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.

SCvodimier wrote:

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)

That's actually how a computer processor works. They're incapable of doing anything other than addition.

grendel083 wrote:

SCvodimier wrote:

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)

That's actually how a computer processor works. They're incapable of doing anything other than addition.

Only reason I know so much about that perspective of math =P


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, that brings up a fun question. If a computer ended up doing all our calculations, could we not rely on any of its results because it is doing addition instead of multiplication, division, subtraction, etc.?

If the additional attacks were not meant to be included before dividing by two, Smash would read the same as Hammer of Wraith which is "and is resolved at the models unmodified strength".

Guys get on google and type 'Definition of Halve'

Yes i know that you CAN get half through multiplying just like you can do ti through many other means.

But by definition the word HALVE is division. Look it up.

Akaiyou wrote:Guys get on google and type 'Definition of Halve'

Yes i know that you CAN get half through multiplying just like you can do ti through many other means.

But by definition the word HALVE is division. Look it up.

Yes, and we're stating that since it does not specifically state that we have to divide, then when we are stuck with something that we have no clue for (division), we can just treat it as multiplication, and the issue resolves itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, look up the word "divide" in the dictionary and tell me where you have to specifically use division.

SCvodimier wrote:

Akaiyou wrote:Guys get on google and type 'Definition of Halve'

Yes i know that you CAN get half through multiplying just like you can do ti through many other means.

But by definition the word HALVE is division. Look it up.

Yes, and we're stating that since it does not specifically state that we have to divide, then when we are stuck with something that we have no clue for (division), we can just treat it as multiplication, and the issue resolves itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, look up the word "divide" in the dictionary and tell me where you have to specifically use division.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/divide

2. Mathematics To perform the operation of division.

There you go sir, as requested.

Akaiyou wrote:Guys get on google and type 'Definition of Halve'

Yes i know that you CAN get half through multiplying just like you can do ti through many other means.

But by definition the word HALVE is division. Look it up.

So what's stopping us from using 'half' as a multiplier?
The world of mathematics says its fine.
Why do you say no?

The rule book tells us how to handle Modifiers, but if we follow your "there's only one way to halve" logic we now have a broken rule as we have no order to apply modifiers (since the magic 'divide' word isn't used).

A half is a perfectly acceptable multiplier that fits the rules nicely.

except you seem to have missed the part where i agree the process still works out, i think i've stated that 2 or 3 times.

I'm just disputing this claim that halve is not division.

Reason why i think this whole thing is pointless is because the 'modifiers' rule on pg2 is a basic rule of the game.

And it does NOT mention division.

But correct me if i'm wrong within that same rule book we are told that 'advanced' rules supercede basic ones

SMASH special rule is one of these 'advanced' rules

So if it tells you to 'halve' the value then you simply do as the advance rule says regardless of whatever else you were told before. So you end up with the same result without having to 'multiply' when being told to 'divide' the value in the way of halving.

If i find the page reference i'll post it but im pretty sure this is listed there.

Reference:

Pg 5. DIVIDING TO CONQUER - Addresses this whole subject we've been arguing actually. Lol go figure the rulebook DOES in fact support division and even within the same paragraph it is clearly giving examples that when it calls for you to HALVE a value it is infact telling you to DIVIDE not to multiply.

Pg 7.BASIC VERSUS ADVANCED - - This addresses the point I was making earlier where the advanced rule takes precedence. However I think dividing to conquer ir the stronger argument for division and the wording 'halve' which is clearly used as an example of how the game applies division. And the fact that it is NOT called a multiplier.

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or does it have have some rules impact?

DarknessEternal wrote: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.

The earth isn't round, and it isn't a sphere. It's a commonly accepted phrase, but it is incorrect.

Lacking any other rule, of course you do division before addition.
But I'm wondering if what smash meant is
(A+X+Y+Z)/2
Rather than A/2 + X + Y +Z.

(A is attack, X,Y, and Z would be the additional bonuses for charging and psychic powers/crushing claws)

If half, in context of smash, is not a "modifier" then the first equation would make sense. Before I get swarmed with nerd rage: I HAVE NO RULES TO BACK THIS UP, it is just how the FAQ might rule it, and isn't how it should be played right now.

Really is needs a FAQ, actually, an Errata. A Tervigon shouldn't be a better beat stick than a hive tyrant. Right now, it is.

-Matt

It's not really. Ignoring Warp Speed because they can both get it, you'll average 5 STR10 attacks at I1 and a poor WS.
Compared to a Hive Tyrant that's 5 STR 6 attacks at a significantly higher I, faster into CC (flying), harder to shoot (smaller model, Hard to Hit) much higher WS, Vector Strikes...

You should be comparing it to a Carnifex. Tervigon has more attacks (if it rolls Warp Speed) and is overall more useful.

Mannahnin wrote:Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or does it have have some rules impact?

The rules impact is:

If Halve (Division) is a multiplier (It is a Divisor not a Multiplier) you do that before you add in bonus attacks from crushing claws and the assault bonus.

If Halve (Division) is not a multiplier (It is a Divisor not a Multiplier) you add subtract and apply set values before Halving the Attacks Characteristic.

If it is a multiplier:
a tervigon using smash, for example, It is a difference between 2 +D3 +1 = 4-6 attacks on the charge.

3 attacks base/2 =2. +D3 being crushing claws and +1 being assault bonus.

if it is a Divisor, and not a Multiplier
a tervigon using smash, for example, It is a difference between 3 +D3 +1 = 3-4 attacks on the charge.
3 attacks base +D3 being crushing claws and +1 being assault bonus.

At least a 1 attack difference, at most a 2 attack difference.

Mannahnin wrote:Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or does it have have some rules impact?

At this point?
I'm not arguing i'm stating facts.

Akaiyou wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or does it have have some rules impact?

At this point?
I'm not arguing i'm stating facts.

which is part of arguing....

At this point Mannahnin, I would use your discretion on whether or not to close the thread, but the general argument right now is between whether the rulebook allows us to use multiplication to halve attacks, or whether the hvling is something unique to the smash rules, which causes issues in conjunction with other modifiers.

DeathReaper wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or does it have have some rules impact?

The rules impact is:

If Halve (Division) is a multiplier (It is a Divisor not a Multiplier) you do that before you add in bonus attacks from crushing claws and the assault bonus.

If Halve (Division) is not a multiplier (It is a Divisor not a Multiplier) you add subtract and apply set values before Halving the Attacks Characteristic.

If it is a multiplier:
a tervigon using smash, for example, It is a difference between 2 +D3 +1 = 4-6 attacks on the charge.

3 attacks base/2 =2. +D3 being crushing claws and +1 being assault bonus.

if it is a Divisor, and not a Multiplier
a tervigon using smash, for example, It is a difference between 3 +D3 +1 = 3-4 attacks on the charge.
3 attacks base +D3 being crushing claws and +1 being assault bonus.

At least a 1 attack difference, at most a 2 attack difference.

Why would division come after addition and subtraction, even if we treated division as being different from multiplication? PEMDAS tells us we do them both before adding or subtracting, and the rulebook's section on multiple modifiers matches up with PEMDAS (albeit leaving bits of it out).

Because the book does not tell us when to Divide. The Multiple Modifiers on P. 2 does not cover Divisors. That is a BIG part to just leave out.

It only says "first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."

So Divisors are not any of those three mentioned.

So we either follow the rule and have no idea where Divisors end up (So we apply Divisors last as that is the least advantageous interpretation), or we invent our own rules (Putting Divisors before everything) to make it work.

Or we put Divisors with Multipliers, where they normally go in the standard mathematical order of operations, as summarized PEMDAS and which happens to match up with the order of multipliers GW gives in the rulebook.

Except that is not what the rules tell us to do. As they do not mention Divisors (Or Dividing/Halving) in the Multiple Modifiers section. and they mention Dividing in 'Dividing to Conquer' on P.5 so they clearly know what a Dividing is.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

L0rdF1end wrote:If the additional attacks were not meant to be included before dividing by two, Smash would read the same as Hammer of Wraith which is "and is resolved at the models unmodified strength".

It does not use the term Unmodified so I'm sorry but you are wrong.

Pg 24 Number of attacks: "each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks:...".

So each time you attack you calculate the number of attacks which is the characteristic PLUS any bonuses

Smash attacks halves the characteristic which using the "dividing to conquer" passage is a simple division rounded up.

So when a MC with 3 attacks charges using smash it's 3/2 rounded up, plus the bonus for charging.

copper.talos wrote:Pg 24 Number of attacks: "each engaged model makes a number of Attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks:...".

So each time you attack you calculate the number of attacks which is the characteristic PLUS any bonuses

Smash attacks halves the characteristic which using the "dividing to conquer" passage is a simple division rounded up.

So when a MC with 3 attacks charges using smash it's 3/2 rounded up, plus the bonus for charging.

So are you saying it should be 3 base +1 for charge for Smash devided by 2 = 2 + D3 Claws + D3 Warp Speed. Therefore indicating the maximum Smash attacks is 8?

This needs FAQ.

These are the rules until a faq/errata changes them.

And it's base 3 divided by 2 rounded up = 2 +1 for charge + D3 Claws + D3 Warp Speed

Ok cool, so max of 8 attacks with Smash, which is actually better than deviding at the end which would be 5.

DR - halving something else not require division by two, that is just sufficient to get the right answer. As is multiplying by 0.5

I'll go ewith the way that's in the rules

In all fairness and thinking about it more I would imagine it would be FAQ'd to the following.

Smash attacks is base characteristic devided by 2 = 2
Any additional attacks such as Crushing Claws and Warp Speed would need to be normal attacks.

So in affect the tervigon would get:

1 Hammer of Wraith
2 Smash Attacks
D3+D3 normal attacks

For the people who obviously don't understand basic mathematical formulas and rules:
Multiplication and Division are the same exact thing. The only reason that there are two words is for the people who don't understand this basic BASIC concept.
Dividing something by 2 is multiplying it by 1/2.
I wish mathematics would just teach that instead of making it so people are stunted and stifled by the ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Because the book does not tell us when to Divide. The Multiple Modifiers on P. 2 does not cover Divisors. That is a BIG part to just leave out.

It only says "first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."

So Divisors are not any of those three mentioned.

So we either follow the rule and have no idea where Divisors end up (So we apply Divisors last as that is the least advantageous interpretation), or we invent our own rules (Putting Divisors before everything) to make it work.

A multiplier IS a divisor.
Don't know if troll or serious.

I think the real question here instead of defining if a division is a multiplier which it is, is if the attack characteristic at the time of the halving base or does it considers the modifiers.

From first read I saw it pretty simple how many attacks you are about to hit with and then decide if you halve the total for smash attacks. Now before the count-argument of a it mentioning attacks characteristics the smash rules never say the unmodified attack characteristic as it usually does whenever it is that specefic (i.e. HoW str) or even sweeping advances initiative, now you need to take a side here either always count characteristic as the number on your stat line without modifiers, or the one you are actually using at the time.

This goes further that only the smash attacks if you claim the smash attacks are (attacks/2)+charge+etc+etc arguing the characteristic is only the number of the profile for any Initiative, Strength, Toughness test which also use your characteristics you would take them without any modifiers whatsoever pretty much adding the "unmodified" word everywhere that the word characteristic is used on the BRB.

The other choice which imho is the most logical one is that if any rule lacks the word "unmodified" regarding characteristics use the actual stat that is going on at that moment.

The smash attack specifically tells you to decide if you are going to smash when it makes it close combat attacks, so the attack multipliers/additions are already on play, they are part of his attacks characteristics.

Lord Yayula wrote:
The other choice which imho is the most logical one is that if any rule lacks the word "unmodified" regarding characteristics use the actual stat that is going on at that moment.

The smash attack specifically tells you to decide if you are going to smash when it makes it close combat attacks, so the attack multipliers/additions are already on play, they are part of his attacks characteristics.

The problem is you are missing that the BRB defines the term "characeristic" as the value on the units Profile. Read Pg 3.

Also all modifications are made to profile. If a change is made then the modification needs to be recalculated. Otherwise the FAQ on Banshee's Masks making you I10 on the charge having a chance of still working if they they hit a lash whip in thier Pile-in Move. If it worked they way you are talking about then they would become I10 on the charge and then they would have to be I1 when they hit the lash whip as the modifcation was already made and not currently in effect.

If smash attack would halve the number of attacks the model makes, then it would have said just that "number of attacks". Pg 24 makes clear the distinction between number of attacks and attack characteristic.