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.

 Tangent wrote:
Question - why does the limit trump Divide to Conquer? Is it because it's more specific? Or some other reason?

It doesn't - without being called upon to divide (it is possible to determine the needed value without it), there is no need to invoke that rule.
Having a fraction/decimal is not against the rules.
Full stop.

So there is not a problem with any rule when you find one.

Why do you need to round anything?
(If you do, you round up, generally speaking. We all agree.)

Editing to add:
Again, I read the intent, generally, as disallowing partial STATISTICS.
There is no such thing as a Move of 4.5, but things can move 4.5", be worth 4.5 points, etc.

Niteware wrote:

As I've said above, there is no "up to" in relation to the 3" move. There are many, many things that the rulebook does not have examples for. It does often use clear language, however. Up to 25% seems quite clear; you can't have more than 25%. You say that nobody is debating basic maths, but 500 is clearly more than 25%. So either you ARE debating basic maths, or you are disagreeing with yourself

Don't be dense.
The debate is that AFTER doing the basic math, the DTC rule tells you that ALL dividing is rounded.
The result of anything rounded breaks basic math, which is why it is not the nature of the debate.

-Matt

You still have no permission to break the rule, because you are not forced to break it. DTC is a general rule, which cannot override a specific rule.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Niteware wrote:

As I've said above, there is no "up to" in relation to the 3" move. There are many, many things that the rulebook does not have examples for. It does often use clear language, however. Up to 25% seems quite clear; you can't have more than 25%. You say that nobody is debating basic maths, but 500 is clearly more than 25%. So either you ARE debating basic maths, or you are disagreeing with yourself

Don't be dense.
The debate is that AFTER doing the basic math, the DTC rule tells you that ALL dividing is rounded.
The result of anything rounded breaks basic math, which is why it is not the nature of the debate.

-Matt

Attempting to avoid semantics or this is division, multiplication is division this is math etc etc....
I must be dense
I have read all 9 pages several times..and i am repeating myself..iI must be crazy
..
It appears to be order of use..
Because if I start writing my list build my lord write it all down and he totals at 500...so I say to myself how much of my 1999 did I spend..I divide 500 by 1999 and get 25.01%...I am over...so why is this wrong? And when I round that I m now at 26%
The book doesn't say I have to do it a specific way it just says up to 25%
All of this has been said
The other player gets an extra point in his lord section because he went in a different order than I did.? Why is his 500 legal and mine isn't
I don't see any rules that allow me to have more points than I am allowed.
Even diving to conquer as used in the paragraph doesn't break rules. It changes a number but doesn't break rules.
I thinki am repeating other people's posts now too
I



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why are we avoiding the fact that 500 is 25.01 % of 1999.????

Can we do that as a yes or no question..
If I could spend 499.75 on my section..what right would I have to add a 1/2 point shield? I am only allowed up to 25% no where have I been given permission to break my points rule.

Peasant wrote:
Why are we avoiding the fact that 500 is 25.01 % of 1999.?

"We" may be implying a fair bit more unity than actually exists.

Especially if you read the poll about how people read it.

editing to add:
This is not a call to answer to popular opinion, but rather that an assumption about that opinion seems to be wrong by reference to a poll.
Polls can be wrong, but saying that the popular answer disagrees with a popular poll is disingenuous.

Peasant wrote:

Now you just said I have to be equal to or below my points.
Why don't I have to be equal to or below my percentage?

I didn't say it. The BRB did.

Because the BRB says when dividing you round up. The examples are all over the % they list. 10% of 51 they say is 6. That is NOT 10%. It is 11.76%. You do not divide or multiply to come up with total points. You simply add.

And as a general rule in the BRB, most rules cease to exist where they run into another rule. Like if a unit has random movement 3d6 there are rules for that. But if they roll and end up moving off the game table, you do not keep moving them their full movement off the table. Another rule comes into play that says what you do once they've moved off the table. That goes back to my wound example. And just about every aspect of the game. However you calculate special, rares, core, it still has to be below total points. Again, those rules don't affect each other. Just like random movement can't put your unit under the oven in the kitchen no matter what you roll.

DukeRustfield wrote:

as a general rule in the BRB, most rules cease to exist where they run into another rule.

Exactly. Even using the faulty parsing which could lead you to 500, you can't spend 500 points because you have a specific rule that stops you. If you were told "you must spend 25%" (as you are with rares), then you would comply with both rules.
Since you are told that you cannot spend over 25%, you don't get to spend 500, as this is over 25%.

Actually, you are not put in that position at all, as you are instructed to compare to a %, but w/e.

Niteware wrote:
There are several arguments that prove the 500 camp wrong. The first is that you are asked to compare to a percentage, not to an integer. Up to 25% is a mathematical function which compares percentages, so they are doing the calculation the wrong way around.

The last math class I took was over 11 years ago, and I simply don't understand you.

 kirsanth wrote:
It doesn't - without being called upon to divide (it is possible to determine the needed value without it), there is no need to invoke that rule.
Having a fraction/decimal is not against the rules.
Full stop.

I'm 99% certain that you've answered this question already, but how do you determine a percentage of a number without dividing that number? Multiplying by 0.5 is only semantically different, isn't it? But still, are you saying that if you multiply instead of divide that Divide to Conquer does NOT kick in because it specifically mentions dividing and not multiplying?

 Tangent wrote:
I'm 99% certain that you've answered this question already, but how do you determine a percentage of a number without dividing that number? Multiplying by 0.5 is only semantically different, isn't it? But still, are you saying that if you multiply instead of divide that Divide to Conquer does NOT kick in because it specifically mentions dividing and not multiplying?

Any way you like, really. The rules do not call upon you to divide, and it can be done without.

The most obvious way is multiplying the unit cost by 4 (or two for specials).
500x4 does not fit in 1999.

 kirsanth wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
I'm 99% certain that you've answered this question already, but how do you determine a percentage of a number without dividing that number? Multiplying by 0.5 is only semantically different, isn't it? But still, are you saying that if you multiply instead of divide that Divide to Conquer does NOT kick in because it specifically mentions dividing and not multiplying?

Any way you like, really. The rules do not call upon you to divide, and it can be done without.

The most obvious way is multiplying the unit cost by 4 (or two for specials).
500x4 does not fit in 1999.

It's already been established that percentages apply to divide to conquor whether division or multiplication. It's pretty well been proven with the quote on page 7. You know where it says that 10% of 51 is 6?

DukeRustfield wrote:

Peasant wrote:

Now you just said I have to be equal to or below my points.
Why don't I have to be equal to or below my percentage?

I didn't say it. The BRB did.

Because the BRB says when dividing you round up. The examples are all over the % they list. 10% of 51 they say is 6. That is NOT 10%. It is 11.76%. You do not divide or multiply to come up with total points. You simply add.

And as a general rule in the BRB, most rules cease to exist where they run into another rule. Like if a unit has random movement 3d6 there are rules for that. But if they roll and end up moving off the game table, you do not keep moving them their full movement off the table. Another rule comes into play that says what you do once they've moved off the table. That goes back to my wound example. And just about every aspect of the game. However you calculate special, rares, core, it still has to be below total points. Again, those rules don't affect each other. Just like random movement can't put your unit under the oven in the kitchen no matter what you roll.

O.K..you round fractions up. That is shown and established.

Yes the examples are over the limit. You have permission to exceed that limit.
taking out 5 models would be taking out less than 10% which is not allowed.
You Do not have permission to exceed 25%
Is 25.01% more than 25%...yes or no??
Yes it is.

I did add. I added all my points and got 500. then I divided 500 with 1999 to find out if I was over 25%..I was.

Rules do cease to exist when they run into another rule.
I move a template it ends it's move on a unit..I move it till it passes the unit...why?? Because I have a rule that tells me to do so.
Yes..Units do have random movement and you don't measure off the table because you have rule that tells you what to do AND you have permission to move off the table.
Now what happens when that random 3d6 rolls and 10 and is moving towards your unit 7" away??
You stop. That's it...stop 1" away after only moving 6"
You do not have permission to go farther than that 6"
I can march 8" I run into impassible terrain 5" away I must stop.
My pivot bumps impassable terrain or a unit I stop.
I have a rule that when I am fleeing I can go though impassable terrain.
I challenge a character with my character on a mount I do 8 wounds to him. The overkill I get is 5..I stop.
I roll 11 dice for winds of magic and have 4 wizards (Probably orcs and goblins) I channel 3 out of 4 (lucky me) I stop at 12.
Shall I continue...?
With your points you do not have permission to exceed 25%. Stop...you must stop at 499.75.
And you are right it has to below total points. What is the first whole number BELOW 499.75? ..499..
You have no permission to exceed 25% rounding or not.

Imagine that there were two rules:

"Your opponent selects 25% of your models. Each selected model suffers a wound."
and
"Your opponent selects up to 25% of your models. Each selected model suffers a wound."
and you have one thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine models on the table. (I've seen multiple player games which had to have had that many models in play. And the way GW's going, 1999 models is probably less than 5000 points for some army lists, anyway. )

According to page 7, 25% of those 1,999 models is 500 models. Just like 10% of 51 models is 6.

Given that the rule on page 7 makes no exceptions for points, models, wounds, or anything else, 25% of 1999 should be the same whether it's points or models.

I am not debating the rule that says you round fractions.
It is not an exception, it is one rule bumping to the other as in the examples I gave.
If you are suffering a wound it is 500 models.
If you round and spend 500 in 1999 you exceed the 25% that you are told is your limit.
500 is 25.01% of 1999.
25.01% is more than 25%
A skaven player could not spend 499.5 points on core in a 1998 point game because it rounds up and you have at least 25%.

 solkan wrote:
Imagine that there were two rules:

"Your opponent selects 25% of your models. Each selected model suffers a wound."
and
"Your opponent selects up to 25% of your models. Each selected model suffers a wound."
and you have one thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine models on the table. (I've seen multiple player games which had to have had that many models in play. And the way GW's going, 1999 models is probably less than 5000 points for some army lists, anyway. )

According to page 7, 25% of those 1,999 models is 500 models. Just like 10% of 51 models is 6.

Given that the rule on page 7 makes no exceptions for points, models, wounds, or anything else, 25% of 1999 should be the same whether it's points or models.

in example 1 you remove 500 models as it tell you to select 25% in DTC you round up as you do not take 24.5 you take a minimum of 25%

in example to the key words are up to therefor even though DTC would tell you to round the specifics of the rule override it and 499 would be removed.

however neither example is the same as points.

you can use DTC to round all you want but 500 points is over 25% of 1999. Would you then extrapolate this and state that you can then spend over 1999 points because of this, are you saying that DTC overrides the points limit set on the game?

 kirsanth wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
I'm 99% certain that you've answered this question already, but how do you determine a percentage of a number without dividing that number? Multiplying by 0.5 is only semantically different, isn't it? But still, are you saying that if you multiply instead of divide that Divide to Conquer does NOT kick in because it specifically mentions dividing and not multiplying?

Any way you like, really. The rules do not call upon you to divide, and it can be done without.

The most obvious way is multiplying the unit cost by 4 (or two for specials).
500x4 does not fit in 1999.

That seems... uhh... not intuitive. I know you mean "the most obvious way OTHER THAN dividing," but really, the most obvious way of determining a percentage is dividing, isn't it? I think most people will default to using division.

But anyway, is your point, then, that because you are not FORCED to divide that Divide to Conquer doesn't apply? Because it only applies in cases where you are "called upon" (essentially, the rules tell you specifically to divide and you're not given the option to divide or multiply or whatever as you see fit)?

 Tangent wrote:
But anyway, is your point, then, that because you are not FORCED to divide that Divide to Conquer doesn't apply? Because it only applies in cases where you are "called upon" (essentially, the rules tell you specifically to divide and you're not given the option to divide or multiply or whatever as you see fit)?

Basically.

It can be shown, beyond argument, that fractions exist in WHFB, so coming up with excuses to apply rounding is just that.
It is entirely possible to spend 499.5 points.

As someone else pointed out, the folk saying to divide the totals are reading the actual instructions backward.

So, because the rules regarding points only specify a percentage and DON'T specify how to determine the value (in points) of that percentage, you are left to divide or multiply as you wish. And because you aren't directly asked to divide, Divide to Conquer does not apply.

That seems... like a silly distinction. Too literal, or something.

 Tangent wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
I'm 99% certain that you've answered this question already, but how do you determine a percentage of a number without dividing that number? Multiplying by 0.5 is only semantically different, isn't it? But still, are you saying that if you multiply instead of divide that Divide to Conquer does NOT kick in because it specifically mentions dividing and not multiplying?

Any way you like, really. The rules do not call upon you to divide, and it can be done without.

The most obvious way is multiplying the unit cost by 4 (or two for specials).
500x4 does not fit in 1999.

That seems... uhh... not intuitive. I know you mean "the most obvious way OTHER THAN dividing," but really, the most obvious way of determining a percentage is dividing, isn't it? I think most people will default to using division.

But anyway, is your point, then, that because you are not FORCED to divide that Divide to Conquer doesn't apply? Because it only applies in cases where you are "called upon" (essentially, the rules tell you specifically to divide and you're not given the option to divide or multiply or whatever as you see fit)?

Multiply by 4 gives you a percentage? Ah, no. Think of this like a grade school math test; show your work.
Multiply by 4 and it gives you a way to test your answer; because you've already divided the result in your head; which is why you know to use 4, and not, say 7.

-Matt

 Tangent wrote:
Too literal, or something.

Too literal for RAW?

Interesting take, really.

as has been said, technically correct is the best kind of correct.

I have yet to see anyone play other than how I have stated, so I know it is not just me.
The poll seems to agree that others play this way too.

Anecdotal, certainly, but so is the "proof" against it.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Tangent wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
I'm 99% certain that you've answered this question already, but how do you determine a percentage of a number without dividing that number? Multiplying by 0.5 is only semantically different, isn't it? But still, are you saying that if you multiply instead of divide that Divide to Conquer does NOT kick in because it specifically mentions dividing and not multiplying?

Any way you like, really. The rules do not call upon you to divide, and it can be done without.

The most obvious way is multiplying the unit cost by 4 (or two for specials).
500x4 does not fit in 1999.

That seems... uhh... not intuitive. I know you mean "the most obvious way OTHER THAN dividing," but really, the most obvious way of determining a percentage is dividing, isn't it? I think most people will default to using division.

But anyway, is your point, then, that because you are not FORCED to divide that Divide to Conquer doesn't apply? Because it only applies in cases where you are "called upon" (essentially, the rules tell you specifically to divide and you're not given the option to divide or multiply or whatever as you see fit)?

Multiply by 4 gives you a percentage? Ah, no. Think of this like a grade school math test; show your work.
Multiply by 4 and it gives you a way to test your answer; because you've already divided the result in your head; which is why you know to use 4, and not, say 7.

-Matt

Are you saying that you don't go back and verify because you've already done it in your head and you get 500 points?
Then my original example that I realized seemed off after writing would be accurate.
Because I know I can spend 500 in rares, core, lords and heroes then i can spend 2000pts in my 1999pt game..I already did the math and divided in my head.
I could spend 2500 too..because I did the math and I get up to 50% in special..
Anyway...
Why are we back to semantics of math.?
Round all the numbers you want.
Don't break rules.
Do not exceed 25%.
499 for 1999
Yes or no..500 is 25.01% of 1999.
Yes.

 kirsanth wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
Too literal, or something.

Too literal for RAW?

Interesting take, really.

as has been said, technically correct is the best kind of correct.

If that's meant as a broad statement, I have to disagree. RAW and RAI both have their uses. While in this case, yes, 499 max is RAW, there are many other cases where I'd prefer RAI over RAW and there are quite a few ones where RAI is the official solution to a RAW-incuded problem thanks to GW's never resting lazy rules writes. Lazy not because of them not doing anything, lazy because they refuse to create a balanced game.

Oh, and keeo this going guys. Go for the ten pages!

 Sigvatr wrote:
there are many other cases where I'd prefer RAI over RAW and there are quite a few ones where RAI is the official solution to a RAW-incuded problem thanks to GW

I agree.

Determining what the rules state allow people to discuss the changes that would make things more fun for everyone.
Not doing so leads to assumptions, as in this thread.

Now I know that when I find someone that assumes 500 is 25% or less of 1999 I will not assume they are just yanking my chain, as it were.
I would have previously - thus my earlier incredulity.

OK. After reading this thread, and reading the DTC rules. Lets break this down.

Basic math implies that 25% of 1999 points is 499.75. I think this is a fact that we can all agree on.

The rules state that you can take UPTO 25% of your army in Lord, Hero and/or Rare sections and you must take 25% in Core section. Fact.

DTC stats that all fractions are rounded up. So 499.75 becomes 500. Because of DTC. Fact. (RAW)

Now comes the issue with these two rules combined,

499 is 24.96% of 1999, which is UNDER/AT the cap of 25% when appling DTC Fact.
500 is 25.01% of 1999. Which is OVER. the cap of 25%, because by applying the argued DTC ruling: 500 points now becomes 26% of 1999 and is now over the allowed 25%. Fact!!!

So as a result of these facts we come to the conclusion that the maximum hole number that can be below 25% of 1999 is 499! because any fraction above 499 even 499.00000000000000001 would round up to 500 which is by DTC RAW definition above 25%.

I will say that some good has come from this tread for me despite all the I'm Right your wrong. I have learned that that thanks to DTC, 4 Monstrous Infantry/Calvary/beast can attack in a building not just 3. Also two monsters, or one monster and one other Infantry model or Monstrous Infantry/Calvary/beast model can be used to make up the 6 total models when attacking a war machine. Where I had before thought only the Monster could with one other infantry model. Some other Examples can be drawn as well. So thanks for that.

And I think this can finally put this issue to rest. Now on to more DTC issues and list creation

What about models that have half points. Like Skaven slaves, Gnablars, etc when do you rounded up? Is each model rounded up, or is it that if you end up with a total is rounded up?
Let’s Say I take Model A. Army Book says the model cost 1.5 points. Has a minimum of 10+.
So 10x1.5 = 15 points, But if I apply DTC first 10x1.5 is actually 20.
If It is 11x1.5 = 16.5, or is it 17 or is it 22? I am now so confused. These are some big differences in overall points.

cawizkid wrote:
DTC stats that all fractions are rounded up.

It does not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cawizkid wrote:
What about models that have half points.

I am guessing some folk will apply the same rule they stated and round up anything that multiplies a fraction (it is the same as division, right?).
Otherwise it seems rather disingenuous.


I am just not sure why they can read the fraction as is without rounding it - it is also, literally, a math equation for division.

cawizkid wrote:
Basic math implies that 25% of 1999 points is 499.75. I think this is a fact that we can all agree on.

The rules state that you can take UPTO 25% of your army in Lord

You're making this like multiple operations, but it's not. It's one sentence. You have it here^. UP to 25% of 1999 is 499.75. DTC says you round it up.

500 is 25.01% of 1999. Which is OVER. the cap of 25%, because by applying the argued DTC ruling: 500 points now becomes 26% of 1999 and is now over the allowed 25%. Fact!!!

Nope. You're pulling 500 out of your pooper. You never needed to calculate 499.75 if you were just going to randomly add up points. It was never used rounded up or down. If you apply the same logic to the example in DTC, it also fails. You're saying 500 is 25.01% of 1999. The DTC example says 10% of 51 = 6. That is % of TOTAL. Not subtotal / %. Because 6/.10 = 60. Which is what your quote above does. It fails the DTC example. The only way to match 10% of 51 = 6 is 25% of 1999 = 500. They are exactly the same.

You do not have permission to exceed 25% of your points.

10% of 51 models is not the same as points. You have permission to take more.

You never have permission to use more points.

Peasant wrote:
You do not have permission to exceed 25% of your points.

10% of 51 models is not the same as points. You have permission to take more.

You never have permission to use more points.

But you don't have permission to take more.
Taking 6 models is more than taking 10%.
It's the DtC rule that tells you to exceed the % limit and take more.

-Matt

I want to say exactly because you are on the right track but you contradict yourself.
You start by saying you don't have permission to take more, then say you are told to take more.
Dividing to conquer tells you to round the final number not change the percent. It gave you permission where you have no limit.
If you we're taking 'up to' 10% you would stop at 5 models because you have been given a limit.
In 1999 your core will round to 500 because your limit is lower.
You have rules that tell you when to stop and when to continue.
Your points tells you to stop at 25%,it is a hard limit that you cannot break.
You have no permission to take more points.
What is the most important rule?
Not exceeding your points limit

Peasant wrote:

Dividing to conquer tells you to round the final number not change the percent.

These are the same things. Rounding up the results changes the %.

10% of 51 = 6 is not 10%. You have "changed the percent." 6 is is 11.76% of 51. That is DTC. They're the same.

% of points is "some other value" in the DTC rules.

No. You are told to take 10%. If you took 5 models you have not complied as you have taken less than 10%. 6 is correct.

If you are told to take UP TO 10% of 51 models, 5 would be correct. Taking 6 is more than 10% so you have not complied with the rule. Specific beats general.