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.

A lot of 6th Edition army lists in this forum use the term "1999+1" when it comes to points. I can gather that it's something to do with the 2nd FOC you can take at 2000 points, but seeing as such a choice is optional, I don't really get why this is needed. My question simply is what does it mean and why is it necessary?

It simply means '2000 points'. But that's not hip to say, you see, just like the word 'cool' sucks pl0x, too. Instead, you use 'YOLO SWAG'.

So, as you see, it's the new hip to use 1999+1 points, instead of 2000 points. It's necessary to be swag. I mean, you can see it in the armylist itself that there isn't a 2nd FOC, hmm?

It's a "short" way of saying "Let's play 2000 points, but no second FOC."

at 2000 points you can use a double force org (i.e., 6 fast attack slots, 6 heavy support slots, etc)., which makes for some radically different lists than anything you can make at 1999 and under. early on in 6th, some tournaments were requiring 1999+1 point lists to avoid the double FOC thing. not sure if that's still the case, but I believe that's the origin of the term. I just translate it to "2000 points, single FOC."

edit: bah, happyjew types faster...

2000 means you are allowed to take a second FOC.
1999+1 means you are NOT allowed to take a second FOC.

It's a phrase invented by clever s who think they've found a loophole in the double FOC rules where you can play a 1999 point game where you're allowed to go over by one point without it being a 2000 point game and enabling double FOC. The only reason to say "1999+1" instead of "2000 points, single FOC" is because these people are terrified of admitting that they're using a house rule to limit the FOC.

 Peregrine wrote:
It's a phrase invented by clever s who think they've found a loophole in the double FOC rules where you can play a 1999 point game where you're allowed to go over by one point without it being a 2000 point game and enabling double FOC. The only reason to say "1999+1" instead of "2000 points, single FOC" is because these people are terrified of admitting that they're using a house rule to limit the FOC.

Gee, I just find myself agreeing with you!

1999+1 exists because some people actually like playing a balanced game, and some others just like to brainlessly spam the same unit 6 times.

Maybe someday they'll realise that playing with 6 Heldrakes and 4 Daemon Princes is actually the same as playing with 3 Heldrakes and 2 Daemon Princes... only it takes twice as long.

 Nym wrote:
1999+1 exists because some people actually like playing a balanced game, and some others just like to brainlessly spam the same unit 6 times.

How is 1999+1 more balanced than 2000 points with single FOC?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nym wrote:
1999+1 exists because some people actually like playing a balanced game, and some others just like to brainlessly spam the same unit 6 times.

How is 1999+1 more balanced than 2000 points with single FOC?

At least at the start of 6th, it was the balance that we knew, rather then the unknown one. Which is when the 1999+1 showed up a lot more often. Some armies get more out of the double FOC then others. I agree that it isn't any more balanced, just that some people prefer to play that way.

 Nevelon wrote:
At least at the start of 6th, it was the balance that we knew, rather then the unknown one. Which is when the 1999+1 showed up a lot more often. Some armies get more out of the double FOC then others. I agree that it isn't any more balanced, just that some people prefer to play that way.

You missed the point a bit there. A 2000 point game with single FOC and a 1999+1 game are exactly identical, except the 1999+1 game allows the person organizing it to pretend that they aren't using a "no double FOC" house rule.

1999+1 = 2k with no double force org

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
At least at the start of 6th, it was the balance that we knew, rather then the unknown one. Which is when the 1999+1 showed up a lot more often. Some armies get more out of the double FOC then others. I agree that it isn't any more balanced, just that some people prefer to play that way.

You missed the point a bit there. A 2000 point game with single FOC and a 1999+1 game are exactly identical, except the 1999+1 game allows the person organizing it to pretend that they aren't using a "no double FOC" house rule.

I don't think they are pretending. It's just a shorthand way of explaining house rules. By phrasing it as 1999+1 they cut of any RAW arguments with the double FOC rules.

It's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Two ways of writing the same rules modification. I don't see any malice or subterfuge in the 1999+1 phrasing. It's pretty obvious what's going on.

 Nevelon wrote:
I don't think they are pretending.

Oh, they are. You must have missed all the people congratulating themselves for being so clever and finding the "loophole" that lets you play single-FOC at 2000 points while still following the standard rules.

By phrasing it as 1999+1 they cut of any RAW arguments with the double FOC rules.

Saying "2000 points, you may not use the double FOC rule" also cuts out any possible arguments. It just requires admitting that you're playing a house-ruled game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nym wrote:
1999+1 exists because some people actually like playing a balanced game, and some others just like to brainlessly spam the same unit 6 times.

How is 1999+1 more balanced than 2000 points with single FOC?

Or just playing 1999 points, and not needing a house rule to keep the second FOC at bay?

 Peregrine wrote:
You missed the point a bit there. A 2000 point game with single FOC and a 1999+1 game are exactly identical, except the 1999+1 game allows the person organizing it to pretend that they aren't using a "no double FOC" house rule.

No, it's the same except that '1999+1' is shorten than '2000 but you can only take one FOC'
It's the same reason why we abbreviate 2000 to 2k and other things.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I don't think they are pretending.

Oh, they are. You must have missed all the people congratulating themselves for being so clever and finding the "loophole" that lets you play single-FOC at 2000 points while still following the standard rules.

By phrasing it as 1999+1 they cut of any RAW arguments with the double FOC rules.

Saying "2000 points, you may not use the double FOC rule" also cuts out any possible arguments. It just requires admitting that you're playing a house-ruled game.

I say 1999+1 because everyone knows what that means. I could also say 2000 and no second FOC, but I've chosen to say it the first way and that's the whole reason for it. Really weird things piss you off.

 Purifier wrote:
Really weird things piss you off.

Judging by his sig, this guy obviously has a problem with house rules. Maybe a house rule stole his lunchbag when he was a kid or something... Or maybe he keeps buying expensive and OP Forgeworld stuff and nobody wants to play with him.

Unfortunately, playing at 1999 with a single FOC is no house rule at all, and there's nothing he can say that will change that. At my LGS we don't even bother with that +1 silliness, since most lists end in odd numbers anyway.

 Purifier wrote:
I say 1999+1 because everyone knows what that means. .

The existence of this thread suggests otherwise...


Again, if you want to play a game with just a single FOC, surely it's simpler to just choose a points value that only allows for a single FOC, rather than trying to claim that 1999+1 doesn't actually equal 2000?

 Nym wrote:
1999+1 exists because some people actually like playing a balanced game, and some others just like to brainlessly spam the same unit 6 times.

Maybe someday they'll realise that playing with 6 Heldrakes and 4 Daemon Princes is actually the same as playing with 3 Heldrakes and 2 Daemon Princes... only it takes twice as long.

unfortuneatly while some armies can fill 2000 points with quality units without exceeding 3 of each slot, some cannot.

Playing 2000 points with 2 force orgs is like playing 1000 points with one force org. Games shouldn't be played at either. 1500 works just fine for most armies.

 Nym wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Really weird things piss you off.

Judging by his sig, this guy obviously has a problem with house rules. Maybe a house rule stole his lunchbag when he was a kid or something... Or maybe he keeps buying expensive and OP Forgeworld stuff and nobody wants to play with.

No, his problem is when people start acting like their house rule is somehow more correct or otherwise superior to the RAW, which, even considering how bad GW is at rules writing, you ain't any better.

If someone asked me to play a "1999+1" game, well, 1999 +1 = 2000 = double FOC.

 insaniak wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I say 1999+1 because everyone knows what that means. .

The existence of this thread suggests otherwise...

And yet everyone else in the thread were able to not only answer it, but it seems most people understand that what we're after when we say it is the distinction of no second FOC.
It's sort of like those threads where people go "What does WTF mean?"
And then someone tells them and then they're in the know. The thread pops up when someone needs to know. Not because it's a mystery.

Of course you are correct that not everyone knows what it means. Not everyone knows how to count either. Everyone in my group knows what it means and no one has ever started preaching that saying 1999+1 is to sit on a high horse, and that, in fact, I shouldn't be saying that because it means I am trying to be clever.

How. Dare. I.

 Krellnus wrote:

 Nym wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Really weird things piss you off.

Judging by his sig, this guy obviously has a problem with house rules. Maybe a house rule stole his lunchbag when he was a kid or something... Or maybe he keeps buying expensive and OP Forgeworld stuff and nobody wants to play with.

No, his problem is when people start acting like their house rule is somehow more correct or otherwise superior to the RAW, which, even considering how bad GW is at rules writing, you ain't any better.

If someone asked me to play a "1999+1" game, well, 1999 +1 = 2000 = double FOC.

So you'd purposefully misunderstand him to put him in his place. So he doesn't think he can just go around saying things? I'm not sure what you are punishing him for. Your idea that he is trying to circumvent something in a tricky manner?

1999+1 is definitely the rule and not the exception. It was a silly thing to do, putting that DFO at 2000 instead of 2500. But tourney organizers just got tired fo dealing with the DFO lopsided masturbation fest thaT is DFO. So now most tournies do 1850. It avoids the whole issue, the games get played in a more reasonavble amount of time and less (note i said LESS) shinanigans occur.

Overall, Dual Force Org tournies don't pull as big a crowd because even if you HAVE the models, you don't ususally feel like playing AGAINST that kind of force.

It's just really no fun and should be reserved for more apocalyptic type games.

Purifier wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
I say 1999+1 because everyone knows what that means. .

The existence of this thread suggests otherwise...

And yet everyone else in the thread were able to not only answer it, but it seems most people understand that what we're after when we say it is the distinction of no second FOC.
It's sort of like those threads where people go "What does WTF mean?"
And then someone tells them and then they're in the know. The thread pops up when someone needs to know. Not because it's a mystery.

Of course you are correct that not everyone knows what it means. Not everyone knows how to count either. Everyone in my group knows what it means and no one has ever started preaching that saying 1999+1 is to sit on a high horse, and that, in fact, I shouldn't be saying that because it means I am trying to be clever.

I didn't say it was a mystery. I merely questioned your claim that everybody knows what it means, when, clearly, not everyone does.
.

Jancoran wrote:1999+1 is definitely the rule and not the exception. It was a silly thing to do, putting that DFO at 2000 instead of 2500. But tourney organizers just got tired fo dealing with the DFO lopsided masturbation fest thaT is DFO. So now most tournies do 1850. It avoids the whole issue, the games get played in a more reasonavble amount of time and less (note i said LESS) shinanigans occur.

How many tournies were running at 2000 points previously anyway?

From what I've seen, 1500 and 1750, with 1850 cropping up more recently, has been more or less the standard since the start of 3rd edition.

Well, my group played almost exclusively at 2000-2500. Now I see a lot of 1850 games being played.

_e

 insaniak wrote:

I didn't say it was a mystery. I merely questioned your claim that everybody knows what it means, when, clearly, not everyone does.

I'm not sure if you're being serious, ironic or facetious.

Saying "everyone knows" is a very sweeping statement that is almost never (I can't actually think of a single time) meant to be taken literally.
One of the most common uses of the phrase is probably* in disbelief. "You don't know about The God Emperor? everyone knows about the God Emperor!"
That sentence disproves itself, as the person that didn't know about the God Emperor by definition didn't know about the God Emperor.

Everyone I play with knows what it means. And I cannot stress this enough:
We do not consider ourselves to have beaten the rules. We see it as short hand for "2000 points but without the allowance for a second Force Organisation Chart"
Sort of like how FOC is also short for something, and people like to do that. And this one makes sense.

*I added that probably as I assume you'll need me to cite studies to show this if I only put "is".

 Purifier wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

I didn't say it was a mystery. I merely questioned your claim that everybody knows what it means, when, clearly, not everyone does.

I'm not sure if you're being serious, ironic or facetious.

I was initially amused at the claim that 'everybody knows what it means' in a thread that was specifically asking what it means.

It becomes progressively less amusing the longer you try to turn the whole thing into a big deal...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
I don't think they are pretending.

Oh, they are. You must have missed all the people congratulating themselves for being so clever and finding the "loophole" that lets you play single-FOC at 2000 points while still following the standard rules.

By phrasing it as 1999+1 they cut of any RAW arguments with the double FOC rules.

Saying "2000 points, you may not use the double FOC rule" also cuts out any possible arguments. It just requires admitting that you're playing a house-ruled game.

You're putting words and opinions into other people's mouths and try to shove them down against their will. That's not very nice of you.

1999+1 is easier to say than "2000 without an addition FOC", especially in the middle of a Swedish conversation. That's it. It's as simple as that. (And yes I've had to explain the concept to people the first time I use it)

Save the derision for when people actually pretend double FOC isn't part of the original rule set, most likely in the YMDC forum.

I had never heard of this and think the suggestion of playing 1999pt games would have been a better route to take.

How many 2000 point lists hit the exact mark anyway?

 Medium of Death wrote:
I had never heard of this and think the suggestion of playing 1999pt games would have been a better route to take.

How many 2000 point lists hit the exact mark anyway?

It seems to be a thing in more recent codexes for models and options to cost even 5-point increments at their natural levels of purchase. Making even 5 point increment lists or actually exactly hitting the point cost limit with the new Eldar codex, for instance, is not all too difficult.

P.s. although Imperial armies probably have a lot of 1 point upgrades in the form of flood lights and portable radios. (Which in theory should make hitting point limit even easier.)