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.

Its something where people cant read properly. You can use 2,000pts without a second foc. Its optional like most of 40k. Just people cannot seem to read it

 Medium of Death wrote:
How many 2000 point lists hit the exact mark anyway?

All my lists

 Krellnus wrote:
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.

But it's not a houserule, it's a game of 1999 points where you are allowed to go over it by 1.
It's also not a 'math equation', it's the name of a format.

1999+1 means you follow the rules for 1999, but you play with a list of 2000 points.

Kangodo wrote:
But it's not a houserule, it's a game of 1999 points where you are allowed to go over it by 1.
It's also not a 'math equation', it's the name of a format.

1999+1 means you follow the rules for 1999, but you play with a list of 2000 points.

But if you go over 1999 by 1 point then that is 2000, at which point a double FOC.

 Mahtamori wrote:
1999+1 is easier to say than "2000 without an addition FOC",

'1999' is even easier to say than either of those...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Motograter wrote:
Its something where people cant read properly. You can use 2,000pts without a second foc. Its optional like most of 40k. Just people cannot seem to read it

You've missed the point, which is that people don't want their opponent to be using a second FOC.

Nobody is saying that a second FOC is required. But if you run a 2000 point game, by default people are going to be able to show up with double FOC lists, and some people think that's a problem. Playing 1999 points instead is the answer to that.

Playing 1999 points, but allowing an extra point and pretending that it's still 1999 points is the slightly more convoluted answer to the same problem that is for some inexplicable reason preferred to just setting it to 1999 and getting on with things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:
But it's not a houserule, it's a game of 1999 points where you are allowed to go over it by 1.

If you're allowing your opponent to go over the points limit, that's a house rule.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:
1999+1 is easier to say than "2000 without an addition FOC",

'1999' is even easier to say than either of those...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Motograter wrote:
Its something where people cant read properly. You can use 2,000pts without a second foc. Its optional like most of 40k. Just people cannot seem to read it

You've missed the point, which is that people don't want their opponent to be using a second FOC.

Nobody is saying that a second FOC is required. But if you run a 2000 point game, by default people are going to be able to show up with double FOC lists, and some people think that's a problem. Playing 1999 points instead is the answer to that.

Playing 1999 points, but allowing an extra point and pretending that it's still 1999 points is the slightly more convoluted answer to the same problem that is for some inexplicable reason preferred to just setting it to 1999 and getting on with things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:
But it's not a houserule, it's a game of 1999 points where you are allowed to go over it by 1.

If you're allowing your opponent to go over the points limit, that's a house rule.

That there pretty much sums it up for me.

'

I've gotta say, I respect Insaniak and Peregrine for even bothering to explain what this means, you guys' patience is just silly.

 insaniak wrote:

 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...

It wasn't amusing to begin with. Your point of amusement is one that people here could say quite seriously as a counter point, so it's impossible to know if you were saying it in jest or if you were saying it to make a point against mine.

 Frankenberry wrote:
I've gotta say, I respect Insaniak and Peregrine for even bothering to explain what this means, you guys' patience is just silly.

You actually found Peregrine's aggressive behaviour a good thing?

 Krellnus wrote:
But if you go over 1999 by 1 point then that is 2000, at which point a double FOC.

No, it's a 1999-list. It cannot have double FOC because it's 1999 points.

Maybe some people should be reminded that this is General Discussion and not YMDC where you can rules-lawyer all you want?

Kangodo wrote:
No, it's a 1999-list. It cannot have double FOC because it's 1999 points.

Maybe some people should be reminded that this is General Discussion and not YMDC where you can rules-lawyer all you want?

You know what is rules lawyering? Having a 1999 point game where you're allowed to go over by exactly one point and pretending that it isn't a 2000 point game. If you want to play 2000 points single FOC just say "2000 points single FOC".

I just thought it was one of those types of jokes (funny the first time) that people just latch onto. To me, obviously the intent is 2000 points on a single FOC, and I thought this was just a quirky way of phrasing it.

Which it basically is, in intent, no...? The other person's not a mug, neither are you, you both know the spirit in which it's said...

I like how there is a RAW argument on how to interpret slang.

Oh goodness, is it a crime to say 1999+1 now? Who cares? It communicates an idea and mode of play. Harping on it it being a house rule seems really odd. Where's the shame in such a simple adjustment that players commonly agree on? What's the hang up?

All I did was explain what "1999+1" meant. I was expecting a sort of Imperial Inquisition.

I don't know, 1999 +1 = 2000.

Sounds so stupid to me. All it is, the way I see, it is

"You have to play my way". I think that is what the short form is.

It's a house rule, no and's if's or butt's. When you make a rule that changes it from the BRB, it's a house rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmmm, I don't like overwatch. So maybe we can say 1999+1-OW?

While we are changing the rules of the game, no double FoC, why not change something else you/we don't like?

Admit it. Some people just don't want to play double FoC. They want to enforce that rules on others. It's them trying to say they are playing RAW but changing the rules but saying they are not changing the rules.

I just find it funny how grown men have to change rules for the way THEY want to play the game with plastic toy soldiers and heaven forbid if somebody has a different opinion.

 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?

In 1500, 1750, and 1850 games, I'm usually at 1498 or 1749 and so on. Just under the limit, but too close to add a meltabomb or dozer blades to something.


At the conversation about 1999+1 and so on, my opinion is this: If you want to play a 2000 point game without the double force org, just say so.

 kronk wrote:

At the conversation about 1999+1 and so on, my opinion is this: If you want to play a 2000 point game without the double force org, just say so.

Exactly.

Really it would have been so much better if they had made the force org scale up linerarly.
1 HQ required
1 Troop Required, 1 Optional FA, HS, and Elite per 750 points or part their of.
1 Additional Optional Troop per 750 or part there of.
1 Additional Optional HQ per 1500 points or part there of

At 1000 points you need 1 HQ, 2 troops and can have 2 HS, 2 FA, 2Elite and can have 2 more troops and 1 more HQ
At 2000 points you need 1 HQ, 3 troops and can have 3 HS, 3 FA, 3Elite and can have 3 more troops and 2 more HQ
At 3000 points you need 1 HQ, 4 troops and can have 4 HS, 4 FA, 4Elite and can have 4 more troops and 2 more HQ
At 4000 points you need 1 HQ, 6 troops and can have 6 HS, 6 FA, 6Elite and can have 6 more troops and 3 more HQ

Davor wrote:
I don't know, 1999 +1 = 2000.

Sounds so stupid to me. All it is, the way I see, it is

"You have to play my way". I think that is what the short form is.

It's a house rule, no and's if's or butt's. When you make a rule that changes it from the BRB, it's a house rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmmm, I don't like overwatch. So maybe we can say 1999+1-OW?

While we are changing the rules of the game, no double FoC, why not change something else you/we don't like?

Admit it. Some people just don't want to play double FoC. They want to enforce that rules on others. It's them trying to say they are playing RAW but changing the rules but saying they are not changing the rules.

I just find it funny how grown men have to change rules for the way THEY want to play the game with plastic toy soldiers and heaven forbid if somebody has a different opinion.

When did anybody say you have to play their way? Is anyone hiding the fact that they don't want to play double force org? You are really pushing to paint this issue in a negative light. No ones forcing a rule down your throat. This term exists and is common because many people enjoy playing that way. We understand that it's obviously not your preference, there's no reason to be rude about it.

Davor wrote:
Hmmm, I don't like overwatch. So maybe we can say 1999+1-OW?

While we are changing the rules of the game, no double FoC, why not change something else you/we don't like?

Admit it. Some people just don't want to play double FoC. They want to enforce that rules on others. It's them trying to say they are playing RAW but changing the rules but saying they are not changing the rules.

I just find it funny how grown men have to change rules for the way THEY want to play the game with plastic toy soldiers and heaven forbid if somebody has a different opinion.

I agree here. I don't see any problems with Dual FoC... It really doesn't "break" the game as much as people think it does. Imo if you want to only use a single FoC then play at 1850. Dropping Dual FoC at 2,000 points is just as unreasonable as making flyers count as skimmers... At that point it's the "house rules" that are "breaking" the game.

 Thokt wrote:

Davor wrote:
I don't know, 1999 +1 = 2000.

Sounds so stupid to me. All it is, the way I see, it is

"You have to play my way". I think that is what the short form is.

It's a house rule, no and's if's or butt's. When you make a rule that changes it from the BRB, it's a house rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hmmm, I don't like overwatch. So maybe we can say 1999+1-OW?

While we are changing the rules of the game, no double FoC, why not change something else you/we don't like?

Admit it. Some people just don't want to play double FoC. They want to enforce that rules on others. It's them trying to say they are playing RAW but changing the rules but saying they are not changing the rules.

I just find it funny how grown men have to change rules for the way THEY want to play the game with plastic toy soldiers and heaven forbid if somebody has a different opinion.

When did anybody say you have to play their way? Is anyone hiding the fact that they don't want to play double force org? You are really pushing to paint this issue in a negative light. No ones forcing a rule down your throat. This term exists and is common because many people enjoy playing that way. We understand that it's obviously not your preference, there's no reason to be rude about it.

I don't play anymore. One of the reasons why I gave up, is I was about to go to a tourney at my club that I use to attend to. The rules were stated everything in the 40K book is legal. It was going to be a 2000 point game. The Tourney was mentioned about 2 months before it happened. Guess what. I asked about 3 weeks later what the rules were going to be. The answer was "everything in the rule book." So a week after that I said "great, I will have a dual FoC to try something different" and then it was replied, "Oh no dual FoC, and no mysterious terrain." So the rules changed without notification. It's one thing saying ALL the rules in the BRB, but it's another thing to change the rules because a person doesn't like some certain rules personally.

If that is not hiding or enforcing a way to play, I don't know then. Some people do force it. Just wish they would admit to it right from the beginning. The way I see it, if you are going to hold a tourney and say all the rules in the BRB, you don't then say

 Thokt wrote:
Oh goodness, is it a crime to say 1999+1 now?

Hyperbole much?

No, it's not a crime. It's irritating, and pointless, though.

Harping on it it being a house rule seems really odd. Where's the shame in such a simple adjustment that players commonly agree on? What's the hang up?

There is no shame in using house rules. Not sure where you're getting the idea that anyone was claiming that.

The hang up is solely in how the house rule is presented. 1999+1 is 2000. If you want to play a 2000 point game with a single FOC, just say so. If you want to play what is effectively a 2000 point game, but don't want a house rule involved, just play a 1999 point game.

The 1999+1 is a needless complication. If you walk up to someone you have never played before and ask them for a 2000 point game with a single FOC, they know exactly what you're talking about. If you ask for a 1999+1 point game, chances are unless they frequent forums (and possibly even then) they're going to have to ask you what the heck you're talking about, and once you've explained it are then going to ask you why you didn't just say '2000 points with a single FOC' so they would know what you meant...

Well that's a sad story and all, but that occurrence really doesn't warrant a crusade against the folks on this thread. Not all tourneys are run well, and seeing as they're all run by different people, there's no reason to assume they'll all act the same way. Most tourneys are fairly explicit about their rules, and gladly answer questions prior.

If you want to yell and yell that 1999+1 is a house rule, you'll be yelling at no one in particular, and no one will yell back at you that it isn't. And even if some oddball does, he'll by no means represent the mean average.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So it's an argument about how to refer to a type of play? And there's a wrong answer?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can't imagine the kind of rules shenanigans arguments you'd get into with a person who's apt to decry simple slang people use to describe a game. Pretty baffling. I'm out!

 Thokt wrote:
So it's an argument about how to refer to a type of play? And there's a wrong answer?

No, there's a discussion about what people prefer.

The hyperbole is unnecessary, and adds nothing constructive to the discussion.

It's not much of a discussion if you're referring to one side's viewpoint as "irritating and pointless".

 insaniak wrote:
Hyperbole much?
No, it's not a crime. It's irritating, and pointless, though.

It's not irritating, you FIND it irritating.
That's an important difference.

I, for example, find it extremely irritating when people attack you for calling it "1999+1" instead of "2k with one FOC".

 Peregrine wrote:
You know what is rules lawyering? Having a 1999 point game where you're allowed to go over by exactly one point and pretending that it isn't a 2000 point game. If you want to play 2000 points single FOC just say "2000 points single FOC".

Or if you want to play 2000 points single FOC just say "1999+1".

Isn't the whole thing with something being irritating that different people find different things irritating...?

Kangodo wrote:
It's not irritating, you FIND it irritating.
That's an important difference.

That's no difference at all. There is no requirement for everyone to preface every post with 'in my opinion'... It's generally assumed that when someone posts an opinion, it's an opinion. If I ever feel the need to explain what the entire world thinks about a given topic, rather than a personal opinion, I make sure to point that out.

In general, the only time I've seen 1999+1 used locally was for tournaments and people prepping for such tournaments, and that was back closer to the beginning of 6th.

I haven't seen it too much lately.

I was wondering what that was too, but to me 1999+1 is still 2k points so I would still use double foc unless they tell me no foc