What's all this 1999+1 rubbish?

[Phail]

I'm seeing a lot of army lists (not just here, on other forums too) with an army list size of "1999+1" - with reasoning that if a list is 2k or more then you have to take 2 HQ and 4 Troops

I made this thread to hopefully grab your attention just to make sure that everyone understands that this is NOT the case and is in fact a massive oversight by people reading the new rulebook incorrectly

The actual wording is as follows:

....if you're playing a game of 2,000 points or more, you can take an additional primary detachment...

So there you have it folks..... The word is can - not must, or any other similar derivative that would FORCE you to take 2 HQ and 2 Troops at 2000pts or more - it is completely, 100% optional, and as such all that need be done, should you be taking advantage of the option, is to differentiate your army lists into "primary detachment" and "second primary detachment" where applicable, or simply specify at the beginning of your list that you are using 2 FOCs.

Just something that definitely needed clarification (in its own thread) before too many people also presumed the same wrong idea, as 2k is a very popular size....

Ta

Phail

[Arlins]

i think its to actually stop the additional FOC options and make it clear to your opponant that you dont want to play with the option

[Phail]

indeed, but what people are saying is that if an army list "happens" to be of 2000pts in total then they must take the additional detachment, that's what i'm clarifying

either way, it specifies in the rulebook that it's an option - i don't see why that rule should be ignored, it's an advantage and a disadvantage to every single army, just like fliers, snap shots, overwatch etc.

[PyroSikTh]

I changed all my lists to 1,999+1pts, as Arlins said, just to differentiate. I know it's optional, but I don't put the points like that for my benefit, I put it there for everyone else so that they know it's single FOC before they click it.

Optional or not, it was a stupid idea to put it on a threshold and widely accepted game size. If they bumped it up just by a single point, there wouldn't be this whole misunderstanding.

[Kaffis]

Yeah, I really think making the second FOC available at 2001 points would have been a better move.

It wouldn't change the meta (well, that aspect wouldn't) for 2k points games, so peoples' 2k armies wouldn't have to suddenly face the notion of playing a dual-FOC list.

And playing a 2000 point army in a 2001 point game is much less a hardship than having to shave a point (which is more likely to mean having to shave 5-10 points, these days, as upgrades in most modern codices have a 5 point minimum cost) to play in a 1999 game.

[Phail]

i don't see how it's a misunderstanding - if they made it 2001pts then it would mean you CAN'T take 2 FOCs in a 2000 point game, which is what they actually WANT you to be able to do

at the end of the day, 2000pts means 2000pts. It means you can take an additional primary detachment. You don't have to, but if you are playing that game size then you must be aware of the fact that some people MAY take advantage of that - this is why they are listed as "detachments"

if you were to be using allies you would list your primary detachment, followed by your allied detachment. It should be no different if you are taking a second primary detachment - simply list this separately as you would an allied detachment

if people are confusing "can" with "must" then quite frankly that's their problem and they deserve a slap in the face with the rulebook

[Kaffis]

And that's the point, @Phail . Yes, GW wants us to be able to take 2 detachments in 2000 point games. However, that's a major disruption to the points level.

Green Tides can *fill* 11 troops FOC slots with 30 boyz apiece in under 2000 point games. What used to be the limit on that was the FOC only allowed for 180 boyz as troops, forcing Green Tides to take something other than just masses of cheap bodies that can sit there and dare the enemy to try to kill them all in 5-7 turns.

This is now viable at 2000 points -- a points value many tournament scenes have revolved around.

What people in this thread are saying is, it would've been a lot less disruptive to make the requirement for 2 FOCs 2001 points. Why? Because tournaments are either going to welcome dual FOC lists, or reject them to maintain a more similar metagame to 5th edition, working off the assumption that their players either will or won't want to make the radical changes to their lists that allowing for 2 FOCs will prompt.

As such, extending the points value to 2001 to allow for a second FOC is less disruptive to peoples' existing lists (and, yes, even list-building in the future!) than contracting to 1999 to keep dual-FOC off the table. This is why you're seeing this "1999+1" thing. People want that last 5 points of upgrades in theirs and their opponents' lists, but don't want to open up 2 FOCs by doing so. A 2001 point threshold would have avoided that.

[Phail]

i can see where people are coming from, and i fully respect your explanation - but to me it just feels like people are trying to ignore the rules that they don't like

if anything then the more popular army size should swing to 1850, not some immature, made up number just to get out of a rule they disagree with

if it's that much of an issue, just agree with your opponent/tournament organisers beforehand whether or not you want to house rule the detachment options

[Kaffis]

if it's that much of an issue, just agree with your opponent/tournament organisers beforehand whether or not you want to house rule the detachment options

I basically consider "1999+1" as shorthand for "it's a 2000 point list that's not designed with multiple detachments in mind."

So.. what you describe (agreeing not to use multiple detachments) is exactly what I see 1999+1 as an easy label for.

[Phail]

i still find it kinda lame that people are going to choose which rules they will and won't be following - if you're playing 2k, you're playing 2k, if you don't like the rules, play a smaller size!!

[Brother-Captain Sharp]

1999+1 reads to me exactly like "No FW models should be allowed". It's a holdover from previous days that effects people's thinking and causes them to just dump rules.

I have yet to see an actually good use of the dual FOC built around spamming stuff. And if TO's reject and houserule out a clear and deliberate rule put in the codex, that's their choice. However, to do so with the goal of "maintain(ing) a more similar metagame to 5th edition" is just silly. The meta is already getting overhauled, hardcore. The top lists of three months from now are going to look nothing like the ones at the end of 5th. Too many large, significant rules changes have been made to keep the meta even near where it was. By house ruling out the second detachment you are handicapping your own acclimation to the 6th meta. Lists will have to radically change anyways. You might as well do it right.

Lastly, the spamming benefits of 2 FOC (which at 2000 is mitigated) are far outweighed by the simple fact that it means units that sit on the shelf for a whole edition can finally come out to play. Too many armies have a lot of competition for slots, such as Elites. Example: Elites is where Zoanthropes, Hive Guard, and Doom are all located for Tyranids. That means inevitably the player has to leave choices home, and their list hurts for it. Now, at 2000 points, the same player picks up the ability to take all of them if he desires. So Tyranids just got a lot more options and effective builds opened for it. IG can now take Valkyries and Sentinels up the wazoo, like I've wanted to for quite a while.

In short, these are the rules of the game, and it will influence the meta. Feel free to house rule it out, but I feel like it only weakens your understanding of 6th as well as denying codices new life if they are hamstrung by FOC slot competition. By houseruling out the second detachment, TO's are specifically hurting armies that need that benefit from that second FOC, while bumping up armies that don't need it. Think about what armies are not going to want to use the second FOC: Deathwing, GK, Space Wolves, BA. All these armies can construct a powerful and effective list from one FOC, so denying the second effects them very little. Eldar, Tau, Tyranids, Orks; all these lists can make effective use of the additional slots added by investing in some more required Troops. Do you really want to buff the first group and hurt the second? 6th has great opportunities for codices that have been short of the top to actually compete and maybe place themselves on top for a while.

Denying players with those codices that chance because you are afraid of spamming lists is short sighted and in error.

[Aussie01]

The thing is though Phail, Why should I, as a pretty casual player, write and bring semi soft lists into my LGS to cater to the Jerk burger guys that want to break the game? Because lets be honest. Some of the things you can and will be able to do with 2 FoC are just nasty. Think along the lines of Space Puppies. Two cheap HQs, 2 Cheap Grey Hunter Squads. 6 Squads of Longfangs? Or something like a 6 Stormraven list from Blood angels. Which is possible to do as well. Albeit they are on the far end of the spectrum, but seriously, I think we both know a couple of players that will break the 2 FoC option just for the sake of breaking it.

As someone who wants to have fun with the hobby, and play casual games, I don't see the point in that side of thing. I don't play in tournaments, or have any intention to.

Don't get me wrong, Change is usually good. But, in this case, I think it causes more problems than anything else.

[BrokenWing]

Man there are a lot of people on here that would apparently just tell me to go home, I feel that's not only disappointing but a little depressing. I'm sorry I made my army following the rules, I'll try harder not to next time.

I don't play hardcore lists, but I do follow the rules written in the book. Why should I be punished for doing so by people who are afraid of jerks they could just avoid playing against? This whole thing reads way wrong to me, I'm sorry.

[Brother-Captain Sharp]

The thing is though Phail, Why should I, as a pretty casual player, write and bring semi soft lists into my LGS to cater to the Jerk burger guys that want to break the game? Because lets be honest. Some of the things you can and will be able to do with 2 FoC are just nasty. Think along the lines of Space Puppies. Two cheap HQs, 2 Cheap Grey Hunter Squads. 6 Squads of Longfangs? Or something like a 6 Stormraven list from Blood angels. Which is possible to do as well. Albeit they are on the far end of the spectrum, but seriously, I think we both know a couple of players that will break the 2 FoC option just for the sake of breaking it.

As someone who wants to have fun with the hobby, and play casual games, I don't see the point in that side of thing. I don't play in tournaments, or have any intention to.

Don't get me wrong, Change is usually good. But, in this case, I think it causes more problems than anything else.

If you're a casual player looking for fun, you were never going to get that experience from a WAAC player using 6 Long Fang squads. If it wasn't 6 Long Fangs, it would be something else. In short, arguing you'll have less fun is not an argument against 2 FOCs, instead it's an argument for picking opponents that have the same goal from playing 40k as you do. If you want to have fun with the hobby and just play casual games, play against people that feel the same! Ask your opponent how competitive they want to be. Suggest custom scenarios with a narrative, or maybe slightly modified rules. A player there to have fun in the same manner will agree and be ecstatic to shake it up; you'll end up having a fun and memorable game with a like-minded opponent.

But even if I don't bring 2 FOCs, if you want a casual game and I'm running my 2,000 point DW army for tournament prep, it's going to be just as annoying for you. Frustrating games for casual players don't come from specific rules, they come from mismatches of player goals and attitudes.

Have you guys considered that 2 FOCs may be used just as much by casual gamers as it is by WAAC players? Opening up that many slots gives players that want to build around a theme or in line with a piece of fluff much more freedom. Stop looking at it as the tool of solely WAAC assholes.

[Phail]

Thank you, BCS, glad it's not just me!! :p

Aussie - if you're a casual gamer, and the club you generally associate yourself with also consist of casual gamers, then what's the problem? If you get a jackass turn up who acts like you're afraid someone will act, then I doubt he'll be there for long or getting many games anyway. If you're a casual gamer at a club full of hardcore gamers, then quite frankly you were fucked anyway :p there are a lot more bits of 6th ed that are exploitable than just force organisation charts!!!

And just to clarify - you would need 1 hq and 2 troops per detachment. Furthermore, like BCS says, it's better for people with lots of choices in the same slot - eldar elites are another prime example, as well as guard fast attack, eldar heavy support, dark eldar elites, daemons and chaos HQs.....

It's gonna be better for the casual gamer, allowing them to use more of their favourite units...

[Durandal]

I'm not against two FOCs, I just wish that the actual points threshold had been higher. I don't think that I can handle 18 obliterators at two thousand points.

[Phail]

Except it will take about 5 years for someone to assemble 18 obliterators.....

[Durandal]

Except it will take about 5 years for someone to assemble 18 obliterators.....

I'm sure that there were plenty of Iron Warrior players that dumped the army during 4th for at least a couple people to amass close to that number, because boo-hoo, mean old Gav Thrope reined in some rediculous army lists and everyone threw such a row that Fantasy had to endure two broken books by him just so that he could prove that, yes, it was entirely within his power to break the game if he felt so inclined.
Anyway, I suppose that this means that I might be able to fit in a support weapon battery, or some reapers, along with the falcon and prisms.

[PyroSikTh]

Woah woah woah. I go out for a couple of hours to play a game with @edmundblack and it's all turned hostile.

For the record, as a user of the '1,999+1pts' limit, I never once suggested other players couldn't do it against me. I wouldn't turn them back to re-write their list. 1,999+1, in case your maths were off, is 2,000pts. It's just an easier and shorter way to say "2,000pts - 1 FOC". It's not for my benefit at all, as in my Numbers sheet, they're all listed as 2,000pts anyway. The benefit is for those critiquing the list who know immediately that it's going to be single FOC before even starting.

As for the case of ignoring rules; Need I remind you all this whole thing has stemmed because the second FOC is optional.

Lastly regarding TOs; TOs can do whatever the hell they like with their house rules. It's their tournament. Whether the rule was in there or not doesn't matter, you'd still get some that allow 2 FOCs, and you'd still get some that'll restrict it to 1 FOC. It's exactly the same case with Allies. There's already talks of tournaments banning the Allies rules. There's no point complaining about it, as what they want for their tournament is final. Don't like it? Don't participate. I'm not a tournament player almost purely because I'm not allowed to use my Blight Drones.

[Phail]

Exactly, it's a good thing!! And let's face it who doesn't already have 2hq and 4 troops at 2k, apart from me.... D:p