Going over points ?

[Jamie]

Is this allowed ? I remember most people being ok with people going over the point limit in fantasy, by around 10%, do the same rules apply ? 

[Arkiham]

That was more a house allowance. But it is funny my,  as in the generals handbook they break their own rules they firmly tell you not to break lol.

So glean from it what you will. Friendly game probably fine, tournament one. Not so. 

[Jamie]

Yeah that's what's confused me, I think most people are ok with it, but wanted to see some peoples opinions, if not ill replace big archaon and use the 360 point version and an extra 3 Varanguard which fit into the 2000 limit 

[ElectricPaladin]

It's very hard to make lists fit exactly in this game, because there aren't any upgrades you can add on or shave off. I think that about 10% wiggle room makes sense - so in a 2k game, up to about 200 points. Don't forget, if you are over, you automatically give any opponent who is on point a roll on the Triumph table.

[TrexPushups]

It's very hard to make lists fit exactly in this game, because there aren't any upgrades you can add on or shave off. I think that about 10% wiggle room makes sense - so in a 2k game, up to about 200 points. Don't forget, if you are over, you automatically give any opponent who is on point a roll on the Triumph table.

200 points is pretty huge.

That is 10 blood Warriors
10 liberators
30 bloodreavers
5 wrathmongers
20 bloodletters
5 judicators
2 small heroes




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ADDriot]

My gaming group is pretty chill about it. I'll let them know that I'm going to be a few points over and then they can amend their list if they want to. I think anything over 50 points can be a bit unfair though. You're basically just chucking in a extra unit, and if your opponent doesn't, it could be an advantage. 

[Turragor]

Id say I wouldnt have issues with 20 pts. 40 pts is probably ok.

Above that and the difference isn't compensated by a roll on the triumph table.

 

[RuneBrush]

People I play with tend to go +/- 60 points.  If the gap between armies is more than 80 points then one side would either drop a unit or the other pick one up.  We also don't use the triumph table, it's too easily forgotten during the game to be of any real use!

[Sadysaneto]

20 points would be ok. 200? Not a chance in hell!

[Terry Pike]

I would just say no to being a point over at all times when you are using matched play. The whole point of points, is to build a list inside the restriction. Not much use in going 20 over in a friendly game if you are using what would an illegal list at an event as you would be practising with something you couldn't actually take. Outside of matched play - meh do whatever you like!

[Dave Fraser]

As a tournament player what Terry said, I see no point in designing a list I wouldn't then be allowed to play at an event.

For testing stuff out/pick up games generally the cheapest unit you'll find is 60pts (a couple at 40 but pretty rare) so you should be able to make most armies work within 40pts unless you're doing as shown above and taking a very specific type of list where to become legal you'd end up 100pts under or have to take a non-archaeon alliance model.  I'd be cool with the list posted but equally I'd be looking to see if there was a way to keep the spirit of that list and to make it fit within the 2000 so I could run it at events.

You could diversify it to a chaos alliance list and go

 

Archaeon

Gaunt

2x3 varanguard (or split into however many units are needed for the formation)

Formation

10 plague bearers 100

20 clan rats 120

20 clan rats 120

 

And that would have 3 battleline, fit inside 2000 and probably work better at scenarios!  But once you've broken the alliance you might as well start looking to add the units which make archaeon really tick! (slannesh lord with the double pile in thing, anything that buffs the wound role for slayer of kings etc).

[Bowlzee]

What @Terry Pike said. It's an art form to get your list under 2000 points. In pick up games, go for it. 

[wayniac]

I think with how AOS handles points, it's more allowable than in say 40k where you can just drop some upgrades.  But when you have to buy a full unit even if you don't field that number, it's really difficult to get the point limit without either going over (see the actual battle report IN the General's Handbook, where there's a 60 point spread between the two armies) since you have nothing to drop except an entire unit/hero.

Honestly, I say it shouldn't matter (tournament or otherwise) because points are clearly intended as only a rough guideline in AOS, which is evident by how inflexible they are.  You can typically easily tell if someone just happens to be a bit over because they can't drop a unit, or if they're just gaming a lax system and trying to be over, often by looking at exactly how much over the army is.  

[Terry Pike]

12 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Honestly, I say it shouldn't matter (tournament or otherwise) because points are clearly intended as only a rough guideline in AOS, which is evident by how inflexible they are.

They aren't meant to be flexible though and matched play isn't rough guide lines when used in a competitive environment. I don't think I've ever seen a  tournament allow you to go over on points. So it does matter especially for tournaments. I work out my list to be 1980 for example and my opponent comes up with 2060, sorry but I'm rewriting my list to 2060 points and so should everyone else at the event. If everyone else can make their list inside 2000 points (2000 standard tournament size here) why should one person be allowed extra?

[wayniac]

7 minutes ago, Terry Pike said:

They aren't meant to be flexible though and matched play isn't rough guide lines when used in a competitive environment. I don't think I've ever seen a  tournament allow you to go over on points. So it does matter especially for tournaments. I work out my list to be 1980 for example and my opponent comes up with 2060, sorry but I'm rewriting my list to 2060 points and so should everyone else at the event. If everyone else can make their list inside 2000 points (2000 standard tournament size here) why should one person be allowed extra?

They are rough guides though, because you can't just drop something like in old WHFB (e.g. oh I just won't give this unit a standard/musician) or in 40k (e.g. oh I won't give this guy this bit of wargear).  So really it's either you ****** somebody because it's hey you have to drop an entire unit or hero, or be a bit over that likely won't affect the game.  If someone is trying to abuse it THEN you crack down, but if it's somebody having to not field an entire hero or unit that they might need, there's a flaw in the system somewhere.

[Terry Pike]

1 minute ago, wayniac said:

They are rough guides though, because you can't just drop something like in old WHFB (e.g. oh I just won't give this unit a standard/musician) or in 40k (e.g. oh I won't give this guy this bit of wargear).  So really it's either you ****** somebody because it's hey you have to drop an entire unit or hero, or be a bit over that likely won't affect the game.

I still don't see why you think they are rough guide lines? Its a completely different game and unit selection system, it bares almost no resemblance to 8th edition.

Or they could write a list that fits in the points total, sometimes you don't get to take everything you want and have to compromise and swap units in and out to get within the total.

[AdamJ]

I agree with @Terry Pike for tournament games and when practicing for tournament games. The 2000 is a maximum value not a minimum or an approximation. Most of the lists I think of are a little bit short of 2000 - that's just the way it falls.

However in a friendly/narrative game I'm not too fussed about slightly going over.

[ElectricPaladin]

Maybe if wiggle room is a thing, keep it to 1%?

[Terry Pike]

5 minutes ago, ElectricPaladin said:

Maybe if wiggle room is a thing, keep it to 1%?

But then you may as well say this event is 2020 points for example as everyone will max out to it. Then someone will just say, well I couldn't fit inside the 2020 limit, can I have 2040 please.

[Sadysaneto]

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

They are rough guides though, because you can't just drop something like in old WHFB (e.g. oh I just won't give this unit a standard/musician) or in 40k (e.g. oh I won't give this guy this bit of wargear).  So really it's either you ****** somebody because it's hey you have to drop an entire unit or hero, or be a bit over that likely won't affect the game.  If someone is trying to abuse it THEN you crack down, but if it's somebody having to not field an entire hero or unit that they might need, there's a flaw in the system somewhere.

Theres no flaw in the system. Theres a flaw in the list. You cant always get what you want.

[wayniac]

7 minutes ago, Terry Pike said:

But then you may as well say this event is 2020 points for example as everyone will max out to it. Then someone will just say, well I couldn't fit inside the 2020 limit, can I have 2040 please.

Seems to work well enough for GW themselves (when they even use points).

Not to go off on a big tangent but this is just what I was afraid of with the GHB.  Points are added, points must balance things and must be religiously adhered to, even when it's clear they are approximate and a guideline since you can't fuss with them like you could before/can in 40k.  Even in friendly games people are like "must be EXACTLY X points, no going over or you're a cheat!" when again, you cannot mess with points as much anymore so they are a rough guide unless you house-rule stuff down to individual models so I can in fact drop a handful of models and reduce the points.

I really understand it for a tournament, but too frequently I see that bleed into everything else; "tournament mentality" corrupts everything else (at least in my experience).  Oh no you have 2040 points and I have 1980 points, you must be unbalanced even though we have roughly the same power level and number of units, because points are what makes things balanced. 

[Terry Pike]

12 minutes ago, wayniac said:

even when it's clear they are approximate and a guideline

I still don't see or feel this in Age of Sigmar. Is this a just hangover from previous editions or have you actually seen it somewhere in the Handbook?

13 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Oh no you have 2040 points and I have 1980 points, you must be unbalanced even though we have roughly the same power level and number of units

60pts is a massive difference though. 20 points is a huge difference in reality as well, it may just allow that extra character that buffs one unit even more.

2000pts and army restrictions are the same constant everyone has. I know things are not costed correctly, some things are way over and others way under. Hopefully with GW taking an interest in the tournament scene once again they will address the unit costs in future points releases if thats something they end up doing.

[wayniac]

It's a guideline because the sample battle report in the handbook itself has the Stormcast army with 2040 points and the daemon army with 1980 points for a 2k point game, and not a word is mentioned about the fact there's a 60 point difference between the two armies.  Yes I get GW is known to fudge battle reports and whatnot, but for me that's a pretty clear "Hey these are guides for when you want to use points for games" since it's in the book that introduces the points in the first place, it seems either they were aware of it and didn't care, or were okay with the discrepancy because the points are a guideline for balancing armies for league/tournament/pickup game play.

I don't necessarily disagree with you for an actual competitive event you want to be more strict because, as you pointed out, if you don't you'll get "Why can he be X points over?  Can I be Y points over?" and it just turns into a big mess.  But my main point of frustration is that that mentality becomes the default for any game that uses points (read: the vast majority of games now).  People won't be more lax in a casual game, because they don't have to be.

I too hope they address it, but I wish more that people didn't demand points and then jump to it as the "only" way to play games, but sadly that battle has been fought and lost.

[Beardyface]

It clearly says in the pitch battles section 'The combined points of the units should not exceed the number of points shoen in the chart above.'

The chart being Vanguard, Battlehost, Warhost, etc.

[wayniac]

Just now, Beardyface said:

It clearly says in the pitch battles section 'The combined points of the units should not exceed the number of points shoen in the chart above.'

The chart being Vanguard, Battlehost, Warhost, etc.

Yes it does, but again their example promptly ignores that rule.  Of course even in the old days GW had no issues about being a few points over, players were always the ****** ones about it.