Is the rare choice for an army of 1999 500 points or 499?

My friend has told me that the 499.75 is rounded down, but I've always assumed it is rounded up.

There is no rounding, 500 is more than 25% of 1999.

So its 499 points worth of Rare then?

It would be 499.75, if you can find something worth 3/4 of a point you can bring it too.

 kirsanth wrote:
It would be 499.75, if you can find something worth 3/4 of a point you can bring it too.

Actually, Fantasy does have a rounding rule, which says round up IIRC. I don't know if it applies to force org.

-Matt

You are playing a 1999 point game? Then yes rare is 499.75. If you are playing a 2000 point game but your built army is only 1999 then rare is at 2000pt lvl so 500pt.

Artee wrote:
You are playing a 1999 point game? Then yes rare is 499.75. If you are playing a 2000 point game but your built army is only 1999 then rare is at 2000pt lvl so 500pt.

This

Excellent point.

Any time you round, you round up. So if you are allowed 499.75 points you are allowed 500 points

I read that for dice rolls (that are divided), but did not see it listed as a general rule.

editing to add:
I see it for halving distances movable too, but still not an overarching rule to round (even for distance) - which would make charge distances and such different than I have seen them played.

Difference is that rules have, you can spend up to n% of your points.

If you are playing at 750 pts. 25% is 187.5 pts. 188pts is over 25%.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Any time you round, you round up. So if you are allowed 499.75 points you are allowed 500 points

Reference please.

BRB p.7 specifically refers to dice rolls, characteristic, "other values" and models. It explicitely refers, however, to situations in which you are "called upon" which is not the case for army list building.

Why are you not "called upon" to round when list building?

Points limits are "other values", agreed? You can be "called upon" to round when working out how many points you may spend.

But 500 is undeniably more than 499.75, so is definitely more than 25% of 1999. Rounding up would break the rule, so either there is a conflict or you don't round up.
If there is a conflict beteeen rules, you us the most important rule, which in this case is the limits.

The limit is more important - why?

500 is not more than 499.75 when you are told you round all figures. 500 is exactly the same as 499.75 rounded up.

Option 1: If you purposely wrote the list for 1999, then your limit is 499 so you do not exceed 25%.

Option 2: If you are actually writing a 2k list that happens to come to 1999, then your limit is 25% of the intended army size, which is 2k, so you have 500 as a limit.

Option 3: use option 2, if your friend argues the point, slap him on the grounds he is being a tard.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The limit is more important - why?

500 is not more than 499.75 when you are told you round all figures. 500 is exactly the same as 499.75 rounded up.

You are told to round, which is the thing that matters here, as stated above. Army composition never asks you to round numbers and it's never referenced again in the rulebook or FAQ. The only info you get is that you must not spend more than, e.g., 25% of your points on rare choices. If 25% is 499,75, then 500 is more than 499,75, which is more than 25% and therefore isn't allowed - both in terms of RAW and RAP.

Army composition asks you for a set value to be used to limit your choices, agreed?

You determine that value in points. Agreed?

Why ar eyou not then rounding, as you are being called upon to reference a value that is not a natural number.

I got a question that, I think, makes much more sense that the argument since the 3rd or 4th post in this thread

As we all agree that the allocations for the different categories are based on the agreed set values for the battle (and not the amount reached by each army)

Why would anyone play (in WHFB) a 1999 game instead of a 2000 one?

I dont know, actually - in 40k people do it to avoid double FOC, however in fantasy that happens at 3000...sooo....really not sure why 1999

We do it in challenge matches to prevent people from using 500 points in a selection.

 kirsanth wrote:
We do it in challenge matches to prevent people from using 500 points in a selection.

Does the 1 point really make that much of a difference in the majority of cases?

If so i'd love to hear some examples

for instance, 2499 points when playing Skaven, you can't cram 2 WLC + 2 HPA
1999, no dual Steam tank ...

TanKoL wrote:
for instance, 2499 points when playing Skaven, you can't cram 2 WLC + 2 HPA
1999, no dual Steam tank ...

I see the point now. In that case i would say you shouldn't round up or down, as rounding up defeats the object of your 1999 theory and rounding down does nothing as you cannot get anything for 3/4 of a point.

Yet again, you are told that "when called for" you round up or down.

When determining your limit you get 499.75. Thus you MUST round up as your limit in points is being called for

Show me a page number where it says you MUST round points. Or even suggests that it's "called for".

The fact that .5 points costs still exists in army books seems to state that you're incorrect that you MUST have full, rounded numbers.

A 202.5 point unit, when called upon, woul dbe a 203 point unit as per page 7.

The existence of fractional point units has no bearing on this. Please try to avoid logical fallacies.

It would only be a fallacy if you'd proven that your statement was correct. You've yet to actually do that. Pg.7 makes no consideration for points, only "other values", which is a vague statement.

In addition, my point is that by RAW, we have less than 1 values in the rules and thus an indication of RAW supporting .75 being a valid interpretation.

So wait. . . 1.5 inches is always rounded up to 2 inches?

How do you deal with deployment?

Or any range, for that matter.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
A 202.5 point unit, when called upon, woul dbe a 203 point unit as per page 7. .

That's wrong RAW. p 7 explicitely states when you have to round numbers. Unless you have another RAW reference not brought up yet.

So wait, you ARENT being caled upon to divide "some other value" (the points limit you are playing to) by 4, in order to obtain your 25% limit?

Odd. BEcause thats what maths states you are doing.

So, do you have a RAW reference that states that, despite having divided 1999 by 4, you DONT round up? Something that contradicts page 7?

Page and para please.

No.

It is a matter of convenience to do it via division, but that is not what you are "called upon" to do.

editing to add:
For example, it would be just as literally true to multiply the cost of the selections by 4 to see if it is within the allowance of the game.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are you rounding the cost of clanrat spears per model or per unit?

Why?

Why round anything?
The skaven book likes its 1/2 point upgrades, so these all get rounded up?

Now, if i have 4 units of models, all at 102.5 points, do i just add them all up for 410 points, or do i round them up 1st, then work out the total? (412 points)

The term "other values" seems far too vague to place an argument on.

I see the reasoning for a 1,999 game, simply because alot of heavy hitting models are 250 points, so by doing this you eliminate the option to take 2.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So wait, you ARENT being caled upon to divide "some other value" (the points limit you are playing to) by 4, in order to obtain your 25% limit?

Odd. BEcause thats what maths states you are doing.

So, do you have a RAW reference that states that, despite having divided 1999 by 4, you DONT round up? Something that contradicts page 7?

Page and para please.

Nosferatu, you are, at the very least, as long around as I am, most likely longer, so I don't see why it's necessary to tell you that WHFB doesn't work that way. You can do what the rules tell you. If the rules do not mention something, this doesn not mean that you can do it. It's one of the, if not THE, basic principle of Warhammer rules and it has been this way...forever.

Don't be thick-headed about it. You did not provide any reference, RAW, to why you should be allowed to round any values and did not reply to the other, interesting, points brought up about the 0.5 pts upgrades etc. Either back your opinion up or back down. Blindly repeating your posts without proper backup won't do anything good for anyone.

Surely the fact that 25% is in the army books as a limit trumps the brb anyway?

Hm? Not sure what you're referring to

To explain my point; rules in army books supercede rules in he brb. The limit of 25% max is in the army books, so a brb rule that would let you go above that is superceded.

500 is more than 25% of 1999, so agreeing to that point level prevents double STanks.

kirsanth wrote:No.

It is a matter of convenience to do it via division, but that is not what you are "called upon" to do.

Read the Divide to Conquer example. Note the example of 10% of a unit of 51 models being 6 models. Your point is debunked

kirsanth wrote:
Are you rounding the cost of clanrat spears per model or per unit?

Why?

Depends when you are called upon to use the value

Sigvatr wrote:Nosferatu, you are, at the very least, as long around as I am, most likely longer, so I don't see why it's necessary to tell you that WHFB doesn't work that way. You can do what the rules tell you. If the rules do not mention something, this doesn not mean that you can do it. It's one of the, if not THE, basic principle of Warhammer rules and it has been this way...forever.

I am aware of what a permissive ruleset is.

Did you even read "Divide to Conquer", and note that it uses an example of 10% of a unit size as "some other value"? So please, using RAW, explain why this does not apply to your %age limit?

Sigvatr wrote:Don't be thick-headed about it.

Please dont insult people, that really makes me less eager to respond

Sigvatr wrote:You did not provide any reference, RAW, to why you should be allowed to round any values

Apart from page 7, "other values", and the example of 10%? That RAW reference you mean?

You have yet to give ANY RAW reason why the rule "Divide to Conquer" does NOT apply in this instance

It is "some other value" (true, undeniably)
It fits an example (10% of 51 models is 6 models; 25% of 1999 is therefore 500)
I am applying the rule EXACTLY as written

Where is your RAW reference that states you round up 10% of one value (number of models in a unit) but not 25% of "some other value", the points limit you are working to? Please, page and paragraph.

If you fail to provide one, I assume your insults are because you cannot find one. and thus you have conceded the point.

Sigvatr wrote:and did not reply to the other, interesting, points brought up about the 0.5 pts upgrades etc. Either back your opinion up or back down. Blindly repeating your posts without proper backup won't do anything good for anyone.

Yet this post, containing zero rules, responding to zero parts of the rules quotes I provided IS backing up your opinion?

No, wrong.

I provided a reason why Dividing to Conquer applies, backed up in the written rule AND by the example given. You have, so far, provided an ASSERTION that this rule does not apply, and have not supplied a reason based in rules.

So, until you prove, with page and para, why page 7 applies in all other "some other values" just not this one, I require you to back down from your opinion and apologise for your attitude.

Also - as for 0.5 upgrades, you round when called upon to do so. a 499.5 unit in a victory points game is worth 500VPs when destroyed. ANy more silly examples that try to deflect from your lack of rules support for your opinion?

The difference is that divide to conquer is used when you need a whole number - how many attacks, number of wounds needed to take a panic test etc. - which can be percentage based or fractional or whatever.
Choosing your list does not require whole numbers for each part. It is not the case that a 2k point list requires 1k of special, just that the value of special units cannot be over 50% of the allocation. You are not called to have a discrete number here, as it is a limit rather than an allowance.
Similarly, if core is required to be 500+ points, then a unit worth 499.5 points does not fill the core value, regardless of the fact that it might be worh 500 VP (if you are only allowing whole points of vp).

That isnt what divide to conquer actually says though

You are called upon to determine the numnber of points you are allowed to spend on a unit. Divide to Conquer tells you that, if you do this you must round up fractions.

No.
Still.
An aside/example does not debunk anything. Out actually helps my point.

I still want to know how you deal with deployment and th range.

SO an example where you need to find a percentage out, and then round up DOESNT debunk your contention that you don't use it on percentages?

Please, provide a rule. You have yet to do so.

Hel, you could even particpate in debate by actually explaining yourself, other than with one word answers and "out actually helps my point" - explain *how* it helps your point, when it totally demolishes it?

When you can be bothered to do that, and provide some actual rules backing to your assertions, I may bother to keep on answering questions. Until then? CBA.

Provide a rule that states that division is needed.


The rules allow no more that 25% of a selection to be taken.
The question is whether something greater than 25% is allowed.

editing to add:
An example of a rule working the way you state is not a rule stating it is ALWAYS the case.
As you, personally nosferatu1001, are very quick to point out.

 kirsanth wrote:
Provide a rule that states that division is needed.


The rules allow no more that 25% of a selection to be taken.
The question is whether something greater than 25% is allowed.

editing to add:
An example of a rule working the way you state is not a rule stating it is ALWAYS the case.
As you, personally nosferatu1001, are very quick to point out.

I'm running a 2999 point army. What is the mathematical process to determine how many rare points I have.
Multiply by 25% is the same as multiple as 0.25 is the same as divide by 4.

-Matt

As I stated, the exact same thing is resolved by multiplying the selection cost by 4 - no division is needed or required, let alone called upon.

There is no (correct and valid) mathematical way to prove that 500 is 25% or less than 1999.

Again: the example given tells you what to do when you want to find a percentage. You round up

Your method of flipping around would not result in "6" as the answer of 10% of 51 models. Given you are contradicting the rulebook, your argument is invalidated. (your argument, applied to the example, would "disprove" that 6 was the result of 10%. Given the rulebook says you are wrng, you are wrong)

Again: 25% of 1999 is what you are CALLED UPON to determine. What is this? 499.75. According to Divide to Conquer you round this to 500

Until you provide some actual rules countering this, I will consider that you have conceded the argument.

Yes, there are places is specifies to round up.

Your example is obviously one.
Thus it is an example.

There is no need to round anything as you are not required to divide anything to determine that you are putting more than 25 percent of 1999 by using 500.

You can consider my concession when I state it.
I have no issue acknowledging errors when I make them.

Calling five hundred more than twenty five percent of 1999 is not one of my errors.

Editing to add:
I will however, stop repeating myself. Feel free to continue.

So again, when you try to determine what 25% of 1999 is, in the same way as you would find out what 10% of 51 models is, you do not Round Up, despite the rules stating exactly that?

Given you are directly ignoring written rules, your argument is voided.

You have made an error here, have provided no rules support, and are in fact ignoring the rulebooks example f EXACTLY finding a percentage and then rounding up.

Feel free to leave the argument here -you have been proven wrong.

You stating something does not make it proof.

500 x 4 does not fit in 1999 no matter how many times you state that it does.

I have proof, mathematically speaking.

Rounding die makes sense, as you can cover 25% of a model. Does that mean he takes 25% of a wound? No. That would be silly. That doesn't mean that you round points up. That way I could run a 200 rat unit of skavenslaves with a musician and round up to make core. Which is cheating. ((NOTE: I'M TIRED AND THIS CALCULATION MADE MY BRAIN HURT. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.))

Ok, lets try and straighten this out a bit.

You do divide the total number of points to find the LIMIT that you are allowed to spend on each category. Arguing that it is not division is silly, because multiplication and division are identical mathematical functions, just with a different power.

Page 134 "you may spend up to 25% of your points on rare units"

This does not "call on you" to find an exact number. It gives you a mathematical limit that you cannot exceed.

Page 7 - Divide to conquer

other values example is "Similarly, 10% of a unit of 51 models, rounded up, would be 6 models"

This is a case where you ARE called upon to find a whole number. This lets you determine if 10% have been wounded, which can only be done in integers.

They are completely different situations, so one does not substantiate arguments for the other.

The basic question is does 500 equal more or less than 1999/4.

If, for some reason, you think that only whole numbers should ever be allowed, do you find it galling when you want to only move 4.7 inches?

How about if your opponent kills 10% of your unit? Do you round it up to 100%?

You can only use rules when they apply and Divide to Conquer simply isn't relevant.

Niteware wrote:
Ok, lets try and straighten this out a bit.
Page 134 "you may spend up to 25% of your points on rare units"
This does not "call on you" to find an exact number. It gives you a mathematical limit that you cannot exceed.

And to know if you have exceeded that limit, you must find that exact limit.

If, for some reason, you think that only whole numbers should ever be allowed, do you find it galling when you want to only move 4.7 inches?
How about if your opponent kills 10% of your unit? Do you round it up to 100%?
You can only use rules when they apply and Divide to Conquer simply isn't relevant.

How do you kill 10% of a unit? 10% of a unit may already be a whole number.
If I move 4.7 inches, Divide on Conquer tells you that it counts as 5".
A dwarf has a movement of 3. His unit wants to move sideways. How far can it move?

HawaiiMatt wrote:
A dwarf has a movement of 3. His unit wants to move sideways. How far can it move?

1.5 inches. Because divide and conquer does not apply to movement. It applies to things that happen in games, that would make the game extremely difficult. Like 10% of 51 models. Which is what the book uses as an example.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
A dwarf has a movement of 3. His unit wants to move sideways. How far can it move?

1.5 inches. Because divide and conquer does not apply to movement. It applies to things that happen in games, that would make the game extremely difficult. Like 10% of 51 models. Which is what the book uses as an example.

No, nosferatu says you move 2 inches. You gotta round up.

The rule does not state that all fractions are rounded.
That is the fallacy.

So when you are CALLED UPON to find the limit you are working to, you dont round up?

The rules say otherwise.
You have provided no rules, no proof, absolutely nothing to support your side

Your argument is debunked, thanks

Nosferatu, you have not given any evidence that the rule you have cited is relevant. This is probably because it is not relevant.
In the same spirt, I will say that the "who can fire" section disproves your point, as it is equally irrelevant.
There is no logical or RAW reason that the rare limit needs to be a whole number. It is a limit that you cannot go over. That means that you cannot go over it. Rounding up would inherently go over it. This is because bigger numbers are greater than smaller numbers.
People have already shown that dividing in WHFB does not always require you to round to a whole number, you have not given any evidence that you should in this case. Stating that "the rules say otherwise" is not an argument.

Wait, the exact same calculation (a percentage of a number) being rounded up isnt a RAW reason to round up the number?

You need to find out your limit, in points. You are called upon to calculate 25% of X. By page 7 you MUST round up.

I have proven you use the rule, there is no rules argument otherwise.

"The rules say otherwise" is indeed a rules argument, when I have pointed out that, indeed, the rules DO say otherwise.

Prove you do not round up, in this instance, using actual rules. Pagea nd para, or concede


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
A dwarf has a movement of 3. His unit wants to move sideways. How far can it move?

1.5 inches. Because divide and conquer does not apply to movement. It applies to things that happen in games, that would make the game extremely difficult. Like 10% of 51 models. Which is what the book uses as an example.

No, nosferatu says you move 2 inches. You gotta round up.

Actually I have yet to say that, and may never say that. Dont put words in my mouth, thanks.
Found any rules yet? Any?

You have not shown that the rule is relevant. Firstly, the examples are totally different, since one requires a whole number and the other does not. Secondly, the fact that a rule applies in one situation does not mean that it applies in another situation (for example, in cc a 6 always hits, shooting sometimes needs 7 or higher).

If you can explain why you think the points limit for rares MUST be a whole number, you would be moving towards a case, but nothing I have seen suggests that it does.
Unless you can show that this limit MUST be a whole number, you CANNOT choose to apply a rule which lets you break it (according to the fundamentals of mathematics).

I have shown the reason why, a few times now. All you have done is state it doesnt apply, with no rules to back you up.

I will not continue arguing here, fairly pointless now.

You have not shown the reason once. You have stated that you are "called upon" to divide the total and then seem to think that this makes therule relevant.
You have not shown that it is relevant because you have not shown that you need a whole number.
The rules that people have written that refute your position are: Max 25% on rares and the laws of mamathematics.
You have no case for spending over 25% on rares (by rounding up) unless you can show that you are called upon to have a WHOLE NUMBER for your limit, as that is the only time Divide to conquer can apply.

I do not blame you for conceding the argument, as that is logical, but you could admit that you were wrong...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I have shown the reason why, a few times now. All you have done is state it doesnt apply, with no rules to back you up.

I will not continue arguing here, fairly pointless now.

Divide and conquer applies to various in game things like .7 of a wound.

However, writing an army list is not an in game thing. So you can have 499.75 points to spend on rare. Because if you take 500 points of special, you have reached the limit for a 2000 point army. Not a 1999 point army.

Niteware wrote:
You have not shown the reason once. You have stated that you are "called upon" to divide the total and then seem to think that this makes therule relevant.
You have not shown that it is relevant because you have not shown that you need a whole number.
The rules that people have written that refute your position are: Max 25% on rares and the laws of mamathematics.
You have no case for spending over 25% on rares (by rounding up) unless you can show that you are called upon to have a WHOLE NUMBER for your limit, as that is the only time Divide to conquer can apply.

I do not blame you for conceding the argument, as that is logical, but you could admit that you were wrong...

You never are told you need a whole number.
Divide on Conquer tells you to round up (to a whole number). I don't see an exception in force org to say otherwise.
Laws of Mathematics show that 25% of a value is the same as division.

-Matt

As I said before, 25% is obviously and categorically the same as division. Also, 1 is categorically and undeniably more than 0.75.

Divide to conquer does not say that all other values are rounded up + every example it uses is where a whole number is explicitly requirsd - it is the method of choosing what integer you use when one is required.

Meh.

other things to do.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
A dwarf has a movement of 3. His unit wants to move sideways. How far can it move?

1.5 inches. Because divide and conquer does not apply to movement. It applies to things that happen in games, that would make the game extremely difficult. Like 10% of 51 models. Which is what the book uses as an example.

Wrong.
Page 26 disagrees with you. The example of movement that is halved specifically references divide and conquer. Elves move sideways 3" (2.5" rounded up).
D&C seems to be a lot broader in application than you think.


-Matt

The repetitive point there is that there is a rule to round this up as well - there are no partial M values even though you can move 1/2 an inch without needing to round it.

Ratio relation does not require division, even though it is possible to use division to determine the same results.
It is not called for, regardless.

(I can use a bucket to figure if I got the right amount of soda. Who cares?)

editing to add:
This is why, I assume, nosferatu1001 refuses to address the issue of movement (et al), without capitalization (and even acknowledged such in this thread); fractions are allowed in WHFB - without rounding!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to be clear, you guys are asserting that 2x99.5 is > 199, right?

As that is the case here.

Or are you going to play with the rounding too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To expound on my point about examples, I am stating that the rules are preventing the superset you are assuming.
There are many, many examples of rules that need rounding.
Everything involving a stat, for example.

That is not to say that every rule needs rounding.
Which, as it reads, the rules go to lengths to avoid stating, yet some seem to infer.

Kirsanth - again, movement does round up....

WE also did not state that 2x99.5 is greater than 199; it can be, depending on when you use those results. 2 2.5 inch moves side ways would be greater than one 5" move, as each 2.5" move is rounded to 3".

The example given shows you DO use division for percentage calculation. You arent given a choice in the matter. You are essentially saying despite being given an entirely apropos example, %age leading to a rounding up, you choose not to use the rule in this instance, with no reason why not.

That is the issue with your position - you lack a rules basis.

So Divide to Conquer is part of general principles. This section states how to deal with situatoons which "pop up again and again whilst playing a game". Do you pick your list "whilst playing a game" or before playing a game?

WRiting a list isnt part of playing the game? When does the game, as a concept, start for you?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
2 2.5 inch moves side ways would be greater than one 5" move, as each 2.5" move is rounded to 3".

So two 3" moves sideways results in a move of less than 5"?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
WRiting a list isnt part of playing the game? When does the game, as a concept, start for you?

Writing a list is part of the game, but it doesn't happen whilst playing the game. Or, in a simpler phrase, during the game.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
WE also did not state that 2x99.5 is greater than 199; it can be, depending on when you use those results.

No. It never is. Ever.
You may decide to round at some point, but your assertion is NEVER true.

 kirsanth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
WE also did not state that 2x99.5 is greater than 199; it can be, depending on when you use those results.

No. It never is. Ever.
You may decide to round at some point, but your assertion is NEVER true.

Divide and Conquer allows you to exceed hard limits.
You are limited to moving half your move sideways, each inch sideways counts as 2.
Page 26 states that an Elf moves 3" sideways, because of Divide and Conquer.
With a move of 5, that sideways movement counts as 6", and it is Divide on Conquer that lets you break the limit.

Fundamentally, this is no different that having a rare limit of 499.75 being Conquered up to 500.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Divide and Conquer allows you to exceed hard limits.

We must be reading different rules.
My example never divided anything, so I have no clue why you think Divide and Conquer applies.

Same as with the OP.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Divide and Conquer allows you to exceed hard limits.

Except, as per the heading of the section which covers divide and conquer, it only applies while you're playing a game.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Divide and Conquer allows you to exceed hard limits.

Except, as per the heading of the section which covers divide and conquer, it only applies while you're playing a game.

Army lists, and point values come from the part of the rules called, Playing a Game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Divide and Conquer allows you to exceed hard limits.

We must be reading different rules.
My example never divided anything, so I have no clue why you think Divide and Conquer applies.

Same as with the OP.

My example shows the hard limit (sideways movement counts as 2 inches for every inch moved). That's a hard limit. It's stating how far you can move, and your not allowed to move further.
But then in the example of the elf, you exceed the hard limit by moving greater than the limit (3", which would count as 6".)

In sideways movement 3" = 2.5"

I think we are reading different rules, because I'm reading page 26. What page are you reading?
To me, it seems like your trying to come up with convoluted math to avoid dividing.


-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Divide and Conquer allows you to exceed hard limits.

Except, as per the heading of the section which covers divide and conquer, it only applies while you're playing a game.

Army lists, and point values come from the part of the rules called, Playing a Game.

Is it a principle that pops up whilst playing a game? No. So Divide and Conquer doesn't apply.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Divide and Conquer allows you to exceed hard limits.

Except, as per the heading of the section which covers divide and conquer, it only applies while you're playing a game.

Army lists, and point values come from the part of the rules called, Playing a Game.

Is it a principle that pops up whilst playing a game? No. So Divide and Conquer doesn't apply.

Since selecting an army and the comp is listed under playing a game, yes, it does.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Divide and Conquer allows you to exceed hard limits.

Except, as per the heading of the section which covers divide and conquer, it only applies while you're playing a game.

Army lists, and point values come from the part of the rules called, Playing a Game.

Is it a principle that pops up whilst playing a game? No. So Divide and Conquer doesn't apply.

Since selecting an army and the comp is listed under playing a game, yes, it does.

-Matt

By your logic, I've been playing a game with my dark elves since the empire book came out. Since that's when I selected the army.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
I think we are reading different rules, because I'm reading page 26. What page are you reading?
To me, it seems like your trying to come up with convoluted math to avoid dividing.

Page 7, Divide to Conquer - which people are creating convoluted need to reference when creating an army list.

I agree there are places that state you need to round up. The disagreement I have is in the assertion that it is ALWAYS required.
Nothing states that fractions or decimals are illegal in Warhammer, and I have include examples where the ARE in the rules.

In the case of movement it tends to be because it involved a Stat which is not intended to be fractional.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Divide and Conquer allows you to exceed hard limits.

Except, as per the heading of the section which covers divide and conquer, it only applies while you're playing a game.

Army lists, and point values come from the part of the rules called, Playing a Game.

Is it a principle that pops up whilst playing a game? No. So Divide and Conquer doesn't apply.

Since selecting an army and the comp is listed under playing a game, yes, it does.

-Matt

By your logic, I've been playing a game with my dark elves since the empire book came out. Since that's when I selected the army.

Sigh...
Page 2:

This page simple summarizes the sequence of playing a Warhammer Battle, and points you to the relevant part of the book that explains how each stage works.

Step 1 is get two armies, point values and army lists.
Just because you aren't actually fighting until step 5 doesn't mean step 1 isn't part of the game. If you selected an opponent, choose an army, agreed on points, and made a list, but haven't actually done anything else, then yes, you would be playing a game since the book came out.
It's not my logic, it's simply reading the rules.

Do you have any rule reference to back up that it's not of the game?

Looks like were left with claiming that a limit of 25% of the the army value isn't dividing or that you can simply choose to Ignore D&C's rule, despite the opened ended "or other value" in the description of it's application.

-Matt

p.6 General Principles ...These are essentially principles that are so broad that they pop up again and again while you're playing a game...

p.7 Divide and Conquer Sometimes you'll be called upon to divide a die roll, a characteristic or some other value. When this happens, any fractions should always be rounded up.

So...whenever you divide, you round up the fractions. Always and forever. The questions, then, are:


1. Do you build your list while you're playing a game?

p.x Setting Up The Battle Once you and your opponent have your armies...ready for battle, the first step to playing a game of Warhammer is setting up the battlefield.

p.2 Overview of the Game...1. Muster Your Forces ...use the system of points values and army lists...on p.132

I want to argue in this thread, because I argue in every thread, but I don't know what this is about.

Warpsolution wrote:

The questions, then, are:
1. Do you build your list while you're playing a game?
p.x Setting Up The Battle Once you and your opponent have your armies...ready for battle, the first step to playing a game of Warhammer is setting up the battlefield.
p.2 Overview of the Game...1. Muster Your Forces ...use the system of points values and army lists...on p.132

p.132 Size of GameTo play a game of Warhammer, you and your opponent will need to decide...the total points values of your armies.
p.140 Fighting A Warhammer BattleSo you've read the rules [and] assembled your...army...it's time to set up and play a Warhammer battle[/quote
"The Rules" start on un-numbered cover page of 1; and go into detail on page 2. Page i, ii, IV, V and so on, are before "The Rules".
You're sequence is off.
P2 says
A) Muster forces (as per page 132)
B) Choose a Pitched Battle, (which is where you get the reference to play a battle, all the missions are labeled as "battles")
C) Set up battle field
D) Deploy Armies
E) Fight
F) Determine the Winner

Interestingly, under fighting a battle, you're told on page 141 to refer back to page 132 for The Armies.
If page 140 is the start of "the Game" then page 141 makes page 132 part of the game.
Here's the quote:

Each pitched battle contains the information you need to get set up and playing, broken down into the following categories: The Armies (this will normally be two armies of equal points value, chosen using the system on page 132), The Battle Field, Deployment, First Turn, Game Length, Victory Conditions and Scenario Special Rules.

2. When are you called upon to divide?
I'm not sure, but I believe that the La of Equality states that x/4 =.25x; that they have the same value, or represent the same mathematical object.
But even if this is true, the act of dividing still differs from that of multiplying.

We are told 25% and 50%, but not given the exact method. Since x/4 = .25x; you can multiple and have 499.75 points in rares. I'll divide and have 500.

-Matt

@Duke: yeah, I really had to think about it; this is so minor and so convoluted that I don't really care one way or the other.

@Matt: I feel like the phrase "set up and play" indicates that "playing the game" does't occur until after you've set it up.

And are you really being "called upon" to divide, when you could have multiplied?

I really have no stance one way or the other.

DukeRustfield wrote:
I want to argue in this thread, because I argue in every thread, but I don't know what this is about.

Your usual "Not going anywhere" YMDC thread. People grasping for preeeeeeeetty thin straws claiming that 2x99.5 can be more than 199 (dear god) etc. Not sure if sad or funny.

Surely when you make the amry list, you total up the points spent on rares (for example) and find it to be 500 points, then multiply this by 4 and... Oh NO! that's 2000, but I'm only playing a 1999point game, and have thus broken the rule (I don't have a rulebook with me at work so not sure where it is or what it is called).
There are no fractions involved so no need to round up, down, left or right

The issue, Triple_double_U, is that you could multiply your Rare selection by 4, and avoid decimals and rounding.
Or, you could divide 1999 by 4, come up with a fraction, and thus round up.

That's what people are trying to sort out.

You can do both, both use the rules, so both are correct methods. One gives you an illegal list, the other gives a list that is open to lengthy interpretation of the rules.

I always thought if something done according to the rules is illegal, its illegal.

Triple_double_U wrote:
You can do both, both use the rules, so both are correct methods. One gives you an illegal list, the other gives a list that is open to lengthy interpretation of the rules.

I always thought if something done according to the rules is illegal, its illegal.

I know it's hard to read the whole rule book, but when you divide in the game, you must round up.

And the thread isn't useless. It looks like several people learned how fast models move sideways.

-Matt

Triple_double_U wrote:
You can do both, both use the rules, so both are correct methods. One gives you an illegal list, the other gives a list that is open to lengthy interpretation of the rules.

I always thought if something done according to the rules is illegal, its illegal.

People are trying to figure out if it IS illegal or not.

If Divide to Conquer applies here then rare is 500 points.
If it does not, Rare is 499 Points.

When we need to distinguish between division and multiplication in order to correctly interpret a rule, we're going way too far. That's artificial, arbitrary and plain silly.

It doesn't feel right to round up in this case because it really makes the limit a moot point. I'm tempted to argue that while you usually round up, this is more specific and therefore overrules the more general rule. However, if it is your intent to prevent two STanks in rares, and in order to achieve that you agree to play 1999 points, then the problem dissolves right there. That's more or less the same as agreeing not to round up, not to take 500 points in rare, not to take two STanks.

I mean you could ask your opponent to play a 1996 point game, and avoid the issue without any trouble, right? If he wants to use two STanks, he's not going to agree regardless of how you phrase your suggestion.

 Mike der Ritter wrote:
When we need to distinguish between division and multiplication in order to correctly interpret a rule, we're going way too far. That's artificial, arbitrary and plain silly.

It doesn't feel right to round up in this case because it really makes the limit a moot point. I'm tempted to argue that while you usually round up, this is more specific and therefore overrules the more general rule. However, if it is your intent to prevent two STanks in rares, and in order to achieve that you agree to play 1999 points, then the problem dissolves right there. That's more or less the same as agreeing not to round up, not to take 500 points in rare, not to take two STanks.

I mean you could ask your opponent to play a 1996 point game, and avoid the issue without any trouble, right? If he wants to use two STanks, he's not going to agree regardless of how you phrase your suggestion.

Yup. Look at why you're playing 1999 and go from there.

Personally if I had an opponent that was trying to get that extra .25 out of their list when obviously there is a reason for choosing to play 1999 as opposed to 2000...I'd find someone else to play against.

The reason why you would use division is the example of using a percentage does exactly that

You need to find 25% of 1999; in the same way as the example finds 10% of 51 you divide appropriately. The example gives 5.1 rounded up to 6. Your reason for not rounding up to 500 would be?

So the conclusion is - RAW it works. When you find your points limit, during the playing of the game, you find you are at 499.75 as a limit. You ALWAYS round up after division, so this is 500 as a limit.

25% of 1999 is 499.75 - so if according to the rule you have round up to 500 points. Great you now have 500 points, however 500 is more than 25% 1999 ( dont need to do any math there)

therefor you can a round up to 500, but by doing so the list is now illegal as you are over 25%. The D&C rule if you want to interprit that way can force you to round up and not keep the fraction, however it does not state that it allows you to exceed the army points limits.

What it means is the you would need to keep your points to 499 as at 499.01 for example this would now be classed as 500 points as as such over 25%

cammy wrote:


25% of 1999 is 499.75 - so if according to the rule you have round up to 500 points. Great you now have 500 points, however 500 is more than 25% 1999 ( dont need to do any math there)

therefor you can a round up to 500, but by doing so the list is now illegal as you are over 25%. The D&C rule if you want to interprit that way can force you to round up and not keep the fraction, however it does not state that it allows you to exceed the army points limits.

What it means is the you would need to keep your points to 499 as at 499.01 for example this would now be classed as 500 points as as such over 25%

Any time you round up you exceed a limit.
-Matt

cammy wrote:


25% of 1999 is 499.75 - so if according to the rule you have round up to 500 points. Great you now have 500 points, however 500 is more than 25% 1999 ( dont need to do any math there)

therefor you can a round up to 500, but by doing so the list is now illegal as you are over 25%. The D&C rule if you want to interprit that way can force you to round up and not keep the fraction, however it does not state that it allows you to exceed the army points limits.

What it means is the you would need to keep your points to 499 as at 499.01 for example this would now be classed as 500 points as as such over 25%

So if you are told to remove 10% of the unit, and remove 6 models, you havent complied with the rule?

The example in divide to conquer states you are wrong. Your argument has no merit, as it denies the actual rules in use in the game.

The argument in divide and conquer is totally irrelevant, please stop trying to say it is similar.

Cammy has hit the nail on the head. They are seperate issues because they are seperate rules. If you have 500 points of rare, the list is illegal, regardless of why you rounded.

Arguing that one rule lets you round does not allow you to break another rule.

No, it isnt "totally irrelevant", it points out how you determine a percentage - whcih uses divide and conquer to round up.

You are determining your limit, in points. Your limit IS 500 points. You do not then determine if 500 points is above 25% - because you have no permission to do so. You dive 1999 by 4, and round up as REQUIRED TO in the Divide and Conquer rules - that is your limit.

You havent made any rules argument here as to why divide and conquer doesnt apply, and I assume you are now arguing HYWPI

Outside of movement, when does divide and conquer show up in a game?
If people agreed on playing 1999, I'm pretty sure it's to limit rares to 499, which can just as easily be done by saying, no more than 499 points in rares (or playing 1996).

But once the dice start rolling, where else does divide and conquer come up?

-Matt

Movement rates, determining if a panic check has been caused...

Agreed - if your *intention* is to limit rares to 499 points, then state that. Limiting the game to 1999 doesnt *actually* accomplish this.

Just to pick nits, and because I wrote it too, the rule that is being used (for no valid reason) is Dividing to Conquer.

The fact that anyone can prove that 500 is more than 25% of 1999 without division eludes people.
It is true that a player can use division to accomplish something does not mean there is a rule calling upon the player to do so.

Wow this Tread is all over the place. To me this is really a simple thing. It comes down to the total point value for you army. Nowhere does it say that you must use every available point, very seldom does anyone actually use every point. So IMHO It is as simple as this:

If you are playing a 2000 point game the Max you can have for rare is 500, even if your army adds up to less than 2000. You could play with the minimum of 500 points core, then add 200 points heroes, and 500 points in rare and that is all, even though the army you put on the field is only 1200 points, you are still playing a 2000 point game. The percentage limits for each section comes off the total number of points you agree to a play at before the game starts and is the final total of your army and you cannot exceed that combined total in points. 2000.000….1 is more than 2000.

If you are playing a 1999 point game the Max you can have for rare are 499.75 because anything more would exceed the game totals. So you could have. 50 points in heroes, the minimum of 499.75 points in core, 600 points in Special and 300 in Rare, Field an army at 1449.75 points and still be a legal 1999 point army, because you are still under the total point value of 1999 that you agreed to play.

It seems everyone agrees with your post, cawizkid.

The issue of contention is that there are folks backing the assertion that 500 is 25% or less of 1999.

cawizkid wrote:
Wow this Tread is all over the place. To me this is really a simple thing. It comes down to the total point value for you army. Nowhere does it say that you must use every available point, very seldom does anyone actually use every point. So IMHO It is as simple as this:

If you are playing a 2000 point game the Max you can have for rare is 500, even if your army adds up to less than 2000. You could play with the minimum of 500 points core, then add 200 points heroes, and 500 points in rare and that is all, even though the army you put on the field is only 1200 points, you are still playing a 2000 point game. The percentage limits for each section comes off the total number of points you agree to a play at before the game starts and is the final total of your army and you cannot exceed that combined total in points. 2000.000….1 is more than 2000.

If you are playing a 1999 point game the Max you can have for rare are 499.75 because anything more would exceed the game totals. So you could have. 50 points in heroes, the minimum of 499.75 points in core, 600 points in Special and 300 in Rare, Field an army at 1449.75 points and still be a legal 1999 point army, because you are still under the total point value of 1999 that you agreed to play.

Fully agree, as stated before. It's just funny to walk in threads like these with people throwing rules around, grasping for tiny straws, losing themselves in circle argumentations.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it isnt "totally irrelevant", it points out how you determine a percentage - whcih uses divide and conquer to round up.

You are determining your limit, in points. Your limit IS 500 points. You do not then determine if 500 points is above 25% - because you have no permission to do so. You dive 1999 by 4, and round up as REQUIRED TO in the Divide and Conquer rules - that is your limit.

You havent made any rules argument here as to why divide and conquer doesnt apply, and I assume you are now arguing HYWPI

The reason that it is irrelevant is:
The example tells you how to remove 10% ot a unit. This is done by rounding up, because otherwise you would not remove as much as 10%. This is not the same as allowing you to exceed a hard limit. In fact, it is the opposite.

A situation more similar to this:
An elf bus has its movement halfed by a spell. It can now move 3" (2.5 rounded up). It reforms. Each model can move a max of 5" not 6", because the limit is twice movement, not twice how far they would actually move.

@Matt of her situations where this comes up: Shooting at blasted banner, working out panic tests from shooting

Kirsanth - there is a rule telling me to find out, in points, what 25% of 1999 is in order to set a limit of the points I can spend on rares. Agreed?

Once you do that you will on occasion exceed the pecentage limit, in the same way removing 10% of a unit may mean you end up removing OVER 10% of a unit

Niteware - no, it is exactly relevant. You are required to remove 10%, but you can only remove more than 10%. According to you you could just ignore page 7 and remove 5 models - because you are only allowed to remove 10%, not more than 10%. Except the example states the opposite.

You are required to find out your limit, in points. You dont work out the percentage you have used and compare, you are told to find your limit in points - because armies are determined in points

So you find a limit of points, and as you are DIRECTED to do ANY TIME you divide you MUST round up if you end up with a fraction. There is no option on this.

The discussion then comes down to whether you are caled to divide - which you are, according to the rules.

Kirsanth still has no rules argument against this. None.

Niteware wrote:

A situation more similar to this:
An elf bus has its movement halfed by a spell. It can now move 3" (2.5 rounded up). It reforms. Each model can move a max of 5" not 6", because the limit is twice movement, not twice how far they would actually move.

@Matt of her situations where this comes up: Shooting at blasted banner, working out panic tests from shooting

You can't really argue a hypothetical spell, as none exists. No spell halves movement, and the wording on the spell would be critical.
If your made up spell halves my Movement (M), the 5 becomes 3, and I could reform 6 (twice M).
If your spell halves my movement (anvil style), I would charge (2D6+5)/2 rounded up, and reform within 5".

The anvil of doom is the sole effect left in the game that halves movement. (rivers, forests, earth shakers and spells do not halve movement in 8th ed).

As for rounding items, Ring of Darkness (half BS, rounding up) and the Cloak of Hag Graef (half strength, rounding up), both round up, and both specify in the rules to round up.
Panic seems to be different in that the limit isn't 25%, it's 25% or more. The or more, covers the fractions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it isnt "totally irrelevant", it points out how you determine a percentage - whcih uses divide and conquer to round up.

You are determining your limit, in points. Your limit IS 500 points. You do not then determine if 500 points is above 25% - because you have no permission to do so. You dive 1999 by 4, and round up as REQUIRED TO in the Divide and Conquer rules - that is your limit.

Well, the percentage - 25 % - is already known. DtC does not tell us how to determine *that*. Since there is a rule that tells us to adhere to a limit, and this limit is given as 25 %, it follows that we are not only allowed to check whether we're above but forced to do so. This rule applies only to one specific situation while DtC is a general rule. It is quite plausible to argue that the former overrides the latter.

 kirsanth wrote:

The fact that anyone can prove that 500 is more than 25% of 1999 without division eludes people.
It is true that a player can use division to accomplish something does not mean there is a rule calling upon the player to do so.

It's unfair to say it eludes them when they believe the rules define it differently. Arguing with the possibility of different mathematical operations does remind me of the proverbial search for easter eggs. No rule calls upon us to read sentences from left to right either...would you defend an interpretation because it's possible to read the book standing on its head?

This rules argument reminds me of the playground. Instead of being mature and saying "I really would rather not play against a dual ST list", you go about all the different ways to do it without really doing it.

Man up. Either blatantly say "No Dual ST", or play against it. Don't twist rules around to fit your goal.

Mike - no, you are told to find the points value of the limit, as you determine games by points. 25% of 1999 IS, under the WHFB ruleset, 500 points. Same as 10% of 51 models IS, under the WHFB ruleset, 6 models.

Although apparently those two cases are not the same. To some. Despite having no rules argument against it. Mostly just a "well, why are you CALLED UPON to divide?" answer, when the reasons why have been proven.

So far RAW 1999 / 4 is 500, in WHFB terms. No argument against it, using actual rules, has been presented. The sniping from some who I usually respect is a\ little wearing.

I agree that, if you are wanting "no double stank" then actually state it. Trying to get it in through the back door, and not rules-wise accomplishing i,t is not being open, honest and transparent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Mike - no, you are told to find the points value of the limit, as you determine games by points. 25% of 1999 IS, under the WHFB ruleset, 500 points. Same as 10% of 51 models IS, under the WHFB ruleset, 6 models.

No. 10% of 51 is 5.1 models. If you can take off 5.1 models, then you do. But you can't, so you round up.

Can you make 499.75 points? Yes, so you don't round up.

 Mike der Ritter wrote:
It's unfair to say it eludes them when they believe the rules define it differently

It is not unfair.
There is a rule that states "do x and you are a dirty rotten cheater."
There is also a rule that states "do x, y, z, or any number of other things."

They are stating that my actually doing z means I am a dirty rotten cheater.
They are wrong.

editing to go against what I said:
A rule stating that an option is available is not a rule calling upon the player to utilize that option.
Even if every example has that option chosen.

I do not disagree with any given interpretation of the rule in question, I disagree with the rule being applicableREQUIRED.

The rules do not state that fractions are rounded or that partial values are impossible in Warhammer.
They exist.

Next up:
"I aim 1.1 inches from the back of your base."
"Ok, you rolled a hit so move the marker 2 inches from the back of my base."

 kirsanth wrote:

The rules do not state that fractions are rounded or that partial values are impossible in Warhammer.
They exist.

Next up:
"I aim 1.1 inches from the back of your base."
"Ok, you rolled a hit so move the marker 2 inches from the back of my base."

That's actually not how aiming a cannon works at all. You pick a point on the table and place the template. That's it. That point might be 1.1 inches from the back of your base, and 13.719 inches from your beer.
If you roll a hit, it hits the point you aimed out. If you don't roll a hit, it scatters by the whole number on the die.
No where in the process are distances from models measured (you scatter the template from the aim point and look to see what's under it) and nowhere are you called upon to divide.

It's division that requires Divide on Conquer, and it's Divide and Conquer that requires rounding up.
Any example that doesn't require division has nothing to do with Divide and Conquer.

-Matt

I dont see why you have to round it up, seems kind of pointless to me.
500 points is over the rare limit in a 1,999 game.
Trying to find a loophole to exploit in the rules does not do this.

GW has gone into the halves with points on some models, and i have no idea why (should have left it at round numbers)

If a model is 2.5 points, do i round them up to 3 points each?
or do i make a unit of say 11, and then round it up to 28 points instead?

The rule your trying to push into this is far too vague to have any effect as it covers nothing, its like rolling off for rules issues.
Its a general statement that does not say when and how it takes effect.

With the unit i mentioned above, the rounding rule could be applied at either stage (per model or unit total) as the divide rule does not give an order in which it works.
If this was ment to be the case, surely it would have some actual wording ino what extent it does work.

This is just my opinion so it holds no weight, but i think its just a dick move to try and ignore the whole idea of a 1,999 game.
If i go over on points for my lord choices, people will complain.
If i dont hit core requirement, people will complain.
So why is it this is the only case in which people can do this?

Here let me add this to the whole rounding thing. 500 is actually 25.01% of 1999, so if by your standards, you take 500 point of rare, you are actually fielding 26% of your points in Rare. so you are illegal

 Jackal wrote:

500 points is over the rare limit in a 1,999 game.
Trying to find a loophole to exploit in the rules does not do this.

Thread summed up

Jackal wrote:I dont see why you have to round it up, seems kind of pointless to me.
500 points is over the rare limit in a 1,999 game.

Nope, 500 points IS the rare limit in a 1999 point game, due to the actual rules. Have you read them? They are quite clear

Jackal wrote:Trying to find a loophole to exploit in the rules does not do this.

Please explain how using the simple "if you divide you round up fractions" is a loophole. The "loophole" is actually the disingenuous not wanting to allow double stank, so they play a 2000 point game at 1999 points, thinking the rules then give less than 500 points for rares. If you are just more honest, and state you are actively comping (hard comp) such that you cannot take double stank, you have achieved 2 things - actually implemented the house rule you wanted to put in place, and been honest about your motives for it. Both are positives.

Jackal wrote:GW has gone into the halves with points on some models, and i have no idea why (should have left it at round numbers)

If a model is 2.5 points, do i round them up to 3 points each?

Have you read the rule on DIVIDING to conquer, which mentions it is only used when you divide? No? Guess that answers your question?

Jackal wrote:or do i make a unit of say 11, and then round it up to 28 points instead?

Have you divided at any point?

Jackal wrote:The rule your trying to push into this is far too vague to have any effect as it covers nothing, its like rolling off for rules issues.

What, ANY Time you need to divide you round up fractions is "vague"? Thats actually comical as far as arguments go.

Jackal wrote:Its a general statement that does not say when and how it takes effect.

Yes it does -ANY time you are called upon to divide, you round up. Taking a percentage of one number IS division, as the example proves, so you round up.

That is not a tricky concept. Well, actually it aparently is to some people.

Jackal wrote:With the unit i mentioned above, the rounding rule could be applied at either stage (per model or unit total) as the divide rule does not give an order in which it works.
If this was ment to be the case, surely it would have some actual wording ino what extent it does work.

Please read rules before commenting on them, thanks.

Jackal wrote:This is just my opinion so it holds no weight, but i think its just a dick move to try and ignore the whole idea of a 1,999 game.

Yes, so why not actully state you are playing a 2000 point game and dont want double stanks? Given you are only playing a 1999 point game to avoid that "issue" - why not b e honest and open about it, instead of passive-aggressively trying to pretend otherwise by using 1999?

Jackal wrote:If i go over on points for my lord choices, people will complain.

Yes, however if your lords point allowance is 500, and you spend 501 people will c omplain. If you allowance is 500 (25% of 1999, rounded up as REQUIRED by the rule) and you spend 500, noone should complain

Jackal wrote:If i dont hit core requirement, people will complain.
So why is it this is the only case in which people can do this?

This isnt. It is also called "following the rules", instead of trying to bring in comping restrictions through the back door, as it were. Your intent is to comp out double stank (or whtever) - so why not be honest about it? It is the same as those people playing "1999" games in 40k, to avoid double force org - why not just say you dont want to play double force org? It is a game between two people, you are entirely free to modify the rules as you wish....so be open and honest with your houserule, rather than relying ona trick (1999 points in WHFB_) that doesnt *actually* do what you intended it to.

cawizkid wrote:Here let me add this to the whole rounding thing. 500 is actually 25.01% of 1999, so if by your standards, you take 500 point of rare, you are actually fielding 26% of your points in Rare. so you are illegal

Please show where you divided, in order to find that percentage? You are called upon to find your limit, in points. You are not called upon to then determine your points against the total to determine your percentage used. One is within the rules, the other is something you just made up

It also isnt "my" rounding thing, but the rulebooks. It would be wonderful if people could be less snippy about a discussion about a game involving dice and silly models, in a forum dedicated to discussing rules about a game involving dice and silly models, when we're not actually PLAYING said game.

Try to be a little less emotionally involved, take it a little less seriously and personally affronted, and you will find these discussions much more interesting. They do, after all, serve a useful purpose - they tell you wha the rules *actually* say, as opposed to what you *think* they say.

Sigvatr wrote:

 Jackal wrote:

500 points is over the rare limit in a 1,999 game.
Trying to find a loophole to exploit in the rules does not do this.

Thread summed up

Again - it isnt a loophole. It is literally applying the exact rule as written, in a totally unambiguous manner, to the exact topic they give an example of in the rule (finding a percentage, then rounding up)

It isnt a loophole to point out that your poor attempts at hiding your comping desires doesnt ACTUALLY do what you want it to do, when being honest about your comping desires and just stating "no double stank" removes the passive-aggerssive limit that doesnt work entirely.

To sum up: the "no rounding up side" have comprehensively failed to provide any rules based argument whatsoever, and their argument is totally dismissed as without merit from the actual written rules of the game.

25% of 1999 is, in WHFB, 500 points. So, armed with this knowledge - if you wish to stop double stank, then you can continue the passive aggressive hiding of your comp by playing at 1996, as that most definitely gives 25% as 499, OR you could be honest, open and transparent about your intentions and actually STATE you dont want to play double stank.

As a TO i know which option I choose every single time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Mike - no, you are told to find the points value of the limit, as you determine games by points. 25% of 1999 IS, under the WHFB ruleset, 500 points. Same as 10% of 51 models IS, under the WHFB ruleset, 6 models.

No. 10% of 51 is 5.1 models. If you can take off 5.1 models, then you do. But you can't, so you round up.

Can you make 499.75 points? Yes, so you don't round up.

That requirement doesnt exist in the rules. You are called upon to divide, so you round up fractions. There is no "unless you can..." caveat in there, unless you would like to quote it? Page and para would be useful as well. You know, actually following the rules of this forum by backing up your argument..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

The rules do not state that fractions are rounded or that partial values are impossible in Warhammer.
They exist.

The rules DO say however that IF you divide one number by another, and get a fraction, THEN you MUST round up. You seem to have difficulty finding that rule, as you like to pretend it doesnt exist

kirsanth wrote:Next up:
"I aim 1.1 inches from the back of your base."
"Ok, you rolled a hit so move the marker 2 inches from the back of my base."

Did you divide? No? Then why are you rounding up? Please provide a reason why the rule on DIVIDING to conquer applies

Or, you can continue with your strawman argument, but that would be trolling, no?

So, can you please find a reason why, when you are told that finding a percentage IS division, and that you are required to find a percentage in points (as your limit is in points, which you derive from the percentage) , why page 7 does not REQUIRE you to round up this fraction?

You have yet to actually provide this reason, despite being asked.

Are you asked to divide your points to get the rare limit? No.

Are you told to check that you haven't spent more than 25% on rares? Yes.

Does this mean that the equation is Rare points / Total points? Yes.

Would that equation leave you with over 25%, which would then he rounded to 26% (for 500 / 1999)? Yes.

Niteware wrote:
Are you asked to divide your points to get the rare limit? No.

Wrong, you are told to determine your limit in points. You do this by dividing 1999 by 4.

Niteware wrote:
Are you told to check that you haven't spent more than 25% on rares? Yes.

Does this mean that the equation is Rare points / Total points? Yes.

Would that equation leave you with over 25%, which would then he rounded to 26% (for 500 / 1999)? Yes.

The rest is disproven by the first.

You are told to determine the total number of points. You are then told that you may spend a maximum of 25% of these points on rares. You are not asked to work out how many points thatis; instead you check that your points are not over 25%.
To prove your point, quote the passage that says "calculate how many points you may spend on rare choices" or words to that effect.

I think you will find that it actually says a percentage limit instead, which works as I described above.

Since apparently this is quite the heated debate I'll jump in...
There was accusation that it is disingenuous to any 1999 to avoid double steam tank...so I ask..what does it make the individual that 'knows' the intent behind 1999 but pushes letter to suit their needs..
This accusation is just as emotional and personal as the other.
As for this divide and conquer its a lame debate about semantics.
I can get my 25% by multiplying by .25..giving my exact number of 499.75..no division required and that gives me my point limit and 500 is too much.
As I've said...I would just choose not to play against the individual that obviously knows why 1999 was chosen over 2000. Its just the other side of the fence.

Throt wrote:
Since apparently this is quite the heated debate I'll jump in...
There was accusation that it is disingenuous to any 1999 to avoid double steam tank...so I ask..what does it make the individual that 'knows' the intent behind 1999 but pushes letter to suit their needs..
This accusation is just as emotional and personal as the other.
As for this divide and conquer its a lame debate about semantics.
I can get my 25% by multiplying by .25..giving my exact number of 499.75..no division required and that gives me my point limit and 500 is too much.
As I've said...I would just choose not to play against the individual that obviously knows why 1999 was chosen over 2000. Its just the other side of the fence.

Multiplying by a decimal is division. Clearly the intent of 1999 is to cap heroes, specials and rares; or it's a hold over from 40K players switching to Fantasy and thinking they are avoiding double force orgs.

I know. And that is the point.
It is just literal nitpicking in my opinion.
Saying 1999 as opposed to 2000 is done obviously for a reason as it is not as simple as shutting down dual force organization. Do you really want to list all the units you want to control? You could , or you could just set 1999 or you could talk to your opponent...shocking I know.
It boils down to the type of people you choose to play with.

Throt wrote:
Since apparently this is quite the heated debate I'll jump in...
There was accusation that it is disingenuous to any 1999 to avoid double steam tank...so I ask..what does it make the individual that 'knows' the intent behind 1999 but pushes letter to suit their needs..
This accusation is just as emotional and personal as the other.
As for this divide and conquer its a lame debate about semantics.
I can get my 25% by multiplying by .25..giving my exact number of 499.75..no division required and that gives me my point limit and 500 is too much.
As I've said...I would just choose not to play against the individual that obviously knows why 1999 was chosen over 2000. Its just the other side of the fence.

Division is just multiplying by the inverse. If your really going to nitpick. That is probably the weakest argument here, as it obviously does not refer to just dividing. Quoted from page 7:

Similarly, 10% of a unit of fifty one models, rounded up, would be 6 models.

That one sentence provides the strongest argument that percentages (whether dividing or multiplying) applies to the divide and conquer rules.

EDIT:
The argument in the most simplest form possible:

BRB PG. 7 wrote:Similarly, 10% of a unit of fifty one models, rounded up, would be 6 models.

BRB Pg.134 wrote:You may spend 25% of your points on Rare units.

Postulate: The formula for gauging your points on rare units is followed - (Your points) * .25 = Allowance.
Since the rules state that 51 * .1 = 6 (5.1 rounded up), Any percentage in the rules is also rounded up.

Therefore your allowance is 1999 * .25 = 500 (499.75 rounded up).

In order for the rules to exclude this pre-existing specification (as all percentages work this way), it would need to specifically state that you cannot spend OVER 25% in my opinion. For example: "You cannot spend more than 25%..." would be more specific.

Now... I'd also argue that the phrase "should always be rounded up" outweighs the phrase "may", as it is more specific.

This is when I wish WHFB would introduce a "Cannot, can, may" priority system like Malifaux...

Ok, lets not divide points, lets multiply instead, so since its not dividing, the rule you state so much is no longer in use as it is not triggered.

All depends how you wish to work out the points limits.
If i multiply 500 by 4 im at 2,000, which is over the limit.
I then minus a single point from 500, and multiply that by 4.
This gives me 1,996.

Wrong, you are told to determine your limit in points. You do this by dividing 1999 by 4.

Unless of course you work it in reverse and multiply the base number, adding as you go until you reach the desired points total.

And nos, since you commented on my post, i dont really care about double Stank, i play 2,000 - 3,000 point games, so either way im going to see 2 of them.

Its just the general idea of it, like people in 40k who play 1,999 games to avoid the double force org charts.

In 40k, people play 1999+1 games to avoid double charts, not 1999. It's a "You get 1 point tolerance!" thing instead of straight 2000 to get around the Double Cheese Chart rule.

@stoupe...I don't really k ow where you are going with your post. I think you missed my point (my typos could have been at fault) or possibly trolling and I am taking the bait...

Playing 1999 is obviously to control some aspect of the game.
New players will probably ask why 1999 not 2000
Olderplayers along with the vast majority of players will probably make a list and spend no more than 499 on heroes, lords or rare.
A select few will agree to play 1999 and spend the 500..and my money is that those that are siteing the divide and conquer rule to allow them to spend 500 know exactly why the points they agreed to play was chosen....
And I reiterate.. those select few are the people I would choose not to play against.

Multiplication is multiplication, no matter what the operands are. You can swap them when you know the values work out the same for convenience (5*.5 = 5/2), but you can't assume a given formula will always be the same when you change it around.

X*Y is not the same as X*(Y/100*100/Y*Y) even though it works out the same most of the time. But if Y is 0, you would divide by 0 in the second operation and you would get different results, 0 vs. undefined.


Divide and Conquer seems to make it pretty clear. They are using ceiling (round up). Not even round half up (.5 or more). 1996 is the highest point value to 2000 you can use without having any units able to reach 500 (lord/rare/hero) because 1997, 1998, 1999 still round up to 500. The last example in the rule doesn't even divide, it takes 10% which is as close to the army charts as exists. That's RAW as I see it.

As above.

Throt - which is why I was saying; be honest about why you have picked a limit, dont trip you ppeople simply following the rules.

Same for 1999+1 40k. THat is moronic. "Single force org chart" is a clear, unambiguous houserule that everyone can follow and understand.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Any time you round up you exceed a limit.
-Matt

This is patently false when the limit assumes the rounding.

Thus the debate.

There is a rule for when rounding is called for.
It is not universal - as it is not stated to be.
I do not try to find a place that it states I cannot round, I prove that there is one time it is called for.

When you are literally called upon to divide.
Not when I can find an excuse to use division.

Editing to add:
The rules do not state that all fractions are rounded.
Full stop.
Anyone that states otherwise is ignorant or a liar.

However the rules say when division and multiplication are used, you should "always" round. Always seems pretty clear to me.

Stoupe wrote:
However the rules say when division and multiplication are used, you should "always" round. Always seems pretty clear to me.

Really? I did misread then. I did not see anything mentioning multiplication.

How about addition and subtraction?

What about when it is up to the player to decide?

As I read it is only when called upon to divide.
Not when comparing ratios.

I did not see anything mentioning multiplication.

Not sure it matters, Divide and Conquer say 10% of, which matches the % of lord/hero/rare, and they round up. 10% can be calculated either way. It is not strictly division, or you would have 2 formulas for values > 100% and <100%. I.e., if you had to determine 150% of a value, you're not dividing, you're multiplying by 1.5.

Addition and subtraction by definition will not need to be rounded unless you first multiplied or divided because everything is going to be an integer.

Wikipedia lists percentage formula (in part) as follows:

The percent value is computed by multiplying the numeric value of the ratio by 100. For example, to find the percentage of 50 apples out of 1250 apples, first compute the ratio 50/1250 = .04, and then multiply by 100 to obtain 4%. The percent value can also be found by multiplying first, so in this example the 50 would be multiplied by 100 to give 5,000, and this result would be divided by 1250 to give 4%.
To calculate a percentage of a percentage, convert both percentages to fractions of 100, or to decimals, and multiply them. For example, 50% of 40% is:
(50/100) × (40/100) = 0.50 × 0.40 = 0.20 = 20/100 = 20%.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Addition and subtraction by definition will not need to be rounded unless you first multiplied or divided because everything is going to be an integer.

That is literally not the case.

There are fractions in WHFB.

Even in unit costs.

 kirsanth wrote:

Are you rounding the cost of clanrat spears per model or per unit?

Why?

To state the key point again: You are never asked to divide your total points.

You are never asked to divide your total points.

You are never asked to find out how many points you can spend on rares.

At no time, in any way are you asked to divide the points total for the battle.

You ARE told to check that the number of points you spend on rares is 25% or less of the total points.

You do not do this by finding out what 25% is of the total and then comparing your number to it.

The equation is Points spent on Rare / Total Points. This means that Dividing to Conquer does not really come in to play - anything up to and including 25% is ok, anything slightly over is not. Dividing to Conquer says that 500 / 1999 = 26%.

Once again, you are never asked, told, commanded or expected to divide the total number of points in order to find a value for rares.

There aren't a whole lot of fractions. But if you ended with a total unit cost of 105.5 it should indeed be 106 as I see it. Divide and Conquer easily covers multiplication and division, to say that addition when computing unit costs is completely different (and has no rule at all) is stretching it.

Per unit. You aren't buying models one by one and placing them on the board. You are buying wholly-formed units. There are no model limitations or model rules (Special%/Rare%/Duplicate)--the exception being SCs, and that is specifically made an exception in the BRB. The smallest denomination that can be placed on the game board is a unit. It might be a unit of 1, but it's still a unit. A model is just a component of a unit.

Nite - so when told you cannot exceed 25%, I dont find out what 25% is in order to tell when my points have exceeded it?

All this contortion just to avoid admitting your error.

To give you a further hint - you are told to remove 10% of the unit. IF I remove 5 models (your contention with percentages) I have not complied with the example. (5 / 51 ~= 9.8%, as we have divided we must round up = 10%) If we remove 6 we HAVE complied with the example

So, again: you ARE called upon to divide, as you are called upon to determine if you have breached a percentage limit. And, as we know from the example, we do this by calculating our requirement from the total, not taking our "best guess" at compliance with the limit and seeing if we are within it.

Please, find ANYTHING pertinent you can show as an ACTUAL RULE - not twisted logic - that states you can ignore the CLEAR EXAMPLE of how you find percentages in WHFB. ANything at all

Failure to provide a page and paragraph, or refusal to do so, will be considered concession of the RAW argument

(I am aware of the "intent behind 1999" argument, have addressed it multiple times, and it is irrelevant to this discussion - which is whether intent matches reality. It doesnt)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

As I read it is only when called upon to divide.
Not when comparing ratios.

So 5 is 10% of 51 models then?

The actual written rules and example state exactly the opposite.

This thread is incredibly entertaining to say the least

DukeRustfield wrote:
Per unit. You aren't buying models one by one and placing them on the board. You are buying wholly-formed units. There are no model limitations or model rules (Special%/Rare%/Duplicate)--the exception being SCs, and that is specifically made an exception in the BRB. The smallest denomination that can be placed on the game board is a unit. It might be a unit of 1, but it's still a unit. A model is just a component of a unit.

So if I take that train of thought, a unit's cost is composed by adding the cost of its individual models...and repeated addition is multiplication...and multiplication is (according to the very RAD-driven interpretation of Divide and Conquer) therefore affected by D&C...and thus, a unit that costs 101,5 pts would cost 102 pts. But that's not all! In fact, if a model costs 1,5 points, that's 1x1,5! And multiplication is the...inverse of division! Which means that...every model that costs 1,5 pts cost in fact 2 pts!

Seriously, though, to back Niteware up: p. 132, bottom left:

"By adding together all the points cost of the warriors you have selected you can find out the points value of your army."

This comes BEFORE the section "Size of Game" and BEFORE "The Army List".

Therefore, RAW-wise (which isn't how people actually write lists, but alas, it's RAW, not RAI), you first select your army and then, when the list is complete, you check if you're below the points limit.

Anyway, continue with the circle-argumentation please, it's hilariously entertaining. inb4 ERMAGEERD YE'RE SO WRONG!

;D

Throt wrote:
I know. And that is the point.
It is just literal nitpicking in my opinion.
Saying 1999 as opposed to 2000 is done obviously for a reason as it is not as simple as shutting down dual force organization. Do you really want to list all the units you want to control? You could , or you could just set 1999 or you could talk to your opponent...shocking I know.
It boils down to the type of people you choose to play with.

SO if they drop the points of a stank to 249, with no other change, do you suddenly start playing 1991 games, hoping that that will stop double stank?

You are already IMPLICITLY trying to control every unit you dont like to see, because you are adding in your own comp purely to stop, in this case, double stank. So why not actually STATE you are stopping X, Y, Z units from being taken in a 2000 point game?

It is easier to keep track of. It is more open, honest and transparent about your motives. It also, crucially, has the added benefit of ACTUALLY WORKING from a rules perspective at what you intended it to do.

Crazy I know - actually being honest and upfront about why you are doing something, as opposed to trying to be clever and hide it by dropping the points (and then complaining that the rules mean you have not actually done what you intended to do)

Nosferatu: Obviously, practically, in order to find out the limit for rares you divide by 4, in this case giving you 499.75. HOWEVER, this is not what the rules "call upon" you to do.
The rules state that you cannot spend more than 25% of your points on rares, which means you divide the Points on Rares by Total Points to find a percentage.
Your oft quoted example is totally different, because it starts with a percentage and transforms that into a number of models - exactly the opposite of what you do for Rares points. It is also different because one is a "maximum of" rather than an exact amount.

You keep asking for page numbers, I keep telling you that it is the page which sets the limits - 132 if memory serves.

Reread it and note that it does not ask you to find out what the rare limit is - you are never called on to divide the total, just to divide other numbers BY the total (checking percentages).

Niteware wrote:

The rules state that you cannot spend more than 25% of your points on rares, which means you divide the Points on Rares by Total Points to find a percentage.

For that to be the case you would have to do trial-and-error over and over to see if you were below the 25%. You'd buy 2 units, add their points, divide it by total. Nope, it's only 18%. Okay, buy some more stuff blindly, see if that's it, damn, now it's 31%. Okay, sell some. OR you could just multiply the total by .25 and then you would be able to purchase units and assess their total with addition, which is much easier for people to handle and is one less step mathematically. They are exactly identical. I did General Ledger Accounting programming for an oil company for ~2 years, this isn't something that really needs to be debated IMHO.

So if I take that train of thought, a unit's cost is composed by adding the cost of its individual models...and repeated addition is multiplication...

But it's not. A unit is not necessarily, or even usually, pure multiplication. It is the sum of the things in the unit, which often include different values. Because of full command, wargear, magic items, banners. But Divide and Conquer says you're required to calculate a value. You're never asked to know the individual costs of models. A unit is the only game value that matters in their representation. Whether a unit of mournfang averages 65.4 or 60 or 65.99 doesn't matter. You get points for the unit if you kill it. You have to take panic tests based on the # (which is also rounded-up).

DukeRustfield wrote:

For that to be the case you would have to do trial-and-error over and over to see if you were below the 25%.

So what?

Your statement that there are not many fractions is indicative.
A single counterpoint to your all-inclusive statement is enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
It is the sum of the things in the unit, which often include different values

As oppose to the divisor or numerator?


You are CHOOSING to divide then claiming it is RAW, despite never being a written rule.

Just browse around how to calculate percentages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage#Calculations

The percent value is computed by multiplying the numeric value of the ratio by 100.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/percentage

Definition of PERCENTAGE

1
a : a part of a whole expressed in hundredths
b : the result obtained by multiplying a number by a percent <the percentage equals the rate times the base>

You can calculate what the value will be by division, but that is NOT what the rules "call upon" you to do.

There is no formula, actually. It tells you to come up with 10% and leaves you to it. You can query a thousand Accountants and Mathematicians and ask them how you come up with 10% of a number. Maybe they used magic.

Oh, one more on this rather silly topic. I forget who brought it up and why, but the idea of continuously trying to add and then divide to see if it's >25%. If you go into nearly any store in the western world, you will see items that are 25% off. Or 15% off. When you reach the check-out, they don't punch in a random number, divide it by the sticker price, see if it's too high/low and adjust and keep doing it until they are correct to the penny, having marked down the starting point each time just in case they get it right. No, you will find they N * .75 or N-(N*.25). Or just press a button that does that.

Niteware wrote:
You can calculate what the value will be by division, but that is NOT what the rules "call upon" you to do.

Except it is, as has been proven

I need to know if my total (Z) is greater than my limit in points (25% of X)

I find my limit in points by calculating 25% of X; I get 499,75 and then round up.

It is EXACTLY the same as the example. The one you claim is irrelevant, so you can attempt to claim that the most natural method, and the one you care called upon to do, to calculate a limit is suddenly not how you do it.

Page 132 does not state your claim that you do (X/y*100), compare to 25%. If that were true then you would only remove 5 models from a unit, when asked to remove 10%. We know this is false. Your continued claim otherwise is irrational, and has no basis in the rules of the game

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Niteware wrote:
You can calculate what the value will be by division, but that is NOT what the rules "call upon" you to do.

Except it is, as has been proven

I need to know if my total (Z) is greater than my limit in points (25% of X)

I find my limit in points by calculating 25% of X; I get 499,75 and then round up.

It is EXACTLY the same as the example. The one you claim is irrelevant, so you can attempt to claim that the most natural method, and the one you care called upon to do, to calculate a limit is suddenly not how you do it.

Page 132 does not state your claim that you do (X/y*100), compare to 25%. If that were true then you would only remove 5 models from a unit, when asked to remove 10o%. We know this is false. Your continued claim otherwise is irrational, and has no basis in the rules of the game

No. You choose to find out what the limit is (which is very sensible). What the rules tell you to do is to check that your points spent is not more than 25%. This is a DIFFERENT calculation.

If your example said "remove UP TO 10%, it would be more similar, but it doesn't. Dividing to conquer tells you how to deal with fractions when you are only able to act in whole numbers - removing models is the example they give.

There is no RAW that says to divide the points total. Therefore, you can't use dividing it to support your argument. Which means that you currently have no arguement. Saying that you have proved things does not replace actually proving them.

Yes, so I find out what 25% is in points, and compare my points to the limit in points.

Which is what the rule requires.

Again: you are told to remove 10% of the unit. Your method, the wrong way according to the rules of WHFB, would result in the removal of 5 models.

You remove 1 model. Is that 10%? No
You remove 2....4 models. Is that 10%? No
You remove 5 models. Is that 10%? Yes as you round up the fraction of 9...% to 10%.

Yet the actual, plain as anything rule states the opposite.

Your premise is wrong, and while I am trying to avoid the fallacy fallacy, this gives a strong hint that your conclusion is wrong as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again: . . [repetition of irrelevant stuff].

Yep and there are still specific rules telling you always to round up when (re)moving models.

And most other things.

No one has disagreed with you on that.
No idea why you keep repeating yourself about it.


editing to add:
When adjusting stats or removing models, the rules tell you to round up because you cannot use a fraction and the value is not meant to be zero when a 1 is rolled. (e.g.stats are integers - Move and Wounds are stats.)

Ah, so you yet again missed the point? Brilliant.

The point was that, if you take the "method" proposed by Niteware, you end up removing 5 models, not 6. Yet we know, for a fact, that you remove 6

Doing this crazy thing called "being consistent", failing to round up 499.75 to 500 breaks the DtC rule.

Do you yet have a reason not to apply DtC? It would be useful for you to provide some rules to back up your assertions that it doesnt apply here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so you yet again missed the point? Brilliant.

The point was that, if you take the "method" proposed by Niteware, you end up removing 5 models, not 6. Yet we know, for a fact, that you remove 6

Doing this crazy thing called "being consistent", failing to round up 499.75 to 500 breaks the DtC rule.

Do you yet have a reason not to apply DtC? It would be useful for you to provide some rules to back up your assertions that it doesnt apply here.

No one is arguing that you remove less than 6 models in this scenario, you dont seem to grasp that what is being said is a differant situation and the specific wording of DtC does not apply to this.

The DtC rule does not overule the basic army building concepts, and your example is irrelivant, stop using it, both apples and pears are fruits, but that doesnt mean that an apple is a pear which is what you are trying to claim.

Ok... so you work out how many points you are allowed to spend on rares (which no rule has asked you to do). You use this decision to justify rounding up. You then spend 500 points on rares. You then come to what the rules actually ask you to do and see if you have spent over 25% of your points on rares. You have, so your list is illegal.
In this situation, you start with points and then check percentages.

You are told to remove 10% of a unit of 51 models. You calculate that this is 5.1 models. The rules tell you to round up, so you remove 6 models.
In this situation, you start wih a percentage and change this into an integer / numher of models.

Can you see the difference (Hint: They are opposites...)

cammy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so you yet again missed the point? Brilliant.

The DtC rule does not overule the basic army building concepts, and your example is irrelivant, stop using it, both apples and pears are fruits, but that doesnt mean that an apple is a pear which is what you are trying to claim.

What's funny about this, is that an apple is a pear, both are Rosaceae . It's why people say Apples and Oranges, not Apple and Pear or Lemons and Oranges.

I don't get where you think that DtC doesn't apply to some parts of the rules when the rule DtC says whenever you divide. How do you decide that one of the General Principles doesn't apply to a section of the rules?
If that's the case, I'm going to be re-rolling re-rolls all over the place.

-Matt

Once again, better things to do.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

cammy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so you yet again missed the point? Brilliant.

The DtC rule does not overule the basic army building concepts, and your example is irrelivant, stop using it, both apples and pears are fruits, but that doesnt mean that an apple is a pear which is what you are trying to claim.

What's funny about this, is that an apple is a pear, both are Rosaceae . It's why people say Apples and Oranges, not Apple and Pear or Lemons and Oranges.

I don't get where you think that DtC doesn't apply to some parts of the rules when the rule DtC says whenever you divide. How do you decide that one of the General Principles doesn't apply to a section of the rules?
If that's the case, I'm going to be re-rolling re-rolls all over the place.

-Matt

your just nit picking on the apples thing.

anyway the premise I am arguing is that the rule does not override the army building rules.

it states that you may spend up to 25%, DTC tells you to round up fractions. It gives the example to remove 6 models, however the wording of a spell, effect rule will make a difference, when told to find/remove X% you round up to ensure that a minimum of x% is met. however it is the wording in the army building rules that state up to 25% in this example you are given a clear hard rule of what you cannot go over- if you rounded up and got 26% you are over 25% there is no arguing that 26 is greater then 25. What I am stating is that for a 1999 point game 499 is the limit, as if you get 499.1 you would be forced to round this number up ( using dtc) however you do not have permission to break the hard rule of upto so you would be over the limit. I am not arguing that dtc doesn't apply just that the rule itself does not give you permission to break another rule.

This is an order of operations issue. When you round up, you cannot go back to your original value using the same formula because you rounded. From DTC, 10% of 51 = 6. But 6 / 10% = 60.

You're saying 499 is the limit for 1999. But where did you get 499 from? If you take 1999 * .25 you get 499.75. Yes, 500 > .25 of 1999. Just like in the DTC example 6 > 10% of 51. Because you're instructed to round up.

Except that you aren't asked to divide the total, so you never have to round.

Nor are you asked to divide the sums. The only formula that is given is adding the models.

But DTC title is a pun. It's not a rule. Are you really trying to say that if have to add, subtract or multiply fractions/decimals there is no rule whatsoever, only for division, that somehow sacrosanct mathematical operation?

Cuz there's a whole shitstorm of problems that come up because they never tell you the formulas to use. In the DTC example, they say it 10% of 51 is 6. But that's only if you divide and round up. I choose to multiply and truncate under the Niteware Doctrine.

No, lots of situations tell you to find a number of models or explicitly to divide a stat. Every single one of these situations uses DtC.
The difference here is that you are NOT asked to find a number of points that you may spend on rares. You ARE asked to check that the points you have spent is less than or equal to 25%.
That leaves no scope for rounding up.

The easiest way to find out how many points you can spend is by dividing by 4.
The easiest way to choose a spot to aim yiur cannon at is to say "I'm aiming at this model, x inches away from it".
Neither of these is what the rules ask you to do, but they are convenient.

Rally, panic are just the two first things I flipped to that don't tell you. I can't think of anything (that ends up in a fraction to be rounded) where they break out a formula. They say 25%.

The easiest way to find out how many points you can spend is by dividing by 4.

Lol. Divide what by 4? The easiest way is to follow the order and get the total you agree upon. You can divide that by four or multiply it by .25.

But if you want to get all RAW it says:
"You can spend up to 50% of your points on Special units."

NOT, the total of your special units cannot exceed 50% of your army's total points.

"50% of your points" is a value. It is what you are testing against. It doesn't tell you to multiply or divide your Specials, it does tell you to use 50% of your points, however.


You still haven't said what the rules are for multiplication and addition.

Panic says if you lose 25% or more of the models you need to take a test. Damned if they tell you to multiply or divide. Yes or no, if you divide by 4, you round up. If you multiply by .25, you do...something else? Back up your convictions.

For Panic, you need to find out how many models = 25%.
For spending points, you are not asked to find out how many points you can spend. You are given a limit.

Multiplication and addition have nothing to do with it.
As I said before, this situation is the opposite of the situation for Panic, so it is a poor example to use.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Back up your convictions.

You never need to multiply by .25 (would you round that .25?).

You multiply your used points by 4. If that goes over your total limit, you are over 25%.

You multiply your used points by 4. If that goes over your total limit, you are over 25%.

Find that anywhere in the BRB and post it.

THIS is in the BRB.

You can spend up to 50% of your points on Special units.

50% of your points. The operators are your points and 50%. Not used points. Not 4 (or 2 in this case). The only formula hinted is .5*points (points/2). It doesn't tell you to do jack with your special unit totals. That is RAW BRB.

Really?

We talking about 25%, but ok.

x2 for Specials.

Your used points for SPECIALS since you want to change from the 1/4 you mentioned previously. . .then when you double them must be equal to or less than the allowed value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
The only formula hinted is .5*points (points/2). .

Hints are RAW.

Gotcha.

Implications are, by definition, not written.
RAW, by definition, is.

"50% of your points"

Is a formula. Just like the DTC example of "10% of a unit of 51 models."

Niteware wrote:
For Panic, you need to find out how many models = 25%.
For spending points, you are not asked to find out how many points you can spend. You are given a limit.

Multiplication and addition have nothing to do with it.
As I said before, this situation is the opposite of the situation for Panic, so it is a poor example to use.

25% of your points is a formula, that results in a value in points that you may not spend more than. You do not find how many points you have spend and multiply by 4, as that is not what you are called upon to do in the rules.

Wrong again. Any chance of a concession that you ARE called upon to divide yet? The lack of rules basis for your argument is tiresome to argue against with , you know, actual rules.

I love it when people are bashing each other while calling "DTC" all over the place, especially since everybody understands that "playing 1999" really means "limiting to 499 of rare" and such
What's really funny here, is that "DTC" is the french shortening of "Dans ton cul" or "in your a**", so everyone here is basically invoking a "up the a**" rule for something that nobody really cares about

The real question here is not who's right or wrong
If you and your opponent agree to do a 1999 game on purpose, it's because you want to limit the rare to 499

TanKoL wrote:
I love it when people are bashing each other while calling "DTC" all over the place, especially since everybody understands that "playing 1999" really means "limiting to 499 of rare" and such
What's really funny here, is that "DTC" is the french shortening of "Dans ton cul" or "in your a**", so everyone here is basically invoking a "up the a**" rule for something that nobody really cares about

The real question here is not who's right or wrong
If you and your opponent agree to do a 1999 game on purpose, it's because you want to limit the rare to 499

Yeah, I agree

This thread is absolutely hilarious and I hope it goes on for a while. The information value is absolutely zero as the correct answer was given in the very first reply:

 kirsanth wrote:
There is no rounding, 500 is more than 25% of 1999.

...but the amount of circle-argumentation and people throwing RAW around while they speak of RAD (Rules As Desired) is endlessly entertaining.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Niteware wrote:
For Panic, you need to find out how many models = 25%.
For spending points, you are not asked to find out how many points you can spend. You are given a limit.

Multiplication and addition have nothing to do with it.
As I said before, this situation is the opposite of the situation for Panic, so it is a poor example to use.

25% of your points is a formula, that results in a value in points that you may not spend more than. You do not find how many points you have spend and multiply by 4, as that is not what you are called upon to do in the rules.

Wrong again. Any chance of a concession that you ARE called upon to divide yet? The lack of rules basis for your argument is tiresome to argue against with , you know, actual rules.

Ah! Now I see the bit where it tells you to work out what 25% of your total is, then spend that amount. How could I have misread it as "you may spend up to", which would mean not more than. Wait... no, I was right before.

I love that YOU keep saying that I don't have a rules argument, while youodon't have a rules, logical or mathematical argument. It is kinda cute really.

By the time they are 10, eveyone should have been taught how to find fractions. By the time they aee 12, they should be able to understand percentages. To see if your rare points are greater than 25%, divide the points spent on rares (he only relevan value) by the total you were allowed to spend. Multiply this by 100. If this number is more than 25, you have spent too many points on rares.

Dividing the total by 4 is a shortcut to finding the limit, but it is not a substitute for doing what yiu are suppossed to do.

Ah, so now your only response is to insult the education of others?

Cute.

No, wait, a sign that your lack of argument has reached the point of no return, as you cannot even maintain civility any longer.

You are told you may not spend more than 25% of your points. Meaning you may not spend more than (25% of X) And what is 25% of X? 500, according to the rules of the game that you are denying/

Tankol - I agree that you may "know" why you are limiting to 1999, but why not explicitly, rather than implicitly, say so? Is there a reason you are being dishonest about your reasons for a points limit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

TanKoL wrote:
I love it when people are bashing each other while calling "DTC" all over the place, especially since everybody understands that "playing 1999" really means "limiting to 499 of rare" and such
What's really funny here, is that "DTC" is the french shortening of "Dans ton cul" or "in your a**", so everyone here is basically invoking a "up the a**" rule for something that nobody really cares about

The real question here is not who's right or wrong
If you and your opponent agree to do a 1999 game on purpose, it's because you want to limit the rare to 499

Yeah, I agree

This thread is absolutely hilarious and I hope it goes on for a while. The information value is absolutely zero as the correct answer was given in the very first reply:

 kirsanth wrote:
There is no rounding, 500 is more than 25% of 1999.

...but the amount of circle-argumentation and people throwing RAW around while they speak of RAD (Rules As Desired) is endlessly entertaining.

Asuming by "correct" you mean "possibly the persons Intention, but not the actual rules based answer"?

Wasn't intended to be uncivil or insulting, sorry if it came across that way.
Your comments on lack of argument are more applicable to your own posts, however, as my point is clear and irrefutable; you aren't asked or told to calculate what 25% is, you are told not to spend over it.
"What is 25%" is not part of that calculation, it isa useful shorthand, but when you start roundung the wrong number, you get the wrong answer.
Try calculating what percentage you are spending (as the rules tell you to) rather than converting the limit into points - may make it clearer.

 Sigvatr wrote:
There is no rounding, 500 is more than 25% of 1999.

But this goes back to what rounding means. All of the DTC examples that use rounding are > than what the % was. Because they were rounded...

The example is 10% of 51 = 6. But 6 / .1 (or 6 * 10 if you want to go that way) is > 51. At no point is six 10% of 51--unless you round. That's the nature of rounding. You can't look at it after you did it and say zomg it's greater. Of course it is. But you were called on to make it greater. If you were called on to round down, it would be less. The only way it will ever equal exactly is if this was a decimal game of infinite accuracy. But it's a D6 game.

Turn your points into percentages as the rule says (for army selection, not even vaguely related to the DTC example) and it becomes very clear.

"10% of a unit of 51 models" = 6, per DTC.

"25% of your points[1999]" = what, per DTC?


It's the same formula. Again, if you take 6/.1 (which is what you're doing with points) it's not 51 and no amount of rounding will make it 51.

It is not the same formula. They bith have numbers and a percentage sign, that does not make them the same.
The question "25% = what" is not what the rules ask. The rule is "Rare points spent = what%".
It is the opposite calculation to the DTC example.
500/1999 * 100 > 25%, so it breaks the rule. Rounding doesn't come in to it at all.

Niteware wrote:
It is not the same formula. They bith have numbers and a percentage sign, that does not make them the same.
The question "25% = what" is not what the rules ask. The rule is "Rare points spent = what%".
It is the opposite calculation to the DTC example.
500/1999 * 100 > 25%, so it breaks the rule. Rounding doesn't come in to it at all.

That equation makes no sense.
If I spend 10 point on rares, your equation says my army is illegal.
10/1999 * 100 is Greater Than 25%.
It's roughly .50025 > .25





Automatically Appended Next Post:
How word problems work hasn't really changed.

You can spend up to 25% of your points on Rare units.

How many points can I spend on rares?

You can spend is X.
up to is equal to or less than
25% is 25%, .25 or 1/4
"of" tells you to multiply.
points is army size

X < .25 * 1999

X is less than or equal to 499.75
With DtC saying to round.

500 is never a known value without using the formula.

It never once says "Rare points spent = what%." You putting that in quotes is you talking. I quoted the actual BRB.

"You can spend up to 25% of your points on _____"
"You can spend up to 50% of your points on _____"
"You must spend a minimum of 25% of your points on Core units."

Those are direct quotes from the BRB. Those are the only formulas listed for points. I know what you're saying, but that isn't the formula. There are 3 variables in each line of the BRB in regards to points.

[unit type points] = [Max%] * [Total Points]
OR IF YOU LIKE
[unit type points] = [Total Points] / ([Max%]*100)

You could come up with [Total Points] by dividing both sides by [Max%] but you already know [Total Points]. It is the first thing you agree on and the first thing you do according to the BRB. You also know [Max%] because it is hard-coded in the formula, again, according to the BRB. e.g.,

[unit type points] = 25% * 1999

What you're doing is:

500 Rare Points /.25 = [Total Points]

But that's not how it is listed in the BRB. The first thing you do is agree on points, so that variable is solved.

@Matt multiplying by 100 makes it a percentage 10 points would indeed give around 0.5%, which is less than 25%

@Duke The BRB does indeed talk about percentages spent on rares, which is why you should work out the percentage spent on rares.

I am not doing what you suggest, I am working out what percentage I have spent, as the book says.

The book does not ask you to calculate how many points you can spend on rares. There is no variable to resolve. Obviously you work it out that way, but that is not RAW.

This is what is confusing me the most. The side that says 500 points is 25% has posted rules as written. Infact we have referenced pages.

Niteware, where I'm having trouble seeing your side is your only claiming RAW, but not showing examples of RAW. As it stands, I'm supporting Nos and others saying 500 pts is 25% because the RAW they've posted 100% makes sense and you can follow the logic.

I can't follow the logic of why in this specific incidence, DTC does not apply. Perhaps you could provide the arguement without making a leap for me? Because right now, it feels like theres a huge leap of logic in the reasoning for it not to apply, atleast to me.

I get what they're saying.

"You can spend up to 25% of your points on Rares"

So if he has 500 points of Rares he divides it by .25 and it is 2000, which would be over 1999 if that's what you agreed to.

It's an order of operations issue.

"The government requires me to pay to the IRS 30% of my earnings in taxes"
[% = %, earnings = total points, taxes = rare allowance]

I don't pay $1 and see if that's 30%. Then try $2 if that doesn't work. I take my total earnings, multiply them by .30, and pay that. And the IRS is kind enough to let me round down (partial dollars).

quote...SO if they drop the points of a stank to 249, with no other change, do you suddenly start playing 1991 games, hoping that that will stop double stank?

You are already IMPLICITLY trying to control every unit you dont like to see, because you are adding in your own comp purely to stop, in this case, double stank. So why not actually STATE you are stopping X, Y, Z units from being taken in a 2000 point game?

It is easier to keep track of. It is more open, honest and transparent about your motives. It also, crucially, has the added benefit of ACTUALLY WORKING from a rules perspective at what you intended it to do.

Crazy I know - actually being honest and upfront about why you are doing something, as opposed to trying to be clever and hide it by dropping the points (and then complaining that the rules mean you have not actually done what you intended to do)..quote

Why do you play 1500 pts?
Do you state every time you play, to every person that you are playing the reason for choosing those points..for smaller, faster games? That you want less or less powerful heroes? That the 1500 pts gives you less powerful Deathstars?
It's not just about steam tanks.
Do you honestly believe it's easier to list every reason why you chose the points value?
Your implication that choosing that point limit is dishonest is asinine.. By agreeing to the points and knowing what the intent is and not saying anything is equally dishonest. You are making the assumption that the other player what you know. You could ask why they chose the points.
I would be willing to wager that the majority of people on these forums if asked in a 1999 point game how many points they can spend on rare the majority will say 499. I think we should do a poll...
(Edited to show quote)

Stoupe wrote:
This is what is confusing me the most. The side that says 500 points is 25% has posted rules as written. Infact we have referenced pages.

Niteware, where I'm having trouble seeing your side is your only claiming RAW, but not showing examples of RAW. As it stands, I'm supporting Nos and others saying 500 pts is 25% because the RAW they've posted 100% makes sense and you can follow the logic.

I can't follow the logic of why in this specific incidence, DTC does not apply. Perhaps you could provide the arguement without making a leap for me? Because right now, it feels like theres a huge leap of logic in the reasoning for it not to apply, atleast to me.

Page 134, Rare Units "You may spend up to 25% of your points on rares".

The 500 camp argue that this means: 1. Work out what 25% of the total is 2. Round up if this is not a whole number 3. Spend that number of points 4. Ignore the fact that you may have spent over 25% in a strict mathematical sense.

My arguement is that this is not what the rule says. "Spend up to 25%" says 1. spend your points 2. Calculate what percentage of your total you have spent on rares 3. If it is less than 25% you aren't breakijng the rules.

Practically, you CAN do this in reverse by dividing the total by 4, but rounding up causes you to break the rule. The fact that you ARE doing it in revers means that DTC does not apply, because no rule has asked you to divide.

My turn since i am bored...
The rules as written crowd is using 'dividing to conquer' as their basis for spending 500 points in rare. Their argument is based on literal text..
Basic rule book page 7...any fractions should be rounded....
Fair enough
So if we are looking at rules as written we must break down application. Rules as written does not allow us to apply the rule as we see fit but only where it is written.

Pg 7 lists specific examples so there is no point in bring those examples into this because they are written. To apply the 51% casualties as an example to prove you should round 25% in setting points values is an implication which therefore invalidates rules as written because there is no written text that compares the two or writing that states you must do so.
To solely use rules as written it requires written text in application.
So lets break down the written language on how to apply usage of dividing to conquer.
The base of it all is found on pg 6 of the basic rule book under 'General Principles' first bold paragraph..
..."we are almost ready to dive into the the turn sequence that drives....few basic ideas and game mechanics......while playing the game..
The first sentence states that the following chapter is part of turn sequence. Setting your points is not part of turn sequence.
All reference of all the following paragraphs are in game mechanics. There is not a single reference to any part of the game within that chapter nor a single example given that takes place out of game sequence or turns.
It is not written anywhere else in the rule book that you should round fractions.
The burden of proof on separate usage falls on the rules as written crowd. No one has argued its usage in written examples...if your basis is that it is 'written'. You must show that.
There is no other writing asking you to round numbers.
Once you apply dividing to conquer to an area of the game that does not refer to dividing to conquer or asking you to round your numbers you are now making an implication therefore applying rules as intended.
No one has argued that 1999 divided by 4 is not 499.75
No one has argued that if you round 499.75 up you get 500
No one has argued that 25% of 1999 is not 499.75
The point is application of a written rule requiring the rounding of numbers and nowhere does it state that you round your points costs or that you apply diving to conquer.

Edited to fix typos...I may have still missed some.

 Throt wrote:
My turn since i am bored...
The rules as written crowd is using 'dividing to conquer' as their basis for spending 500 points in rare. Their argument is based on literal text..
Basic rule book page 7...any fractions should be rounded....
Fair enough
So if we are looking at rules as written we must break down application. Rules as written does not allow us to apply the rule as we see fit but only where it is written.

Pg 7 lists specific examples so there is no point in bring those examples into this because they are written. To apply the 51% casualties as an example to prove you should round 25% in setting points values is an implication which therefore invalidates rules as written because there is no written text that compares the two or writing that states you must do so.
To solely use rules as written it requires written text in application.
So lets break down the written language on how to apply usage of dividing to conquer.
The base of it all is found on pg 6 of the basic rule book under 'General Principles' first bold paragraph..
..."we are almost ready to dive into the the turn sequence that drives....few basic ideas and game mechanics......while playing the game..
The first sentence states that the following chapter is part of turn sequence. Setting your points is not part of turn sequence.
All reference of all the following paragraphs are in game mechanics. There is not a single reference to any part of the game within that chapter nor a single example given that takes place out of game sequence or turns.

The problem with that logic is that, Measuring Distances, Dice, Rolling D3, Artillery and Scatter, Modifiers to dice, Re-rolls, Roll-Offs and Randomizing is all in the same part as DtC.
If you claim DtC doesn't work because it isn't turn 1, then when happens with the rest of those Rules prior to turn 1?
When both people roll the same for first turn?
I have 5 beast units with ambush, half can ambush. How many is that?
Since measuring closest to closest would only start on turn 1, I'll measure from my back edge during deployment.

 Throt wrote:
because there is no written text that compares the two or writing that states you must do so.

The point is application of a written rule requiring the rounding of numbers and nowhere does it state that you round your points costs or that you apply diving to conquer.

The BRB is pretty damn thick. But they can't tell you every instance in which every rule is used. The first one that I flipped to is reroll. It says if you reroll a 2d6 or 3d6 you must reroll them all. But it doesn't say 4d6 or 5d6 or 6d6. So if you have the ability to reroll a miscast as long as it's 4/5/6 dice you can pick and choose what you reroll. The BRB would be millions of pages long if every example of every rule had to be listed out. I mean, there's no rule or example for Ogres panicking, just a general rule and whatever specifics they had--therefore, do Ogres not panic?

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Throt wrote:
My turn since i am bored...
The rules as written crowd is using 'dividing to conquer' as their basis for spending 500 points in rare. Their argument is based on literal text..
Basic rule book page 7...any fractions should be rounded....
Fair enough
So if we are looking at rules as written we must break down application. Rules as written does not allow us to apply the rule as we see fit but only where it is written.

Pg 7 lists specific examples so there is no point in bring those examples into this because they are written. To apply the 51% casualties as an example to prove you should round 25% in setting points values is an implication which therefore invalidates rules as written because there is no written text that compares the two or writing that states you must do so.
To solely use rules as written it requires written text in application.
So lets break down the written language on how to apply usage of dividing to conquer.
The base of it all is found on pg 6 of the basic rule book under 'General Principles' first bold paragraph..
..."we are almost ready to dive into the the turn sequence that drives....few basic ideas and game mechanics......while playing the game..
The first sentence states that the following chapter is part of turn sequence. Setting your points is not part of turn sequence.
All reference of all the following paragraphs are in game mechanics. There is not a single reference to any part of the game within that chapter nor a single example given that takes place out of game sequence or turns.

The problem with that logic is that, Measuring Distances, Dice, Rolling D3, Artillery and Scatter, Modifiers to dice, Re-rolls, Roll-Offs and Randomizing is all in the same part as DtC.
If you claim DtC doesn't work because it isn't turn 1, then when happens with the rest of those Rules prior to turn 1?
When both people roll the same for first turn?
I have 5 beast units with ambush, half can ambush. How many is that?
Since measuring closest to closest would only start on turn 1, I'll measure from my back edge during deployment.

Not turn one...the start of the turn sequence.
You have a list and so do I.
We start the game and begin turn sequence setting terrain,scenarios etc.We roll for set up, we roll for first turn. set up ambushers...we use DtC to figure out how many ambushers..all part of the turn sequence.
There is no question where you measure from.

Niteware wrote:

Page 134, Rare Units "You may spend up to 25% of your points on rares".

The 500 camp argue that this means: 1. Work out what 25% of the total is 2. Round up if this is not a whole number 3. Spend that number of points 4. Ignore the fact that you may have spent over 25% in a strict mathematical sense.

4) Yes, because that is what the rules say is OK to do.

You may spend up to [25% of your points] on Rares

What is 25% of your points? Please determine this, as this is what you are allowed to spend. This is what you are CALLED UPON to calculate.

Niteware wrote:My arguement is that this is not what the rule says. "Spend up to 25%" says 1. spend your points 2. Calculate what percentage of your total you have spent on rares 3. If it is less than 25% you aren't breakijng the rules.

Except that doesnt actually parse the sentence in the way it is written, at all. That is the disconnect you are facing - you have decided to alter the meaning of a sentence.

Niteware wrote:Practically, you CAN do this in reverse by dividing the total by 4, but rounding up causes you to break the rule. The fact that you ARE doing it in revers means that DTC does not apply, because no rule has asked you to divide.

Except, as has been proven, it has.

Throt - again, the ONLY REASON people were playing 1999 was due to double stank. That is the only reason to play such an ODD amount. The only one. No, I would not expect to explain why I wanted to play a 1500 point game, but a 1499 game would strike me as odd, so I would ask why you wanted to play it. Same withg a 1999 game.

Why are you so afraid of being honest about your motives with your opponent? Why is it such an issue to say "can we play 2000, but no double stank if you are bringing empie?" Or, if you want to disallow ANY 500 points on rares, then play a 1996 game - then the rules actually support what you want to do.

Your position still remains untenable.

nosferatu- read my recent posts to help you understand.

You have no proof to sustain your position when the burden of proof is in your court.
Like my post said you are claiming rule as written, yet by implication and using the rule where you feel it fits you have used the rule as intended.

Part of he problem that you have is the application of personal feeling into the choice and the assumption that you know the individuals reasons for choosing a particular point game.
You make a claim that the 'only reason' for a particular points is to avoid 'your' assumption. Yet maybe it's to avoid a Vermin Lord, maybe it's to avoid item 'y' or 2 items from 'z' or a particularly large horde from special. Or maybe just maybe to try something different.
AGAIN you claim dishonesty on the part of the other player when the vast majority believe that when playing 1999 the limit is 499...for whatever reason...yet you apparently are the player that would write a list using 500 just to try and prove a point based on a rule that you are applying to support your particular needs whilst having why they chose those points
.
You could just as simply state 'no I want to play 2000 because I want to use double steam tanks.

How you 'feel' isn't really my problem.
I don't have any need or reason to justify the points I choose to play...I can choose 1685...am I required to hunt and peck for a reason to play those points? If that is 'your' expectation then I would choose not to play against you. And you would have every right to decline a game against me.

Your position is no stronger than mine. And I believe it to be weaker.
The whole argument is circular and not particularly about right and wrong it is one interpretation over another.
The majority say 499.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:

 Throt wrote:
because there is no written text that compares the two or writing that states you must do so.

The point is application of a written rule requiring the rounding of numbers and nowhere does it state that you round your points costs or that you apply diving to conquer.

The BRB is pretty damn thick. But they can't tell you every instance in which every rule is used. The first one that I flipped to is reroll. It says if you reroll a 2d6 or 3d6 you must reroll them all. But it doesn't say 4d6 or 5d6 or 6d6. So if you have the ability to reroll a miscast as long as it's 4/5/6 dice you can pick and choose what you reroll. The BRB would be millions of pages long if every example of every rule had to be listed out. I mean, there's no rule or example for Ogres panicking, just a general rule and whatever specifics they had--therefore, do Ogres not panic?

Exactly.
So you apply rules as intended to the best of your ability.
It does not need to state 4/5/6 d6 because we can deduce that that is it's application.

We don't have specifics in Diving to Conquer that say...we are rounding the casualties because you can't remove half a model. It does not state that we are rounding the numbers up because we cannot have .5 stats. So we can imply the usage.
We can imply that DtC applies itself to points values, as the 500 crowd does.
But how do we get there? Simply by the using the single line of text with loose implication that we use it there.
When we imply that the d6 reroll is for 4/5/6 it is a fair deduction based on context of the topic involved.
DtC..as I stated previously.. is used, in it's paragraph, in context to in game terms. All examples given are used with in game terms.
The amount of space it would have taken to add a line stating it's usage in points cost would have been minimal and I believe necessary as the paragraph and chapter have no relation to points cost or selecting an army.
Therefore it would be my conclusion that DtC does not apply to points costs.

Nosferatu, again you assert proof that you have not actually given.
Spend 500 points on rares. That is equal to 25.0125% of 1999. You can round that up to 26% if you like. Then tell me if that is more than 25%.
That is what the rule asks. Nowhere does it ask you to divide or to round. Just if the percentage is \< 25%.

Niteware wrote:
Nosferatu, again you assert proof that you have not actually given.
Spend 500 points on rares. That is equal to 25.0125% of 1999. You can round that up to 26% if you like. Then tell me if that is more than 25%.
That is what the rule asks. Nowhere does it ask you to divide or to round. Just if the percentage is \< 25%.

That really sums it up best.

Niteware wrote:
Nosferatu, again you assert proof that you have not actually given.
Spend 500 points on rares. That is equal to 25.0125% of 1999. You can round that up to 26% if you like. Then tell me if that is more than 25%.
That is what the rule asks. Nowhere does it ask you to divide or to round. Just if the percentage is \< 25%.

So you ignore the post proving your wrong? Very good way to argue

You are asked to spend up to (25% of your points limit)

What is 25% of your poiints limit? According to the real, actual written rules, which you are apparently incapable of acknowledging, this is 499.75. Which, according to the real, actual written rules you wish to ignore, is rounded to 500.

You fail utterly at providing a rules based argument, therefore your position is conceded. Please do not argue further unkess you are willing to provide proof that 25% of 1999 is not 499,75, and that you then can ignore page 7 despite being told otherwise.

Your position is currently untenable.

Throt - frankly I do not care about your disingenuous attempts at claiming a 1999 point limit does not have a specific comp reason for existing. You are being intellectually and actually dishonest if you clain you "just happened" to decide on a 1999 point game. That is a truly irrational position to hold on to. There IS a reason to pick 1999 - avoidning double stank in this instance. That is the only reason this is being picked. You are then claiming I should be lambasted for you know - following the rules. This is an abhorrent position - you are looking down on someone for

a) not divining your intent in picking 1999 - given you have claimed you "just picked" that limit, why so serious about me using 500 points? After all, your intention was purely to have a 1999 point limit, and nothing else, yes?
b) following the rules and picking 500 points of rares

I fully understand and have read your post. It just remains a very, very poor way to play, and I would see your apparent failure to be honest as a sign of a bad game to come. After all, if you cannot be bothered to say "please dont use double stank, even though legally you can in a 1999 point game, as I would rather try something else" and instead would and would instead just refuse to play - well that would be, for one, a game I am happy to miss. Who knows what other rules you would want to break, to fit how you would prefer to play, that you wouldnt be upfront and tell me about?

You are positing a house rule (in a 1999 game you can only spend 499 points on rares) without actually being honest about it. You then lambast me for suggesting honesty about motives is a good thing.

The mind truly boggles that you can think honesty about your motives is a bad thing. It truly does seem an incredible position to hold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - I do not care if the majority are unable to read and applly the rules. The actual rules are very clear, and not a single actual rules argument has been given that shows 499 is the limit. There has been a lot of noise, and a lot of "haha!" type arguments, but nothing actually addressing the rules that were presented.

A number of people are unable to parse a sentence correctly. That isnt my problem, but theirs.

I think I might finally chime in on this thread.

The rulebook says, as I'm sure has been quoted before, that "You may spend up to 25% of your points on Rare units"

Now, the key word here, I believe, is the word "your" and it's how you interpret that word that effects what stance you take on this issue. Frankly, I think its the way in which one interprets the English language that's causing the debate here, not anything to do with RAI or RAW or any such stuff.

Now, if I'm playing a 2000 point game, I have been given 2000 points on which to spend on my army. These, therefore, are MY two thousand points and, if I was talking about it in the second person, it would be YOUR two thousand points. That key word again. I put myself in the role of a GM in a large Warhammer battle in which several players are playing. I imagine myself, before the game, metaphorically handing out the points which the players are allowed to spend. "Hello, Dave," I say. "Thanks for coming. Here are your 2000 points." So, my interpretation of the word "your" is the points I'm given, my budget, if you like. If he wanted, Dave could spend 1000 points of his 2000, but have half of that 1000 (that'd be 500) spent on Rare Choices.

The other interpretation of "your", of course, is the amount of points that you've spent. So, in the above example, where Dave foolishly turns up to a 2000 point game with only 1000 points of models, Dave would only be allowed to spend 250 points on Rare. However, I don't think this would be the case. The points I spend are not MY points, not the points I've been given, not my budget. They're just the portion of MY points that I choose to spend.

That's my take on it anyway, food for thought.

I see what you are saying Shadow, but the problem does not arise when the limit is 2000 points. If the limit is 1999, one can either spend up to 25% (499.75 or less), or break this rule by substituting in a figure and rounding up.

Nosferatu, you can claim that you have proven things until you are blue in the face. You can add bracketsnto quotes to try and makenyour position more tenable. Or you can read what it actually says on page 134 and limit yourself to 25%.
500 = 25.0125% of 1999.

If you can deny that, keep trying.

 The Shadow wrote:
I think its the way in which one interprets the English language that's causing the debate here, not anything to do with RAI or RAW or any such stuff.

Of course not, but it makes you sound more serious if you throw terms like RAW and RAI around ;D

Finding a "reason" to break a rule (math) does not mean "proof" has been attained.

Editing to note that this is in relation to something that has already been proven to not be universal.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
I think its the way in which one interprets the English language that's causing the debate here, not anything to do with RAI or RAW or any such stuff.

Of course not, but it makes you sound more serious if you throw terms like RAW and RAI around ;D

A fair point...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Niteware wrote:
Nosferatu, again you assert proof that you have not actually given.
Spend 500 points on rares. That is equal to 25.0125% of 1999. You can round that up to 26% if you like. Then tell me if that is more than 25%.
That is what the rule asks. Nowhere does it ask you to divide or to round. Just if the percentage is \< 25%.

So you ignore the post proving your wrong? Very good way to argue

You are asked to spend up to (25% of your points limit)

What is 25% of your poiints limit? According to the real, actual written rules, which you are apparently incapable of acknowledging, this is 499.75. Which, according to the real, actual written rules you wish to ignore, is rounded to 500.

You fail utterly at providing a rules based argument, therefore your position is conceded. Please do not argue further unkess you are willing to provide proof that 25% of 1999 is not 499,75, and that you then can ignore page 7 despite being told otherwise.

Your position is currently untenable.

Throt - frankly I do not care about your disingenuous attempts at claiming a 1999 point limit does not have a specific comp reason for existing. You are being intellectually and actually dishonest if you clain you "just happened" to decide on a 1999 point game. That is a truly irrational position to hold on to. There IS a reason to pick 1999 - avoidning double stank in this instance. That is the only reason this is being picked. You are then claiming I should be lambasted for you know - following the rules. This is an abhorrent position - you are looking down on someone for

a) not divining your intent in picking 1999 - given you have claimed you "just picked" that limit, why so serious about me using 500 points? After all, your intention was purely to have a 1999 point limit, and nothing else, yes?
b) following the rules and picking 500 points of rares

I fully understand and have read your post. It just remains a very, very poor way to play, and I would see your apparent failure to be honest as a sign of a bad game to come. After all, if you cannot be bothered to say "please dont use double stank, even though legally you can in a 1999 point game, as I would rather try something else" and instead would and would instead just refuse to play - well that would be, for one, a game I am happy to miss. Who knows what other rules you would want to break, to fit how you would prefer to play, that you wouldnt be upfront and tell me about?

You are positing a house rule (in a 1999 game you can only spend 499 points on rares) without actually being honest about it. You then lambast me for suggesting honesty about motives is a good thing.

The mind truly boggles that you can think honesty about your motives is a bad thing. It truly does seem an incredible position to hold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - I do not care if the majority are unable to read and applly the rules. The actual rules are very clear, and not a single actual rules argument has been given that shows 499 is the limit. There has been a lot of noise, and a lot of "haha!" type arguments, but nothing actually addressing the rules that were presented.

A number of people are unable to parse a sentence correctly. That isnt my problem, but theirs.

You are actually ignoring the post that proves you are incorrect...here is the text that I wrote..

Pg 7 lists specific examples so there is no point in bring those examples into this because they are written. To apply the 51% casualties as an example to prove you should round 25% in setting points values is an implication which therefore invalidates rules as written because there is no written text that compares the two or writing that states you must do so.
To solely use rules as written it requires written text in application.
So lets break down the written language on how to apply usage of dividing to conquer.
The base of it all is found on pg 6 of the basic rule book under 'General Principles' first bold paragraph..
..."we are almost ready to dive into the the turn sequence that drives....few basic ideas and game mechanics......while playing the game..
The first sentence states that the following chapter is part of turn sequence. Setting your points is not part of turn sequence.
All reference of all the following paragraphs are in game mechanics. There is not a single reference to any part of the game within that chapter nor a single example given that takes place out of game sequence or turns.
It is not written anywhere else in the rule book that you should round fractions.
The burden of proof on separate usage falls on the rules as written crowd. No one has argued its usage in written examples...if your basis is that it is 'written'. You must show that.
There is no other writing asking you to round numbers.
Once you apply dividing to conquer to an area of the game that does not refer to dividing to conquer or asking you to round your numbers you are now making an implication therefore applying rules as intended.
No one has argued that 1999 divided by 4 is not 499.75
No one has argued that if you round 499.75 up you get 500
No one has argued that 25% of 1999 is not 499.75
The point is application of a written rule requiring the rounding of numbers and nowhere does it state that you round your points costs or that you apply diving to conquer


I have now shown the reasons why you do not apply DtC to the numbers when writing your army list. Now it is up to you to show how the two are connected.

Now let us continue...
It appears that you have difficulty following paragraphs but excel at reading lines.
I never stated that there was NO reason to play 1999. I stated that it is not necessarily to avoid steam tank it could be the normal points a group plays. It could be to avoid Vermin Lords. It may never have come into specific discussion. There are many reasons an individual may choose a certain number of points. YOU are the one proposing dishonesty on the others part for choosing the points. Do you know why they chose those points? Its a 2 way street. You believe you are correct in points which validates your stance they believe theirs.

Here is a shocker...You are the one that entered into discussion about dishonesty.
In your view they are dishonest because they don't state why they chose those points.
whether you agree or not the majority of the community plays with some sort of restrictions and they do not go about placing disclaimers on the subject. The disclaimer is in the points cost.
You 'know' why they chose those points but don't say anything. You are appalled because I have questioned you but your sole justification is that you believe you know a rule better. You question their integrity and claim to 'know' their reasoning but you fail to clarify. What does that say about your character?
You are aghast,yet playing 500 in a 1999 for the vast majority would be cheating. I have not accused you of that because I believe you to be mistaken in 'your' interpretation of the rules.
You continue to make character assumptions based upon what you think you know and I guarantee that you know nothing of my character.

But I digress...And will say nothing further about personality traits. The purpose of this discussion is as stated at the start of this post..

I have shown why DtC does not apply to points values using the rule book, it's content and the DtC rule....it is up to you now to show how it does or concede.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wow that was long. Sorry everyone.

Nite - already shown how your parsing of the sentence is wrong.

25% of 1999 is 500, according to WHFB. Given you have been unable to prove otherwise, at any point, I accept your concession

Throt - no, that point was dispreoven about page 3. The definition of playing the game includes writing an army list. You excel at creating long posts while ignoring the rest of the thread. Dont.

The poster also said that the purpose was to avoid double stank. So say that. Again, reading the thread is helpful

You have, as has been proven, shown jack all that is to do with the rules.

Your concession is accepted.

Nosferatu, 500 is 25.0125% of 1999, which is more than 25%. Given that you continually ignore this and the rules written on page 134, I accept your concession.
Btw, as far as parsing goes, adding fictional brackets does not change either the meaning ofthe rule or the fact that you are not asked to substitute in a number. You are given a percentage limit, so you need to use a percentage to check against that limit.

Your argument is the eequivalent of taking a french exam, translating the question into english, giving the answer inxenglish and then trying to claim that people who answer in French are wrong.

Again, until you can make a rational arguement that 25.0125 is not more than 25, I will count you as having conceded. I will still enjoy your meningless, unfounded expostulations however (only on this topic, usually your points seem well thought through).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nite - already shown how your parsing of the sentence is wrong.

25% of 1999 is 500, according to WHFB. Given you have been unable to prove otherwise, at any point, I accept your concession

Throt - no, that point was dispreoven about page 3. The definition of playing the game includes writing an army list. You excel at creating long posts while ignoring the rest of the thread. Dont.

The poster also said that the purpose was to avoid double stank. So say that. Again, reading the thread is helpful

You have, as has been proven, shown jack all that is to do with the rules.

Your concession is accepted.

Writing your list may be part of playing the game but DtC is part of game mechanics and the turn sequence..as stated and you failed to follow..
You have proven that you cannot answer how DtC applies to building your army..
You have also shown that you are unable to understand content through my posts and anyone else's or the rule book.
Your responses here are the equivalent of saying. Uh uh..no you are wrong.
Show the application.
Show me where I am wrong.
You can't.

Throt - yawn. Go back to page 3. Read it, and accept yoru failed argument. NOt rehashing it here, again, just to cover your laziness

Nite - until you can prove that 25% of your points limit is 499, your concession is accepted.

I am adding the brackets to show how the sentence parses. It is called "explaining". Something you are unable to counter, as your reading involves making up entirely new sentences to replace what is actually written.

I will enjoy your convoluted attempts at claimi ng that you compare your points to a percentage, when the written rule asks you to determine a number of points as a limit. The squirming you have to do to pretend something plainly written has the opposite meaning is entertaining to watch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and a point limit ISNT a game mechanic? Laughable argument there throt. Laughable

1. I Like that when you have no arguement you say that things are laughable.
2. In a circumstancc where you were asked to find 25% of 1999, you would round up. This is NOT what you are aasked to do.
3. You are given a limit to compare to. You can only compare to it by using the same units as the limit uses. You do NOT have the option to rewrite the limit check.
4. This means that you must work out your points as a percentage.
5. 500 is 25.0125% of 1999
6. 499 is less han 25% of 1999.
7. 499 is the most that you can spend on rares in a 1999 point game.
8. You can assert what you like are try to play with semantics, but we both know that 499 is corrdct.

Niteware wrote:
1. I Like that when you have no arguement you say that things are laughable.
2. In a circumstancc where you were asked to find 25% of 1999, you would round up. This is NOT what you are aasked to do.
3. You are given a limit to compare to. You can only compare to it by using the same units as the limit uses. You do NOT have the option to rewrite the limit check.
4. This means that you must work out your points as a percentage.
5. 500 is 25.0125% of 1999
6. 499 is less han 25% of 1999.
7. 499 is the most that you can spend on rares in a 1999 point game.
8. You can assert what you like are try to play with semantics, but we both know that 499 is corrdct.

I agree with you on this Niteware,

I dont belive that DTC applys when building army lists, however lets just humour the other side and say that it does. if you have over 499 points it rounds up to 500. this tells you how many points you have spend ( not how many points you can spend) the rule states up to 25%. This means you can spend 25% or less, not a signle point more. DTC could apply to the rounding up to 500, but i cannot see how it can apply to the wording up 25%. This is a hard and fast rule. Using DTC would actually mean that only 499 points could be used, and if say you had a list with 499.5 even though this is below 25% you would have to round up which caused it to be over 25%.

I do not understand how the wording up to can in any way imply that over is acceptable.

nosferatu1001 most of your other rules posts seem to be well though out, concise and factual. However i feel that you cannot face being incorrect on something , i think you need to take your pride out of the equation, and look openly at the arguments. Even if DTC was applied 500 points is still not legal. You need to prove how DTC allows you to break the up to 25% rule. the KEY being UPTO

It looks petty and childish of all stating, you must conceed, and i accept you concession, this thread is going around in circles and seems to have gone into the realms of the playgound, no im right,- no your not, im right.

lets lay this out clearly and get to the bottom of the issue.

I hate to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think this thread has long since passed the point where there is anymore meaningful exchange of position and has devolved into a glorified version of "no it isn't," "yes it is."

Is there any legitimate reason to continue this debate, other than the ever entertaining "Someone on the internet is wrong!" consideration?

I'm finding it amusing...

Well I am done...just like choosing opponents there are times playing against someone s a waste of time and that is where this thread is now.
Niteware, Cammy..I agree with you and the majority of the gaming population. Thank you for your input.
On to other threads.

Saldiven wrote:
I hate to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think this thread has long since passed the point where there is anymore meaningful exchange of position and has devolved into a glorified version of "no it isn't," "yes it is."

Is there any legitimate reason to continue this debate, other than the ever entertaining "Someone on the internet is wrong!" consideration?

As a general rule of thumb, every thread in YMDC beyond 2 (or even 1!) page(s) is a worthless thread as it is about 2+ people trying to verbally bash their very own interpretation (wrong or right) in the other side's heads and vice versa. Those threads, and this one here is a prime example, usually devolve into completely useless circle argumentation where A posts a long version of "YOU ARE STUPID I AM RIGHT" and B responds with "YOU ARE STUPID I AM RIGHT". Endless circle argumentation leading nowhere etc.

 Throt wrote:
Well I am done...just like choosing opponents there are times playing against someone s a waste of time and that is where this thread is now.
Niteware, Cammy..I agree with you and the majority of the gaming population.

I don't want to be insulting... but where are you getting that the majority of the gamin population believes this? It's rather presuming of you to state this, as I've seen you done in the thread previously. I didn't attack this comment before as I figured it was an exaggeration before. The poling I've done in my local community has them agreeing with myself, Nos, and Duke for the most part. While I'd never assume that I'm in the majority, it seems presumptuous that the majority of the community would be against us... Could you please provide any data that would indicate such a majority? Has there been polling on other WHFB sites that would support this? Are there rulings in GT (Or even just regular tournaments) showing that this is the case?

Even the discussion here seems pretty even between contributors....

He was extrapolating from the poll I think; 16 to 4 last I checked


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And using "as played" experience. Not scientific, but enough to make a potential stab at an opinion.

We've had some good threads that only opened up after a while. The rules are split all over across FAQs, army books, BRB, etc.

The poll? Was there a poll on this thread? I neither see the results or the options, but I am on my phone...

There is a poll further down.

Nite - up to 25% of your points limit. what is 25% of your points limit?

You are not comparing a percentage, but points. Your baseless (as in, you STILL cannto provide a RULE stating you convert your points on rares in a percentage) assertion otherwise has been proven wrong, over and over.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is a poll further down.

Nite - up to 25% of your points limit. what is 25% of your points limit?

You are not comparing a percentage, but points. Your baseless (as in, you STILL cannto provide a RULE stating you convert your points on rares in a percentage) assertion otherwise has been proven wrong, over and over.

Hahahahahaha, I love this. 25% of your points limit is an absolute value, which does not change from list to list. The rule which I am using is "You may spend up to 25% of your points on rares". How are you not getting this? This is written in the BRB. It is in bold. This means it is a rule. The words that constitute the rule say spend up to a percentage, which means you need to show what percentage you have spent.

Converting this rule into integers changes the rule, ergo it is not RAW.

What percentage of 1999 points is 500? (Hint: it is 25.0125%)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stoupe wrote:
The poll? Was there a poll on this thread? I neither see the results or the options, but I am on my phone...

The poll was started in a different thread, for reasons which are explained(ish) in that thread.

Yawn. And youre back to making up rules again

25% of your points limit absolutely does change, when your points limit changes. You realise a percentage is a ratio, right?

I will go ahead and spend up to 25% of 1999, as that is my points limit. 25% of 1999 is 500 points, so that is the result of performing the written algorithm as converted into maths, i.e. (1999/4), then rounded.

Your concession on lack of rules is accepted, and furhter posts of yours which ignore the rules will be ignored.

Ok, Divide to Conquer says to round up fractions. Is it Nite's point that you don't round THIS fraction because... the game hasn't started or something?

If page 1 instructs you to "round all fractions in this game" and then page 2 talks about how to build a list, wouldn't you assume that the list building is a part of the game? I mean, the rules on page 1 should apply to each subsequent page, right?

Also, is there anyone's concession that I can accept? There's an awful lot of concession accepting happening in this thread and I feel left out that no one has offered me one.

 Tangent wrote:
Ok, Divide to Conquer says to round up fractions. Is it Nite's point that you don't round THIS fraction because... the game hasn't started or something?

If page 1 instructs you to "round all fractions in this game" and then page 2 talks about how to build a list, wouldn't you assume that the list building is a part of the game? I mean, the rules on page 1 should apply to each subsequent page, right?

Also, is there anyone's concession that I can accept? There's an awful lot of concession accepting happening in this thread and I feel left out that no one has offered me one.

Around page 3 of this thread we covered how building the list falls into part of playing the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's the useful part from page 3 of the thread.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:

The questions, then, are:
1. Do you build your list while you're playing a game?
p.x Setting Up The Battle Once you and your opponent have your armies...ready for battle, the first step to playing a game of Warhammer is setting up the battlefield.
p.2 Overview of the Game...1. Muster Your Forces ...use the system of points values and army lists...on p.132

p.132 Size of GameTo play a game of Warhammer, you and your opponent will need to decide...the total points values of your armies.
p.140 Fighting A Warhammer BattleSo you've read the rules [and] assembled your...army...it's time to set up and play a Warhammer battle[/quote
"The Rules" start on un-numbered cover page of 1; and go into detail on page 2. Page i, ii, IV, V and so on, are before "The Rules".
You're sequence is off.
P2 says
A) Muster forces (as per page 132)
B) Choose a Pitched Battle, (which is where you get the reference to play a battle, all the missions are labeled as "battles")
C) Set up battle field
D) Deploy Armies
E) Fight
F) Determine the Winner

Interestingly, under fighting a battle, you're told on page 141 to refer back to page 132 for The Armies.
If page 140 is the start of "the Game" then page 141 makes page 132 part of the game.
Here's the quote:

Each pitched battle contains the information you need to get set up and playing, broken down into the following categories: The Armies (this will normally be two armies of equal points value, chosen using the system on page 132), The Battle Field, Deployment, First Turn, Game Length, Victory Conditions and Scenario Special Rules.

2. When are you called upon to divide?
I'm not sure, but I believe that the La of Equality states that x/4 =.25x; that they have the same value, or represent the same mathematical object.
But even if this is true, the act of dividing still differs from that of multiplying.

We are told 25% and 50%, but not given the exact method. Since x/4 = .25x; you can multiple and have 499.75 points in rares. I'll divide and have 500.

-Matt

Yep, which was why Throts attempts to bring it back up again, having clearly not bothered to read page 3, was quite tedious.

Nite is stating, for some reason, that instead of doing what it tells you to do - spend up to 25% of 1999, which is telloing you to spend up to 499.75 rounded up to 500, you instead work out your percentage spent and then compare that to the 25% figure

Not only completely counter intuitive, given units are valued in points, and it tells you to find a points value by performing a calculation on a points value, but it also involves "selectively" changing the wording to mean something else entirely - namely "compare the percentage of rare points you have spent to 25%; you may spend up to 25%"

The other "useful" contributions, like Sigvatr, seem to have halted, leaving us with a ce3ry clear RAW position, that some are apparently still confused about.

@Matt - Why is it that multiplying (to find a percentage) gives a value that you can NOT round up, but dividing (to find a percentage) gives a value that you CAN round up? Is it because of the wording of Divide to Conquer?

At least, I'm assuming that's what you're saying.

Firstly, a ratio does not change based on the figuees used. That is the whole concept of a ratio.

Secondly, my point is that the rules tell you to perform a percentage based check; that is what "up to" means.

Thirdly, even using your flawed method of working this out, nothing forces you to spend your full allocation on rares. Unless forced to break a rule (where two rules disagree) you must stick to all of them. This means that you have no permission to break the "up to" part of the rule. 500 is undeniably more than 25% of 1999, so 499 is the limit.

So even using your dodgy parsing, 500 is illegal.

 Tangent wrote:
@Matt - Why is it that multiplying (to find a percentage) gives a value that you can NOT round up, but dividing (to find a percentage) gives a value that you CAN round up? Is it because of the wording of Divide to Conquer?

At least, I'm assuming that's what you're saying.

I'm saying that the only remaining dispute is that some how finding a 25% rare limit can be done without Dividing, or doing something Mathematically the same as dividing.
I'll see if I can dig up the wordage to algebra word problem post.

I think if we pull out the repetitive posts, this thread is something like half a page.

-Matt

Three questions Matt:
1) Do general rules ever let you break specific rules?
2) What does "up to" mean?
3) What is 500 ÷ 1999?

So, Nite, are you saying (when you speak of general and specific rules) that Divide to Conquer is less specific than The Rules on Point Limits?

And, so, The Rules on Point Limits (which don't mention rounding up with fractions) override the more general rule that calls for you to round up?

And because you don't round up, you must essentially round down to 499?

 Tangent wrote:
And because you don't round up, you must essentially round down to 499?

No need to round. There are units with fractional costs even.

Niteware wrote:
Three questions Matt:
1) Do general rules ever let you break specific rules?
2) What does "up to" mean?
3) What is 500 ÷ 1999?

1) Yes. General Principles do break specific rules.
You can move units "Up to its Movement Value" (page 13.)
Page 26 shows how DtC allows a unit to exceed an "Up To" Limit.
Elf with 5" move can move up to 5".
Movement Sideways "Counts the distance moved as being double what it actually is". (page 26)
For example, a unit of Elves (Move 5) would be able to move 5" forward or 3" (2.5" rounded up) backwards or to the side.
3", the distance moved, doubled as per the directions, is 6". 6 is more than 5.
6 inches is not "up to" 5 inches.
It's a direct rulebook example telling you that Divide Then Conquer crushes "up to".

2) Up To, gives you a limit that can be met and not exceeded. Of course, if another rule changes that limit, you aren't breaking that rule.
You can have up to 2 of each rare. But I can take 4 pump wagons.

3) No body is debating basic math.
Is 3" doubled more than 5"? Yes.
Is the Up To limit 5"? Yes.
Does the rule book tell you can move the elf 3"? Yes.

Can you find any rule book example to support your position?
The rulebook is chalked full of examples that outline application of the rules, yet I can't find one to support your stance.

Hello everyone,
This argument is circular but I think it ends with the result of 499 because of the process involved

Can I write my list with these totals in my 1999 point army?
Rare 500pts
Core 500pts
Heroes/Lords 500pts
Special 500pts
Totaling 2000pts
I have followed the rule that I can spend 500 because I have not exceeded the 25% using Dividing to Conquer rounded up...so where do I have to remove my points from??



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Still circular isn't it ? 499 stops the cycle.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Niteware wrote:
Three questions Matt:
1) Do general rules ever let you break specific rules?
2) What does "up to" mean?
3) What is 500 ÷ 1999?

1) Yes. General Principles do break specific rules.
You can move units "Up to its Movement Value" (page 13.)
Page 26 shows how DtC allows a unit to exceed an "Up To" Limit.
Elf with 5" move can move up to 5".
Movement Sideways "Counts the distance moved as being double what it actually is". (page 26)
For example, a unit of Elves (Move 5) would be able to move 5" forward or 3" (2.5" rounded up) backwards or to the side.
3", the distance moved, doubled as per the directions, is 6". 6 is more than 5.
6 inches is not "up to" 5 inches.
It's a direct rulebook example telling you that Divide Then Conquer crushes "up to".

Interesting example, although the fact that characteristics are directly covered in DTC weakens it a lot. It does use "up to", but only when talking about the higher number. When talking about moving backwards or sideways, it says they move "at half rate", which is clearly a division - hence DTC. It does not say they move "up to half their rate", which would be very different linguistically and mathematically.

2) Up To, gives you a limit that can be met and not exceeded. Of course, if another rule changes that limit, you aren't breaking that rule.
You can have up to 2 of each rare. But I can take 4 pump wagons.

This actually backs up my point - the more specific rule outweighs the more general. Normal rare limit is 2, specific limit is 4. Usually you would find a number and round it up, you can't because of "up to". Incidentally, nothing says that that limit is changed - it doesn't suddenly stop applying once you get past that stage.

If you have 12 dice in your magic pool, you can;t tick off that rule as fulfilled and then channel for more - you have a limit that holds the entire way through. Same for rares - never more than 25%.

3) No body is debating basic math.
Is 3" doubled more than 5"? Yes.
Is the Up To limit 5"? Yes.
Does the rule book tell you can move the elf 3"? Yes.

Can you find any rule book example to support your position?
The rulebook is chalked full of examples that outline application of the rules, yet I can't find one to support your stance.

As I've said above, there is no "up to" in relation to the 3" move. There are many, many things that the rulebook does not have examples for. It does often use clear language, however. Up to 25% seems quite clear; you can't have more than 25%. You say that nobody is debating basic maths, but 500 is clearly more than 25%. So either you ARE debating basic maths, or you are disagreeing with yourself

2) Up To, gives you a limit that can be met and not exceeded.

Peasant wrote:
Can I write my list with these totals in my 1999 point army?
Rare 500pts
Core 500pts
Heroes/Lords 500pts
Special 500pts
Totaling 2000pts
I have followed the rule that I can spend 500 because I have not exceeded the 25% using Dividing to Conquer rounded up...so where do I have to remove my points from??

But you broke the very first thing you and your opponent agreed upon: army point totals. That comes before the section on specific limits. The description of point total says you much reach that value or less. There is no division or multiplication involved in that.

 kirsanth wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
And because you don't round up, you must essentially round down to 499?

No need to round. There are units with fractional costs even.

OOh, so close, but missing the actual rule that states you MUST round up if you have divided. A unit with a fractional points cost hasnt gotten there through division, so you dont round up.

Nite - you are never asked to find 500/1999, so the result isnt relevant. You are asked to find 25% of 1999, and then find out if you have spent up to that amount.
Yup, still 500 points allowed.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Peasant wrote:
Can I write my list with these totals in my 1999 point army?
Rare 500pts
Core 500pts
Heroes/Lords 500pts
Special 500pts
Totaling 2000pts
I have followed the rule that I can spend 500 because I have not exceeded the 25% using Dividing to Conquer rounded up...so where do I have to remove my points from??

But you broke the very first thing you and your opponent agreed upon: army point totals. That comes before the section on specific limits. The description of point total says you much reach that value or less. There is no division or multiplication involved in that.

That is my point. I followed the rule that states that 25% is 500 points. So if I spend 25% each time shouldn't I be at 100% of my points?
What other way do I use to find out how many points I have spent and can spend? Where is the error?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
People are saying I have 500 points to spend in a 1999 so why can't I spent it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
And because you don't round up, you must essentially round down to 499?

No need to round. There are units with fractional costs even.

OOh, so close, but missing the actual rule that states you MUST round up if you have divided. A unit with a fractional points cost hasnt gotten there through division, so you dont round up.

Nite - you are never asked to find 500/1999, so the result isnt relevant. You are asked to find 25% of 1999, and then find out if you have spent up to that amount.
Yup, still 500 points allowed.

Same question from my other post. I'm allowed 500 points. But when I spend 500 in each section I'm at 2000pts which is over..so I am not actually allowed 500 points. Which one am I not allowed 500points in?

Exactly, Peasant.
You can determine you are breaking rules without dividing - since you are not called upon to do so, there is not a need to prove that the math allows it to be done as an alternate method of determination.

Proving there is a method of determining relative ratios without division is all that is required.
That has been done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

OOh, so close, but missing the actual rule that states you MUST round up if you have divided.

No. I am not.

Still.

So wait. You disagree with me, nosferatu1001?
Have you explained why?

Peasant wrote:
That is my point. I followed the rule that states that 25% is 500 points. So if I spend 25% each time shouldn't I be at 100% of my points?

That's nonsense. Whatever % you use it still can't break the first rule which is your points. If someone takes 2 wounds from an attack and then 2 more wounds and then 2 more wounds you can't keep taking it if the model only has 3 wounds on their profile. Yes, it can take a 2W hit but not 3 of them. The first rule in that case is a model can only take a total # of wounds as they possess--and the divide and conquer would work the same way if it took 2.5 hits it would take 3 and be dead. By your logic you could have 1999 Lords 1999 Heroes 1999 Core, etc. Divide and Conquer has nothing to do with it. It's irrelevant whether they are 25% or 50% those are rules that come later. The first rule you agree on is your total points which you have to be equal to or below. If you rounded up 3 times that's totally cool, you still have to be below your total points, which is the first rule. Rounding up or down has no effect on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually let me amend that. By your logic, if you ROUND DOWN, you could have
499 Lord
499 Hero
499 Core [or being silly, 4999999999999 Core]
999 Special
499 Rare

Because you're totally ignoring the first rule and only looking at the individual rules that comes later. All of the above matches the second rules on later pages via rounding down. They just don't match the first in that your total, using addition, has to be < your agreed upon points.

Ignoring the first rule to round up when needing anything for the game means you need to round 1/2 to 1 before applying it - as you need to figure out what one divided by two is.

Note that 1/2 is math for one divided by two.

The first rule is points. There is no math. You speak a number and say yes or no.

If the value list was .5, I may be more inclined to not bring it up.
If only for semantics.
As listed it is a statistic asking for you to divide (you would be "called upon" even).

I have yet to see anyone assert that 1/2 is not one divided by two.

Note that this is simply being pedantic, as I am "trying" to convince people that something more than twenty five percent does not fit within a twenty five percent allowance.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Peasant wrote:
That is my point. I followed the rule that states that 25% is 500 points. So if I spend 25% each time shouldn't I be at 100% of my points?

That's nonsense. Whatever % you use it still can't break the first rule which is your points. If someone takes 2 wounds from an attack and then 2 more wounds and then 2 more wounds you can't keep taking it if the model only has 3 wounds on their profile. Yes, it can take a 2W hit but not 3 of them. The first rule in that case is a model can only take a total # of wounds as they possess--and the divide and conquer would work the same way if it took 2.5 hits it would take 3 and be dead. By your logic you could have 1999 Lords 1999 Heroes 1999 Core, etc. Divide and Conquer has nothing to do with it. It's irrelevant whether they are 25% or 50% those are rules that come later. The first rule you agree on is your total points which you have to be equal to or below. If you rounded up 3 times that's totally cool, you still have to be below your total points, which is the first rule. Rounding up or down has no effect on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually let me amend that. By your logic, if you ROUND DOWN, you could have
499 Lord
499 Hero
499 Core [or being silly, 4999999999999 Core]
999 Special
499 Rare

Because you're totally ignoring the first rule and only looking at the individual rules that comes later. All of the above matches the second rules on later pages via rounding down. They just don't match the first in that your total, using addition, has to be < your agreed upon points.

Hahahaha...no need to be rude..I see my error in the post..
Your wound example is poor though because even though I can't 'take'the wound I still get credit for overkill so in a sense I do take the wound.
I'm confused...
Now you just said I have to be equal to or below my points.
Why don't I have to be equal to or below my percentage?
My points break that rule?
edit....i want to add that in all the example for dividing to conquer it is not acceptable to do less than...so you cannot take out less than 10% of 51..so I round up..which makes sense
But I can take less than 25% of my heroes..why should I be allowed to take more than 25%?.
I'm confused...

I'm having a REALLY hard time figuring out what everyone is actually saying. Let me try.

kirsanth

"Anything that would put you over the maximum limit is not allowed. The limit is determined by dividing, which results in a fraction. There is no problem with this. You don't round up regardless of what Divide to Conquer says because rounding up would put you over the limit. This limit trumps Divide to Conquer."

Question - why does the limit trump Divide to Conquer? Is it because it's more specific? Or some other reason?

Nite

"Point limits are more specific than Divide to Conquer, and so they trump DtC."

Nite

"Point limits are more specific than Divide to Conquer, and so they trump DtC."

There are several arguements that prove the 500 camp wrong. The first is thqt you are asked to compare to a percentage, not to an integer. Up to 25% is a mathematical function which compares percentages, so they are doint the calculation the wroong way round.

Even after they have done thia, no rule tells them that they HAVE TO break the 25% limit, so they have no right to; you have to comply with all rules. In the case of a conflict, the more specific rule wins. Which is the army points rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
And because you don't round up, you must essentially round down to 499?

No need to round. There are units with fractional costs even.

OOh, so close, but missing the actual rule that states you MUST round up if you have divided. A unit with a fractional points cost hasnt gotten there through division, so you dont round up.

Nite - you are never asked to find 500/1999, so the result isnt relevant. You are asked to find 25% of 1999, and then find out if you have spent up to that amount.
Yup, still 500 points allowed.

Nosferatu, specific rules beat general rules. If you can only comply with one then more specific wins - you CANNOT break the limit because of a general principle.

Amalgamating from the other thread as instructed:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Niteware wrote:
So, Nosferatu, where does it say you must spend as much as 25% on rares? Even using your flawed logic, thee is nothing that forces you to spend your maximum allocation. This means that you still have no right to break the UP TO part of the rule.
I suppose that your interpretation may allow for spending 499.5 on core, but it certainly doesn't force you to choose between two rules. Up to wins.

I can move "up to" half my movement allowance. An elf moving half their movement allowance can move up to...what value now?

Oh, look, your argument still fails. You have specific permission to alter the value you are allowed to go "up to", due to the rule on page 7 stating what happens when you have fractions from division.

Look, the RAW is still 500. Who'd a thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peasant - not circular. You are also constrained on spending no more than your maximum points allowance

For example I could spend 25% on lords - 500, 25% on heroes - 500, 50% on core - 1000, 50% on special - 1000, and 25% on rare - 500. Total of 3500 in a 1999 point game. Oh, wait, I cannot, because then I have spent more than my points allowance (and look - there it is again, eveything comes back to actual points, NOT percentages!) which is ALSO a constraining factor.

There you go, adding words again; you are never told that you can move "up to" half your movement. You are told that you move at half your rate. Half a characteristic, if only that was explicitly covered in DTC. Wait! It is!