50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Saldiven wrote: Sigvatr wrote: Godless-Mimicry wrote:Seriously? How the hell is this a 10 page thread? Has Dakka really gone this much to the dogs?
Explanation:
A: "I AM RIGHT OMG Y U NO LISTEN TO ME"
B: "I AM RIGHT OMG Y U NO LISTEN TO ME"
...since page 1.
This thread should have been locked a long, long time ago for the simple reason that there has been nothing new added since page 1 or 2.
I vote we table this discussion until such time that a major regional or larger tournament actually schedules an event that has a points total where 25% doesn't equal a whole number. Until such time, this entire debate is a waste of time.
The mods decided to leave it open.
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
Saldiven wrote:
This thread should have been locked a long, long time ago for the simple reason that there has been nothing new added since page 1 or 2.
I vote we table this discussion until such time that a major regional or larger tournament actually schedules an event that has a points total where 25% doesn't equal a whole number. Until such time, this entire debate is a waste of time.
Eh, a few new points were raised and put down.
Such as showing that building a list is part of "playing a game" (page 3 or page 7 IIRC).
And that sideways movement rounds up allowing for more mobility for units with odd numbered movements.
What I've learned most is the format for rule discovery is really poor.
In the future, (in debates where the outcome actually matters), complex arguments could be streamlined if a summary was kept up on page 1.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Back in the day, when Dakka was a much less cute-and-fluffy place for rules debates than it is now (anyone remember Mauleed?), there were some proponents who wanted rules debates to be presented in a premise:conclusion format. It made for more concise rules debates because it required people to cite specific rules quotations and a clear fashion showing how they reached a conclusion. The debate would go from there.
Example (just for a simplified example):
Premise 1: Mammals have hair, bear live young and lactate.
Premise 2: Dogs have hair, bear live young and lactate.
Conclusion: Dogs are mammals.
61985
Post by: Niteware
But it is amusing...
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
Saldiven wrote:Back in the day, when Dakka was a much less cute-and-fluffy place for rules debates than it is now (anyone remember Mauleed?), there were some proponents who wanted rules debates to be presented in a premise:conclusion format. It made for more concise rules debates because it required people to cite specific rules quotations and a clear fashion showing how they reached a conclusion. The debate would go from there.
Example (just for a simplified example):
Premise 1: Mammals have hair, bear live young and lactate.
Premise 2: Dogs have hair, bear live young and lactate.
Conclusion: Dogs are mammals.
I don't think that's needed on all debates, but anything that hits a few pages seems to be where people jump in without reading some of the middle stuff that's already been covered/shown correct/incorrect.
I would suggest a:
Pro-side:
1) blah blah blah, page number
A) counter point by Con.
2) blah blah, page number
A) count point
B) count point
3) blah blah, example, page number
a) no counter
Con-
Same format.
I would guess this 11 pages can be summed up into about 2-4 points and counter points on both sides.
But, since it doesn't matter, I won't bother to do it.
-Matt
64486
Post by: cawizkid
So, for all those 500 pointers, where do you stand on half point models, should they all be rounded up or do you use the half points? because by your enforcing of the DTC rule for army building, these models have to be rounded up.
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
cawizkid wrote:So, for all those 500 pointers, where do you stand on half point models, should they all be rounded up or do you use the half points? because by your enforcing of the DTC rule for army building, these models have to be rounded up.
No dividing or multiplying on half point models, so no DtC.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
So 1/2 is not indicative of division and yet 25% is?
Interesting position.
I guess that explains why you think that .5x399 needs rounding but .5x399 does not.
Editing silly numbers.
29630
Post by: DukeRustfield
"So 1/2 is not indicative of division and yet 25% is?"
25% alone isn't doing anything. 25% is part of a formula. You are called upon to find 25% of total points. You are not evaluating the numerator of the non-integer portion of a goblin cost and the denominator of the non-integer portion of a goblin cost to come up with a total non-integer portion. There is no formula in any army book or BRB that lists that. That 1/2 isn't in a formula you are called upon to ever calculate except through addition.
I'm annoyed no one has quoted my last post :( I explained what the rule would have to be in English for your interpretation to be correct. And that isn't the rule. The points rule is a very simple equation that you can walk into any school and get a math teacher to confirm. Or probably a social studies teacher.
At this point you seem to be trying to say, "we know we're wrong, but we won't admit it and we want you to be wrong on something else."
64486
Post by: cawizkid
I am sorry, but 1/2 is 50%, by definition, and you add your points to make a total of your army, you do not multiply or divide them. So you either have to use the RAW for all % or half indicates and round up or not use it at all, Just as moving 3 inch is "1/2" of a 5 inch move (DTC), you must apply this to every model/ Purchasable Item for a model etc, that has a 1/2 value, I still do not under stand how you are justifying that you can apply this rule to one part of your army building process and not the whole thing. Using a rule to only benefit a portion of the game, Is called Cheating, It is either all or nothing.
That section like much of the BRB is written so poorly that it messes with some many other things, I get that the intent is that from the example, 5 is not 10% while 6 is more than 10%, and If you are called on to take exactly 10%, you would take out 6 to get to 10% even if you go over. Example 10 models can fight in a building, XYZ count as 3 models for this purpose, well if it was complete models 3 XYZ models can fight, but because of DTC 4 XYZ models can fight. 3.3 models rounds up to 4.
76274
Post by: Peasant
DukeRustfield wrote:6 is more than 10% of 51 in many non- WHFB circumstances depending on how they're rounding. But unfortunately for you guys, this is a WHFB forum. And it's 10%.
Calculating what that number should be is not required.
*emphasis added* It is in the rule, however. You are choosing to do an order of operations that doesn't exist in the BRB.
"You can spend up to 25% of your points on Rare units."
.25 * TOTAL_POINTS >= RARE_SPEND
That is literally what that sentence means. You know the value for TOTAL_POINTS, only RARE_SPEND is unknown. That is what is in the BRB. And DTC comes into play on the result (if there's a remainder). You are saying a formula of:
(RAREPOINTS_1 + RAREPOINTS_2 + RAREPOINTS_N) / TOTAL_POINTS <= .25
or
(RAREPOINTS_1 + RAREPOINTS_2 + RAREPOINTS_N) /.25 <= TOTAL_POINTS
But that is not what the rule says. The sentence isn't: "Your Rares units may be up to 25% of your total points." It's close. And about as generous as I can get. And often they will be the same. But you can see it's not the BRB. It simply doesn't state your Rare units divided or multiplied by anything and that matters because of DTC. It does, however, say 25% of your points.
If this were a math class, you could convert the first equation into:
TOTAL_POINTS >= RARE_SPEND/.25
But a) that's not the verbiage in the BRB b) it's still not the same as what you're saying, as RARE_SPEND isn't the total of RAREPOINTS.
Ok I must have failed math...what the heck does all that mean?
Are you saying that all you have to do is calculate what points you have...your claim 500.. And that is it? No more calculation required?
(Edit to add)...so you don't need to reference total points anymore because you have your total?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HawaiiMatt wrote:cawizkid wrote:So, for all those 500 pointers, where do you stand on half point models, should they all be rounded up or do you use the half points? because by your enforcing of the DTC rule for army building, these models have to be rounded up.
No dividing or multiplying on half point models, so no DtC.
Wrong. Several 500's have said that multiplication and division are the same...
I buy 29 shields at .5 points...29x.5=14.5.
That is multiplying so you must round that...according to your position.
(Edit to remove unnecessary jab) Automatically Appended Next Post: DukeRustfield wrote:"So 1/2 is not indicative of division and yet 25% is?"
25% alone isn't doing anything. 25% is part of a formula. You are called upon to find 25% of total points. You are not evaluating the numerator of the non-integer portion of a goblin cost and the denominator of the non-integer portion of a goblin cost to come up with a total non-integer portion. There is no formula in any army book or BRB that lists that. That 1/2 isn't in a formula you are called upon to ever calculate except through addition.
I'm annoyed no one has quoted my last post :( I explained what the rule would have to be in English for your interpretation to be correct. And that isn't the rule. The points rule is a very simple equation that you can walk into any school and get a math teacher to confirm. Or probably a social studies teacher.
At this point you seem to be trying to say, "we know we're wrong, but we won't admit it and we want you to be wrong on something else."
You are annoyed.?
I have asked several questions that have been ignored...like this one...
What percentage of 1999 is 500?
Finding out that 500 is more than 25% of 1999 is a simple equation too but we are here on page 11.
29630
Post by: DukeRustfield
And 1/1 is 100%. And if something is 250pts it's also 250/1. But for models/units you are never called to make that calculation. That's never part of a formula in DTC.
Ok I must have failed math
Yeah, you did. Because you don't even seem to understand variables. No wonder this is going badly. Can't debate English with a German speaker.
What percentage of 1999 is 500?
500 is never a variable in the BRB. You're pulling it out of your rear. The BRB doesn't ask that question.
76274
Post by: Peasant
DukeRustfield wrote:
And 1/1 is 100%. And if something is 250pts it's also 250/1. But for models/units you are never called to make that calculation. That's never part of a formula in DTC.
Ok I must have failed math
Yeah, you did. Because you don't even seem to understand variables. No wonder this is going badly. Can't debate English with a German speaker.
What percentage of 1999 is 500?
500 is never a variable in the BRB. You're pulling it out of your rear. The BRB doesn't ask that question.
I may have trouble understanding written variables but i can use big words...
You are attempting to justify the application of DtC by extrapolating the mathematical process of division/multiplication and percentages so that the rule in question (DtC) will coincide with points values. Then you proceed to refute any other variable that yields a number that is contradictory to your perceived value because you have no written examples or specific instruction. I find this stance to be contrary.
We can use big words and fancy variables but they are meaningless when someone doesnt understand what you are saying. (But you can fluff your feathers in meaningless pride if you desire).
Your refusal to even answer simple questions shows that answering those questions will weaken your position..common tactic in politics and law.
The basic rule book doesn't specifically ask the question of what percent of 1999 500 is..I do. I ask that question to be sure I do not exceed 25% of 1999.
No matter how you twist, avoid, ignore, or repeat the one line that tells you to round a fraction, 500 is still 25.01 % of 1999 and there is a specific rule that tells you that you can spend up to 25%. Which means that you cannot exceed 25%.
500 is not pulled from my rear. 500 is a number that exceeds 25% of 1999.
What percentage of 1999 is 500?
My question about 500/1999 is irrelevant because the BRB doesn't ask the question?
BRB doesn't ask me many things, like how many points I'd like to play either.
500 is a variable. It is the one that you believe to be the correct number in this discussion. If it is not a variable than you cannot continue.
Do you believe you ignore your points after a single calculation?
You believe you can break a specific rule where there is no text applying DtC to points yet you will not recalculate 500's actual percentage of 1999 because you are not specifically told to.????
You are never told to apply DtC to your points.
Ever.
The above writing is simple..and sadly repetitive ..
What's terrible is that this really is just a circular argument....glutton for punishment I guess..if only work was busier. 
38275
Post by: Tangent
Duke is right about this one, guys. There is no calculation involved in determining, by reading the army book, that a goblin is 2.5 points (or whatever the cost is). It just IS that value and no calculation is required. As Duke points out in the part I quoted here, the slippery slope that you're on is that you could then state that EVERY number is a calculation. In Duke's example, if a unit costs 250 points, the calculation would be 250/1. You could also then try to make really weird statements, like how if 1/2 is 50% then 2/1 is 200%.
But that's the point - a percentage MUST reference a specific value to be relevant. 1/2 is NOT 50% because... 50% of what? 50% of 1, sure. But what is 1 is NOT the value that we're discussing?
This is another tributary of the main argument that is totally irrelevant.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
 Tangent wrote:But that's the point - a percentage MUST reference a specific value to be relevant.
No. That is the point of the percentage. You are comparing what is a variable. Your points spent can total up to 25%, which can be verified without knowing what the 25% actually would be. Which is to say you never need to divide 1999 by 4 to determine that you have broken a rule.
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
cawizkid wrote:I am sorry, but 1/2 is 50%, by definition, and you add your points to make a total of your army, you do not multiply or divide them. So you either have to use the RAW for all % or half indicates and round up or not use it at all, Just as moving 3 inch is "1/2" of a 5 inch move (DTC), you must apply this to every model/ Purchasable Item for a model etc, that has a 1/2 value, I still do not under stand how you are justifying that you can apply this rule to one part of your army building process and not the whole thing. Using a rule to only benefit a portion of the game, Is called Cheating, It is either all or nothing.
You're missing a very simple fundamental difference.
In your movement example, 5 is the value. The process of half movement sideways tells you to divide, which is where DTC kicks in.
A gnoblar is 2.5 points. A clan rat is 4.5 points. Those are the set values, no dividing with the value is implied, and no mathematical process is involved.
Spending 171 points in rares is adding.
Determining the % limit spent in rares is multiplying.
DTC doesn't care about a value, it's how you got the value.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
A fragmented Skaven Core then can spend rather well under what anyone would call 25% then?
That also seem silly.
76274
Post by: Peasant
Tangent wrote:
Duke is right about this one, guys. There is no calculation involved in determining, by reading the army book, that a goblin is 2.5 points (or whatever the cost is). It just IS that value and no calculation is required. As Duke points out in the part I quoted here, the slippery slope that you're on is that you could then state that EVERY number is a calculation. In Duke's example, if a unit costs 250 points, the calculation would be 250/1. You could also then try to make really weird statements, like how if 1/2 is 50% then 2/1 is 200%.
But that's the point - a percentage MUST reference a specific value to be relevant. 1/2 is NOT 50% because... 50% of what? 50% of 1, sure. But what is 1 is NOT the value that we're discussing?
This is another tributary of the main argument that is totally irrelevant.
Isn't that the point...to a point.?
There is a slippery slope. Other than the fact that 25% ends as a fraction (499.75) there is nothing that connects DtC to points. The 500 crowd is applying it based on the fraction and 25% is division..(although some have said multiplication) so it could be possible to start making all the crazy assumptions depending on the methods used to generate your points.
The only specifics in how to total your army is to be sure you meet minimums and don't exceed maximums. Some will add, multiply, divide and even subtract in the process.
There is no specific relationship between DtC and points.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
So, to sum up:
1) the 499'ers like to ignore "of your points", because that requires you to divide 1999 / 4 and then round up, following the rules on page 7
OR
2) The 499'ers start trying to invoke specific vs general....despite the general points limit rule being overridden by the specific DTC rule on page 7.
whereas 3)
The 500'ers are simply doing what the rule tells you: spending up to 25% of 1999, which is spending up to 499.75, which is spending up to 500 points, by applying all the actual rules
One is a very simple, straightforward and RAW way of working. The other involves making gak up.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
You were almost right with 3).
The correct answer is 499.75 points. And that's it. Spend 500 and you're over. Spend 499 and you can still spend up to .75 points.
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
Peasant wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HawaiiMatt wrote:cawizkid wrote:So, for all those 500 pointers, where do you stand on half point models, should they all be rounded up or do you use the half points? because by your enforcing of the DTC rule for army building, these models have to be rounded up.
No dividing or multiplying on half point models, so no DtC.
Wrong. Several 500's have said that multiplication and division are the same...
I buy 29 shields at .5 points...29x.5=14.5.
That is multiplying so you must round that...according to your position.
(Edit to remove unnecessary jab)
You're not dividing on half point Models, neither are you multiplying on the Models.
I think you can argue that you are multiplying on half point UNITS.
29 clan rats at 4.5 point each is 130.5 points; rounded up to 131.
11 Gnoblars would be 27.5 points; rounded up to 28 points.
-Matt
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
HawaiiMatt wrote:
You're not dividing on half point Models, neither are you multiplying on the Models.
I think you can argue that you are multiplying on half point UNITS.
29 clan rats at 4.5 point each is 130.5 points; rounded up to 131.
11 Gnoblars would be 27.5 points; rounded up to 28 points.
-Matt
If using the faux-argumentation often brought up in this thread, you can easily argue that multiplication is nothing else than repeated addition which would then show that you multiply models as well as units.
7662
Post by: Camarodragon
WOW.. This is really deep. I thought discussions like this were only in the 40k forum.
76274
Post by: Peasant
Summary..
DTC does not apply to points.
It is reaching to apply it to points.
You are never called on to apply dtc.
The rules are clear on how to spend your points.
You have clear limits that are already set.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HawaiiMatt wrote:Peasant wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HawaiiMatt wrote:cawizkid wrote:So, for all those 500 pointers, where do you stand on half point models, should they all be rounded up or do you use the half points? because by your enforcing of the DTC rule for army building, these models have to be rounded up.
No dividing or multiplying on half point models, so no DtC.
Wrong. Several 500's have said that multiplication and division are the same...
I buy 29 shields at .5 points...29x.5=14.5.
That is multiplying so you must round that...according to your position.
(Edit to remove unnecessary jab)
You're not dividing on half point Models, neither are you multiplying on the Models.
I think you can argue that you are multiplying on half point UNITS.
29 clan rats at 4.5 point each is 130.5 points; rounded up to 131.
11 Gnoblars would be 27.5 points; rounded up to 28 points.
-Matt
This is the point about not rounding and not applying DTC.
There is no clear time when you use it because everyone writes their list in a different method.
You do not apply DTC to points.
You are never instructed to do so.
Edited to move e typo.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Peasant - except, you know, when youre instructed to do so whenever you divide. There is no limitation on when you round -just a command, to round when you divide.
Which you have done. So you round.
Sig - so you ignore the rule on page 7, which states whenever you divide you round? Will you ever grace this thread with an actual argument as to why? You know, following the rules of this forum and all would be very helpful.
61985
Post by: Niteware
nosferatu1001 wrote:So, to sum up:
1) the 499'ers like to ignore "of your points", because that requires you to divide 1999 / 4 and then round up, following the rules on page 7
Ridiculous. The 499ers can actually read and see that it states "up to 25% of your points", which requires both a value as a percentage and not being over 25%, neither of which the 500 pointers can manage.
OR
2) The 499'ers start trying to invoke specific vs general....despite the general points limit rule being overridden by the specific DTC rule on page 7.
Hilarious. Suggesting that something which applies to "every time you are called on to divide" (quoting Nosferatu, not the BRB) could be more specific than rules which apply in one specific circumstance.
You are given a hard limit - in the army books as well as the BRB - so no general rule can over ride it.
whereas 3)
The 500'ers are simply doing what the rule tells you: spending up to 25% of 1999, which is spending up to 499.75, which is spending up to 500 points, by applying all the actual rules
One is a very simple, straightforward and RAW way of working. The other involves making gak up.
The 500ers are simply riding roughshod over the rules, mathematics, logic and sense. They have no RAW, no RAI and no substantive argument.
76274
Post by: Peasant
nosferatu1001 wrote:Peasant - except, you know, when youre instructed to do so whenever you divide. There is no limitation on when you round -just a command, to round when you divide.
Which you have done. So you round.
Sig - so you ignore the rule on page 7, which states whenever you divide you round? Will you ever grace this thread with an actual argument as to why? You know, following the rules of this forum and all would be very helpful.
How about we try to wrap it up with closing statements.
Because this is all j see on the 500 side
This discussion goes in circles because the basis of your position is...
pg 7 says if you divide and get a fraction you round.
And you defend your position as..
Pg 7 says if you divide and get a fraction you round.
That's it..not much there.
A single equation (division) connects pg 7 to your points and disregards any other parts of your points or calculations?
Is this a fair summary? Would you add a missed portion?
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sig - so you ignore the rule on page 7, which states whenever you divide you round? Will you ever grace this thread with an actual argument as to why? You know, following the rules of this forum and all would be very helpful.
Have done so in the beginning of the thread. Will summarize.
First of all, the 500 crowd already makes a pretty far stretch by relating points to "any other value" in the DtC rule.
Secondly, DtC in its examples only refers to anything that happens in-game and the introducing paragraph before DtC explicitely refers to events that happen "while you play" (p.6) which clearly exclues army composition. And on top of that, everything else in the same chapter ("Measuring distances", "Dice", etc.) only refer to anything happening in-game as well. Furthermore, p.140 explicitely excludes army composition from actually playing too (bolded paragraph, right under the headline).
Thirdly, you are never called upon to divide point values, the (25)% limit already exists, so you're not being called upon.
25% of 1999 is exactly 499.75, 500 is too much and 499 allows you to spend another .75 points.
38275
Post by: Tangent
kirsanth wrote: Tangent wrote:But that's the point - a percentage MUST reference a specific value to be relevant.
No. That is the point of the percentage.
You are comparing what is a variable.
Your points spent can total up to 25%, which can be verified without knowing what the 25% actually would be.
Which is to say you never need to divide 1999 by 4 to determine that you have broken a rule.
No, I'm saying that a percentage must reference a specific TOTAL value to be relevant. It has no meaning otherwise. If you just say "25%", it begs the question, "25% of what?" Just saying "25%" doesn't translate into any meaningful numbers that we can actually use. You have to know that it's 25% of 2000, or whatever.
Sigvatr wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sig - so you ignore the rule on page 7, which states whenever you divide you round? Will you ever grace this thread with an actual argument as to why? You know, following the rules of this forum and all would be very helpful.
Have done so in the beginning of the thread. Will summarize.
First of all, the 500 crowd already makes a pretty far stretch by relating points to "any other value" in the DtC rule.
Secondly, DtC in its examples only refers to anything that happens in-game and the introducing paragraph before DtC explicitely refers to events that happen "while you play" (p.6) which clearly exclues army composition. And on top of that, everything else in the same chapter ("Measuring distances", "Dice", etc.) only refer to anything happening in-game as well. Furthermore, p.140 explicitely excludes army composition from actually playing too (bolded paragraph, right under the headline).
Thirdly, you are never called upon to divide point values, the (25)% limit already exists, so you're not being called upon.
25% of 1999 is exactly 499.75, 500 is too much and 499 allows you to spend another .75 points.
So the main crux of your argument is basically that DtC doesn't apply because when you're forming your army list you're not yet playing the game?
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Tangent wrote: So the main crux of your argument is basically that DtC doesn't apply because when you're forming your army list you're not yet playing the game?
There ain't a "main" reason, all those are valid reasons, showing why DtC is not to be applied and the exact answer is 499.75.
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
Sigvatr wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sig - so you ignore the rule on page 7, which states whenever you divide you round? Will you ever grace this thread with an actual argument as to why? You know, following the rules of this forum and all would be very helpful.
Have done so in the beginning of the thread. Will summarize.
First of all, the 500 crowd already makes a pretty far stretch by relating points to "any other value" in the DtC rule.
Secondly, DtC in its examples only refers to anything that happens in-game and the introducing paragraph before DtC explicitely refers to events that happen "while you play" (p.6) which clearly exclues army composition. And on top of that, everything else in the same chapter ("Measuring distances", "Dice", etc.) only refer to anything happening in-game as well. Furthermore, p.140 explicitely excludes army composition from actually playing too (bolded paragraph, right under the headline).
Thirdly, you are never called upon to divide point values, the (25)% limit already exists, so you're not being called upon.
25% of 1999 is exactly 499.75, 500 is too much and 499 allows you to spend another .75 points.
1) are you saying that points aren't a value? "Any" is pretty all inclusive.
2) read through page 3, we've already shown how building a list falls into playing a game.
3) the 25% limit doesn't "already exist", any more than any other value "already exists".
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Why are you rounding the allowed points instead of the allowance stated?
You can calculate the percentage you brought following the rules and compare that to the allowed percentage.
You are not specifically called upon to determine the number of points, only the percentage they take.
Rounded, you spent 26%, right?
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Ignoring the strawman parts...
HawaiiMatt wrote:
3) the 25% limit doesn't "already exist", any more than any other value "already exists".
...incorrect. If this was correct, all units costsof e.g. .5 would always be 1 and you know as well as I do that this isn't how it works. Same as fractions during army composition. 25% of X is a fixed value. You are not called upon to divide it...as I stated above. Just as others already did.
Not going to take part in the circle-argumentation here, I'll just repeat my previous post on the new page(s) to help people who are looking for an answer to the issue.
...and this just aside: nobody who is actually interested in the RAW-answer to the question at hand will even be interested in the answer as people who play with 1999 pts are playing at such a value because they *don't* want 25% to be 500 and thus play it the RAW-way already...which means that 25% are <500 (exactly: 499.75) points. So all in all, I don't even see the purpose of this thread, other than some people (not referring to anyone in special here) feeling the need to prove their self-assumed superior understanding of the rules to the mere peasants below. Just don't take it personal. The same people who are wrong on this case (the 500 crowd) is usually right about most other rule questions and everyone makes mistakes every now and then 
...and really, we're arguing over .25 points here
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Its a moot point.
So we called a moot.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Sigvatr - so points arent a value? That is considered a "stretch" by you?
Hilarious
I will continue to follow the rules and, when called upon to divide (when finding the points limit I can spend on models) I will round up.
I am never called upon to work out the percentage I have spent, so I havent spent 26%. Nice strawman though. Wait, it isnt....
Oh, and page 3 doesnt prove that building your list is part of playing the game? You just ignore the proof there, and call it a strawman? Your gall is impressive. Ignore anything proving your wrong!
Nite - your "responses" are ignored, as they failed to actually use any rules, same as your entire argument this thread. Thatnks for agreeing you have no rules argument, and are playing a houserule, now please add this explicitly to your future thread, mkay?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
You are told to bring a percentage, not a specific value. Determining what that value would be is never called for, simply verifying that it is not more than 25%. Doing so, using your version of math, results in 26%. editing to clarify what "your version of math is":  kirsanth wrote:I guess that explains why you think that .5x399 needs rounding but .5x399 does not.
1/2 is not rounded, but 500/1999 is because all values are rounded. /nod
61985
Post by: Niteware
Nosferatu, I love that when you disagree with people's interpretation of rules, you state that they have not used rules.
I love that you argue with points by saying that they are wrong, rather than giving evidence.
And I love that you sidestep arguements that you cannot refute.
Thank you for continuing to persist with your phelonious statements in the face of all the evidence.
I find this thread very entertaining.
76274
Post by: Peasant
nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigvatr - so points arent a value? That is considered a "stretch" by you?
Hilarious
I will continue to follow the rules and, when called upon to divide (when finding the points limit I can spend on models) I will round up.
I am never called upon to work out the percentage I have spent, so I havent spent 26%. Nice strawman though. Wait, it isnt....
Oh, and page 3 doesnt prove that building your list is part of playing the game? You just ignore the proof there, and call it a strawman? Your gall is impressive. Ignore anything proving your wrong!
Nite - your "responses" are ignored, as they failed to actually use any rules, same as your entire argument this thread. Thatnks for agreeing you have no rules argument, and are playing a houserule, now please add this explicitly to your future thread, mkay?
There have been plenty of reasons given as to why the answer to all this is 499 not 500.
The only reason the 500 crowd believes they apply DtC is because one paragraph on pg 7 references the terms dividing and any value. That is a stretch. Especially when the defense by the 500 were told that you can multiply to get 25%...so then multiplication semantically was division etc. this continues to be reaching.
No example given references points.
Here are the rules and paragraphs that show maybe not decisively, but have more foundation then a few words in a single paragraph.
You are told to spend up to 25% of your points It just told you to find out what percentage to spend..up to 25%.
You are never told to round.
As was stated before..the chapter that includes pg7 is General principles and makes specific reference to the turn sequence. So figuring out points my be part of the game but not the turn sequence. All examples given are turn sequence examples.
You want someone to believe 'any value' stretches to points yet you are ignoring that you can spend 'up to 25%.'
You are never told anywhere else to round your points
You don't believe being told to spend up to 25% asks for a percentage? It's in the section on points..
You haven't been asked to work out a percentage so you haven't spent 26%???? Then what have you spent?
The percentage can't disappear. I spent 550 but I don't need a percentage so it should be ok.. 
The words don't specifically say to get a percentage so it is not a valid point?
But because a paragraph in different chapter mention the words dividing and a value that holds more weight.?
Who's stretching farther.
You have nothing to prove you are right. You are playing your own house rule at 500.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
1) You do not NEED to be told to round. You just need to divide, and page 7 then forces you to round
2) Is a points VALUE *any* value? Yes? then gee,I guess it is covered EXACTLY by this rule. No stretch
3) You are told this applies IN GAME. Writing a list isdefined as IN GAME. Stop repeating debunked arguments.
4) "up to 25% OF YOURS POINTS LIMIT"
What IS 25% of your points limit? 499.75
Have you divided? YES! Then you use page 7, as a points VALUE is indeed ANY VALUE! So we get 500
Not. Tricky..
Proven over and over and over and over that this is right, but keep on believing your own house rules. Night.
Edit: as a query - given you have arbitrarily decided that a points value ISNT covered by DTC, would you care to exaplin which values are not covered by "any value"? Page and paragraph to back up your decision, or concede that argument and stop repeating
Nite: felonious, I assume you meant. ANother contentless post from you there! No arguments were sidestepped, every single "artgument" you have presented, made up rules and everything, has been picked apart, debunked, and sent back in tiny little pieces. The amusement apparently works both ways, as your posts degenerate every time in this thread it seems.
76274
Post by: Peasant
You have a minimum and maximum percentage allowing you to spend up to 100%
Others have said it well...
You are never asked about specific points just a percentage.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
25% of the limit. Full stop. Your limit is 25%. Absolutely no need to calculate the points needed, you are told the value limit. Which is less than the 25.01250625312656% you spent (which you should round to 26, apparently).
76274
Post by: Peasant
nosferatu1001 wrote:1) You do not NEED to be told to round. You just need to divide, and page 7 then forces you to round
2) Is a points VALUE *any* value? Yes? then gee,I guess it is covered EXACTLY by this rule. No stretch
3) You are told this applies IN GAME. Writing a list isdefined as IN GAME. Stop repeating debunked arguments.
4) "up to 25% OF YOURS POINTS LIMIT"
What IS 25% of your points limit? 499.75
Have you divided? YES! Then you use page 7, as a points VALUE is indeed ANY VALUE! So we get 500
Not. Tricky..
Proven over and over and over and over that this is right, but keep on believing your own house rules. Night.
Edit: as a query - given you have arbitrarily decided that a points value ISNT covered by DTC, would you care to exaplin which values are not covered by "any value"? Page and paragraph to back up your decision, or concede that argument and stop repeating
Nite: felonious, I assume you meant. ANother contentless post from you there! No arguments were sidestepped, every single "artgument" you have presented, made up rules and everything, has been picked apart, debunked, and sent back in tiny little pieces. The amusement apparently works both ways, as your posts degenerate every time in this thread it seems.
You accuse people of repeating and ignoring..yet you repeat and ignore? Interesting.
1. Fine..round. Round all you want.
I have never been told to divide.
There is no specific process given other than making sure I have only spent up to 25%. If I have spent 500 points or more I have exceed 25%
2. Guess all you want and continue to round.
500 is still 25.01% of 1999. Therefore illegal.
3. You are not told that it is 'in game'. You are told...'Sometimes you'll be called upon to divide the result of a dice roll (when do we divide dice? Turn sequence) a characteristic (when do we use characteristics? turn sequence) or some other value.
Doesn't state 'in game' at all.
What other value are they referring too?..it is reasonable to most that they are referring to movement, number of dice rolled, number of combatants, or similar instances. Though you disagree in its use and application, points has its own chapter. All other rules that need referencing else where reference you to a page number. Even the annotation on page 134 references you to page 11.
Any value is vague enough to apply anywhere. But when taken in context of the paragraph and chapter it is more reasonable where the application is used.
Excluding points..what other times are you called upon to divide? Bet they are all in turn sequence.
Your disagreement does not 'debunk' anything .
4. And most importantly
Finally you are almost there...
You just answered the whole problem. What is 25% of your points. 499.75.....say it with me 499.75.
Fine... round that number...
What percentage of your points is 500.? Hint..25.01 %. Is 25.01% up to 25%...no it is more.
So lets put it this way even IF you can apply DtC anywhere you want just don't break the most important rule which in this case is ....up to 25%. You have no permission to exceed 25%. Points values are hard limits.
And no..DtC does not change 'up to 25%'
As for your query just retread this post section '3'
All this has been said.
Continue your house rules..hopefully all your group is having fun
61985
Post by: Niteware
How about this then... seeing as you ignored the posts where I made actual points and only commented when I noted your lack of content...
Army book says "up to 25%".
Army book > BRB
500 > 25% of 1999
Really simple, rules based proof.
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
Niteware wrote:How about this then... seeing as you ignored the posts where I made actual points and only commented when I noted your lack of content...
Army book says "up to 25%".
Army book > BRB
500 > 25% of 1999
Really simple, rules based proof.
You're truncating the quote. "Up to 25% of your points".
Army book > BRB Which comes into play how? Page 134 says that you use "the army lin in the relevant Warhammer Armies book, and the system presented here."
Basic vs Advance on page 11 gives a context of when a conflict exists. None does between the new books and the rule book, they both have the same structure for armies. The old books are told to use the new book via the current Erratas.
500 > 25% of 1999; which is irrelevant if you divide to find the rare limit, as DTC would kick in forcing you to round above the limit; just like it does for movement.
NEWS FLASH, here's something new. Yup, it's been about 4 pages now, time for something new.
Page 3, on the right hand sidebar has the statement that ends this discussion.
In a game of 1999, played at 1999 to limit double Steamtanks, you cannot spend 500 points on double steam tanks.
It breaks the spirit of the game rule.
-Matt
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Twenty-five percent of your points is more easily verified by finding out if you spent more than 25% than by figuring out what 25% would be and comparing.
Ridiculous silliness for those creating loops for others to jump through...
Irrelevant circles for the sake of distraction.
(And for rounding number for the sake of advantage - unless you want to argue that 25.01250625312656% is less than 25% when ACTUAL, NON_GW math is applied. At which point I will just ignore you and move on with actual debates with non-trolls.)
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
kirsanth wrote:Twenty-five percent of your points is more easily verified by finding out if you spent more than 25% than by figuring out what 25% would be and comparing.
More easily verified?
Are you saying
Sum of Rare points spent / army size < 25%
is easier than
Army Size * 25% > sum of Rare points spent
It's exactly the same variables.
Here is the rare choices I ran in my last fun game of vampire counts. It's a 2500 point list. You tell me which is easier.
4 Blood knights with standard (gleaming pendant) (215 points)
Black Coach (195 points)
Varghulf (175)
585 points spent in rares.
Do you think 585 divided by 2500 is easier, or 2500 divided by 4 and compare?
How about the last 2400 point wood elf army I faced?
5 waywatchers + 1 waywatcher unit champ (152 points)
2 great eagles (50 each)
1 Treeman (285)
What's percentage of 2400 is 537?
I'm pretty good at math, but I can't do that in my head quickly. And if I did, would you believe my answer?
What my children CAN do is divide by 4. And add.
The opposite of what you're saying is actually true.
It's much easier to divide by 4 to determine the rare limit, and then compare that limit to the total of point spent.
-Matt
64486
Post by: cawizkid
* I am willing to give the 500's the fact that DTC implies that 500 is indeed 25% of 1999 by using Division. (GW math)
Yes most people divide the total points to get an "estimate" of what the total that you can use for each Category. Yes you are told to divide the totals for each category. However, you do not divide your points to get the total of points you use.
** You add your points of rare models until you reach the cap of "up to 25%", You add the points for each model. This total number that you get after adding not dividing cannot be above 25% of 1999 and DTC does not apply to adding. So weather you add two models that cost, 250 or 10 models that cost 50 points the total is 500 points no Division has ben used., You then check this number and what do you find, Well i'll be; 500 is in fact 25.01% of 1999 apply DTC (500/1999) works out to 26%. and as such you are over the total allowed,
*** You are told to divide you forces into each category. The keyword is forces not points, you are then allowed to take up to 25% in Rare. You do not divide your points you divide your forces. So again After you have added your totals for each section that total cannot exceed 25%, See above.
Below is references to rules pages used. I hope this can put an end to this.
Rules to back this
* page 7 DTC
** page 132 paragraph 3. Point Values:
*** page 134 Unit Categories
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Peasant - erm, reread page 3 of this thread. Proves, to anyone who can comprehend some very short rules quotes, that creating a list is part of the game.
So points are not a value? Can you really, honestly with a straigth face say that ANY VALUE cannot apply to a points value?
I've ignored the rest of your responses, as you still havent used any actual rules.
NIte - wrong, no conflict. Try again. You seem to struggle with specific > general, as evidenced in this and other threads, so perhaps you should do some research on this. Thanks Automatically Appended Next Post: Niteware wrote:How about this then... seeing as you ignored the posts where I made actual points and only commented when I noted your lack of content...
Army book says "up to 25%".
Army book > BRB
500 > 25% of 1999
Really simple, rules based proof.
what is 25% of 1999? According to the rulebook it is 500.
500 = 500
Debunked again. Shocking.
61985
Post by: Niteware
Nosferatu, one of us does indeed struggle with general vs specific, but it is not me. As you triedto claim that a rule listed under general principles was more specific than something which only applies to one tiny part of the game, you obviously don't understand the concept.
Building a list is proved to be both part of and not part of the game (quotes throughout this thread).
You consistently ignore the bits of people's arguements with which you cannot disagree. Thes have generally been rules based and accurate. Good job.
Matt is correct about the spirit of the game meaning that 499.75 is correct.
47953
Post by: Stoupe
Niteware wrote:Nosferatu, one of us does indeed struggle with general vs specific, but it is not me. As you triedto claim that a rule listed under general principles was more specific than something which only applies to one tiny part of the game, you obviously don't understand the concept.
Building a list is proved to be both part of and not part of the game (quotes throughout this thread).
You consistently ignore the bits of people's arguements with which you cannot disagree. Thes have generally been rules based and accurate. Good job.
Matt is correct about the spirit of the game meaning that 499.75 is correct.
It is not correct. I can still spend 500 points by taking 2x luminarks and 2x hurricani (I think that's the plural of hurricanum). While I'm not saying that is a good idea... It can still be done. Or 2x hurricani/luminark (I forget which is 130 Pts) and 2x volley guns.
This if you want to ban dual steam tanks. Ban dual steam tanks. I don't know that is your intent by 1999, unless you state it out in the open. I cannot break "the spirit of the game" if I don't know your objectives. Thus coming outright and saying it is the ONLY way to play.
61985
Post by: Niteware
The object could reasonably be conjectured as limiting Lords, Heroes and rares to under 500. That would be both the spirit and the letter of the rules.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
HawaiiMatt wrote:The opposite of what you're saying is actually true.
It's much easier to divide by 4 to determine the rare limit, and then compare that limit to the total of point spent.
-Matt
It might very well be easier, but it certainly isn't as accurate in determing what percentage of your points you actually spent.
47953
Post by: Stoupe
Now your just grasping at straws with the "spirit" argue kent as it is really up to conjecture and vague. I disagree completely. If your doing something that your opponent specifically mentions he doesn't want to face, yes your going against the "spirit of the game" but if he only says 1999 because perhaps that's all he owns, you are not breaking the spirit of the game by taking 500.
I cannot be expected to be a mind reader and understand what it is or why he picked that value.
Likewise, I'd have expected to HAVE to take 500 points of core, not 499.
61985
Post by: Niteware
You do HAVE to take 500 points of core, because that is a minimum of 25%.
The spirit arguement is purely icing on the cake of rules, which say 499.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
I would expect to HAVE to take 499.75 points if I could manage it. If I cannot, I would have to spend more than 25% and not less.
The exact opposite of the discussion here.
The target is 25%, not the points that it may represent.
61985
Post by: Niteware
Good point, well made.
76274
Post by: Peasant
nosferatu1001 wrote:Peasant - erm, reread page 3 of this thread. Proves, to anyone who can comprehend some very short rules quotes, that creating a list is part of the game.
So points are not a value? Can you really, honestly with a straigth face say that ANY VALUE cannot apply to a points value?
I've ignored the rest of your responses, as you still havent used any actual rules.
NIte - wrong, no conflict. Try again. You seem to struggle with specific > general, as evidenced in this and other threads, so perhaps you should do some research on this. Thanks
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Niteware wrote:How about this then... seeing as you ignored the posts where I made actual points and only commented when I noted your lack of content...
Army book says "up to 25%".
Army book > BRB
500 > 25% of 1999
Really simple, rules based proof.
what is 25% of 1999? According to the rulebook it is 500.
500 = 500
Debunked again. Shocking.
You have ignored parts, as is typical because you often state you are ignoring things and therefore missing important parts.
Had you read my post in its entirety you would have learned...quick summary.
I disagree with you on the part of the game points is. Both are opinion. Yours is no more/less valid than mine.
Apply and round all you want..
The points section states 'UP TO 25%' you cannot exceed. Period.
Most important rule is your points it trumps, everything. You are never allowed to break points rules.
500 exceeds your points limit in rares. It is 25.01%.
Go back and read my post and many others.
You ignore so much it begs the question if at this point you are just trolling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stoupe wrote:Niteware wrote:Nosferatu, one of us does indeed struggle with general vs specific, but it is not me. As you triedto claim that a rule listed under general principles was more specific than something which only applies to one tiny part of the game, you obviously don't understand the concept.
Building a list is proved to be both part of and not part of the game (quotes throughout this thread).
You consistently ignore the bits of people's arguements with which you cannot disagree. Thes have generally been rules based and accurate. Good job.
Matt is correct about the spirit of the game meaning that 499.75 is correct.
It is not correct. I can still spend 500 points by taking 2x luminarks and 2x hurricani (I think that's the plural of hurricanum). While I'm not saying that is a good idea... It can still be done. Or 2x hurricani/luminark (I forget which is 130 Pts) and 2x volley guns.
This if you want to ban dual steam tanks. Ban dual steam tanks. I don't know that is your intent by 1999, unless you state it out in the open. I cannot break "the spirit of the game" if I don't know your objectives. Thus coming outright and saying it is the ONLY way to play.
Yes the thread started in reference to double steam tank..move past that.
We have done this already.
1999 is obviously chosen to limit something.
If a tournament operator chose those points everyone would know it is to limit something.
Does the TO have to list every single reason?
The points you choose to play are always chosen to limit something. Time, units, unit sizes, number of units
And no you can't take those combinations because you will exceed 25%. You'll have 25.01% Youll have to change one.
(Edit) added then removed from here.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Niteware wrote:Nosferatu, one of us does indeed struggle with general vs specific, but it is not me. As you triedto claim that a rule listed under general principles was more specific than something which only applies to one tiny part of the game, you obviously don't understand the concept.
Wrong. The more *specific* rule overrides the more *general* rule. Here the more *specific* rule is that, when you divide, you round up fractions. Have you divided? Yes? Then you round up
I suggest you do a search for Yaks post on how a permissive ruleset works. Your knowledge on this is woefully inadequate to be taking part in a rules debate on it.
Niteware wrote:Building a list is proved to be both part of and not part of the game (quotes throughout this thread).
Proven to be part of, actually. Or will you actually use some rules based argument for once and prove otherwise? anything?
Niteware wrote:
You consistently ignore the bits of people's arguements with which you cannot disagree. Thes have generally been rules based and accurate. Good job.
Wrong. Answered every single rules argument you have made, and every single amusing "argument" not based on rules you have made, and you have been found lacking every. single. time.
Niteware wrote: Matt is correct about the spirit of the game meaning that 499.75 is correct.
What spirit? That you dishonestly tried to hide your intentions (limiting double stank) by picking a value you *thought* would have that affect? Bollocks. I am not going to try to divine the intent behind you picking a specific points value - after all, you could have picked 2200 because you wanted someone to now be able to take as many crushers, or to not be able to take fateweaver (i think he is still 600 points plus...) and so on. Your "spirit" argument holds no water.
Still waiting for your proof that you can ignore the VERY SPECIFIC RULE stating that, when you divide, you round up. You have dividied (as proven on page 7, percentages are division) so MUST round up.
Peasant - I read your post. It missed a lot of rules, and some basic concepts of how rules operate.
What is 25% of my points limit? That is what I am not allowed to exceed. I am not allowed to exceed 500 points - so I will not.
You have no permission to calculate 25.01%, so you may not do so.
Find a rule stating you can calculate that. The actual rules say otherwise. Page nd graph.
5873
Post by: kirsanth
The value you cannot go over.
You are not called upon to calculate how many points that would be.
61985
Post by: Niteware
nosferatu1001 wrote:Niteware wrote:Nosferatu, one of us does indeed struggle with general vs specific, but it is not me. As you triedto claim that a rule listed under general principles was more specific than something which only applies to one tiny part of the game, you obviously don't understand the concept.
Wrong. The more *specific* rule overrides the more *general* rule. Here the more *specific* rule is that, when you divide, you round up fractions. Have you divided? Yes? Then you round up
I suggest you do a search for Yaks post on how a permissive ruleset works. Your knowledge on this is woefully inadequate to be taking part in a rules debate on it.
Niteware wrote:Building a list is proved to be both part of and not part of the game (quotes throughout this thread).
Proven to be part of, actually. Or will you actually use some rules based argument for once and prove otherwise? anything?
Niteware wrote:
You consistently ignore the bits of people's arguements with which you cannot disagree. Thes have generally been rules based and accurate. Good job.
Wrong. Answered every single rules argument you have made, and every single amusing "argument" not based on rules you have made, and you have been found lacking every. single. time.
Niteware wrote: Matt is correct about the spirit of the game meaning that 499.75 is correct.
What spirit? That you dishonestly tried to hide your intentions (limiting double stank) by picking a value you *thought* would have that affect? Bollocks. I am not going to try to divine the intent behind you picking a specific points value - after all, you could have picked 2200 because you wanted someone to now be able to take as many crushers, or to not be able to take fateweaver (i think he is still 600 points plus...) and so on. Your "spirit" argument holds no water.
Still waiting for your proof that you can ignore the VERY SPECIFIC RULE stating that, when you divide, you round up. You have dividied (as proven on page 7, percentages are division) so MUST round up.
Peasant - I read your post. It missed a lot of rules, and some basic concepts of how rules operate.
What is 25% of my points limit? That is what I am not allowed to exceed. I am not allowed to exceed 500 points - so I will not.
You have no permission to calculate 25.01%, so you may not do so.
Find a rule stating you can calculate that. The actual rules say otherwise. Page nd graph.
Frankly, the majority of that post is idiotic. For a start, arguing that a rule listed under "general principles" is specific is ridiculous.secondly, your selective memory is missing the quotes from page 134, that building your list happens before you play, while DTC says that it applies during game play. I know that other places include picking your army as part of the game. This is why I said that both points are proved by the BRB.
You are also still ignoring the fact that the rule on army selection demands a percentage. I know you pretend that it doesn't, but read the actial words. You may spend up to 25% of your points. What percentage of your points are you advocating? More than 25... hmmmm
76274
Post by: Peasant
Nosferatu-
As in another thread your snide remarks in an attempt to be superior add nothing to the thread, your credibility, or your case and should be left out.
Some people choose their points to up their limit and get more. Reread my other post. Every time you choose a points limit you are limiting something. There is no need to state all the specifics. I prefer to play 1500 points that is limit enough their is no need to state that I like that limit because it limits everyone to typically 1 lord with limited gear, less death stars, less rares, forces you to pick and choose units rather than taking everything you want, shortens game time so we can play more games etc. That is the reason for setting a points limit...to LIMIT. Some do prefer 2500-3000 to get more with less limitation.
.
It can't get more specific than 'up to 25% of your points' How can this be any more clear?
I don't need permission to calculate anything other than making sure I have not exceeded 25% of my points. I can use any technique I want to achieve
You know the page and the paragraph. It is the same one that has been posted repeatedly.
You have permission to do use your points as long as you only spend up to 25%. It cannot get any simpler than that.
This is actually a ridiculous debate.
It never says not to exceed 500 points it says. You may spend up to 25% of your points.
500 is 25.01% of 1999 And you know this. That is why your defense is that you are not told to calculate it. Which is ridiculous.
38275
Post by: Tangent
kirsanth wrote:The value you cannot go over.
You are not called upon to calculate how many points that would be.
That's totally absurd. Your argument is unusable. The term "25%" is completely meaningless within the game unless used as part of a calculation. Because 25% of what?
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Tangent wrote: kirsanth wrote:The value you cannot go over. You are not called upon to calculate how many points that would be.
That's totally absurd. Your argument is unusable. The term "25%" is completely meaningless within the game unless used as part of a calculation. Because 25% of what?
It is not. It is a comparison of ratios. The percentage of the total spent, which is to say 500/1999 is the math that you are called upon to use. Determining that 1999/4 should be rounded is uncalled for, exactly as 1/2 does not need to be rounded.
38275
Post by: Tangent
But you are called upon to calculate how many points are representative of the term "25%" in any given game that you play. How you calculate them (which is what I think you're getting at, here) only differs semantically.
61985
Post by: Niteware
You aren't actually asked to calculate 25% of your points, just told to spend up to 25% or at least 25%.
Calculating 25% may help, but is not required.
64486
Post by: cawizkid
It is really funny that about 90% of this tread is just 3 or 4 people whining back and forth about nonsense, they have turned this in to a Cock Fight, valid arguments get ignored. This thread has lost its way, like a few others, where a few people have chosen to fight anything the other says. I know this is not unique, as anyone can but on their big boy pants and hide behind a screen name, It happen everywhere on the web, but really people lets grow up and get back on the topic. I posted some stuff referencing the rules, and it totally got ignored, by the posturing by a few childish behaving posters. So lets get back on the subject, Grow up a little and cut back on the none important posts.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
cawizkid wrote:It is really funny that about 90% of this tread is just 3 or 4 people whining back and forth about nonsense, they have turned this in to a Cock Fight, valid arguments get ignored. This thread has lost its way, like a few others, where a few people have chosen to fight anything the other says. I know this is not unique, as anyone can but on their big boy pants and hide behind a screen name, It happen everywhere on the web, but really people lets grow up and get back on the topic. I posted some stuff referencing the rules, and it totally got ignored, by the posturing by a few childish behaving posters. So lets get back on the subject, Grow up a little and cut back on the none important posts.
The thread's going nowhere. You two sides with differing opinions, there's no compromise and the entire discussion is about "MY PRIMARY GENITAL IS BIGGER THAN YOURS".
...and I mean, really, if a thread in YMDC goes for more than 2 pages, it's garbage.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Again...25% of your points limit is what value again? You ARE called to calculate it, as that is the value you are comparing
You are NOT told to compare your percentage spent on rare to 25%. That would be an entirely different sentence
Nite - aaaaand ignored, as you are still attacking the poster, not the post. You clearly do not understand specific vs general sufficiently well to debate its use. See the post written by Yak for an excellent summation of this, and the permissive gameset, that you appear to have difficulties understanding.
 yakface wrote:
Actually all games ever use a permissive rules set, because that's literally the only way to write games.
So there is absolutely no need to spell out in the rulebook that the game is permissive, because it is essentially meaningless. By reading the rules you are participating in a permissive rules set.
Because before you read the rules, the game doesn't exist for you...you have no frame of reference on what you are allowed or not allowed to do to play the game.
Once you crack open a rulebook you find that the game will give you rules of what you are allowed to do within the game to play it...these are all the things you're given permission to do in order to play the game.
Then once they've laid out these permissions, they'll then lay out some restrictions as well, within those general permissions, which then restricts some of the permissions they previously granted to you.
So the rules will say that you're allowed to move all your models in the movement phase. This is a permission and therefore you are allowed to do it. Then they might say stuff like, but you cannot move through impassable terrain. This is then a restriction within the greater permission of being able to move your models in the movement phase.
But following this same train of thought, if the rules don't mention that you are allowed to move your models in the shooting phase, then guess what? You are not allowed to move your models in the shooting phase because there are no rules giving you permission to do so.
This basic framework is the same for every game ever invented from Monopoly to games of tag and everything in between.
Even an imaginary game that said: you can do anything at all you like, but the first person to do X wins the game is still permission based gameplay. Just in this case, you are given permission to do absolutely anything, with the lone restriction that when someone does 'X' then the game ends with a winner.
So the idea that GW should define the basic nature of what rules even means is frankly silly. It would be like them explaining the definition of every word in the rulebook, explaining the meaning of language, etc. These are basic fundamental principles that we already live and exist by. There is literally no way to play a game without this basic understanding, so explaining it is redundant.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
I think we're done here.
|
|
