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.

Yes, so I find out what 25% is in points, and compare my points to the limit in points.

Which is what the rule requires.

Again: you are told to remove 10% of the unit. Your method, the wrong way according to the rules of WHFB, would result in the removal of 5 models.

You remove 1 model. Is that 10%? No
You remove 2....4 models. Is that 10%? No
You remove 5 models. Is that 10%? Yes as you round up the fraction of 9...% to 10%.

Yet the actual, plain as anything rule states the opposite.

Your premise is wrong, and while I am trying to avoid the fallacy fallacy, this gives a strong hint that your conclusion is wrong as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again: . . [repetition of irrelevant stuff].

Yep and there are still specific rules telling you always to round up when (re)moving models.

And most other things.

No one has disagreed with you on that.
No idea why you keep repeating yourself about it.


editing to add:
When adjusting stats or removing models, the rules tell you to round up because you cannot use a fraction and the value is not meant to be zero when a 1 is rolled. (e.g.stats are integers - Move and Wounds are stats.)

Ah, so you yet again missed the point? Brilliant.

The point was that, if you take the "method" proposed by Niteware, you end up removing 5 models, not 6. Yet we know, for a fact, that you remove 6

Doing this crazy thing called "being consistent", failing to round up 499.75 to 500 breaks the DtC rule.

Do you yet have a reason not to apply DtC? It would be useful for you to provide some rules to back up your assertions that it doesnt apply here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so you yet again missed the point? Brilliant.

The point was that, if you take the "method" proposed by Niteware, you end up removing 5 models, not 6. Yet we know, for a fact, that you remove 6

Doing this crazy thing called "being consistent", failing to round up 499.75 to 500 breaks the DtC rule.

Do you yet have a reason not to apply DtC? It would be useful for you to provide some rules to back up your assertions that it doesnt apply here.

No one is arguing that you remove less than 6 models in this scenario, you dont seem to grasp that what is being said is a differant situation and the specific wording of DtC does not apply to this.

The DtC rule does not overule the basic army building concepts, and your example is irrelivant, stop using it, both apples and pears are fruits, but that doesnt mean that an apple is a pear which is what you are trying to claim.

Ok... so you work out how many points you are allowed to spend on rares (which no rule has asked you to do). You use this decision to justify rounding up. You then spend 500 points on rares. You then come to what the rules actually ask you to do and see if you have spent over 25% of your points on rares. You have, so your list is illegal.
In this situation, you start with points and then check percentages.

You are told to remove 10% of a unit of 51 models. You calculate that this is 5.1 models. The rules tell you to round up, so you remove 6 models.
In this situation, you start wih a percentage and change this into an integer / numher of models.

Can you see the difference (Hint: They are opposites...)

cammy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so you yet again missed the point? Brilliant.

The DtC rule does not overule the basic army building concepts, and your example is irrelivant, stop using it, both apples and pears are fruits, but that doesnt mean that an apple is a pear which is what you are trying to claim.

What's funny about this, is that an apple is a pear, both are Rosaceae . It's why people say Apples and Oranges, not Apple and Pear or Lemons and Oranges.

I don't get where you think that DtC doesn't apply to some parts of the rules when the rule DtC says whenever you divide. How do you decide that one of the General Principles doesn't apply to a section of the rules?
If that's the case, I'm going to be re-rolling re-rolls all over the place.

-Matt

Once again, better things to do.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

cammy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so you yet again missed the point? Brilliant.

The DtC rule does not overule the basic army building concepts, and your example is irrelivant, stop using it, both apples and pears are fruits, but that doesnt mean that an apple is a pear which is what you are trying to claim.

What's funny about this, is that an apple is a pear, both are Rosaceae . It's why people say Apples and Oranges, not Apple and Pear or Lemons and Oranges.

I don't get where you think that DtC doesn't apply to some parts of the rules when the rule DtC says whenever you divide. How do you decide that one of the General Principles doesn't apply to a section of the rules?
If that's the case, I'm going to be re-rolling re-rolls all over the place.

-Matt

your just nit picking on the apples thing.

anyway the premise I am arguing is that the rule does not override the army building rules.

it states that you may spend up to 25%, DTC tells you to round up fractions. It gives the example to remove 6 models, however the wording of a spell, effect rule will make a difference, when told to find/remove X% you round up to ensure that a minimum of x% is met. however it is the wording in the army building rules that state up to 25% in this example you are given a clear hard rule of what you cannot go over- if you rounded up and got 26% you are over 25% there is no arguing that 26 is greater then 25. What I am stating is that for a 1999 point game 499 is the limit, as if you get 499.1 you would be forced to round this number up ( using dtc) however you do not have permission to break the hard rule of upto so you would be over the limit. I am not arguing that dtc doesn't apply just that the rule itself does not give you permission to break another rule.

This is an order of operations issue. When you round up, you cannot go back to your original value using the same formula because you rounded. From DTC, 10% of 51 = 6. But 6 / 10% = 60.

You're saying 499 is the limit for 1999. But where did you get 499 from? If you take 1999 * .25 you get 499.75. Yes, 500 > .25 of 1999. Just like in the DTC example 6 > 10% of 51. Because you're instructed to round up.

Except that you aren't asked to divide the total, so you never have to round.

Nor are you asked to divide the sums. The only formula that is given is adding the models.

But DTC title is a pun. It's not a rule. Are you really trying to say that if have to add, subtract or multiply fractions/decimals there is no rule whatsoever, only for division, that somehow sacrosanct mathematical operation?

Cuz there's a whole shitstorm of problems that come up because they never tell you the formulas to use. In the DTC example, they say it 10% of 51 is 6. But that's only if you divide and round up. I choose to multiply and truncate under the Niteware Doctrine.

No, lots of situations tell you to find a number of models or explicitly to divide a stat. Every single one of these situations uses DtC.
The difference here is that you are NOT asked to find a number of points that you may spend on rares. You ARE asked to check that the points you have spent is less than or equal to 25%.
That leaves no scope for rounding up.

The easiest way to find out how many points you can spend is by dividing by 4.
The easiest way to choose a spot to aim yiur cannon at is to say "I'm aiming at this model, x inches away from it".
Neither of these is what the rules ask you to do, but they are convenient.

Rally, panic are just the two first things I flipped to that don't tell you. I can't think of anything (that ends up in a fraction to be rounded) where they break out a formula. They say 25%.

The easiest way to find out how many points you can spend is by dividing by 4.

Lol. Divide what by 4? The easiest way is to follow the order and get the total you agree upon. You can divide that by four or multiply it by .25.

But if you want to get all RAW it says:
"You can spend up to 50% of your points on Special units."

NOT, the total of your special units cannot exceed 50% of your army's total points.

"50% of your points" is a value. It is what you are testing against. It doesn't tell you to multiply or divide your Specials, it does tell you to use 50% of your points, however.


You still haven't said what the rules are for multiplication and addition.

Panic says if you lose 25% or more of the models you need to take a test. Damned if they tell you to multiply or divide. Yes or no, if you divide by 4, you round up. If you multiply by .25, you do...something else? Back up your convictions.

For Panic, you need to find out how many models = 25%.
For spending points, you are not asked to find out how many points you can spend. You are given a limit.

Multiplication and addition have nothing to do with it.
As I said before, this situation is the opposite of the situation for Panic, so it is a poor example to use.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Back up your convictions.

You never need to multiply by .25 (would you round that .25?).

You multiply your used points by 4. If that goes over your total limit, you are over 25%.

You multiply your used points by 4. If that goes over your total limit, you are over 25%.

Find that anywhere in the BRB and post it.

THIS is in the BRB.

You can spend up to 50% of your points on Special units.

50% of your points. The operators are your points and 50%. Not used points. Not 4 (or 2 in this case). The only formula hinted is .5*points (points/2). It doesn't tell you to do jack with your special unit totals. That is RAW BRB.

Really?

We talking about 25%, but ok.

x2 for Specials.

Your used points for SPECIALS since you want to change from the 1/4 you mentioned previously. . .then when you double them must be equal to or less than the allowed value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
The only formula hinted is .5*points (points/2). .

Hints are RAW.

Gotcha.

Implications are, by definition, not written.
RAW, by definition, is.

"50% of your points"

Is a formula. Just like the DTC example of "10% of a unit of 51 models."

Niteware wrote:
For Panic, you need to find out how many models = 25%.
For spending points, you are not asked to find out how many points you can spend. You are given a limit.

Multiplication and addition have nothing to do with it.
As I said before, this situation is the opposite of the situation for Panic, so it is a poor example to use.

25% of your points is a formula, that results in a value in points that you may not spend more than. You do not find how many points you have spend and multiply by 4, as that is not what you are called upon to do in the rules.

Wrong again. Any chance of a concession that you ARE called upon to divide yet? The lack of rules basis for your argument is tiresome to argue against with , you know, actual rules.

I love it when people are bashing each other while calling "DTC" all over the place, especially since everybody understands that "playing 1999" really means "limiting to 499 of rare" and such
What's really funny here, is that "DTC" is the french shortening of "Dans ton cul" or "in your a**", so everyone here is basically invoking a "up the a**" rule for something that nobody really cares about

The real question here is not who's right or wrong
If you and your opponent agree to do a 1999 game on purpose, it's because you want to limit the rare to 499

TanKoL wrote:
I love it when people are bashing each other while calling "DTC" all over the place, especially since everybody understands that "playing 1999" really means "limiting to 499 of rare" and such
What's really funny here, is that "DTC" is the french shortening of "Dans ton cul" or "in your a**", so everyone here is basically invoking a "up the a**" rule for something that nobody really cares about

The real question here is not who's right or wrong
If you and your opponent agree to do a 1999 game on purpose, it's because you want to limit the rare to 499

Yeah, I agree

This thread is absolutely hilarious and I hope it goes on for a while. The information value is absolutely zero as the correct answer was given in the very first reply:

 kirsanth wrote:
There is no rounding, 500 is more than 25% of 1999.

...but the amount of circle-argumentation and people throwing RAW around while they speak of RAD (Rules As Desired) is endlessly entertaining.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Niteware wrote:
For Panic, you need to find out how many models = 25%.
For spending points, you are not asked to find out how many points you can spend. You are given a limit.

Multiplication and addition have nothing to do with it.
As I said before, this situation is the opposite of the situation for Panic, so it is a poor example to use.

25% of your points is a formula, that results in a value in points that you may not spend more than. You do not find how many points you have spend and multiply by 4, as that is not what you are called upon to do in the rules.

Wrong again. Any chance of a concession that you ARE called upon to divide yet? The lack of rules basis for your argument is tiresome to argue against with , you know, actual rules.

Ah! Now I see the bit where it tells you to work out what 25% of your total is, then spend that amount. How could I have misread it as "you may spend up to", which would mean not more than. Wait... no, I was right before.

I love that YOU keep saying that I don't have a rules argument, while youodon't have a rules, logical or mathematical argument. It is kinda cute really.

By the time they are 10, eveyone should have been taught how to find fractions. By the time they aee 12, they should be able to understand percentages. To see if your rare points are greater than 25%, divide the points spent on rares (he only relevan value) by the total you were allowed to spend. Multiply this by 100. If this number is more than 25, you have spent too many points on rares.

Dividing the total by 4 is a shortcut to finding the limit, but it is not a substitute for doing what yiu are suppossed to do.

Ah, so now your only response is to insult the education of others?

Cute.

No, wait, a sign that your lack of argument has reached the point of no return, as you cannot even maintain civility any longer.

You are told you may not spend more than 25% of your points. Meaning you may not spend more than (25% of X) And what is 25% of X? 500, according to the rules of the game that you are denying/

Tankol - I agree that you may "know" why you are limiting to 1999, but why not explicitly, rather than implicitly, say so? Is there a reason you are being dishonest about your reasons for a points limit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

TanKoL wrote:
I love it when people are bashing each other while calling "DTC" all over the place, especially since everybody understands that "playing 1999" really means "limiting to 499 of rare" and such
What's really funny here, is that "DTC" is the french shortening of "Dans ton cul" or "in your a**", so everyone here is basically invoking a "up the a**" rule for something that nobody really cares about

The real question here is not who's right or wrong
If you and your opponent agree to do a 1999 game on purpose, it's because you want to limit the rare to 499

Yeah, I agree

This thread is absolutely hilarious and I hope it goes on for a while. The information value is absolutely zero as the correct answer was given in the very first reply:

 kirsanth wrote:
There is no rounding, 500 is more than 25% of 1999.

...but the amount of circle-argumentation and people throwing RAW around while they speak of RAD (Rules As Desired) is endlessly entertaining.

Asuming by "correct" you mean "possibly the persons Intention, but not the actual rules based answer"?

Wasn't intended to be uncivil or insulting, sorry if it came across that way.
Your comments on lack of argument are more applicable to your own posts, however, as my point is clear and irrefutable; you aren't asked or told to calculate what 25% is, you are told not to spend over it.
"What is 25%" is not part of that calculation, it isa useful shorthand, but when you start roundung the wrong number, you get the wrong answer.
Try calculating what percentage you are spending (as the rules tell you to) rather than converting the limit into points - may make it clearer.

 Sigvatr wrote:
There is no rounding, 500 is more than 25% of 1999.

But this goes back to what rounding means. All of the DTC examples that use rounding are > than what the % was. Because they were rounded...

The example is 10% of 51 = 6. But 6 / .1 (or 6 * 10 if you want to go that way) is > 51. At no point is six 10% of 51--unless you round. That's the nature of rounding. You can't look at it after you did it and say zomg it's greater. Of course it is. But you were called on to make it greater. If you were called on to round down, it would be less. The only way it will ever equal exactly is if this was a decimal game of infinite accuracy. But it's a D6 game.

Turn your points into percentages as the rule says (for army selection, not even vaguely related to the DTC example) and it becomes very clear.

"10% of a unit of 51 models" = 6, per DTC.

"25% of your points[1999]" = what, per DTC?


It's the same formula. Again, if you take 6/.1 (which is what you're doing with points) it's not 51 and no amount of rounding will make it 51.

It is not the same formula. They bith have numbers and a percentage sign, that does not make them the same.
The question "25% = what" is not what the rules ask. The rule is "Rare points spent = what%".
It is the opposite calculation to the DTC example.
500/1999 * 100 > 25%, so it breaks the rule. Rounding doesn't come in to it at all.

Niteware wrote:
It is not the same formula. They bith have numbers and a percentage sign, that does not make them the same.
The question "25% = what" is not what the rules ask. The rule is "Rare points spent = what%".
It is the opposite calculation to the DTC example.
500/1999 * 100 > 25%, so it breaks the rule. Rounding doesn't come in to it at all.

That equation makes no sense.
If I spend 10 point on rares, your equation says my army is illegal.
10/1999 * 100 is Greater Than 25%.
It's roughly .50025 > .25





Automatically Appended Next Post:
How word problems work hasn't really changed.

You can spend up to 25% of your points on Rare units.

How many points can I spend on rares?

You can spend is X.
up to is equal to or less than
25% is 25%, .25 or 1/4
"of" tells you to multiply.
points is army size

X < .25 * 1999

X is less than or equal to 499.75
With DtC saying to round.

500 is never a known value without using the formula.

It never once says "Rare points spent = what%." You putting that in quotes is you talking. I quoted the actual BRB.

"You can spend up to 25% of your points on _____"
"You can spend up to 50% of your points on _____"
"You must spend a minimum of 25% of your points on Core units."

Those are direct quotes from the BRB. Those are the only formulas listed for points. I know what you're saying, but that isn't the formula. There are 3 variables in each line of the BRB in regards to points.

[unit type points] = [Max%] * [Total Points]
OR IF YOU LIKE
[unit type points] = [Total Points] / ([Max%]*100)

You could come up with [Total Points] by dividing both sides by [Max%] but you already know [Total Points]. It is the first thing you agree on and the first thing you do according to the BRB. You also know [Max%] because it is hard-coded in the formula, again, according to the BRB. e.g.,

[unit type points] = 25% * 1999

What you're doing is:

500 Rare Points /.25 = [Total Points]

But that's not how it is listed in the BRB. The first thing you do is agree on points, so that variable is solved.