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.

Are you asked to divide your points to get the rare limit? No.

Are you told to check that you haven't spent more than 25% on rares? Yes.

Does this mean that the equation is Rare points / Total points? Yes.

Would that equation leave you with over 25%, which would then he rounded to 26% (for 500 / 1999)? Yes.

Niteware wrote:
Are you asked to divide your points to get the rare limit? No.

Wrong, you are told to determine your limit in points. You do this by dividing 1999 by 4.

Niteware wrote:
Are you told to check that you haven't spent more than 25% on rares? Yes.

Does this mean that the equation is Rare points / Total points? Yes.

Would that equation leave you with over 25%, which would then he rounded to 26% (for 500 / 1999)? Yes.

The rest is disproven by the first.

You are told to determine the total number of points. You are then told that you may spend a maximum of 25% of these points on rares. You are not asked to work out how many points thatis; instead you check that your points are not over 25%.
To prove your point, quote the passage that says "calculate how many points you may spend on rare choices" or words to that effect.

I think you will find that it actually says a percentage limit instead, which works as I described above.

Since apparently this is quite the heated debate I'll jump in...
There was accusation that it is disingenuous to any 1999 to avoid double steam tank...so I ask..what does it make the individual that 'knows' the intent behind 1999 but pushes letter to suit their needs..
This accusation is just as emotional and personal as the other.
As for this divide and conquer its a lame debate about semantics.
I can get my 25% by multiplying by .25..giving my exact number of 499.75..no division required and that gives me my point limit and 500 is too much.
As I've said...I would just choose not to play against the individual that obviously knows why 1999 was chosen over 2000. Its just the other side of the fence.

Throt wrote:
Since apparently this is quite the heated debate I'll jump in...
There was accusation that it is disingenuous to any 1999 to avoid double steam tank...so I ask..what does it make the individual that 'knows' the intent behind 1999 but pushes letter to suit their needs..
This accusation is just as emotional and personal as the other.
As for this divide and conquer its a lame debate about semantics.
I can get my 25% by multiplying by .25..giving my exact number of 499.75..no division required and that gives me my point limit and 500 is too much.
As I've said...I would just choose not to play against the individual that obviously knows why 1999 was chosen over 2000. Its just the other side of the fence.

Multiplying by a decimal is division. Clearly the intent of 1999 is to cap heroes, specials and rares; or it's a hold over from 40K players switching to Fantasy and thinking they are avoiding double force orgs.

I know. And that is the point.
It is just literal nitpicking in my opinion.
Saying 1999 as opposed to 2000 is done obviously for a reason as it is not as simple as shutting down dual force organization. Do you really want to list all the units you want to control? You could , or you could just set 1999 or you could talk to your opponent...shocking I know.
It boils down to the type of people you choose to play with.

Throt wrote:
Since apparently this is quite the heated debate I'll jump in...
There was accusation that it is disingenuous to any 1999 to avoid double steam tank...so I ask..what does it make the individual that 'knows' the intent behind 1999 but pushes letter to suit their needs..
This accusation is just as emotional and personal as the other.
As for this divide and conquer its a lame debate about semantics.
I can get my 25% by multiplying by .25..giving my exact number of 499.75..no division required and that gives me my point limit and 500 is too much.
As I've said...I would just choose not to play against the individual that obviously knows why 1999 was chosen over 2000. Its just the other side of the fence.

Division is just multiplying by the inverse. If your really going to nitpick. That is probably the weakest argument here, as it obviously does not refer to just dividing. Quoted from page 7:

Similarly, 10% of a unit of fifty one models, rounded up, would be 6 models.

That one sentence provides the strongest argument that percentages (whether dividing or multiplying) applies to the divide and conquer rules.

EDIT:
The argument in the most simplest form possible:

BRB PG. 7 wrote:Similarly, 10% of a unit of fifty one models, rounded up, would be 6 models.

BRB Pg.134 wrote:You may spend 25% of your points on Rare units.

Postulate: The formula for gauging your points on rare units is followed - (Your points) * .25 = Allowance.
Since the rules state that 51 * .1 = 6 (5.1 rounded up), Any percentage in the rules is also rounded up.

Therefore your allowance is 1999 * .25 = 500 (499.75 rounded up).

In order for the rules to exclude this pre-existing specification (as all percentages work this way), it would need to specifically state that you cannot spend OVER 25% in my opinion. For example: "You cannot spend more than 25%..." would be more specific.

Now... I'd also argue that the phrase "should always be rounded up" outweighs the phrase "may", as it is more specific.

This is when I wish WHFB would introduce a "Cannot, can, may" priority system like Malifaux...

Ok, lets not divide points, lets multiply instead, so since its not dividing, the rule you state so much is no longer in use as it is not triggered.

All depends how you wish to work out the points limits.
If i multiply 500 by 4 im at 2,000, which is over the limit.
I then minus a single point from 500, and multiply that by 4.
This gives me 1,996.

Wrong, you are told to determine your limit in points. You do this by dividing 1999 by 4.

Unless of course you work it in reverse and multiply the base number, adding as you go until you reach the desired points total.

And nos, since you commented on my post, i dont really care about double Stank, i play 2,000 - 3,000 point games, so either way im going to see 2 of them.

Its just the general idea of it, like people in 40k who play 1,999 games to avoid the double force org charts.

In 40k, people play 1999+1 games to avoid double charts, not 1999. It's a "You get 1 point tolerance!" thing instead of straight 2000 to get around the Double Cheese Chart rule.

@stoupe...I don't really k ow where you are going with your post. I think you missed my point (my typos could have been at fault) or possibly trolling and I am taking the bait...

Playing 1999 is obviously to control some aspect of the game.
New players will probably ask why 1999 not 2000
Olderplayers along with the vast majority of players will probably make a list and spend no more than 499 on heroes, lords or rare.
A select few will agree to play 1999 and spend the 500..and my money is that those that are siteing the divide and conquer rule to allow them to spend 500 know exactly why the points they agreed to play was chosen....
And I reiterate.. those select few are the people I would choose not to play against.

Multiplication is multiplication, no matter what the operands are. You can swap them when you know the values work out the same for convenience (5*.5 = 5/2), but you can't assume a given formula will always be the same when you change it around.

X*Y is not the same as X*(Y/100*100/Y*Y) even though it works out the same most of the time. But if Y is 0, you would divide by 0 in the second operation and you would get different results, 0 vs. undefined.


Divide and Conquer seems to make it pretty clear. They are using ceiling (round up). Not even round half up (.5 or more). 1996 is the highest point value to 2000 you can use without having any units able to reach 500 (lord/rare/hero) because 1997, 1998, 1999 still round up to 500. The last example in the rule doesn't even divide, it takes 10% which is as close to the army charts as exists. That's RAW as I see it.

As above.

Throt - which is why I was saying; be honest about why you have picked a limit, dont trip you ppeople simply following the rules.

Same for 1999+1 40k. THat is moronic. "Single force org chart" is a clear, unambiguous houserule that everyone can follow and understand.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Any time you round up you exceed a limit.
-Matt

This is patently false when the limit assumes the rounding.

Thus the debate.

There is a rule for when rounding is called for.
It is not universal - as it is not stated to be.
I do not try to find a place that it states I cannot round, I prove that there is one time it is called for.

When you are literally called upon to divide.
Not when I can find an excuse to use division.

Editing to add:
The rules do not state that all fractions are rounded.
Full stop.
Anyone that states otherwise is ignorant or a liar.

However the rules say when division and multiplication are used, you should "always" round. Always seems pretty clear to me.

Stoupe wrote:
However the rules say when division and multiplication are used, you should "always" round. Always seems pretty clear to me.

Really? I did misread then. I did not see anything mentioning multiplication.

How about addition and subtraction?

What about when it is up to the player to decide?

As I read it is only when called upon to divide.
Not when comparing ratios.

I did not see anything mentioning multiplication.

Not sure it matters, Divide and Conquer say 10% of, which matches the % of lord/hero/rare, and they round up. 10% can be calculated either way. It is not strictly division, or you would have 2 formulas for values > 100% and <100%. I.e., if you had to determine 150% of a value, you're not dividing, you're multiplying by 1.5.

Addition and subtraction by definition will not need to be rounded unless you first multiplied or divided because everything is going to be an integer.

Wikipedia lists percentage formula (in part) as follows:

The percent value is computed by multiplying the numeric value of the ratio by 100. For example, to find the percentage of 50 apples out of 1250 apples, first compute the ratio 50/1250 = .04, and then multiply by 100 to obtain 4%. The percent value can also be found by multiplying first, so in this example the 50 would be multiplied by 100 to give 5,000, and this result would be divided by 1250 to give 4%.
To calculate a percentage of a percentage, convert both percentages to fractions of 100, or to decimals, and multiply them. For example, 50% of 40% is:
(50/100) × (40/100) = 0.50 × 0.40 = 0.20 = 20/100 = 20%.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Addition and subtraction by definition will not need to be rounded unless you first multiplied or divided because everything is going to be an integer.

That is literally not the case.

There are fractions in WHFB.

Even in unit costs.

 kirsanth wrote:

Are you rounding the cost of clanrat spears per model or per unit?

Why?

To state the key point again: You are never asked to divide your total points.

You are never asked to divide your total points.

You are never asked to find out how many points you can spend on rares.

At no time, in any way are you asked to divide the points total for the battle.

You ARE told to check that the number of points you spend on rares is 25% or less of the total points.

You do not do this by finding out what 25% is of the total and then comparing your number to it.

The equation is Points spent on Rare / Total Points. This means that Dividing to Conquer does not really come in to play - anything up to and including 25% is ok, anything slightly over is not. Dividing to Conquer says that 500 / 1999 = 26%.

Once again, you are never asked, told, commanded or expected to divide the total number of points in order to find a value for rares.

There aren't a whole lot of fractions. But if you ended with a total unit cost of 105.5 it should indeed be 106 as I see it. Divide and Conquer easily covers multiplication and division, to say that addition when computing unit costs is completely different (and has no rule at all) is stretching it.

Per unit. You aren't buying models one by one and placing them on the board. You are buying wholly-formed units. There are no model limitations or model rules (Special%/Rare%/Duplicate)--the exception being SCs, and that is specifically made an exception in the BRB. The smallest denomination that can be placed on the game board is a unit. It might be a unit of 1, but it's still a unit. A model is just a component of a unit.

Nite - so when told you cannot exceed 25%, I dont find out what 25% is in order to tell when my points have exceeded it?

All this contortion just to avoid admitting your error.

To give you a further hint - you are told to remove 10% of the unit. IF I remove 5 models (your contention with percentages) I have not complied with the example. (5 / 51 ~= 9.8%, as we have divided we must round up = 10%) If we remove 6 we HAVE complied with the example

So, again: you ARE called upon to divide, as you are called upon to determine if you have breached a percentage limit. And, as we know from the example, we do this by calculating our requirement from the total, not taking our "best guess" at compliance with the limit and seeing if we are within it.

Please, find ANYTHING pertinent you can show as an ACTUAL RULE - not twisted logic - that states you can ignore the CLEAR EXAMPLE of how you find percentages in WHFB. ANything at all

Failure to provide a page and paragraph, or refusal to do so, will be considered concession of the RAW argument

(I am aware of the "intent behind 1999" argument, have addressed it multiple times, and it is irrelevant to this discussion - which is whether intent matches reality. It doesnt)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

As I read it is only when called upon to divide.
Not when comparing ratios.

So 5 is 10% of 51 models then?

The actual written rules and example state exactly the opposite.

This thread is incredibly entertaining to say the least

DukeRustfield wrote:
Per unit. You aren't buying models one by one and placing them on the board. You are buying wholly-formed units. There are no model limitations or model rules (Special%/Rare%/Duplicate)--the exception being SCs, and that is specifically made an exception in the BRB. The smallest denomination that can be placed on the game board is a unit. It might be a unit of 1, but it's still a unit. A model is just a component of a unit.

So if I take that train of thought, a unit's cost is composed by adding the cost of its individual models...and repeated addition is multiplication...and multiplication is (according to the very RAD-driven interpretation of Divide and Conquer) therefore affected by D&C...and thus, a unit that costs 101,5 pts would cost 102 pts. But that's not all! In fact, if a model costs 1,5 points, that's 1x1,5! And multiplication is the...inverse of division! Which means that...every model that costs 1,5 pts cost in fact 2 pts!

Seriously, though, to back Niteware up: p. 132, bottom left:

"By adding together all the points cost of the warriors you have selected you can find out the points value of your army."

This comes BEFORE the section "Size of Game" and BEFORE "The Army List".

Therefore, RAW-wise (which isn't how people actually write lists, but alas, it's RAW, not RAI), you first select your army and then, when the list is complete, you check if you're below the points limit.

Anyway, continue with the circle-argumentation please, it's hilariously entertaining. inb4 ERMAGEERD YE'RE SO WRONG!

;D

Throt wrote:
I know. And that is the point.
It is just literal nitpicking in my opinion.
Saying 1999 as opposed to 2000 is done obviously for a reason as it is not as simple as shutting down dual force organization. Do you really want to list all the units you want to control? You could , or you could just set 1999 or you could talk to your opponent...shocking I know.
It boils down to the type of people you choose to play with.

SO if they drop the points of a stank to 249, with no other change, do you suddenly start playing 1991 games, hoping that that will stop double stank?

You are already IMPLICITLY trying to control every unit you dont like to see, because you are adding in your own comp purely to stop, in this case, double stank. So why not actually STATE you are stopping X, Y, Z units from being taken in a 2000 point game?

It is easier to keep track of. It is more open, honest and transparent about your motives. It also, crucially, has the added benefit of ACTUALLY WORKING from a rules perspective at what you intended it to do.

Crazy I know - actually being honest and upfront about why you are doing something, as opposed to trying to be clever and hide it by dropping the points (and then complaining that the rules mean you have not actually done what you intended to do)

Nosferatu: Obviously, practically, in order to find out the limit for rares you divide by 4, in this case giving you 499.75. HOWEVER, this is not what the rules "call upon" you to do.
The rules state that you cannot spend more than 25% of your points on rares, which means you divide the Points on Rares by Total Points to find a percentage.
Your oft quoted example is totally different, because it starts with a percentage and transforms that into a number of models - exactly the opposite of what you do for Rares points. It is also different because one is a "maximum of" rather than an exact amount.

You keep asking for page numbers, I keep telling you that it is the page which sets the limits - 132 if memory serves.

Reread it and note that it does not ask you to find out what the rare limit is - you are never called on to divide the total, just to divide other numbers BY the total (checking percentages).

Niteware wrote:

The rules state that you cannot spend more than 25% of your points on rares, which means you divide the Points on Rares by Total Points to find a percentage.

For that to be the case you would have to do trial-and-error over and over to see if you were below the 25%. You'd buy 2 units, add their points, divide it by total. Nope, it's only 18%. Okay, buy some more stuff blindly, see if that's it, damn, now it's 31%. Okay, sell some. OR you could just multiply the total by .25 and then you would be able to purchase units and assess their total with addition, which is much easier for people to handle and is one less step mathematically. They are exactly identical. I did General Ledger Accounting programming for an oil company for ~2 years, this isn't something that really needs to be debated IMHO.

So if I take that train of thought, a unit's cost is composed by adding the cost of its individual models...and repeated addition is multiplication...

But it's not. A unit is not necessarily, or even usually, pure multiplication. It is the sum of the things in the unit, which often include different values. Because of full command, wargear, magic items, banners. But Divide and Conquer says you're required to calculate a value. You're never asked to know the individual costs of models. A unit is the only game value that matters in their representation. Whether a unit of mournfang averages 65.4 or 60 or 65.99 doesn't matter. You get points for the unit if you kill it. You have to take panic tests based on the # (which is also rounded-up).

DukeRustfield wrote:

For that to be the case you would have to do trial-and-error over and over to see if you were below the 25%.

So what?

Your statement that there are not many fractions is indicative.
A single counterpoint to your all-inclusive statement is enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
It is the sum of the things in the unit, which often include different values

As oppose to the divisor or numerator?


You are CHOOSING to divide then claiming it is RAW, despite never being a written rule.

Just browse around how to calculate percentages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage#Calculations

The percent value is computed by multiplying the numeric value of the ratio by 100.

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

Definition of PERCENTAGE

1
a : a part of a whole expressed in hundredths
b : the result obtained by multiplying a number by a percent <the percentage equals the rate times the base>

You can calculate what the value will be by division, but that is NOT what the rules "call upon" you to do.

There is no formula, actually. It tells you to come up with 10% and leaves you to it. You can query a thousand Accountants and Mathematicians and ask them how you come up with 10% of a number. Maybe they used magic.

Oh, one more on this rather silly topic. I forget who brought it up and why, but the idea of continuously trying to add and then divide to see if it's >25%. If you go into nearly any store in the western world, you will see items that are 25% off. Or 15% off. When you reach the check-out, they don't punch in a random number, divide it by the sticker price, see if it's too high/low and adjust and keep doing it until they are correct to the penny, having marked down the starting point each time just in case they get it right. No, you will find they N * .75 or N-(N*.25). Or just press a button that does that.

Niteware wrote:
You can calculate what the value will be by division, but that is NOT what the rules "call upon" you to do.

Except it is, as has been proven

I need to know if my total (Z) is greater than my limit in points (25% of X)

I find my limit in points by calculating 25% of X; I get 499,75 and then round up.

It is EXACTLY the same as the example. The one you claim is irrelevant, so you can attempt to claim that the most natural method, and the one you care called upon to do, to calculate a limit is suddenly not how you do it.

Page 132 does not state your claim that you do (X/y*100), compare to 25%. If that were true then you would only remove 5 models from a unit, when asked to remove 10%. We know this is false. Your continued claim otherwise is irrational, and has no basis in the rules of the game

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Niteware wrote:
You can calculate what the value will be by division, but that is NOT what the rules "call upon" you to do.

Except it is, as has been proven

I need to know if my total (Z) is greater than my limit in points (25% of X)

I find my limit in points by calculating 25% of X; I get 499,75 and then round up.

It is EXACTLY the same as the example. The one you claim is irrelevant, so you can attempt to claim that the most natural method, and the one you care called upon to do, to calculate a limit is suddenly not how you do it.

Page 132 does not state your claim that you do (X/y*100), compare to 25%. If that were true then you would only remove 5 models from a unit, when asked to remove 10o%. We know this is false. Your continued claim otherwise is irrational, and has no basis in the rules of the game

No. You choose to find out what the limit is (which is very sensible). What the rules tell you to do is to check that your points spent is not more than 25%. This is a DIFFERENT calculation.

If your example said "remove UP TO 10%, it would be more similar, but it doesn't. Dividing to conquer tells you how to deal with fractions when you are only able to act in whole numbers - removing models is the example they give.

There is no RAW that says to divide the points total. Therefore, you can't use dividing it to support your argument. Which means that you currently have no arguement. Saying that you have proved things does not replace actually proving them.