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.

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.