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.

Yonush wrote:While I can see where the arguement is, unless otherwise directed by a TO HIWPI is going to be the total Attacks characticts halved. Making the order of operations (3+1+D3+D3)/2 as IMO that is what the Intention is.

How can you even remotely say that is how it is intended whent the rules are spelled out so clearly.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not a rule. I hate that MSS can be triggered in a challange, but its still a rule.

Gloomfang wrote:How can you even remotely say that is how it is intended whent the rules are spelled out so clearly.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not a rule. I hate that MSS can be triggered in a challange, but its still a rule.

That is just it, Halving a stat IS NOT LISTED anywhere in the modifiers section.

How can you even remotely say the rules are spelled out so clearly?

Just because you want it to be there doesn't mean it is a rule

Ignus wrote:here's a great way to understand multiplication/division:

Remember the division symbol? it's a fraction with a dot above and below the fraction line. Division is literally "First item" / (over) "Second Item"

Think about it.

5 divided by 2 = 5/2 = 5/1 Multiplied by 1/2

Make sense?

Mathematically yes, but RAW does not list halving as a modifier, so we really just do not know when to apply it.

TL DR: The safest, and most sporting, thing to do is to take the least advantageous interpretation.

DeathReaper wrote:That is just it, Halving a stat IS NOT LISTED anywhere in the modifiers section.

Yes it really is.
Page 2 it's covered under "Multipliers"
Halving something IS a multiplier. It's a multiplier of 0.5
A multiplier is the number by which something is multiplied. This can and often does have a negitive impact on a number.

Saying you can't use the rule because it doesn't mention devision is simply wrong. Devision is a more user friendly way of saying the inverse of multiplication. The rules doesn't have to explain how to use basic math in order to be valid.

Devision is covered by Multipliers.

A multiplier is something like a power fist Str X2
They even use Power Fist as an example:

For example if a model with Strength 4 has both +1 Strength and double Strength, its final Strength is 9 (4x2=8, 8+l =9)

See that 4X2 that is a multiplier anything that multiplies your stat.

Smash: "A Smash Attack also doubles the model's Strength" Multiplier there as well.

Halving the attacks is division, which is not covered. (Unless you have a Page number where it says when specifically Halving is applied)

DeathReaper wrote:A multiplier is something like a power fist Str X2
They even use Power Fist as an example:

For example if a model with Strength 4 has both +1 Strength and double Strength, its final Strength is 9 (4x2=8, 8+l =9)

See that 4X2 that is a multiplier anything that multiplies your stat.

Smash: "A Smash Attack also doubles the model's Strength" Multiplier there as well.

Halving the attacks is division, which is not covered. (Unless you have a Page number where it says when specifically Halving is applied)

Saying that division is not listed in order of operations is asinine. Halving a stat is the mechanism and you can half something by multiplying if you must be obtuse about the rules.

A tervigon with crushing claws doing a smash attack will get 4 to 6 attacks on the charge, that's just how it is for a 200+ POINT MODEL.

DeathReaper wrote:A multiplier is something like a power fist Str X2
They even use Power Fist as an example:

For example if a model with Strength 4 has both +1 Strength and double Strength, its final Strength is 9 (4x2=8, 8+l =9)

See that 4X2 that is a multiplier anything that multiplies your stat.

Smash: "A Smash Attack also doubles the model's Strength" Multiplier there as well.

Halving the attacks is division, which is not covered. (Unless you have a Page number where it says when specifically Halving is applied)

Prove, using the rules, that halving the attacks uses division. It's been proven multiple times that i can be done with multiplication.
Since division isn't mentioned it doesn't make sense to use it ever.

If you Halve something you divide by 2, that is the definition of Halving something.

Since the BRB does not define how we Halve something we must fall back on the normal English definition.

rigeld2 wrote:Prove, using the rules, that halving the attacks uses division. It's been proven multiple times that i can be done with multiplication.
Since division isn't mentioned it doesn't make sense to use it ever.

So what are you implying? That because halve is not defined in the rulebook that smash cannot be performed? What is your stance here, I mean, besides arguing against the laws of mathematics?

It makes sense to you to fall back to something not defined in the rules instead of using a process that is defined in the rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

culsandar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Prove, using the rules, that halving the attacks uses division. It's been proven multiple times that i can be done with multiplication.
Since division isn't mentioned it doesn't make sense to use it ever.

So what are you implying? That because halve is not defined in the rulebook that smash cannot be performed? What is your stance here, I mean, besides arguing against the laws of mathematics?

What?

No, I'm arguing that since division isn't defined but multiplication is, arguing that division must be used doesn't make sense.
Also, dividing at the end of the process breaks PEMDAS which doesn't make sense.
Also, saying to use a non-rules defined process to handle a situation that isn't defined in the rules, when there is a rules defined process that can handle it doesn't make sense.

Smash can be used, and we Halve the Attacks characteristic.

It makes sense to me to use the rules which say to Halve the Attacks Characteristic, and since Halving is not defined in the modifiers section it is sporting to take the least advantageous position, and that would be applying it after all modifiers as listed in the BRB.

In all reality it is a difference between having (2+D3 +1(4-6)) and (3+D3+1(3-4)

If my opponent wanted to play it the first way I would not take an issue with it in a game because it is only the difference between 1 attack maybe 2, and it is not likely to be FAQ'd anyway.

DeathReaper wrote:If you Halve something you divide by 2, that is the definition of Halving something.

Since the BRB does not define how we Halve something we must fall back on the normal English definition.

Halving is dividing by two, yes well done. Using a normal English definition:

so we have one divided by two.

1 / 2 = ?

The answer is: 0.5

What is half of ten?

10 / 2 = 5
or
10 x (1/2) = 5
or
10 x 0.5 = 5

There are many ways to half something. Divied by 2 is the simplest but definatly not the only way.
Using a Multiplier to half something is perfectly correct. The BRB does not need to explain simple maths to us.
An English definition of Devision is an Inverse Multiplication.

The book tells us to use some other way that the normal way to Halve then? Did I just miss that page number?

If we are going to invent rules, then I will concede...

DeathReaper wrote:The book tells us to use some other way that the normal way to Halve then? Did I just miss that page number?

If we are going to invent rules, then I will concede...

Invent rules?
I used maths.
And a English definition as you suggested.
The rule says to use Multipliers, so I did.

DeathReaper wrote:If you Halve something you divide by 2, that is the definition of Halving something.

Since the BRB does not define how we Halve something we must fall back on the normal English definition.

I do agree with him here that halving something IS division. By definition.

Otherwise what's the damn point of division being taught ANYWHERE in the world? You guys are arguing that divion = multiplication , well in that case the same case can be made for addition and subtraction no?

5 - 1 = 4
-1 + 5 = 4
9 - 5 = 4
-5 + 9 = 4

Same thing. Yet the BRB mentions BOTH addition and substraction distinctively. So the argument is silly. It's not like everywhere around the world division is not part of the math curriculum i've never seen any school that teaches ONLY multiplication/addition/subtraction i mean according to you guys whats the point of even having the term division int he first place? Who even made up that word? So unnecessary clearly since multiplication is the exact same thing and not just a different way to get the same result, clearly they are identical. See what im getting at?

With that said, CLEARLY GW chooses to include division with the terms HALF/HALVE/D3 and such means.

But I just want to state that the thread was not intended to be a debate on multiplying and divison or whatnot. It was to answer the question as to how the smash rule truly works because the wording I feel was not quite as clear and I myself arrived at a different interpretation than other players.

While I believed that the smash attack did halve the base attack characteristic only for the purposes of accounting how many S10 attacks it would inflict and then the rest of the attacks being done as normal, due to failing to see the reasoning in stating that you use a smash attack 'instead' of normal close combat attacks and that the S10 is only for the purpose of THAT attack, just didn't make sense if everything was included altogether.

I have seen received one reasonable response as to why it would imply that you only have S10 for the purpose of that attack. Being that it could be to prevent it being used against abilities that are determined based off the strength characteristic.And I am happy with that interpretation.

However i do think that there is a certain degree of ambiguity in the smash rule.

grendel083 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The book tells us to use some other way that the normal way to Halve then? Did I just miss that page number?

If we are going to invent rules, then I will concede...

Invent rules?
I used maths.
And a English definition as you suggested.
The rule says to use Multipliers, so I did.

So when do we Halve the attacks Characteristic?

Where is it said where the Halve is applied?

It is not on P.2 as that mentions multipliers and not Halve (Division)

DeathReaper wrote:

grendel083 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The book tells us to use some other way that the normal way to Halve then? Did I just miss that page number?

If we are going to invent rules, then I will concede...

Invent rules?
I used maths.
And a English definition as you suggested.
The rule says to use Multipliers, so I did.

So when do we Halve the attacks Characteristic?

Where is it said where the Halve is applied?

It is not on P.2 as that mentions multipliers and not Halve (Division)

The problem here is that you take 'Multipliers' to mean 'Multiplication' (and only when it applies to numbers above 1).
Halving something is very much a Multiplier.
Page 2 says where you apply Multipliers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If I have an Attack characteristic of 4 and I'm told to half it and apply a +1 modifier I look to the rules on page 2 for "Multiple Modifiers"
First the Multipier:
4 x 0.5 = 2 (also known as Halving)
Then the Addition
2+1
Total: 3

Division is not mentioned as a Multiplier.

Division is a Divisor not a Multiplier.

The two can produce similar results, but they are not the same.

DR - halving something can be achieved EITHER by multiplying by 0.5, or dividing by 2.

Making it a multiplier.

DeathReaper wrote:Division is not mentioned as a Multiplier.

Division is a Divisor not a Multiplier.

The two can produce similar results, but they are not the same.

That is flat out wrong.
They do not produce similar results, they produce exactly the same results. Becasue they are the same.
Devision is defined as "Inverse Multiplication" quite literally the reverse of multiplication.
A half is dividing by 2
1 divided by two is 1/2 which equals 0.5
1 with a multiplier of 0.5 is halving.
This is basic maths.

Prove that halving is not multiplier.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And while you're at it, look up divisor. Divisor is what you divide by.
in the equation
a / b = c
the divisor is b

rigeld2 wrote:No, I'm arguing that since division isn't defined but multiplication is, arguing that division must be used doesn't make sense.
Also, dividing at the end of the process breaks PEMDAS which doesn't make sense.
Also, saying to use a non-rules defined process to handle a situation that isn't defined in the rules, when there is a rules defined process that can handle it doesn't make sense.

You still didn't answer my question. What is it you are arguing for? What is the purpose for all this spew? What is your stance in this thread, other than to argue against mathematics?

If you will not accept that multiplication and division are the same, there's no point in continuing this debate.

It's like not accepting the earth is round.

This discussion could only take place in YDMC of dakka...

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

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiplication?show=0&t=1343587021


Not identical they are opposites. Just like Addition & Substraction, Positives and Negatives.

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

You guys are arguing that divion = multiplication , well in that case the same case can be made for addition and subtraction no?

5 - 1 = 4
-1 + 5 = 4
9 - 5 = 4
-5 + 9 = 4


If you fumble around numbers in any way you desire then you can always get at whatever result you seek. It's not that hard, but just because the end result is the same doesnt mean that the process used is identical or that the terms are identical.

40k is a game of terms. Where words are significant and in most cases absolute in determining rules.

Halving is clearly division. Open a dictionary and look:

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

Just want to make that clear. Division =/= Multiplication. Unless you want to also claim Addition = Substraction.

Mathematically division is just multiplication by a number smaller than 1. The rulebook does not reference division in the modifications section, yet expects us to be able to halve a value, per Smash. We can halve that value by using multiplication, which is one of the modifiers referenced on page 2.

If we use multiplication, as we are evidently expected, we have a clear and functional order of operations, and no problems understanding the rule.

I really wonder if some people ever read "dividing to conquer" section where it clearly says that you can divide characteristics...

Mannahnin wrote:Mathematically division is just multiplication by a number smaller than 1. The rulebook does not reference division in the modifications section, yet expects us to be able to halve a value, per Smash. We can halve that value by using multiplication, which is one of the modifiers referenced on page 2.

If we use multiplication, as we are evidently expected, we have a clear and functional order of operations, and no problems understanding the rule.

I'm not stating that this is incorrect however the same exact case can be made for addition and substraction.

Substraction is just addition of a negative number and a positive. So all of a sudden substraction doesn't exist? Just saying

We are all reasonable people with common sense. And as much as we can all agree that multiplying 0.5 will give the same result, we should all also be able to agree that the word HALVE is a division and not a multiplication reference.

Per rules I believe you guys are correct that regardless of the process the result will infact be the same. Lets not make a case for multiplication = division in a game where division is never mentioned directly but is referenced and implented by 'halving' values or using a 'D3' and the like.

There is never mention of 'multiply by 0.5' anywhere on any rulebook/codex. All in all we are arguing something rather pointless in my opinion the result still stands the same.

But i did feel the need to point out that addition and substraction ARE mentioned even though the same exact case that you make for multiplication can be made for either one.

Saying to halve something is NOT saying to divide. You can halve equally well by division or multiplication.

Anyway, even if you treat it as distinct from multiplication, they both happen at the same step of PEMDAS. Or one right after the other, and still before any additions or subtractions.

Death Reaper:

Where in the rules is "Halving" dividing by 2?

Since Division is not in the rules at all...

Then we must look to the alternate operations for Halving; Multiplying by .5 or 1/2(same exact thing).

As Halving is clearly a multiplier(*.5 or *1/2); then it is applied first.

DeathReaper wrote:If you Halve something you divide by 2, that is the definition of Halving something.

Since the BRB does not define how we Halve something we must fall back on the normal English definition.

Can also be defined as "if you Halve something you multiply it by 1/2".

Akaiyou wrote:

Substraction is just addition of a negative number and a positive. So all of a sudden substraction doesn't exist? Just saying

actually, a lot of mathematical operations can be represented with addition, with other operations being essentially "short-hand" for the actual addition problem.

subtraction-addition of negative numbers
multiplication-addition of the same number multiple times
division-counting the number of times the same number can be added
exponents-the same set of the same number added multiple times, added together multiple times (i.e. (3+3+3)+(3+3+3)+(3+3+3)=3x3x3=3^3)

Now, when a word says "halve", the only requirement is that we end up with half of what we ended up halving. The word halve doesn't care if we used multiplication of division to get our result. Therefore, we can either divide, and then have something which we can't work with, or multiply by the divisor's reciprocal and get something we can work with.