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.

@Matt multiplying by 100 makes it a percentage 10 points would indeed give around 0.5%, which is less than 25%

@Duke The BRB does indeed talk about percentages spent on rares, which is why you should work out the percentage spent on rares.

I am not doing what you suggest, I am working out what percentage I have spent, as the book says.

The book does not ask you to calculate how many points you can spend on rares. There is no variable to resolve. Obviously you work it out that way, but that is not RAW.

This is what is confusing me the most. The side that says 500 points is 25% has posted rules as written. Infact we have referenced pages.

Niteware, where I'm having trouble seeing your side is your only claiming RAW, but not showing examples of RAW. As it stands, I'm supporting Nos and others saying 500 pts is 25% because the RAW they've posted 100% makes sense and you can follow the logic.

I can't follow the logic of why in this specific incidence, DTC does not apply. Perhaps you could provide the arguement without making a leap for me? Because right now, it feels like theres a huge leap of logic in the reasoning for it not to apply, atleast to me.

I get what they're saying.

"You can spend up to 25% of your points on Rares"

So if he has 500 points of Rares he divides it by .25 and it is 2000, which would be over 1999 if that's what you agreed to.

It's an order of operations issue.

"The government requires me to pay to the IRS 30% of my earnings in taxes"
[% = %, earnings = total points, taxes = rare allowance]

I don't pay $1 and see if that's 30%. Then try $2 if that doesn't work. I take my total earnings, multiply them by .30, and pay that. And the IRS is kind enough to let me round down (partial dollars).

quote...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)..quote

Why do you play 1500 pts?
Do you state every time you play, to every person that you are playing the reason for choosing those points..for smaller, faster games? That you want less or less powerful heroes? That the 1500 pts gives you less powerful Deathstars?
It's not just about steam tanks.
Do you honestly believe it's easier to list every reason why you chose the points value?
Your implication that choosing that point limit is dishonest is asinine.. By agreeing to the points and knowing what the intent is and not saying anything is equally dishonest. You are making the assumption that the other player what you know. You could ask why they chose the points.
I would be willing to wager that the majority of people on these forums if asked in a 1999 point game how many points they can spend on rare the majority will say 499. I think we should do a poll...
(Edited to show quote)

Stoupe wrote:
This is what is confusing me the most. The side that says 500 points is 25% has posted rules as written. Infact we have referenced pages.

Niteware, where I'm having trouble seeing your side is your only claiming RAW, but not showing examples of RAW. As it stands, I'm supporting Nos and others saying 500 pts is 25% because the RAW they've posted 100% makes sense and you can follow the logic.

I can't follow the logic of why in this specific incidence, DTC does not apply. Perhaps you could provide the arguement without making a leap for me? Because right now, it feels like theres a huge leap of logic in the reasoning for it not to apply, atleast to me.

Page 134, Rare Units "You may spend up to 25% of your points on rares".

The 500 camp argue that this means: 1. Work out what 25% of the total is 2. Round up if this is not a whole number 3. Spend that number of points 4. Ignore the fact that you may have spent over 25% in a strict mathematical sense.

My arguement is that this is not what the rule says. "Spend up to 25%" says 1. spend your points 2. Calculate what percentage of your total you have spent on rares 3. If it is less than 25% you aren't breakijng the rules.

Practically, you CAN do this in reverse by dividing the total by 4, but rounding up causes you to break the rule. The fact that you ARE doing it in revers means that DTC does not apply, because no rule has asked you to divide.

My turn since i am bored...
The rules as written crowd is using 'dividing to conquer' as their basis for spending 500 points in rare. Their argument is based on literal text..
Basic rule book page 7...any fractions should be rounded....
Fair enough
So if we are looking at rules as written we must break down application. Rules as written does not allow us to apply the rule as we see fit but only where it is written.

Pg 7 lists specific examples so there is no point in bring those examples into this because they are written. To apply the 51% casualties as an example to prove you should round 25% in setting points values is an implication which therefore invalidates rules as written because there is no written text that compares the two or writing that states you must do so.
To solely use rules as written it requires written text in application.
So lets break down the written language on how to apply usage of dividing to conquer.
The base of it all is found on pg 6 of the basic rule book under 'General Principles' first bold paragraph..
..."we are almost ready to dive into the the turn sequence that drives....few basic ideas and game mechanics......while playing the game..
The first sentence states that the following chapter is part of turn sequence. Setting your points is not part of turn sequence.
All reference of all the following paragraphs are in game mechanics. There is not a single reference to any part of the game within that chapter nor a single example given that takes place out of game sequence or turns.
It is not written anywhere else in the rule book that you should round fractions.
The burden of proof on separate usage falls on the rules as written crowd. No one has argued its usage in written examples...if your basis is that it is 'written'. You must show that.
There is no other writing asking you to round numbers.
Once you apply dividing to conquer to an area of the game that does not refer to dividing to conquer or asking you to round your numbers you are now making an implication therefore applying rules as intended.
No one has argued that 1999 divided by 4 is not 499.75
No one has argued that if you round 499.75 up you get 500
No one has argued that 25% of 1999 is not 499.75
The point is application of a written rule requiring the rounding of numbers and nowhere does it state that you round your points costs or that you apply diving to conquer.

Edited to fix typos...I may have still missed some.

 Throt wrote:
My turn since i am bored...
The rules as written crowd is using 'dividing to conquer' as their basis for spending 500 points in rare. Their argument is based on literal text..
Basic rule book page 7...any fractions should be rounded....
Fair enough
So if we are looking at rules as written we must break down application. Rules as written does not allow us to apply the rule as we see fit but only where it is written.

Pg 7 lists specific examples so there is no point in bring those examples into this because they are written. To apply the 51% casualties as an example to prove you should round 25% in setting points values is an implication which therefore invalidates rules as written because there is no written text that compares the two or writing that states you must do so.
To solely use rules as written it requires written text in application.
So lets break down the written language on how to apply usage of dividing to conquer.
The base of it all is found on pg 6 of the basic rule book under 'General Principles' first bold paragraph..
..."we are almost ready to dive into the the turn sequence that drives....few basic ideas and game mechanics......while playing the game..
The first sentence states that the following chapter is part of turn sequence. Setting your points is not part of turn sequence.
All reference of all the following paragraphs are in game mechanics. There is not a single reference to any part of the game within that chapter nor a single example given that takes place out of game sequence or turns.

The problem with that logic is that, Measuring Distances, Dice, Rolling D3, Artillery and Scatter, Modifiers to dice, Re-rolls, Roll-Offs and Randomizing is all in the same part as DtC.
If you claim DtC doesn't work because it isn't turn 1, then when happens with the rest of those Rules prior to turn 1?
When both people roll the same for first turn?
I have 5 beast units with ambush, half can ambush. How many is that?
Since measuring closest to closest would only start on turn 1, I'll measure from my back edge during deployment.

 Throt wrote:
because there is no written text that compares the two or writing that states you must do so.

The point is application of a written rule requiring the rounding of numbers and nowhere does it state that you round your points costs or that you apply diving to conquer.

The BRB is pretty damn thick. But they can't tell you every instance in which every rule is used. The first one that I flipped to is reroll. It says if you reroll a 2d6 or 3d6 you must reroll them all. But it doesn't say 4d6 or 5d6 or 6d6. So if you have the ability to reroll a miscast as long as it's 4/5/6 dice you can pick and choose what you reroll. The BRB would be millions of pages long if every example of every rule had to be listed out. I mean, there's no rule or example for Ogres panicking, just a general rule and whatever specifics they had--therefore, do Ogres not panic?

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Throt wrote:
My turn since i am bored...
The rules as written crowd is using 'dividing to conquer' as their basis for spending 500 points in rare. Their argument is based on literal text..
Basic rule book page 7...any fractions should be rounded....
Fair enough
So if we are looking at rules as written we must break down application. Rules as written does not allow us to apply the rule as we see fit but only where it is written.

Pg 7 lists specific examples so there is no point in bring those examples into this because they are written. To apply the 51% casualties as an example to prove you should round 25% in setting points values is an implication which therefore invalidates rules as written because there is no written text that compares the two or writing that states you must do so.
To solely use rules as written it requires written text in application.
So lets break down the written language on how to apply usage of dividing to conquer.
The base of it all is found on pg 6 of the basic rule book under 'General Principles' first bold paragraph..
..."we are almost ready to dive into the the turn sequence that drives....few basic ideas and game mechanics......while playing the game..
The first sentence states that the following chapter is part of turn sequence. Setting your points is not part of turn sequence.
All reference of all the following paragraphs are in game mechanics. There is not a single reference to any part of the game within that chapter nor a single example given that takes place out of game sequence or turns.

The problem with that logic is that, Measuring Distances, Dice, Rolling D3, Artillery and Scatter, Modifiers to dice, Re-rolls, Roll-Offs and Randomizing is all in the same part as DtC.
If you claim DtC doesn't work because it isn't turn 1, then when happens with the rest of those Rules prior to turn 1?
When both people roll the same for first turn?
I have 5 beast units with ambush, half can ambush. How many is that?
Since measuring closest to closest would only start on turn 1, I'll measure from my back edge during deployment.

Not turn one...the start of the turn sequence.
You have a list and so do I.
We start the game and begin turn sequence setting terrain,scenarios etc.We roll for set up, we roll for first turn. set up ambushers...we use DtC to figure out how many ambushers..all part of the turn sequence.
There is no question where you measure from.

Niteware wrote:

Page 134, Rare Units "You may spend up to 25% of your points on rares".

The 500 camp argue that this means: 1. Work out what 25% of the total is 2. Round up if this is not a whole number 3. Spend that number of points 4. Ignore the fact that you may have spent over 25% in a strict mathematical sense.

4) Yes, because that is what the rules say is OK to do.

You may spend up to [25% of your points] on Rares

What is 25% of your points? Please determine this, as this is what you are allowed to spend. This is what you are CALLED UPON to calculate.

Niteware wrote:My arguement is that this is not what the rule says. "Spend up to 25%" says 1. spend your points 2. Calculate what percentage of your total you have spent on rares 3. If it is less than 25% you aren't breakijng the rules.

Except that doesnt actually parse the sentence in the way it is written, at all. That is the disconnect you are facing - you have decided to alter the meaning of a sentence.

Niteware wrote:Practically, you CAN do this in reverse by dividing the total by 4, but rounding up causes you to break the rule. The fact that you ARE doing it in revers means that DTC does not apply, because no rule has asked you to divide.

Except, as has been proven, it has.

Throt - again, the ONLY REASON people were playing 1999 was due to double stank. That is the only reason to play such an ODD amount. The only one. No, I would not expect to explain why I wanted to play a 1500 point game, but a 1499 game would strike me as odd, so I would ask why you wanted to play it. Same withg a 1999 game.

Why are you so afraid of being honest about your motives with your opponent? Why is it such an issue to say "can we play 2000, but no double stank if you are bringing empie?" Or, if you want to disallow ANY 500 points on rares, then play a 1996 game - then the rules actually support what you want to do.

Your position still remains untenable.

nosferatu- read my recent posts to help you understand.

You have no proof to sustain your position when the burden of proof is in your court.
Like my post said you are claiming rule as written, yet by implication and using the rule where you feel it fits you have used the rule as intended.

Part of he problem that you have is the application of personal feeling into the choice and the assumption that you know the individuals reasons for choosing a particular point game.
You make a claim that the 'only reason' for a particular points is to avoid 'your' assumption. Yet maybe it's to avoid a Vermin Lord, maybe it's to avoid item 'y' or 2 items from 'z' or a particularly large horde from special. Or maybe just maybe to try something different.
AGAIN you claim dishonesty on the part of the other player when the vast majority believe that when playing 1999 the limit is 499...for whatever reason...yet you apparently are the player that would write a list using 500 just to try and prove a point based on a rule that you are applying to support your particular needs whilst having why they chose those points
.
You could just as simply state 'no I want to play 2000 because I want to use double steam tanks.

How you 'feel' isn't really my problem.
I don't have any need or reason to justify the points I choose to play...I can choose 1685...am I required to hunt and peck for a reason to play those points? If that is 'your' expectation then I would choose not to play against you. And you would have every right to decline a game against me.

Your position is no stronger than mine. And I believe it to be weaker.
The whole argument is circular and not particularly about right and wrong it is one interpretation over another.
The majority say 499.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:

 Throt wrote:
because there is no written text that compares the two or writing that states you must do so.

The point is application of a written rule requiring the rounding of numbers and nowhere does it state that you round your points costs or that you apply diving to conquer.

The BRB is pretty damn thick. But they can't tell you every instance in which every rule is used. The first one that I flipped to is reroll. It says if you reroll a 2d6 or 3d6 you must reroll them all. But it doesn't say 4d6 or 5d6 or 6d6. So if you have the ability to reroll a miscast as long as it's 4/5/6 dice you can pick and choose what you reroll. The BRB would be millions of pages long if every example of every rule had to be listed out. I mean, there's no rule or example for Ogres panicking, just a general rule and whatever specifics they had--therefore, do Ogres not panic?

Exactly.
So you apply rules as intended to the best of your ability.
It does not need to state 4/5/6 d6 because we can deduce that that is it's application.

We don't have specifics in Diving to Conquer that say...we are rounding the casualties because you can't remove half a model. It does not state that we are rounding the numbers up because we cannot have .5 stats. So we can imply the usage.
We can imply that DtC applies itself to points values, as the 500 crowd does.
But how do we get there? Simply by the using the single line of text with loose implication that we use it there.
When we imply that the d6 reroll is for 4/5/6 it is a fair deduction based on context of the topic involved.
DtC..as I stated previously.. is used, in it's paragraph, in context to in game terms. All examples given are used with in game terms.
The amount of space it would have taken to add a line stating it's usage in points cost would have been minimal and I believe necessary as the paragraph and chapter have no relation to points cost or selecting an army.
Therefore it would be my conclusion that DtC does not apply to points costs.

Nosferatu, again you assert proof that you have not actually given.
Spend 500 points on rares. That is equal to 25.0125% of 1999. You can round that up to 26% if you like. Then tell me if that is more than 25%.
That is what the rule asks. Nowhere does it ask you to divide or to round. Just if the percentage is \< 25%.

Niteware wrote:
Nosferatu, again you assert proof that you have not actually given.
Spend 500 points on rares. That is equal to 25.0125% of 1999. You can round that up to 26% if you like. Then tell me if that is more than 25%.
That is what the rule asks. Nowhere does it ask you to divide or to round. Just if the percentage is \< 25%.

That really sums it up best.

Niteware wrote:
Nosferatu, again you assert proof that you have not actually given.
Spend 500 points on rares. That is equal to 25.0125% of 1999. You can round that up to 26% if you like. Then tell me if that is more than 25%.
That is what the rule asks. Nowhere does it ask you to divide or to round. Just if the percentage is \< 25%.

So you ignore the post proving your wrong? Very good way to argue

You are asked to spend up to (25% of your points limit)

What is 25% of your poiints limit? According to the real, actual written rules, which you are apparently incapable of acknowledging, this is 499.75. Which, according to the real, actual written rules you wish to ignore, is rounded to 500.

You fail utterly at providing a rules based argument, therefore your position is conceded. Please do not argue further unkess you are willing to provide proof that 25% of 1999 is not 499,75, and that you then can ignore page 7 despite being told otherwise.

Your position is currently untenable.

Throt - frankly I do not care about your disingenuous attempts at claiming a 1999 point limit does not have a specific comp reason for existing. You are being intellectually and actually dishonest if you clain you "just happened" to decide on a 1999 point game. That is a truly irrational position to hold on to. There IS a reason to pick 1999 - avoidning double stank in this instance. That is the only reason this is being picked. You are then claiming I should be lambasted for you know - following the rules. This is an abhorrent position - you are looking down on someone for

a) not divining your intent in picking 1999 - given you have claimed you "just picked" that limit, why so serious about me using 500 points? After all, your intention was purely to have a 1999 point limit, and nothing else, yes?
b) following the rules and picking 500 points of rares

I fully understand and have read your post. It just remains a very, very poor way to play, and I would see your apparent failure to be honest as a sign of a bad game to come. After all, if you cannot be bothered to say "please dont use double stank, even though legally you can in a 1999 point game, as I would rather try something else" and instead would and would instead just refuse to play - well that would be, for one, a game I am happy to miss. Who knows what other rules you would want to break, to fit how you would prefer to play, that you wouldnt be upfront and tell me about?

You are positing a house rule (in a 1999 game you can only spend 499 points on rares) without actually being honest about it. You then lambast me for suggesting honesty about motives is a good thing.

The mind truly boggles that you can think honesty about your motives is a bad thing. It truly does seem an incredible position to hold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - I do not care if the majority are unable to read and applly the rules. The actual rules are very clear, and not a single actual rules argument has been given that shows 499 is the limit. There has been a lot of noise, and a lot of "haha!" type arguments, but nothing actually addressing the rules that were presented.

A number of people are unable to parse a sentence correctly. That isnt my problem, but theirs.

I think I might finally chime in on this thread.

The rulebook says, as I'm sure has been quoted before, that "You may spend up to 25% of your points on Rare units"

Now, the key word here, I believe, is the word "your" and it's how you interpret that word that effects what stance you take on this issue. Frankly, I think its the way in which one interprets the English language that's causing the debate here, not anything to do with RAI or RAW or any such stuff.

Now, if I'm playing a 2000 point game, I have been given 2000 points on which to spend on my army. These, therefore, are MY two thousand points and, if I was talking about it in the second person, it would be YOUR two thousand points. That key word again. I put myself in the role of a GM in a large Warhammer battle in which several players are playing. I imagine myself, before the game, metaphorically handing out the points which the players are allowed to spend. "Hello, Dave," I say. "Thanks for coming. Here are your 2000 points." So, my interpretation of the word "your" is the points I'm given, my budget, if you like. If he wanted, Dave could spend 1000 points of his 2000, but have half of that 1000 (that'd be 500) spent on Rare Choices.

The other interpretation of "your", of course, is the amount of points that you've spent. So, in the above example, where Dave foolishly turns up to a 2000 point game with only 1000 points of models, Dave would only be allowed to spend 250 points on Rare. However, I don't think this would be the case. The points I spend are not MY points, not the points I've been given, not my budget. They're just the portion of MY points that I choose to spend.

That's my take on it anyway, food for thought.

I see what you are saying Shadow, but the problem does not arise when the limit is 2000 points. If the limit is 1999, one can either spend up to 25% (499.75 or less), or break this rule by substituting in a figure and rounding up.

Nosferatu, you can claim that you have proven things until you are blue in the face. You can add bracketsnto quotes to try and makenyour position more tenable. Or you can read what it actually says on page 134 and limit yourself to 25%.
500 = 25.0125% of 1999.

If you can deny that, keep trying.

 The Shadow wrote:
I think its the way in which one interprets the English language that's causing the debate here, not anything to do with RAI or RAW or any such stuff.

Of course not, but it makes you sound more serious if you throw terms like RAW and RAI around ;D

Finding a "reason" to break a rule (math) does not mean "proof" has been attained.

Editing to note that this is in relation to something that has already been proven to not be universal.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
I think its the way in which one interprets the English language that's causing the debate here, not anything to do with RAI or RAW or any such stuff.

Of course not, but it makes you sound more serious if you throw terms like RAW and RAI around ;D

A fair point...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Niteware wrote:
Nosferatu, again you assert proof that you have not actually given.
Spend 500 points on rares. That is equal to 25.0125% of 1999. You can round that up to 26% if you like. Then tell me if that is more than 25%.
That is what the rule asks. Nowhere does it ask you to divide or to round. Just if the percentage is \< 25%.

So you ignore the post proving your wrong? Very good way to argue

You are asked to spend up to (25% of your points limit)

What is 25% of your poiints limit? According to the real, actual written rules, which you are apparently incapable of acknowledging, this is 499.75. Which, according to the real, actual written rules you wish to ignore, is rounded to 500.

You fail utterly at providing a rules based argument, therefore your position is conceded. Please do not argue further unkess you are willing to provide proof that 25% of 1999 is not 499,75, and that you then can ignore page 7 despite being told otherwise.

Your position is currently untenable.

Throt - frankly I do not care about your disingenuous attempts at claiming a 1999 point limit does not have a specific comp reason for existing. You are being intellectually and actually dishonest if you clain you "just happened" to decide on a 1999 point game. That is a truly irrational position to hold on to. There IS a reason to pick 1999 - avoidning double stank in this instance. That is the only reason this is being picked. You are then claiming I should be lambasted for you know - following the rules. This is an abhorrent position - you are looking down on someone for

a) not divining your intent in picking 1999 - given you have claimed you "just picked" that limit, why so serious about me using 500 points? After all, your intention was purely to have a 1999 point limit, and nothing else, yes?
b) following the rules and picking 500 points of rares

I fully understand and have read your post. It just remains a very, very poor way to play, and I would see your apparent failure to be honest as a sign of a bad game to come. After all, if you cannot be bothered to say "please dont use double stank, even though legally you can in a 1999 point game, as I would rather try something else" and instead would and would instead just refuse to play - well that would be, for one, a game I am happy to miss. Who knows what other rules you would want to break, to fit how you would prefer to play, that you wouldnt be upfront and tell me about?

You are positing a house rule (in a 1999 game you can only spend 499 points on rares) without actually being honest about it. You then lambast me for suggesting honesty about motives is a good thing.

The mind truly boggles that you can think honesty about your motives is a bad thing. It truly does seem an incredible position to hold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also - I do not care if the majority are unable to read and applly the rules. The actual rules are very clear, and not a single actual rules argument has been given that shows 499 is the limit. There has been a lot of noise, and a lot of "haha!" type arguments, but nothing actually addressing the rules that were presented.

A number of people are unable to parse a sentence correctly. That isnt my problem, but theirs.

You are actually ignoring the post that proves you are incorrect...here is the text that I wrote..

Pg 7 lists specific examples so there is no point in bring those examples into this because they are written. To apply the 51% casualties as an example to prove you should round 25% in setting points values is an implication which therefore invalidates rules as written because there is no written text that compares the two or writing that states you must do so.
To solely use rules as written it requires written text in application.
So lets break down the written language on how to apply usage of dividing to conquer.
The base of it all is found on pg 6 of the basic rule book under 'General Principles' first bold paragraph..
..."we are almost ready to dive into the the turn sequence that drives....few basic ideas and game mechanics......while playing the game..
The first sentence states that the following chapter is part of turn sequence. Setting your points is not part of turn sequence.
All reference of all the following paragraphs are in game mechanics. There is not a single reference to any part of the game within that chapter nor a single example given that takes place out of game sequence or turns.
It is not written anywhere else in the rule book that you should round fractions.
The burden of proof on separate usage falls on the rules as written crowd. No one has argued its usage in written examples...if your basis is that it is 'written'. You must show that.
There is no other writing asking you to round numbers.
Once you apply dividing to conquer to an area of the game that does not refer to dividing to conquer or asking you to round your numbers you are now making an implication therefore applying rules as intended.
No one has argued that 1999 divided by 4 is not 499.75
No one has argued that if you round 499.75 up you get 500
No one has argued that 25% of 1999 is not 499.75
The point is application of a written rule requiring the rounding of numbers and nowhere does it state that you round your points costs or that you apply diving to conquer


I have now shown the reasons why you do not apply DtC to the numbers when writing your army list. Now it is up to you to show how the two are connected.

Now let us continue...
It appears that you have difficulty following paragraphs but excel at reading lines.
I never stated that there was NO reason to play 1999. I stated that it is not necessarily to avoid steam tank it could be the normal points a group plays. It could be to avoid Vermin Lords. It may never have come into specific discussion. There are many reasons an individual may choose a certain number of points. YOU are the one proposing dishonesty on the others part for choosing the points. Do you know why they chose those points? Its a 2 way street. You believe you are correct in points which validates your stance they believe theirs.

Here is a shocker...You are the one that entered into discussion about dishonesty.
In your view they are dishonest because they don't state why they chose those points.
whether you agree or not the majority of the community plays with some sort of restrictions and they do not go about placing disclaimers on the subject. The disclaimer is in the points cost.
You 'know' why they chose those points but don't say anything. You are appalled because I have questioned you but your sole justification is that you believe you know a rule better. You question their integrity and claim to 'know' their reasoning but you fail to clarify. What does that say about your character?
You are aghast,yet playing 500 in a 1999 for the vast majority would be cheating. I have not accused you of that because I believe you to be mistaken in 'your' interpretation of the rules.
You continue to make character assumptions based upon what you think you know and I guarantee that you know nothing of my character.

But I digress...And will say nothing further about personality traits. The purpose of this discussion is as stated at the start of this post..

I have shown why DtC does not apply to points values using the rule book, it's content and the DtC rule....it is up to you now to show how it does or concede.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wow that was long. Sorry everyone.

Nite - already shown how your parsing of the sentence is wrong.

25% of 1999 is 500, according to WHFB. Given you have been unable to prove otherwise, at any point, I accept your concession

Throt - no, that point was dispreoven about page 3. The definition of playing the game includes writing an army list. You excel at creating long posts while ignoring the rest of the thread. Dont.

The poster also said that the purpose was to avoid double stank. So say that. Again, reading the thread is helpful

You have, as has been proven, shown jack all that is to do with the rules.

Your concession is accepted.

Nosferatu, 500 is 25.0125% of 1999, which is more than 25%. Given that you continually ignore this and the rules written on page 134, I accept your concession.
Btw, as far as parsing goes, adding fictional brackets does not change either the meaning ofthe rule or the fact that you are not asked to substitute in a number. You are given a percentage limit, so you need to use a percentage to check against that limit.

Your argument is the eequivalent of taking a french exam, translating the question into english, giving the answer inxenglish and then trying to claim that people who answer in French are wrong.

Again, until you can make a rational arguement that 25.0125 is not more than 25, I will count you as having conceded. I will still enjoy your meningless, unfounded expostulations however (only on this topic, usually your points seem well thought through).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nite - already shown how your parsing of the sentence is wrong.

25% of 1999 is 500, according to WHFB. Given you have been unable to prove otherwise, at any point, I accept your concession

Throt - no, that point was dispreoven about page 3. The definition of playing the game includes writing an army list. You excel at creating long posts while ignoring the rest of the thread. Dont.

The poster also said that the purpose was to avoid double stank. So say that. Again, reading the thread is helpful

You have, as has been proven, shown jack all that is to do with the rules.

Your concession is accepted.

Writing your list may be part of playing the game but DtC is part of game mechanics and the turn sequence..as stated and you failed to follow..
You have proven that you cannot answer how DtC applies to building your army..
You have also shown that you are unable to understand content through my posts and anyone else's or the rule book.
Your responses here are the equivalent of saying. Uh uh..no you are wrong.
Show the application.
Show me where I am wrong.
You can't.

Throt - yawn. Go back to page 3. Read it, and accept yoru failed argument. NOt rehashing it here, again, just to cover your laziness

Nite - until you can prove that 25% of your points limit is 499, your concession is accepted.

I am adding the brackets to show how the sentence parses. It is called "explaining". Something you are unable to counter, as your reading involves making up entirely new sentences to replace what is actually written.

I will enjoy your convoluted attempts at claimi ng that you compare your points to a percentage, when the written rule asks you to determine a number of points as a limit. The squirming you have to do to pretend something plainly written has the opposite meaning is entertaining to watch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and a point limit ISNT a game mechanic? Laughable argument there throt. Laughable

1. I Like that when you have no arguement you say that things are laughable.
2. In a circumstancc where you were asked to find 25% of 1999, you would round up. This is NOT what you are aasked to do.
3. You are given a limit to compare to. You can only compare to it by using the same units as the limit uses. You do NOT have the option to rewrite the limit check.
4. This means that you must work out your points as a percentage.
5. 500 is 25.0125% of 1999
6. 499 is less han 25% of 1999.
7. 499 is the most that you can spend on rares in a 1999 point game.
8. You can assert what you like are try to play with semantics, but we both know that 499 is corrdct.

Niteware wrote:
1. I Like that when you have no arguement you say that things are laughable.
2. In a circumstancc where you were asked to find 25% of 1999, you would round up. This is NOT what you are aasked to do.
3. You are given a limit to compare to. You can only compare to it by using the same units as the limit uses. You do NOT have the option to rewrite the limit check.
4. This means that you must work out your points as a percentage.
5. 500 is 25.0125% of 1999
6. 499 is less han 25% of 1999.
7. 499 is the most that you can spend on rares in a 1999 point game.
8. You can assert what you like are try to play with semantics, but we both know that 499 is corrdct.

I agree with you on this Niteware,

I dont belive that DTC applys when building army lists, however lets just humour the other side and say that it does. if you have over 499 points it rounds up to 500. this tells you how many points you have spend ( not how many points you can spend) the rule states up to 25%. This means you can spend 25% or less, not a signle point more. DTC could apply to the rounding up to 500, but i cannot see how it can apply to the wording up 25%. This is a hard and fast rule. Using DTC would actually mean that only 499 points could be used, and if say you had a list with 499.5 even though this is below 25% you would have to round up which caused it to be over 25%.

I do not understand how the wording up to can in any way imply that over is acceptable.

nosferatu1001 most of your other rules posts seem to be well though out, concise and factual. However i feel that you cannot face being incorrect on something , i think you need to take your pride out of the equation, and look openly at the arguments. Even if DTC was applied 500 points is still not legal. You need to prove how DTC allows you to break the up to 25% rule. the KEY being UPTO

It looks petty and childish of all stating, you must conceed, and i accept you concession, this thread is going around in circles and seems to have gone into the realms of the playgound, no im right,- no your not, im right.

lets lay this out clearly and get to the bottom of the issue.

I hate to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think this thread has long since passed the point where there is anymore meaningful exchange of position and has devolved into a glorified version of "no it isn't," "yes it is."

Is there any legitimate reason to continue this debate, other than the ever entertaining "Someone on the internet is wrong!" consideration?

I'm finding it amusing...

Well I am done...just like choosing opponents there are times playing against someone s a waste of time and that is where this thread is now.
Niteware, Cammy..I agree with you and the majority of the gaming population. Thank you for your input.
On to other threads.

Saldiven wrote:
I hate to be Debbie-Downer here, but I think this thread has long since passed the point where there is anymore meaningful exchange of position and has devolved into a glorified version of "no it isn't," "yes it is."

Is there any legitimate reason to continue this debate, other than the ever entertaining "Someone on the internet is wrong!" consideration?

As a general rule of thumb, every thread in YMDC beyond 2 (or even 1!) page(s) is a worthless thread as it is about 2+ people trying to verbally bash their very own interpretation (wrong or right) in the other side's heads and vice versa. Those threads, and this one here is a prime example, usually devolve into completely useless circle argumentation where A posts a long version of "YOU ARE STUPID I AM RIGHT" and B responds with "YOU ARE STUPID I AM RIGHT". Endless circle argumentation leading nowhere etc.