittedly -- a point here or there, or even 20 points is not likely to turn the game. However, I can usually tell a lot about how hard a person is going to try to bend other rules by how they approach this very first agreement about the game. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a player agreeing to allow someone to exceed the points that have already been agreed to. There's also nothing wrong with them being strict on enforcing it. There is something wrong, a sense of entitlement perhaps, when a player just expects his opponent to concede the change in game terms and thinks that same opponent is being unreasonable when he refuses.

A points limit is, by the nature of the language, intended as a hard cap. I'm unclear as to why this is confusing or even a matter of debate.

I have never seen any argument that justifies why someone cannot reach the agreed-upon points limit. "Because I want to do x..." is not a justification, but merely an explanation of why you want to renegotiate the terms.

I'll happily go on the record stating that anyone who can't meet the points cap is displaying a level of immaturity. This is because they cannot choose to limit what they wish to do by what they agreed to do. It does not make them evil. It does not mean they are an immoral person. However, it is a fundamental problem of character.

zak
13-05-2010, 17:15
What he said, but the last poster said it far better than I could.

AFnord
13-05-2010, 17:26
For those in favor of exceeding the points limit, would you do that at a till? Would you let a customer come up with an item that cost $19.00, hand you a $20 and then turn to you and say, "Hey...can I have $1.05 back? It's just a nickel. It's really not a big deal."

See:


And to continue your money example, if a friend of mine notices that he is 1€ short when we are supposed to split the cost of something that costs, lets say 15€, then i'll of course say that I don't really care about a single €, and pay slightly more than my share, it evens out in the long run anyway. If the person working in the store suddenly wants 1€ extra, i'll say that I won't pay the extra 1€ over the listed price. That is the difference between a friendly game and a tournament.


Usually, a willingness to abide by an agreement that you made is a sign of age, or at least maturity to be more accurate. It's a simple thing. Renegotiation of terms is usually a sign of immaturity: it's a perspective that says, "I know what I agreed to, but now I want to change it."
I'll happily go on the record stating that anyone who can't meet the points cap is displaying a level of immaturity. This is because they cannot choose to limit what they wish to do by what they agreed to do. It does not make them evil. It does not mean they are an immoral person. However, it is a fundamental problem of character.
Way to put everyone who does not agree with you down. "You don't think the same way that I think, and because of this you are wrong".

Good arguments have been made from both sides (and also some arguments that are borderline personal attacks...), but at the end of the day, what is important is what will bring the players playing the game the greatest amount of enjoyment. If some want the point limit to be very strict, then those people should be allowed to think so, and those who don't mind if it is 2000 points +/- 3 points should be allowed to think so as well, neither side is correct.

Most of the cases where I go over the point limit is when I write lists in a rush. The game is about to start in 5min, and I have to write a list for it. As a person who often run minimum sized units (wood elves), it is hard to simply drop those two points, without doing something radical changes to my list, so for the sake of getting the game going, instead of fiddling with my list, I sometimes go over by a point or two. I ALWAYS inform my opponent about this, and I have never had one who says that it is not ok. Some have said that they will add an extra goblin or something, which I of course agree is fare.

willowdark
13-05-2010, 17:32
That is one of the semi-cultural differences that makes it difficult for me to understand the other side. I never make a list in a rush, 5 min before the game starts. I read the book in my spare time, ponder the synergies and the combination, the metagame, and have my list prepared before ever packing my stuff up and going out the door.

When I walk into the LGS I usually can say, "I have a few lists with me, a 1999, a 2250 or a 3k, and I could do 1500 as well if you wanted to." Sure, sometimes I run into new players with limited model collections and have to come up with, say, 1250. But that is rare. Generally, if the opponent is someone I see regularly there is never a need for an on the spot brainstorming session.

This is why I'm struggling with this. I'm skeptical that people are actually playing the game this way. I'm sure everyone else is reading the book in their spare time and doing all the same things I'm doing, learning the rules. I find it hard to believe that you came completely unprepared for the game and have to write every list from scratch on the spot.

The_Bureaucrat
13-05-2010, 17:38
@Llew this isn't a business transaction this is a game and even than your analogy still fails.
It would be more like someone bartering before the (game/transaction) takes place.



However, it is a fundamental problem of character.

Really? It's possibly a fundamental lack of characters or mintatures:). Maybe a funadmental lack of time or dedication to the hobby. Maybe they don't spend the same time making their lists as you do but this is probably because its a game and on the totem pole of priorities its near the bottom.

Like it or not renegotiating is a fundamental part of life. I do it almost every day at work and whenever I switch houses, take out a loan or talk to my cell phone company. I imagine so do/will you.

AFnord
13-05-2010, 17:38
I usually bring one or two lists with me, and these are always at or bellow the agreed/common point level, but it is not uncommon for me to have to make lists at other point levels, because someone want to try something, someone does not have a large army, or simply because we don't have enough time for another game at say 2250 points. And sometimes i'm prepared for one game, but someone asks me to play another. Also, unless I prepare for a tournament, I prefer to try new things with my lists, and I usually don't use the same lists more than once or twice.

Llew
13-05-2010, 17:39
See:
Way to put everyone who does not agree with you down. "You don't think the same way that I think, and because of this you are wrong".

I'm not saying that at all. I am, however, saying that one of the tests you can apply to someone about their level of maturity is their willingness to abide by their agreements. It's a definition. Sort of like, "If someone applies paint to his toy soldiers, he is a miniature painter." It's not actually a matter of debate.

If you know you habitually can't make a 2000 point list, then ask to set the limit at 2050 when you an your opponent sit down to make up your armies. Or 2100. Or 2017. Or 2538. It really doesn't matter. But once you agree, just sit down and do it and stay under the cap.

There is no reason to not be able to stay under a points cap, period.

I think I've just struck upon my new tactic for over-pointers. If they wish to renegotiate, so do I. "You couldn't make 2000 points? No problem. Let's aim for 1900 point armies and redo the lists." <a bit later> "1903, eh? Well, why don't we make up 2700 point armies and really go for it instead?"

Why is it so difficult for people to grok the concept of "do what you agree to"?

Llew
13-05-2010, 17:49
@Llew this isn't a business transaction this is a game and even than your analogy still fails.
It would be more like someone bartering before the (game/transaction) takes place.

Not really. The first negotiation concluded the moment both players agreed upon the points cap. That's the point when you ring the register and hand over the cash. Asking for the extra is after the sale has already concluded.

And any transaction between two people is based upon agreement, whether business or a game or romantic. Many of these are implicit, but they are still there. For example, my wife and I have an agreement that I won't date other people and neither will she. We've never said that explicitly, but it's an agreement that is there. She would probably be a bit upset if I tried to renegotiate that.

Now, in a game, there's nothing wrong with someone saying, "Hey...let's play a 2000 game, but allow up to 10 points of slop." Really, they're just negotiating a 2010 point game, but in different language. And if they show up with an army worth 2012, what would you conclude from that?


Really? It's possibly a fundamental lack of characters or mintatures:). Maybe a funadmental lack of time or dedication to the hobby. Maybe they don't spend the same time making their lists as you do but this is probably because its a game and on the totem pole of priorities its near the bottom.

It's not a matter of time. I guarantee you that, if my opponent has a list that is over the limit, I can come up with 1 simple change that will bring him back under the limit and not take more than 1 minute to do it.


Like it or not renegotiating is a fundamental part of life. I do it almost every day at work and whenever I switch houses, take out a loan or talk to my cell phone company. I imagine so do/will you.

I'm fully aware of this and accept it. But once the agreement is made, negotiation stops. Now, part of any service contract is the implicit understanding that, "Once we complete the terms of this agreement, I can change it." Pre-payment penalties and that sort of thing are commonly included in business agreements to discourage or penalize renegotiation.

Renegotiation is a popular thing (just look at pro sports) but it is fundamentally rooted in the belief that you shouldn't have to abide by an agreement you have already made. I contend that the act of going back on an agreement you have made is a sign of immaturity.

At some point, every single person on this planet will exhibit immaturity about something. They will have a reason for doing so. This does not mean they are not being immature.

Tymell
13-05-2010, 17:56
For those in favor of exceeding the points limit, would you do that at a till? Would you let a customer come up with an item that cost $19.00, hand you a $20 and then turn to you and say, "Hey...can I have $1.05 back? It's just a nickel. It's really not a big deal."

Money tends to be taken a bit more seriously, and that particular setting is quite a formal one too. A better comparison might be:

Your friend asks you to pick something up at the shop while you're down there, saying he'll give you the money when you come back. It costs £10.01. You come back, he asks how much it is. I'm sure many would just say "ten pounds" and leave it at that. You're perfectly entitled to ask for the penny, there's nothing wrong in that, and it would be bad form on the part of the friend to not at least offer the penny if aware of the price in advance.


There's absolutely nothing wrong with a player agreeing to allow someone to exceed the points that have already been agreed to. There's also nothing wrong with them being strict on enforcing it. There is something wrong, a sense of entitlement perhaps, when a player just expects his opponent to concede the change in game terms and thinks that same opponent is being unreasonable when he refuses.

I completely agree with this though, well put.

Meriwether
13-05-2010, 17:57
Meriwether, this is not 'Nam. This is Warhammer. There are rules. ;).

Foot-faults and firearms aside, I was referring to the stage of the game that starts with "what point value are we going to play?" If each player says, "How about 1850 plus or minus 10 or so?" then that's fine.

But if you know that your LGS plays at 1850, then you should assume this is a hard cap.

AFnord
13-05-2010, 18:05
I'm not saying that at all. I am, however, saying that one of the tests you can apply to someone about their level of maturity is their willingness to abide by their agreements. It's a definition. Sort of like, "If someone applies paint to his toy soldiers, he is a miniature painter." It's not actually a matter of debate.
I was not saying that you said that people who don't agree with you are stupid, but it is the general style of argument. If you don't think X, then you are Y, which in turn leaves very little room for a counter argument, not because the initial statement is true, but because it shows that the person who made the argument is not really interested in arguing. It is a form of dirty rhetorics, and anyone who uses it is rather immature, as we all know (see what I did there? Adding in an extra layer of "it is common knowledge" only makes these kinds of arguments even "dirtier" ;) ).

Llew
13-05-2010, 18:21
I'm not saying something like, "People who won't abide by points limits also murder children in their sleep."

Here's the thing: changing the terms of something you've agreed to really is immature. It just is. I'm not arguing that from a position of passion, but stating that any time you refuse to abide by your word, you are displaying immaturity. You are right though: it's not a debate. I would no more argue about that than I would the color of the sky.

And here's the next thing: there is never, ever (yes...I said never) a reason to show up over the points cap because YOU CAN NEGOTIATE WHATEVER TERMS YOU LIKE FROM THE GET GO!

If you come to me and say, "Hey...I want to play a game without a points limit, but the only restriction is that each miniature must have a bit of purple on it," fine. If we agree to it, we have a game. Just don't show up with your red-primer miniatures and expect me to think you're being a good guy.

Can't hit a certain cap? Tell me before I make my army and we both work towards the same cap. There really is no reason that someone cannot hit a points cap they've agreed to. Honestly. Not one. Ever. Let me type it as "evar" so that the internet generation understands how seriously I mean this. Or rather, "how srsly I are".

smallgreenguy
13-05-2010, 18:29
This topic doesn't even seem like it should have an opposing side. If 2 points over has such an insignificant impact on the game, then try going 2 points under. It's a points limit.

willowdark
13-05-2010, 18:42
This is why we usually play 2250, because we all agree that it can suck coming in under 2k, especially when you're trying to give every unit what they really need to be effective.

But that was one of my first posts. If you find 2k difficult to write a list under, why not try 2250. If you come in at 2256, I'm sorry, but something in me just starts to wonder why you're finding it so difficult, especially when you supposedly play this game a lot.

Meriwether
13-05-2010, 21:08
I'm not saying something like, "People who won't abide by points limits also murder children in their sleep."

*I* am. And then they eat them. With lots of garlic. And then they kiss strangers with their garlicky breath. Garlicky, baby-y breath.

They disgust me.

------------------

Hasn't everything that needs to be said on this topic been said?

theunwantedbeing
13-05-2010, 21:14
Hasn't everything that needs to be said on this topic been said?

You mean...
-the limit is a rule
-lots of people are unaware/dont bother following it
?

That covers everything really.
The rest is just needless arguments really.

Meriwether
13-05-2010, 21:41
...and now they're arguing about who is arguing about what...

...and how much of which argument should or should not be taken personally...

Malorian
13-05-2010, 22:00
...and now they're arguing about who is arguing about what...

...and how much of which argument should or should not be taken personally...

I disagree with that have taken your statement personally...

;)

burad
13-05-2010, 22:17
Sure, you can go a few points over the limit.....if I get to place all the terrain.

hellspawn1
13-05-2010, 22:33
By making a big deal over a point or two extra, you indirectly assume that GW writes super-balanced armybooks/codices...

From a 40k perspective, but still relevant:
I am, for instance, most willing to let a, lets say DE player go like 5pt over against my super mech 5th ed guard. And some of you go "oh no! that would be an unfair advantage to the DE player, at the expense of my poor poor guard!" ? >_<
I'm sure this can be applied in fantasy as well....

Some armies should be ALLOWED to go over the limit, even with 25+ points! If not more... (Due to dated armybook/codex issues, or just plain imbalance by GW)

Need I say more?

Llew
13-05-2010, 22:45
The question actually has nothing to do with game balance. At least not for me. It's about doing what you agree to.

Really, if you're playing a weak army, the time to address that is when you agree with your opponent on the points values. That would actually be very sporting if the guy with the demon army gave you a bit of a spiff on the points.

Of course, we all know that the guys that play demons are dirty, dirty cheaters and only play them because they couldn't play a reasonable army. Should I start another thread for that? ;)

Tokamak
13-05-2010, 22:46
By making a big deal over a point or two extra, you indirectly assume that GW writes super-balanced armybooks/codices...

That's why I give my Daemon opponent a 25% leeway against my orcs...:rolleyes:

A limit is a limit, go over the limit and you've set yourself a new limit so you might as well stay under it. Part of the game is getting the most out of the points you've agreed upon.

willowdark
13-05-2010, 22:50
Well, common policy around a lot of tournaments set things up that way. I've seen things like :

Daemons - 2000 pts

Dark Elves, VC, Lizards, Skaven, WoC, HE, WE, Empire, Brets... 2250

O&G, Ogres, Beastmen... 2500

All of which I see as perfectly reasonable. It's never been a question of fairness to me.

Magic Karl
13-05-2010, 23:00
I like Hellspawn's idea... It's simialar to what I do with introductory/ noobie games

Master Jeridian
13-05-2010, 23:13
Aye, it's not the actual additional pts that really matter- usually they don't shift the game that much.

No, it's the principle that you cannot stick to an agreement we have both agreed to, and that your waving the moral high ground flag that you know what the 'real' worth of units is. No offence, but I'd rather stick to GW agreement than your made-up pts limits, in much the same way I don't expect my opponent to follow my made-up pts limit.

There has still not been a legitimate reason why you need to go over points. It very much seems like the "I know better" attitude that your creating your own points limit, or worse, you just don't care about the opponent. Perhaps he wanted an extra 5pts, think about that?

In all cases, I'm not interested in playing against opponents who can't count, who think "they know better", who don't care about the pts limit agreement we both made prior to the game, who suspisciously always come in over pts when their "i don't care" mentality should mean they are as likely to come in under pts. There's no reason for it. It's a clear indicator of what their attitude is going to be during the game IMO.

If the pts limit is beneath your contempt, no doubt other rules will fall under your glorious insight and be ignored.

Master Jeridian
13-05-2010, 23:21
Let me put it in a less offensive example.

Your a Dwarf player, and you think Slayers are rubbish.

You and your opponent sit down the day before with beer and discuss how rubbish they are. You decide to pay Y pts for them instead of X, your opponent agrees.

Come the game, you both play to Z pts limit, with Y costing Slayers.

Mature, reasoned discussion.


Alternatively, you show up randomly, without prior information with Y Slayers, because "you know better", so technically your overpointed to the agreed pts limits.
Your opponent is not worth consulting for consent, discussion or insight- since "you know better".

Which is the mature method of change?

Tokamak
13-05-2010, 23:25
In all cases, I'm not interested in playing against opponents who can't count, who think "they know better", who don't care about the pts limit agreement we both made prior to the game, who suspisciously always come in over pts when their "i don't care" mentality should mean they are as likely to come in under pts. There's no reason for it. It's a clear indicator of what their attitude is going to be during the game IMO.

Exactly, staying under the limit at least shows that you've constructed your army with care and fairness in mind. It's the attitude indeed.

shakedown47
14-05-2010, 02:40
To take it a step further, let's consider how 8th edition may affect army building. If the rumored percentage caps are true, what then? If there are already people who can't add accurately, what happens when they have to do more "advanced" math? (Figuring out percentages, oh my!)

If someone can't resist the urge to keep his army list at the same points level as his opponent, what's to stop them thinking that taking 30% characters
(25% cap for the sake of argument) is acceptable?

The_Bureaucrat
14-05-2010, 03:38
If someone can't resist the urge to keep his army list at the same points level as his opponent, what's to stop them thinking that taking 30% characters
(25% cap for the sake of argument) is acceptable?

The world as we known it will end.....

Or you could just play the game with 30%....

ChaosVC
14-05-2010, 04:01
Are we talking about exceeding the agreed limited game point or are we talking about 8th ed percentile rumour?

Llew
14-05-2010, 04:06
Take your pick. If you wait long enough, it'll probably change even further. It started as the agreed-upon points limit, but really any discussion of points applies.

Anything that addresses the disconnect between agreeing with your opponent beforehand and what is brought to the table seems to be involved.

ChaosVC
14-05-2010, 04:19
Well if its about the thread topic, its pretty much an agreement between with your friends. I don't understand why some people want to cheat in this game to begin with, how is that fun and satisfying to begin with and theres no prize for winning or thrashing your friend in a game of toy soldiers.

If its about the percentile, well, just wait till july then.