Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Comments should be added to thread that is already running.

Yes, because nothing is better than a majority vote to solve rule questions on top of there already being a thread on the subject!

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yes, because nothing is better than a majority vote to solve rule questions on top of there already being a thread on the subject!

Nothing wrong with this thread. Polls are often used to see how people are actually playing a particular rule.

Why not add a poll to the pre-existing one then? :/

Ah nay sayer let me explain...have you been following the thread?
A poll does seem necessary...IMO...because there is already over 150 comments going back and forth about the answer to this and voting is a decent way to find a ruling amongst a populace when people continue to disagree.
The reason for not adding it to the thread is simple...there are some that will avoid the large thread and this puts it upfront.

By the rules: 500, as was proven in the other thread.
By the probably intention behind people deciding to play a 1999 point game, it is 499. Why they dont just say "no double stank" noone is quite sure, as that then makes it 100% clear, upfront and honest as to why you have picked that limit

Given the poll did not say "HIWPI" I picked to follow the actual rules.

No proof in the other thread.

By the rules 499, as "proven" in the other thread.

Good plan to vote as others still believe 500...

 Throt wrote:
No proof in the other thread.

Wrong, as was proven in the other thread. Being called upon to divide requires rounding up, as per page 7. The "no" side has failed entirely at showing you can ignore page 7, just came up with a very convoluted way to pretend otherwise.

By the rules: 499, as was proven in the other thread.

The "500" side has failed entirely at showing you can ignore page 7, just came up with a very convoluted way to pretend otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Throt wrote:
No proof in the other thread.

Wrong, as was proven in the other thread. Being called upon to divide requires rounding up, as per page 7. The "no" side has failed entirely at showing you can ignore page 7, just came up with a very convoluted way to pretend otherwise.

So you say that the 499ers ignore page 7; (which is irrelevant. I'm also ignoring most other pagesbfor this discussion)
Crucially, the 500ers are ignoring page 134, where the actual rule is written.

nosferatu1001 thinks that posting something is proof.

With backup that can be true. Assertions, not so much.

Stating otherwise is lying.

editing to add:
MY assertion is based upon the actual posts in threads.

re:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Throt wrote:
No proof in the other thread.

Wrong, as was proven in the other thread.

This is a thread debating his point, not proving it.

Sigvatr - I'm not ignoring page 7, I'm using it. Or was that an attempt at humour? Difficult to tell.

Kirsanth - YOUR assertion has no basis in rules, so is a disproven opinion. MY sasertion is backed up with the rules telling you what happens when you divide numbers and end up with fractions.

500 is RAW, 499 the poorly thought through "intent"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigvatr - I'm not ignoring page 7, I'm using it. Or was that an attempt at humour? Difficult to tell.

I'm not going to justify anything anymore. The correct answer to the question, 499, has been given in the very first reply in the other thread. If some people people enjoy their circle-discussions, well, I don't mind

...I won't, however, join those.

tl;dr:

Question: How much can you spend on rare choices in 1999 point games?

Answer: 499.

Source: -p.7 + p.143, RAW

So your assertion, despite contradicting RAW, is RAW?

Unusual definition of "RAW". What is 25% of 1999? If you answer 499, you have broken the rules.

If you do not wish to participate in the discussion, stop posting.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So your assertion, despite contradicting RAW, is RAW?

Unusual definition of "RAW". What is 25% of 1999? If you answer 499, you have broken the rules.

If you do not wish to participate in the discussion, stop posting.

You're using Divide and conquer. The rulebook states that Divide and Conquer ONLY applies to issues that arise during a game. The game starts on the very first movement phase. Or Deployment. Which occurs post writing of lists.

nosferatu1001 wrote:If you do not wish to participate in the discussion, stop posting.

See: OP.

Throt wrote:Comments should be added to thread that is already running.

Run in your circles there.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So your assertion, despite contradicting RAW, is RAW?

Unusual definition of "RAW". What is 25% of 1999? If you answer 499, you have broken the rules.

If you do not wish to participate in the discussion, stop posting.

No, you are breaking the rules by giving the value in points rather than by using a percentage. RAW is up to 25%. 500 is over 25% of 1999.

So we have:
Building an army and points limits as not part of the game.
And:
Not called upon to divide.

Both those have already been debunked.

Not called upon to divide has not been debunked. Not because of any maths jiggery pokery, but because you are required to compare to a percentage. You can only do that by converting your points into a percentage, as doing the opposite is not RAW. That means thatthe calculqtion is 499 -> 25%, iNstead of 25% -> 500.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
So we have:
Building an army and points limits as not part of the game.
And:
Not called upon to divide.

Both those have already been debunked.

Actually, the opposite of the latter has been debunked.

Niteware wrote:
Not called upon to divide has not been debunked. Not because of any maths jiggery pokery, but because you are required to compare to a percentage. You can only do that by converting your points into a percentage, as doing the opposite is not RAW. That means thatthe calculqtion is 499 -> 25%, iNstead of 25% -> 500.

Wrong, as was proven. You are called upon to spend up to 25% of your points limit. What is 25% of your points limit? If you answer 499 you are breaking the rules.

Your incredibly unRAW reading of the rules, which is not only against the written language for converting a written sentence into a formula but is also totally counter intuitive (to add a "RAI" element) is getting quite silly now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Niteware wrote:
Not called upon to divide has not been debunked. Not because of any maths jiggery pokery, but because you are required to compare to a percentage. You can only do that by converting your points into a percentage, as doing the opposite is not RAW. That means thatthe calculqtion is 499 -> 25%, iNstead of 25% -> 500.

Wrong, as was proven. You are called upon to spend up to 25% of your points limit. What is 25% of your points limit? If you answer 499 you are breaking the rules.

Your incredibly unRAW reading of the rules, which is not only against the written language for converting a written sentence into a formula but is also totally counter intuitive (to add a "RAI" element) is getting quite silly now.

Again, wrong.
1. Stated is not proven
2. My statement is in accordance with what is written, your statement is in relation to how you have played it.
3. If you are asked to use a percentage, you should use a percentage.
4. You are continually stating that you should turn the percentage into points. This is not RAW.
5. Following RAw means converting your points to a percentage. This means that, not only do you stick to the "up to" part of the rule (instead of your "up to and then a hit past"), it also makes logical sense. Note tha my arguement is not "this is correct becaus itbis logical", just noting that they happliy coincide.
6. I am sure that you will keep trying to say that you have proved things when you either just state them or Don even bother with providing supporting evidence, but my gut feeling is that you are probably trolling.

Page 134. It is good. Read it. Up to.

Oddly I have read it, even pointed out how your parsing of the sentence was wrong, and provided supporting evidence.

"up to 25% of your points limit"

What is 25% of your points limit? Please answer

"25% of your points limit" is a value given in percentage terms. It does not change it's nature depending on the number of points you are playing.
You must use a percentage to see if you break the rule ergo, calculating 25% of your points value is not part of this rule. Working out what percentage you have spent on rares IS.

You have said that you think I parsed the sentence wrongly (which is not "showing" or "proving"), but you are trying to make the test against a different type of value (an integer instead of a percentage). Surely you can see that this makes you wrong?

Except it isnt asking you to compare to a percentage. It is stating youy can spend UP TO (25% of your points limit)

What. Is. 25%. Of. Your. Points. Limit.? It is a number, rounded up to a whole number by page 7. Surely you can see how you are failing to comply with the requirement to determine 25% of your points limit, in order to know if you have spent UP TO that limit?

You dont convert your points spent into a percentage, as that isnt what it actually tells you to do

So yes, it is proven. no, you are not correct. Nothing you can state will alter such a simple, straightforward fact.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except it isnt asking you to compare to a percentage. It is stating youy can spend UP TO (25% of your points limit)

What. Is. 25%. Of. Your. Points. Limit.? It is a number, rounded up to a whole number by page 7. Surely you can see how you are failing to comply with the requirement to determine 25% of your points limit, in order to know if you have spent UP TO that limit?

You dont convert your points spent into a percentage, as that isnt what it actually tells you to do

So yes, it is proven. no, you are not correct. Nothing you can state will alter such a simple, straightforward fact.

Adding brackets there. jolly good. You. May. Spend. UP. TO. 25%. of. your. points. limit.

I can add punctuation too.

25% of your points limit is an absolute that you must compare to. How can I possibly do that, you ask? Why, it is simple. Covert your points spent into a percentage, using the simple formula Spent / Total! Hoorah! We can comply with the rules! Hoorah!

Out of curiosity, how do you think that you are spending UP TO (which clearly and unambiguously rules out spending over), when you are advocating spending 25.0125%?
Fair enough, I can see why you would think that you round up when trying to work out how much you can spend (even though no rule ever asks you to do this, regardless of how you parse the sentence), but then, when you follow the rules, you find that you have not spent "UP TO 25% of your points limit".

Capitals added to mirror your own additions.

Because up to (25% of 1999) is 500. I can therefore spend up to 500. I dont convert my points spent into a percentage, because I am then not complying with the rule stating I am spending 25% of a number - I am now comparing %age to %age,with no rule allowing this.

You have no permission to perform your calculation, as that involves altering the sentence to fit your idea of how it should read.

Mine doesn't, so I will just go with what is written, not your idea of what should have been written, to comply with your ideas oif how this works.

I will sum you guys' argument
"I'm right and you are wrong"

TanKoL wrote:
I will sum you guys' argument
"I'm right and you are wrong"

I wrote about the same thing in the other thread discussing the exact, same topic.

Both threads have long since outlived any useful purpose. Both should be locked just to get it over with. Both sides have been repeating themselves for weeks.