Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've noticed that a lot of people have been writing "1999 point lists" to get out of "having doubled force organization charts" from their opponents. While it's fine to use a 1999 point army if that's what your 2000 point list comes out to, wanting to play a 1999 point game is very odd. It's a very odd point value, not unlike when Dark Emperor was always trying to get people to play at 1867, 1650, or 2312, or whatever random point value his list came out to.

So my question is, if someone wanted to play at 1999 points, would you make them play at 2000, but use only 1999 if they wanted?

Part of the problem I have with this is that besides being a very, very odd point value to be playing at, it just smacks of "I wanna win really, really bad!" It comes across as "I can't adapt my tactics to the change of people now having more stuff, and so I'm going to handicap my opponent so I can win."

I think that building rules are stupid, because a single lascanon can destroy an entire building, make it completely useless, and yet still completely intact. However, I don't go trying to modify the game and tell my opponents that they can't use buildings because I think that they're goofy.

At my FLGS we play 2k all the time with just one FOC, it's just understood (though honestly if someone brought in a double FOC list I'm not sure if anyone would say anything). It's kind of the standard size for us, and it's what we do.

Different people play at different point scales for a lot of reasons. 1999 is a way of saying "I don't want to play 2xFOC with all that is involved with that." I can see the point of that. Once you break that 2k limit, the game changes. It favors some armies, hinders others. You can get more of the same thing spammed. It's not as big a deal as saying "Let's use the Apocalypse rules" but it is different.

If someone says they want to play at 1999, then that's the game they want to play. If you agree to play at that point, do so. There is no "forcing" them. If they want to play at 2k, and only take a single FOC, that's fine as well. But unless they set different ground rules with you, at 2k you are entitled to the option of a double FOC.

1,999 (or 1,999+1) don't strike me as odd numbers. It's just a short hand for "I don't want to play with double FOC"

What the hell do you mean "would you MAKE them?" You can't make anyone do anything. If I want to play a 1999 point game with a single FOC, you can't "make me" play one with two FOC. Hell, if I wanted to play a 3000 point game with a single FOC you STILL couldn't make me play one with two. If you forced the issue than I would just choose not to play against you. We all play this game for fun, you can't FORCE anyone to do anything they don't want to do (within the rules). Likewise, you can choose not to play against the guy who only wants to play one FOC.

And In reference to the very silly "It's a odd number of points!" argument, all our local tournaments are 1999 +1 points. We still get to use 2000 points, but are limited to a single FOC.

The things you are attributing to the 1999 point player I.E. "I wanna win really badly and I'm going to handicap my opponent, etc etc" really sound like they should be attributed to you. If you have a 2000 point list that REQUIRES a double FOC, than my guess is you have a cheese list akin to Six Sternguard drop pods, or six landraiders, or twelve vendettas (you get the picture). Those types of lists are not fun to play against. Double FOC changes the game completely, usually for the (SPAM) worse.



That said, I normally don't have a problem with double FOC, but your attitude in this post is just wrong. You are not entitled to get your way.

Nope. No discussion needed really imo.
If less than 2k is agreed upon, 1999 fits that critera.

If somebody explicitly writes a 1999 list it's obvious they don't want to play 2000. Besides this is one of the things you should discuss with your opponent before the game

I don't think I would play a 1999 point game with someone who was just trying to weasel out of having to deal with two force org charts. If you want to only play with one chart, then there is plenty of more regular point values that would fit with that.

If you really don't want to play 2000 lists, play at 1850.

This question is oddly phrased. You agree on points limits (and other possible limitations) beforehand, then that's what you play. There is no 'forcing' involved in any point.

Cheesedoodler wrote:
What the hell do you mean "would you MAKE them?" You can't make anyone do anything. If I want to play a 1999 point game with a single FOC, you can't "make me" play one with two FOC. Hell, if I wanted to play a 3000 point game with a single FOC you STILL couldn't make me play one with two. If you forced the issue than I would just choose not to play against you. We all play this game for fun, you can't FORCE anyone to do anything they don't want to do (within the rules). Likewise, you can choose not to play against the guy who only wants to play one FOC.

And In reference to the very silly "It's a odd number of points!" argument, all our local tournaments are 1999 +1 points. We still get to use 2000 points, but are limited to a single FOC.

The things you are attributing to the 1999 point player I.E. "I wanna win really badly and I'm going to handicap my opponent, etc etc" really sound like they should be attributed to you. If you have a 2000 point list that REQUIRES a double FOC, than my guess is you have a cheese list akin to Six Sternguard drop pods, or six landraiders, or twelve vendettas (you get the picture). Those types of lists are not fun to play against. Double FOC changes the game completely, usually for the (SPAM) worse.



That said, I normally don't have a problem with double FOC, but your attitude in this post is just wrong. You are not entitled to get your way.

I think it's probably also intended for allies rules, where you get a much bigger selection once you get a bigger game. Depending on what you use, half the army could be allies. Strong allies are harder to build with fewer units.

No, If you cant be arsed to do the list correctly I would not bother wasting my time on you

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

Cheesedoodler wrote:

I think it's probably also intended for allies rules, where you get a much bigger selection once you get a bigger game. Depending on what you use, half the army could be allies. Strong allies are harder to build with fewer units.

I hadn't thought of that, but yes. Double FOC means double allied detachment. I would put forth the same argument as to why people wouldn't like it, though. Now I can bring SIX vendettas in my SW army rather than just three. It changes the game.

Isn't a Double FOC for games OVER 2000pts?

As in, a 2000pt game is considered to represent build totals of between 0-2000 points.

Double FOC would be for games over 2000pts, as in 2001-??? points.

Well, if he wanted to play me, he'd have to be playing 1500 points, so it's moo.

The game and it's rules are constructed around armies that size.

There's no "forcing;" it's just saying what you're going to play. You're not going to "force" someone not to use a Baneblade at 1000 points, but you're not going to allow it.

For everyone's information, taking an addition FOC at 2000 points is optional. People who are trying to avoid getting to 2000 to avoid being required to take it are limiting themselves for no reason. It's also entirely optional for each player; one play can take one but the other doesn't have to.

I've never seen this IRL, but I saw it here, and it came across as bad sportsmanship. The OP was calling it "silliness." You shouldn't be trying to control you opponent, even if you think that sth is OP. People are jerks about being OP, but it's better to just play by the rules and try to beat them by following the rules and become a better player than to try to handicap them.

I must have misread the question but i (think) I agree with the OP. 1999 is dumb, im not going to completley rewrite my 2000 point double foc list because someelse wants to cheat the new system. if they wanted to play me i would use my 2000 point list and they are welcome to add one point of war gear to their list so that its even. Its pretty lame that there are so many effers trying to game the game and not actually play it. boohoo things changed, I'm sad because i cant seem to fight this square peg of a game into my little round competetive hole.

That being said, if it was agreed upon before hand that we didn't actually want to play 40k 6th edition and we wanted to skirt the rule set for whatever reasons then i would have no problem with 1999+1 or 1850+50 or even 30235- 28236. Because the only rule that really matters is that you have fun.

I look at it this way. If you discuss points before hand, and you all agree to 2000 points, and he comes in with a 1999 army that has 1 FOC while you all worked with 2, then oh well we all will deal with it.

If it's a open game between two unarranged people, not too much you can do about that

Cheesedoodler wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

Cheesedoodler wrote:

I think it's probably also intended for allies rules, where you get a much bigger selection once you get a bigger game. Depending on what you use, half the army could be allies. Strong allies are harder to build with fewer units.

I hadn't thought of that, but yes. Double FOC means double allied detachment. I would put forth the same argument as to why people wouldn't like it, though. Now I can bring SIX vendettas in my SW army rather than just three. It changes the game.

That is true, but hopefully people won't do that. If they do, it just means less of their main army.

Spam is also very vulnerable. If your opponent has anything that's good against it, they're all going to get destroyed.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
If you really don't want to play 2000 lists, play at 1850.

or 1999, or any point limit under 2000

mountain out of a mole-hill as usual.

 Baldsmug wrote:
I must have misread the question but i (think) I agree with the OP. 1999 is dumb, im not going to completley rewrite my 2000 point double foc list because someelse wants to cheat the new system. if they wanted to play me i would use my 2000 point list and they are welcome to add one point of war gear to their list so that its even. Its pretty lame that there are so many effers trying to game the game and not actually play it. boohoo things changed, I'm sad because i cant seem to fight this square peg of a game into my little round competetive hole.

That being said, if it was agreed upon before hand that we didn't actually want to play 40k 6th edition and we wanted to skirt the rule set for whatever reasons then i would have no problem with 1999+1 or 1850+50 or even 30235- 28236. Because the only rule that really matters is that you have fun.

That's basically my exact thinking on it.

At my FLGS, when we play at 2k everyone is given the option to use a Double FOC. I've never heard anyone refuse to play a game against someone simply for using that extra FOC. I've seen games where both players had double FOC's, where only one person had a double FOC, where no one had double FOC's. At no point have I witnessed a game where the presence of a double FOC seemed to grant any special advantage to either player.

Of course, on the other hand, my local meta tends to be rather anti-spam - it's rare to see more than two of the same unit outside Troops choices.

If someone wants to play 1999, why on earth would you give them crap over it? Way to be TFG.

I don't quite understand the question.

If you have agreed to a 2000 point game, then the list can be up to 2000 points. If they only build a 1999 point list, then that's what they use.

If you have agreed to a 1999 point game, then a 1999 point list is right on the money.

Am I missing something?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Isn't a Double FOC for games OVER 2000pts?

As in, a 2000pt game is considered to represent build totals of between 0-2000 points.

Double FOC would be for games over 2000pts, as in 2001-??? points.

No, The FoC doubles at 2000.

insaniak wrote:I don't quite understand the question.

If you have agreed to a 2000 point game, then the list can be up to 2000 points. If they only build a 1999 point list, then that's what they use.

If you have agreed to a 1999 point game, then a 1999 point list is right on the money.

Am I missing something?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Isn't a Double FOC for games OVER 2000pts?

As in, a 2000pt game is considered to represent build totals of between 0-2000 points.

Double FOC would be for games over 2000pts, as in 2001-??? points.

No, The FoC doubles at 2000.

The point is that people have tried to play at 1999 points in order to effectively field a 2000 point army but without their opponent being able to take advantage of the new FOC rules. It's blatantly "I don't want to learn the new rules and I want to hold back my opponent so I can win." I think the person who posted a list here even came out and said that.

It can always be argued that the player wanting to double is wanting to be cheap by spamming units, but I think it's far worse to actually try to mess with the game than to try to adapt and learn; that has far more of a TFG quality to it than simply spamming units or using an OP list.

I don't really care if people use OP lists as long as their polite about it and don't whine when they don't win or think that they can't win. I find it a lot worse when people demonstrate that they would rather alter the game and control their opponent than actually learn how to play.

The doubling is optional.

Lobukia wrote:If someone wants to play 1999, why on earth would you give them crap over it? Way to be TFG.

It's because the person doing it is intentionally trying to handicap their opponent so that they can win and/or not have to adjust to the new rules. Trying to alter the game to win is about one of the most TFG things out there.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
The point is that people have tried to play at 1999 points in order to effectively field a 2000 point army but without their opponent being able to take advantage of the new FOC rules.

I thought that limiting the game to 1999 meant that neither player could 'take advantage' of the new FoC rules. Have I just completely misunderstood the FoC rules?

It's blatantly "I don't want to learn the new rules and I want to hold back my opponent so I can win."

Sorry, but that makes no sense. How does both players being restricted to a single FoC give either player an advantage?



Just out of curiosity, where exactly would you draw the line? If I want to play a 1900 point game, am I still trying to draw some sort of advantage? 1850? 1500?

I have to say, though, that I'm completely at a loss as to how playing the same FoC, at an agreed points limit gives either player a handicap.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
[

The point is that people have tried to play at 1999 points in order to effectively field a 2000 point army but without their opponent being able to take advantage of the new FOC rules. It's blatantly "I don't want to learn the new rules and I want to hold back my opponent so I can win." I think the person who posted a list here even came out and said that.

It can always be argued that the player wanting to double is wanting to be cheap by spamming units, but I think it's far worse to actually try to mess with the game than to try to adapt and learn; that has far more of a TFG quality to it than simply spamming units or using an OP list.

I don't really care if people use OP lists as long as their polite about it and don't whine when they don't win or think that they can't win. I find it a lot worse when people demonstrate that they would rather alter the game and control their opponent than actually learn how to play.

The doubling is optional.

Lobukia wrote:If someone wants to play 1999, why on earth would you give them crap over it? Way to be TFG.

It's because the person doing it is intentionally trying to handicap their opponent so that they can win and/or not have to adjust to the new rules. Trying to alter the game to win is about one of the most TFG things out there.

So the TLDR version of your post is

1999 point players need to adapt to new rules, but a 2000 point player who refuses to use 1FOC is a tactical mastermind. OK

MarsNZ wrote:

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
[

The point is that people have tried to play at 1999 points in order to effectively field a 2000 point army but without their opponent being able to take advantage of the new FOC rules. It's blatantly "I don't want to learn the new rules and I want to hold back my opponent so I can win." I think the person who posted a list here even came out and said that.

It can always be argued that the player wanting to double is wanting to be cheap by spamming units, but I think it's far worse to actually try to mess with the game than to try to adapt and learn; that has far more of a TFG quality to it than simply spamming units or using an OP list.

I don't really care if people use OP lists as long as their polite about it and don't whine when they don't win or think that they can't win. I find it a lot worse when people demonstrate that they would rather alter the game and control their opponent than actually learn how to play.

The doubling is optional.

Lobukia wrote:If someone wants to play 1999, why on earth would you give them crap over it? Way to be TFG.

It's because the person doing it is intentionally trying to handicap their opponent so that they can win and/or not have to adjust to the new rules. Trying to alter the game to win is about one of the most TFG things out there.

So the TLDR version of your post is

1999 point players need to adapt to new rules, but a 2000 point player who refuses to use 1FOC is a tactical mastermind. OK

No. No one said that using two FOC is needed to play the game.

But not using two somehow gives one player an advantage...

 Nevelon wrote:
Different people play at different point scales for a lot of reasons. 1999 is a way of saying "I don't want to play 2xFOC with all that is involved with that." I can see the point of that. Once you break that 2k limit, the game changes. It favors some armies, hinders others. You can get more of the same thing spammed. It's not as big a deal as saying "Let's use the Apocalypse rules" but it is different.

If someone says they want to play at 1999, then that's the game they want to play. If you agree to play at that point, do so. There is no "forcing" them. If they want to play at 2k, and only take a single FOC, that's fine as well. But unless they set different ground rules with you, at 2k you are entitled to the option of a double FOC.

1,999 (or 1,999+1) don't strike me as odd numbers. It's just a short hand for "I don't want to play with double FOC"

This. There's no forcing involved, and I really don't understand the original complaint. You AGREE to play to a specified point level, including whether double force org will be permitted. If you and your opponent haven't agreed on that before starting, how on Earth are you playing a game?

If someone says to me that they want to play 1999+1 or 2k with a single FOC I ask them if they are bringing allies, if they are then I'm using 2 FOCs or not playing them. If they aren't I will first offer the assurance that I'm not going to abuse the double FOC, if they still don't want me to use I'm with that.


I just don't see why people question or limit the use of double FOC but no one bats an eye lid when some one brings out their helldrake next to their night scythes...