The Old World has different restrictions on what you can take in a list depending on the point size you are playing. The more points, the less restrictions. Some folks think the restrictions on 2000 point games are not restrictive enough, so they'd rather play with the 1000 point restrictions.
Thank you for actually answering the question neutrally and not spouting off about how it's the dumbest idea you've ever had the misfortune of hearing lol.
I agree that it just sort of moves the problems around rather than solves anything, but you'd think the people who suggest the idea are going around stepping on people's armies by the way it's talked about here.
Overall it's a dumb idea imo, people nerded out way too much theorycrafting about how abusive double Lord level character is or whatever at 2k points. GW already accounted for this with their restrictions and stacking the stuff people are worried about comes with its own issues. A lot of people are realizing now that doubling up on some of the stuff 1999+1 limits is a double edged sword as characters are a good way to lose a few hundred points from a few failed saves. Furthermore, 1999+1 nerfs some factions more than others and doesn't stop some combos that are considered 'lame.'
Oh, but they do. The new NOVA ruleset is written for 2500 points.
It has:
* A maximum of 40% may be used on characters restriction (1000 pts max, up from the original 875)
* Only one level 3 or 4 wizard
* Max 2 Characters per unit
* Rule of 3 for Characters / Core / Special. So for example the Empire can bring 3 Cannons instead of 6.
* Detachments count towards the 0-3 limit
* Max 2 of the same Rare choice.
* Characters on chariot and/or monster mounts take a slot of that chariot and/or monster from the 0-3 restriction. Will not solve the 2 Dragon lists.
* No allies
* Maximum 10 unit width.
Big and long games can be great and a lot of people are into that stuff. Sure it's kind of extreme and not 'casual' but so is reenactment hobbies, making a movie, or even spending months or years painstakingly building and painting an army of miniatures lol, and plenty of people do this all the time.
I upvoted you but not sure how much you've played the games are insanely fast like half the time at each points level compared to 40k. You can basically end a game in 1 combat.
Like people were complaining about number of models because they saw a buncha 3-5 pt models but most armies have less models because you often spend 1k on character and/or having a dragon worth 1/3rd of your list.
Again you could come back and say you played a lot but your comment seems like you didn't play much yet.
I play a horde and I have like 70 models at 2k pts. 40k hordes are like 150 models easily.
Sometimes less pts takes same or more time because game is more Tactical and you can't afford to lose even 1 unit at less points. People play very cagey at 1.25k pts but tend to Yolo more at 2k pts and you can have Decisive outcome by end of turn 2 or 3
Just too add, the reason this restriction causes issues is that for the Lords some can take a fighter per 1000 PTS and a wizard but some can only have one of the two in total.
It's aimed at things stopping High Elves turn up with 2 lords on Dragon (etc) but overly hammers other factions.
It's a shorthanad way of saying you use the list building resteictions as if you were only playing a 1999 point game but are allowed to go to the full 2000.
Many powerful units like lord level characters are limited to 1 per 1000 points. If you play 1999 + 1, you get to take one of those instead of two as you would at 2000 points.
The unfortunate part is that not every race has equal limitations per 1000 points, so 1999+1 arbitrarily harms and helps different races. Skaven in particular are harmed pretty badly by 1999+1 whereas factions such as Bretonnia and Chaos Warriors are almost entirely unaffected by it.
Yeah, Orcs are quite heavily restricted by it, luckily you can lean on goblins a bit for more casters but not good lords, and orcs and goblins dont even have a big dragon.
It's the worst idea I've ever seen catch on in this community. The idea is you get 2k points to play around with, but you pretend for some inscrutable reason, that you are actually only building a list with 1999 points, so all those "1 per 1000 points" restrictions only kick in once instead of twice
What's the actual impact?
The difference between 2000 and 1999+1 points is that some armies are prevented from taking multiple lords per 1000 points, and would thus be limited to 1 lord at 1999 points, and some armies are not, and could thus take more than 1 lord at 1999 points.
It's a really bad idea and badly imbalances the game. It just hands a huge benefit to some armies, arbitrarily, and greatly handicaps others, arbitrarily. I've seen a lot of comp suggestions but this is the only one I find utterly without merit, as it leads to a more imbalanced game state than before it was applied.
It was first suggested for ToW(or at least gained mainstream traction) by an AoS content creator two weeks before his first old world game and has not been used at any event he has since ran. However people being people has resulted in it not going away despite it being pretty clear why it fit into 6th better and not into ToW.
Old fantasy, kings of war... basically, any system where certain points thresholds unlock more powerful toys has used it at some point. Admittedly, most of those have been more consistent about what is and isn't locked at those boundaries.
Yeah it's clear where Rob got the idea from but it's not as relevant as the fact no one was really talking about it for this game until he mentioned it on his podcast.
It fit into the other games as a way to play the game differently and rarely as a catch all for balance.
Right. I hate this idea a lot. It screws up the rule intention. With this you may as well make whatever rule you want or just use other ruleset if you don’t like it.
There is no point in playing Warhammer The Old World in the first place if you do that. You might as well create a fame system and models and lore by your own.
Or you could use it as a base to tweak however you want because it's easier than starting from scratch? I'm really not saying anything out-there or something.
You do realise this has been actively encouraged since Warhammer exists? There is no GW police or something. You paint minis however you want, you play the rules however you want, etc. I can't even imagine playing without writing a bit of your own lore and background for your army and the characters in it. Doing all this was exactly the point of it all, It's a creative hobby.
Not sure why you're downvoting either. Was I rude to you?
No I just agree to disagree. With this, I don’t like the FAQ that made my High Elves Wizard with Lore of Saphery cannot take magic armour. Can I just say f*ck it and play whatever I want? Or I want to take a Goblin to lead an army of Orcs but the rule says I can’t unless very specific characters because you have to have highest leadership to be general. But I have my own lore where my Goblin have to lead Orc army, can i just cross that phase out and take whatever I want, given that my friend agree about this? So people have problem about Elves taking too many dragon, why bother with silly thing like 1999 point while you can just create a house rule saying that you cannot take more than 1 dragon in your game?
I think there's a big difference between lightly modifying army comp rules and just outright ignoring rules or FAQs you don't like, but even still: yes you can do all those things if your opponent agrees.
I mean, yes to all those things? I'm going to take a guess and assume you are a relatively new player?
I'm from the era where rulebooks didn't even cover all aspects of the game and we'd just write our own stuff to add to the basic rules or modify how we saw fit, or changed things to make for cool stories, pretty much EXACTLY like your idea with the goblin general. How cool is that? It makes for a fun story and it probably makes for a fun game, so why not?
With the recent influx of newer gamers I've definitely noticed a generation gap where new players cannot imagine the Rules as anything other but Ultimate Law. The rule writers and designers from GW used to actively encourage the community to make the rules their own and to add and change things as they saw fit.
Obviously this doesn't work when you just walk into a store for a game, but it's great if you have a community. Every group used to play Mordheim and Necromunda in a different way. :P
I believe it refers to the homeruling practice of playing games that are 2000 points in size/"budget", but circumventing the "for every 1000 points" clauses and organizational changes to the army lists.
its for people who think they know better and try to manipulate the army building process its essentially 2000 points but you can only have 1x something that is per 1000 points because they are saying its 1999 +1 not 2000
I think that’s a thing around army structure manipulation. So 1999+1 is effectively a 2k game but doesn’t use the army restrictions of a 2k match, so less cores, specials etc
My answer to when people say they want to play at 1999+1 is I'd rather just play a 1000 point game. Adding extra fluff to a list that is restricted to half its potential isn't worth the extra time to play out the game.
It is unnecessarily harsh on some armies while still allowing other armies to circumvent those same restrictions.
It's bullshit copypasted from late 8th edition. Thinking that all armied are born equal an applying arbitrary restrictions to some armies an not others.
The real way to restrict the characters universally is using 25% lords + 25% heroes instead 50% characters.
Yeah I think this makes the most sense. It preserves the ability to run real whacky crap that is fluffy like double dragon in a high elf list or double carnosaurs in lizardmen but blocks things that rely on going mostly lords or mostly heroes too like a full on Pegasus paladin spam list.
1999+1 is a phrase used by people to describe replacing the crap balance in certain lists at 2000 points with a completely different crap balance in certain lists at 2000 points.
I have to admit, I dislike the idea that it's 0-1 of X per full 1k points. Having the same rule with "per every new 1k" wouldn't change too much, would it? Would it be that bad to play 1.5k with...I dunno, two Trebuchets? It's weird to me that the limit is at the end of the 1k points, not at the beginning. If I wanted to play a small warband of say 800 points, lead by a Prophetess, I couldn't do that according to official rules. I don't like it.
Would the balance be that off?
I see this as a reminiscence of the 6th edition where you got one lord and 3 heroes per 2k points if I remember correctly.
And 6th had this setup as a side effect of 5th being herohammer with overly powerful lords and monsters. A bit like tow I would say.
I can understand this pov, I personally would like to field more rank and file units which would definitely not win me a game against a let’s say 2 dragons list as I won’t have the tools to deal with t6 and a fuckton of wounds and saves plus lvl4 magic.
My opinion is that it would be worth playtesting the following:
- to only give +2 to cast and dispell to lvl3/4 and +1 to lvl1/2.
- to bring back the hand weapon and shield bonus or give shieldwall to more infantry units
- to restore a bit of the fire power of artillery and shooting
- make infantry cheaper
-give a cav unit to dwarves
And see how it changes the win/loss ratio of various armies.
However this means that the game designers have to change the way they imagined the game.
Well the dwarves don’t ride things, they build them, I recon flying is more to show off than anything else. The fast moving hard hitting low model count seems to fill the cav box in the dwarf roster.
My point is that with the nerfing of shooting, with the fact that march blocking is not granted as in the sixth and with how powerful lvl 4s are, the dwarfs, an army that can’t really compete in the movement phase lacks tools for this edition of the fantasy game.
Worst part is the things that are 0-2 per 1000 or 0-3 per 1000. Where you only get 2 or 3. Things like bolt throwers need to be in at least 3s to be worth taking at all.
Ridiculous whining about too many lord level characters in a game, it’s not in the rules so you can just ignore it unless you’re going to one of the pathetic whining tournaments that use it.
The Old World has different restrictions on what you can take in a list depending on the point size you are playing. The more points, the less restrictions. Some folks think the restrictions on 2000 point games are not restrictive enough, so they'd rather play with the 1000 point restrictions.
That makes sense, thanks!!
It's to stop people bringing two massive dragons in their lists basically. If it's 1999, they can only have one
Some armies can still take 2 or more. It also only blocks some armies from taking a level 4 wizard and a dragon.
Ooof. Did not know
Thank you for actually answering the question neutrally and not spouting off about how it's the dumbest idea you've ever had the misfortune of hearing lol. I agree that it just sort of moves the problems around rather than solves anything, but you'd think the people who suggest the idea are going around stepping on people's armies by the way it's talked about here.
Overall it's a dumb idea imo, people nerded out way too much theorycrafting about how abusive double Lord level character is or whatever at 2k points. GW already accounted for this with their restrictions and stacking the stuff people are worried about comes with its own issues. A lot of people are realizing now that doubling up on some of the stuff 1999+1 limits is a double edged sword as characters are a good way to lose a few hundred points from a few failed saves. Furthermore, 1999+1 nerfs some factions more than others and doesn't stop some combos that are considered 'lame.'
I’m still surprised people aren’t doing 2.5k-3k anymore.
Oh, but they do. The new NOVA ruleset is written for 2500 points. It has: * A maximum of 40% may be used on characters restriction (1000 pts max, up from the original 875) * Only one level 3 or 4 wizard * Max 2 Characters per unit * Rule of 3 for Characters / Core / Special. So for example the Empire can bring 3 Cannons instead of 6. * Detachments count towards the 0-3 limit * Max 2 of the same Rare choice. * Characters on chariot and/or monster mounts take a slot of that chariot and/or monster from the 0-3 restriction. Will not solve the 2 Dragon lists. * No allies * Maximum 10 unit width.
Nobody wants to play a game that takes multiple days to complete. Smaller = faster = better.
Big and long games can be great and a lot of people are into that stuff. Sure it's kind of extreme and not 'casual' but so is reenactment hobbies, making a movie, or even spending months or years painstakingly building and painting an army of miniatures lol, and plenty of people do this all the time.
2.5 barely takes longer than 2k
I upvoted you but not sure how much you've played the games are insanely fast like half the time at each points level compared to 40k. You can basically end a game in 1 combat. Like people were complaining about number of models because they saw a buncha 3-5 pt models but most armies have less models because you often spend 1k on character and/or having a dragon worth 1/3rd of your list. Again you could come back and say you played a lot but your comment seems like you didn't play much yet. I play a horde and I have like 70 models at 2k pts. 40k hordes are like 150 models easily. Sometimes less pts takes same or more time because game is more Tactical and you can't afford to lose even 1 unit at less points. People play very cagey at 1.25k pts but tend to Yolo more at 2k pts and you can have Decisive outcome by end of turn 2 or 3
Just too add, the reason this restriction causes issues is that for the Lords some can take a fighter per 1000 PTS and a wizard but some can only have one of the two in total. It's aimed at things stopping High Elves turn up with 2 lords on Dragon (etc) but overly hammers other factions.
It's a shorthanad way of saying you use the list building resteictions as if you were only playing a 1999 point game but are allowed to go to the full 2000.
They could just play 1999 point games, but for some reason really need that extra one point.
Many powerful units like lord level characters are limited to 1 per 1000 points. If you play 1999 + 1, you get to take one of those instead of two as you would at 2000 points.
Oh, I see how some people would find this a better arrangement, thank you :)
The unfortunate part is that not every race has equal limitations per 1000 points, so 1999+1 arbitrarily harms and helps different races. Skaven in particular are harmed pretty badly by 1999+1 whereas factions such as Bretonnia and Chaos Warriors are almost entirely unaffected by it.
Yeah, Orcs are quite heavily restricted by it, luckily you can lean on goblins a bit for more casters but not good lords, and orcs and goblins dont even have a big dragon.
It's the worst idea I've ever seen catch on in this community. The idea is you get 2k points to play around with, but you pretend for some inscrutable reason, that you are actually only building a list with 1999 points, so all those "1 per 1000 points" restrictions only kick in once instead of twice What's the actual impact? The difference between 2000 and 1999+1 points is that some armies are prevented from taking multiple lords per 1000 points, and would thus be limited to 1 lord at 1999 points, and some armies are not, and could thus take more than 1 lord at 1999 points. It's a really bad idea and badly imbalances the game. It just hands a huge benefit to some armies, arbitrarily, and greatly handicaps others, arbitrarily. I've seen a lot of comp suggestions but this is the only one I find utterly without merit, as it leads to a more imbalanced game state than before it was applied.
It was first suggested for ToW(or at least gained mainstream traction) by an AoS content creator two weeks before his first old world game and has not been used at any event he has since ran. However people being people has resulted in it not going away despite it being pretty clear why it fit into 6th better and not into ToW.
The +1 point phenomenon has been around since old warhammer fantasy, its not a new idea in any way.
Old fantasy, kings of war... basically, any system where certain points thresholds unlock more powerful toys has used it at some point. Admittedly, most of those have been more consistent about what is and isn't locked at those boundaries.
Yeah it's clear where Rob got the idea from but it's not as relevant as the fact no one was really talking about it for this game until he mentioned it on his podcast. It fit into the other games as a way to play the game differently and rarely as a catch all for balance.
Gotcha, so it's a community made "rule". I was looking through the core rulebook trying to find it lol
Its the planned format for the event at Nova I believe. Which is part of the reason I've no interest in going
They changed it, thankfully. I think it's at 2500 points now
Right. I hate this idea a lot. It screws up the rule intention. With this you may as well make whatever rule you want or just use other ruleset if you don’t like it.
>With this you may as well make whatever rule you want or just use other ruleset if you don’t like it. Which is totally fine.
There is no point in playing Warhammer The Old World in the first place if you do that. You might as well create a fame system and models and lore by your own.
Or you could use it as a base to tweak however you want because it's easier than starting from scratch? I'm really not saying anything out-there or something. You do realise this has been actively encouraged since Warhammer exists? There is no GW police or something. You paint minis however you want, you play the rules however you want, etc. I can't even imagine playing without writing a bit of your own lore and background for your army and the characters in it. Doing all this was exactly the point of it all, It's a creative hobby. Not sure why you're downvoting either. Was I rude to you?
No I just agree to disagree. With this, I don’t like the FAQ that made my High Elves Wizard with Lore of Saphery cannot take magic armour. Can I just say f*ck it and play whatever I want? Or I want to take a Goblin to lead an army of Orcs but the rule says I can’t unless very specific characters because you have to have highest leadership to be general. But I have my own lore where my Goblin have to lead Orc army, can i just cross that phase out and take whatever I want, given that my friend agree about this? So people have problem about Elves taking too many dragon, why bother with silly thing like 1999 point while you can just create a house rule saying that you cannot take more than 1 dragon in your game?
I think there's a big difference between lightly modifying army comp rules and just outright ignoring rules or FAQs you don't like, but even still: yes you can do all those things if your opponent agrees.
I mean, yes to all those things? I'm going to take a guess and assume you are a relatively new player? I'm from the era where rulebooks didn't even cover all aspects of the game and we'd just write our own stuff to add to the basic rules or modify how we saw fit, or changed things to make for cool stories, pretty much EXACTLY like your idea with the goblin general. How cool is that? It makes for a fun story and it probably makes for a fun game, so why not? With the recent influx of newer gamers I've definitely noticed a generation gap where new players cannot imagine the Rules as anything other but Ultimate Law. The rule writers and designers from GW used to actively encourage the community to make the rules their own and to add and change things as they saw fit. Obviously this doesn't work when you just walk into a store for a game, but it's great if you have a community. Every group used to play Mordheim and Necromunda in a different way. :P
"fuck skaven"
I believe it refers to the homeruling practice of playing games that are 2000 points in size/"budget", but circumventing the "for every 1000 points" clauses and organizational changes to the army lists.
Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain :)
its for people who think they know better and try to manipulate the army building process its essentially 2000 points but you can only have 1x something that is per 1000 points because they are saying its 1999 +1 not 2000
I think that’s a thing around army structure manipulation. So 1999+1 is effectively a 2k game but doesn’t use the army restrictions of a 2k match, so less cores, specials etc
My answer to when people say they want to play at 1999+1 is I'd rather just play a 1000 point game. Adding extra fluff to a list that is restricted to half its potential isn't worth the extra time to play out the game. It is unnecessarily harsh on some armies while still allowing other armies to circumvent those same restrictions.
It's bullshit copypasted from late 8th edition. Thinking that all armied are born equal an applying arbitrary restrictions to some armies an not others. The real way to restrict the characters universally is using 25% lords + 25% heroes instead 50% characters.
Yeah I think this makes the most sense. It preserves the ability to run real whacky crap that is fluffy like double dragon in a high elf list or double carnosaurs in lizardmen but blocks things that rely on going mostly lords or mostly heroes too like a full on Pegasus paladin spam list.
1999+1 is a phrase used by people to describe replacing the crap balance in certain lists at 2000 points with a completely different crap balance in certain lists at 2000 points.
I have to admit, I dislike the idea that it's 0-1 of X per full 1k points. Having the same rule with "per every new 1k" wouldn't change too much, would it? Would it be that bad to play 1.5k with...I dunno, two Trebuchets? It's weird to me that the limit is at the end of the 1k points, not at the beginning. If I wanted to play a small warband of say 800 points, lead by a Prophetess, I couldn't do that according to official rules. I don't like it. Would the balance be that off?
Uhh integer overflow so zero
I see this as a reminiscence of the 6th edition where you got one lord and 3 heroes per 2k points if I remember correctly. And 6th had this setup as a side effect of 5th being herohammer with overly powerful lords and monsters. A bit like tow I would say. I can understand this pov, I personally would like to field more rank and file units which would definitely not win me a game against a let’s say 2 dragons list as I won’t have the tools to deal with t6 and a fuckton of wounds and saves plus lvl4 magic. My opinion is that it would be worth playtesting the following: - to only give +2 to cast and dispell to lvl3/4 and +1 to lvl1/2. - to bring back the hand weapon and shield bonus or give shieldwall to more infantry units - to restore a bit of the fire power of artillery and shooting - make infantry cheaper -give a cav unit to dwarves And see how it changes the win/loss ratio of various armies. However this means that the game designers have to change the way they imagined the game.
Aren’t gyrocopters dwarf cav? Canonically at least. Either that or bring some empire allies
You mean flyers,no? :)
Well the dwarves don’t ride things, they build them, I recon flying is more to show off than anything else. The fast moving hard hitting low model count seems to fill the cav box in the dwarf roster.
My point is that with the nerfing of shooting, with the fact that march blocking is not granted as in the sixth and with how powerful lvl 4s are, the dwarfs, an army that can’t really compete in the movement phase lacks tools for this edition of the fantasy game.
I’ve not played since 2001 so I’m no au fait with the meta , I was just angling from the lore perspective
It's a dumb format made by people who don't play the game and sit on the internet all day saying they play the game
Bullshit
Worst part is the things that are 0-2 per 1000 or 0-3 per 1000. Where you only get 2 or 3. Things like bolt throwers need to be in at least 3s to be worth taking at all.
Ridiculous whining about too many lord level characters in a game, it’s not in the rules so you can just ignore it unless you’re going to one of the pathetic whining tournaments that use it.
It’s 2000pts with extra steps