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.

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).