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.

Saldiven wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Seriously? How the hell is this a 10 page thread? Has Dakka really gone this much to the dogs?

Explanation:

A: "I AM RIGHT OMG Y U NO LISTEN TO ME"
B: "I AM RIGHT OMG Y U NO LISTEN TO ME"

...since page 1.

This thread should have been locked a long, long time ago for the simple reason that there has been nothing new added since page 1 or 2.

I vote we table this discussion until such time that a major regional or larger tournament actually schedules an event that has a points total where 25% doesn't equal a whole number. Until such time, this entire debate is a waste of time.

The mods decided to leave it open.

Saldiven wrote:

This thread should have been locked a long, long time ago for the simple reason that there has been nothing new added since page 1 or 2.
I vote we table this discussion until such time that a major regional or larger tournament actually schedules an event that has a points total where 25% doesn't equal a whole number. Until such time, this entire debate is a waste of time.

Eh, a few new points were raised and put down.
Such as showing that building a list is part of "playing a game" (page 3 or page 7 IIRC).
And that sideways movement rounds up allowing for more mobility for units with odd numbered movements.

What I've learned most is the format for rule discovery is really poor.
In the future, (in debates where the outcome actually matters), complex arguments could be streamlined if a summary was kept up on page 1.

Back in the day, when Dakka was a much less cute-and-fluffy place for rules debates than it is now (anyone remember Mauleed?), there were some proponents who wanted rules debates to be presented in a premise:conclusion format. It made for more concise rules debates because it required people to cite specific rules quotations and a clear fashion showing how they reached a conclusion. The debate would go from there.

Example (just for a simplified example):

Premise 1: Mammals have hair, bear live young and lactate.
Premise 2: Dogs have hair, bear live young and lactate.

Conclusion: Dogs are mammals.

But it is amusing...

Saldiven wrote:
Back in the day, when Dakka was a much less cute-and-fluffy place for rules debates than it is now (anyone remember Mauleed?), there were some proponents who wanted rules debates to be presented in a premise:conclusion format. It made for more concise rules debates because it required people to cite specific rules quotations and a clear fashion showing how they reached a conclusion. The debate would go from there.

Example (just for a simplified example):

Premise 1: Mammals have hair, bear live young and lactate.
Premise 2: Dogs have hair, bear live young and lactate.

Conclusion: Dogs are mammals.

I don't think that's needed on all debates, but anything that hits a few pages seems to be where people jump in without reading some of the middle stuff that's already been covered/shown correct/incorrect.

I would suggest a:
Pro-side:
1) blah blah blah, page number
A) counter point by Con.
2) blah blah, page number
A) count point
B) count point
3) blah blah, example, page number
a) no counter

Con-
Same format.

I would guess this 11 pages can be summed up into about 2-4 points and counter points on both sides.
But, since it doesn't matter, I won't bother to do it.

-Matt

So, for all those 500 pointers, where do you stand on half point models, should they all be rounded up or do you use the half points? because by your enforcing of the DTC rule for army building, these models have to be rounded up.

cawizkid wrote:
So, for all those 500 pointers, where do you stand on half point models, should they all be rounded up or do you use the half points? because by your enforcing of the DTC rule for army building, these models have to be rounded up.

No dividing or multiplying on half point models, so no DtC.

So 1/2 is not indicative of division and yet 25% is?

Interesting position.

I guess that explains why you think that .5x399 needs rounding but .5x399 does not.

Editing silly numbers.

"So 1/2 is not indicative of division and yet 25% is?"

25% alone isn't doing anything. 25% is part of a formula. You are called upon to find 25% of total points. You are not evaluating the numerator of the non-integer portion of a goblin cost and the denominator of the non-integer portion of a goblin cost to come up with a total non-integer portion. There is no formula in any army book or BRB that lists that. That 1/2 isn't in a formula you are called upon to ever calculate except through addition.

I'm annoyed no one has quoted my last post :( I explained what the rule would have to be in English for your interpretation to be correct. And that isn't the rule. The points rule is a very simple equation that you can walk into any school and get a math teacher to confirm. Or probably a social studies teacher.

At this point you seem to be trying to say, "we know we're wrong, but we won't admit it and we want you to be wrong on something else."

I am sorry, but 1/2 is 50%, by definition, and you add your points to make a total of your army, you do not multiply or divide them. So you either have to use the RAW for all % or half indicates and round up or not use it at all, Just as moving 3 inch is "1/2" of a 5 inch move (DTC), you must apply this to every model/ Purchasable Item for a model etc, that has a 1/2 value, I still do not under stand how you are justifying that you can apply this rule to one part of your army building process and not the whole thing. Using a rule to only benefit a portion of the game, Is called Cheating, It is either all or nothing.

That section like much of the BRB is written so poorly that it messes with some many other things, I get that the intent is that from the example, 5 is not 10% while 6 is more than 10%, and If you are called on to take exactly 10%, you would take out 6 to get to 10% even if you go over. Example 10 models can fight in a building, XYZ count as 3 models for this purpose, well if it was complete models 3 XYZ models can fight, but because of DTC 4 XYZ models can fight. 3.3 models rounds up to 4.

DukeRustfield wrote:
6 is more than 10% of 51 in many non-WHFB circumstances depending on how they're rounding. But unfortunately for you guys, this is a WHFB forum. And it's 10%.

Calculating what that number should be is not required.

*emphasis added* It is in the rule, however. You are choosing to do an order of operations that doesn't exist in the BRB.

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

.25 * TOTAL_POINTS >= RARE_SPEND

That is literally what that sentence means. You know the value for TOTAL_POINTS, only RARE_SPEND is unknown. That is what is in the BRB. And DTC comes into play on the result (if there's a remainder). You are saying a formula of:

(RAREPOINTS_1 + RAREPOINTS_2 + RAREPOINTS_N) / TOTAL_POINTS <= .25
or
(RAREPOINTS_1 + RAREPOINTS_2 + RAREPOINTS_N) /.25 <= TOTAL_POINTS

But that is not what the rule says. The sentence isn't: "Your Rares units may be up to 25% of your total points." It's close. And about as generous as I can get. And often they will be the same. But you can see it's not the BRB. It simply doesn't state your Rare units divided or multiplied by anything and that matters because of DTC. It does, however, say 25% of your points.

If this were a math class, you could convert the first equation into:

TOTAL_POINTS >= RARE_SPEND/.25

But a) that's not the verbiage in the BRB b) it's still not the same as what you're saying, as RARE_SPEND isn't the total of RAREPOINTS.

Ok I must have failed math...what the heck does all that mean?
Are you saying that all you have to do is calculate what points you have...your claim 500.. And that is it? No more calculation required?
(Edit to add)...so you don't need to reference total points anymore because you have your total?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

cawizkid wrote:
So, for all those 500 pointers, where do you stand on half point models, should they all be rounded up or do you use the half points? because by your enforcing of the DTC rule for army building, these models have to be rounded up.

No dividing or multiplying on half point models, so no DtC.

Wrong. Several 500's have said that multiplication and division are the same...
I buy 29 shields at .5 points...29x.5=14.5.
That is multiplying so you must round that...according to your position.
(Edit to remove unnecessary jab)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
"So 1/2 is not indicative of division and yet 25% is?"

25% alone isn't doing anything. 25% is part of a formula. You are called upon to find 25% of total points. You are not evaluating the numerator of the non-integer portion of a goblin cost and the denominator of the non-integer portion of a goblin cost to come up with a total non-integer portion. There is no formula in any army book or BRB that lists that. That 1/2 isn't in a formula you are called upon to ever calculate except through addition.

I'm annoyed no one has quoted my last post :( I explained what the rule would have to be in English for your interpretation to be correct. And that isn't the rule. The points rule is a very simple equation that you can walk into any school and get a math teacher to confirm. Or probably a social studies teacher.

At this point you seem to be trying to say, "we know we're wrong, but we won't admit it and we want you to be wrong on something else."

You are annoyed.?
I have asked several questions that have been ignored...like this one...
What percentage of 1999 is 500?
Finding out that 500 is more than 25% of 1999 is a simple equation too but we are here on page 11.

cawizkid wrote:
I am sorry, but 1/2 is 50%

And 1/1 is 100%. And if something is 250pts it's also 250/1. But for models/units you are never called to make that calculation. That's never part of a formula in DTC.

Ok I must have failed math

Yeah, you did. Because you don't even seem to understand variables. No wonder this is going badly. Can't debate English with a German speaker.

What percentage of 1999 is 500?

500 is never a variable in the BRB. You're pulling it out of your rear. The BRB doesn't ask that question.

DukeRustfield wrote:

cawizkid wrote:
I am sorry, but 1/2 is 50%

And 1/1 is 100%. And if something is 250pts it's also 250/1. But for models/units you are never called to make that calculation. That's never part of a formula in DTC.

Ok I must have failed math

Yeah, you did. Because you don't even seem to understand variables. No wonder this is going badly. Can't debate English with a German speaker.

What percentage of 1999 is 500?

500 is never a variable in the BRB. You're pulling it out of your rear. The BRB doesn't ask that question.

I may have trouble understanding written variables but i can use big words...
You are attempting to justify the application of DtC by extrapolating the mathematical process of division/multiplication and percentages so that the rule in question (DtC) will coincide with points values. Then you proceed to refute any other variable that yields a number that is contradictory to your perceived value because you have no written examples or specific instruction. I find this stance to be contrary.

We can use big words and fancy variables but they are meaningless when someone doesnt understand what you are saying. (But you can fluff your feathers in meaningless pride if you desire).

Your refusal to even answer simple questions shows that answering those questions will weaken your position..common tactic in politics and law.
The basic rule book doesn't specifically ask the question of what percent of 1999 500 is..I do. I ask that question to be sure I do not exceed 25% of 1999.
No matter how you twist, avoid, ignore, or repeat the one line that tells you to round a fraction, 500 is still 25.01 % of 1999 and there is a specific rule that tells you that you can spend up to 25%. Which means that you cannot exceed 25%.

500 is not pulled from my rear. 500 is a number that exceeds 25% of 1999.
What percentage of 1999 is 500?
My question about 500/1999 is irrelevant because the BRB doesn't ask the question?
BRB doesn't ask me many things, like how many points I'd like to play either.
500 is a variable. It is the one that you believe to be the correct number in this discussion. If it is not a variable than you cannot continue.
Do you believe you ignore your points after a single calculation?
You believe you can break a specific rule where there is no text applying DtC to points yet you will not recalculate 500's actual percentage of 1999 because you are not specifically told to.????
You are never told to apply DtC to your points.
Ever.
The above writing is simple..and sadly repetitive ..
What's terrible is that this really is just a circular argument....glutton for punishment I guess..if only work was busier.

DukeRustfield wrote:
And if something is 250pts it's also 250/1.

Duke is right about this one, guys. There is no calculation involved in determining, by reading the army book, that a goblin is 2.5 points (or whatever the cost is). It just IS that value and no calculation is required. As Duke points out in the part I quoted here, the slippery slope that you're on is that you could then state that EVERY number is a calculation. In Duke's example, if a unit costs 250 points, the calculation would be 250/1. You could also then try to make really weird statements, like how if 1/2 is 50% then 2/1 is 200%.

But that's the point - a percentage MUST reference a specific value to be relevant. 1/2 is NOT 50% because... 50% of what? 50% of 1, sure. But what is 1 is NOT the value that we're discussing?

This is another tributary of the main argument that is totally irrelevant.

 Tangent wrote:
But that's the point - a percentage MUST reference a specific value to be relevant.

No. That is the point of the percentage.

You are comparing what is a variable.

Your points spent can total up to 25%, which can be verified without knowing what the 25% actually would be.

Which is to say you never need to divide 1999 by 4 to determine that you have broken a rule.

cawizkid wrote:
I am sorry, but 1/2 is 50%, by definition, and you add your points to make a total of your army, you do not multiply or divide them. So you either have to use the RAW for all % or half indicates and round up or not use it at all, Just as moving 3 inch is "1/2" of a 5 inch move (DTC), you must apply this to every model/ Purchasable Item for a model etc, that has a 1/2 value, I still do not under stand how you are justifying that you can apply this rule to one part of your army building process and not the whole thing. Using a rule to only benefit a portion of the game, Is called Cheating, It is either all or nothing.

You're missing a very simple fundamental difference.
In your movement example, 5 is the value. The process of half movement sideways tells you to divide, which is where DTC kicks in.
A gnoblar is 2.5 points. A clan rat is 4.5 points. Those are the set values, no dividing with the value is implied, and no mathematical process is involved.

Spending 171 points in rares is adding.
Determining the % limit spent in rares is multiplying.

DTC doesn't care about a value, it's how you got the value.

A fragmented Skaven Core then can spend rather well under what anyone would call 25% then?

That also seem silly.

 Tangent wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:
And if something is 250pts it's also 250/1.

Duke is right about this one, guys. There is no calculation involved in determining, by reading the army book, that a goblin is 2.5 points (or whatever the cost is). It just IS that value and no calculation is required. As Duke points out in the part I quoted here, the slippery slope that you're on is that you could then state that EVERY number is a calculation. In Duke's example, if a unit costs 250 points, the calculation would be 250/1. You could also then try to make really weird statements, like how if 1/2 is 50% then 2/1 is 200%.

But that's the point - a percentage MUST reference a specific value to be relevant. 1/2 is NOT 50% because... 50% of what? 50% of 1, sure. But what is 1 is NOT the value that we're discussing?

This is another tributary of the main argument that is totally irrelevant.

Isn't that the point...to a point.?
There is a slippery slope. Other than the fact that 25% ends as a fraction (499.75) there is nothing that connects DtC to points. The 500 crowd is applying it based on the fraction and 25% is division..(although some have said multiplication) so it could be possible to start making all the crazy assumptions depending on the methods used to generate your points.
The only specifics in how to total your army is to be sure you meet minimums and don't exceed maximums. Some will add, multiply, divide and even subtract in the process.
There is no specific relationship between DtC and points.

So, to sum up:

1) the 499'ers like to ignore "of your points", because that requires you to divide 1999 / 4 and then round up, following the rules on page 7

OR

2) The 499'ers start trying to invoke specific vs general....despite the general points limit rule being overridden by the specific DTC rule on page 7.

whereas 3)

The 500'ers are simply doing what the rule tells you: spending up to 25% of 1999, which is spending up to 499.75, which is spending up to 500 points, by applying all the actual rules

One is a very simple, straightforward and RAW way of working. The other involves making gak up.

You were almost right with 3).

The correct answer is 499.75 points. And that's it. Spend 500 and you're over. Spend 499 and you can still spend up to .75 points.

Peasant wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

cawizkid wrote:
So, for all those 500 pointers, where do you stand on half point models, should they all be rounded up or do you use the half points? because by your enforcing of the DTC rule for army building, these models have to be rounded up.

No dividing or multiplying on half point models, so no DtC.

Wrong. Several 500's have said that multiplication and division are the same...
I buy 29 shields at .5 points...29x.5=14.5.
That is multiplying so you must round that...according to your position.
(Edit to remove unnecessary jab)

You're not dividing on half point Models, neither are you multiplying on the Models.
I think you can argue that you are multiplying on half point UNITS.
29 clan rats at 4.5 point each is 130.5 points; rounded up to 131.
11 Gnoblars would be 27.5 points; rounded up to 28 points.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

You're not dividing on half point Models, neither are you multiplying on the Models.
I think you can argue that you are multiplying on half point UNITS.
29 clan rats at 4.5 point each is 130.5 points; rounded up to 131.
11 Gnoblars would be 27.5 points; rounded up to 28 points.

-Matt

If using the faux-argumentation often brought up in this thread, you can easily argue that multiplication is nothing else than repeated addition which would then show that you multiply models as well as units.

WOW.. This is really deep. I thought discussions like this were only in the 40k forum.

Summary..
DTC does not apply to points.
It is reaching to apply it to points.
You are never called on to apply dtc.
The rules are clear on how to spend your points.
You have clear limits that are already set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Peasant wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

cawizkid wrote:
So, for all those 500 pointers, where do you stand on half point models, should they all be rounded up or do you use the half points? because by your enforcing of the DTC rule for army building, these models have to be rounded up.

No dividing or multiplying on half point models, so no DtC.

Wrong. Several 500's have said that multiplication and division are the same...
I buy 29 shields at .5 points...29x.5=14.5.
That is multiplying so you must round that...according to your position.
(Edit to remove unnecessary jab)

You're not dividing on half point Models, neither are you multiplying on the Models.
I think you can argue that you are multiplying on half point UNITS.
29 clan rats at 4.5 point each is 130.5 points; rounded up to 131.
11 Gnoblars would be 27.5 points; rounded up to 28 points.

-Matt

This is the point about not rounding and not applying DTC.
There is no clear time when you use it because everyone writes their list in a different method.
You do not apply DTC to points.
You are never instructed to do so.

Edited to move e typo.

Peasant - except, you know, when youre instructed to do so whenever you divide. There is no limitation on when you round -just a command, to round when you divide.

Which you have done. So you round.

Sig - so you ignore the rule on page 7, which states whenever you divide you round? Will you ever grace this thread with an actual argument as to why? You know, following the rules of this forum and all would be very helpful.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So, to sum up:

1) the 499'ers like to ignore "of your points", because that requires you to divide 1999 / 4 and then round up, following the rules on page 7

Ridiculous. The 499ers can actually read and see that it states "up to 25% of your points", which requires both a value as a percentage and not being over 25%, neither of which the 500 pointers can manage.

OR

2) The 499'ers start trying to invoke specific vs general....despite the general points limit rule being overridden by the specific DTC rule on page 7.

Hilarious. Suggesting that something which applies to "every time you are called on to divide" (quoting Nosferatu, not the BRB) could be more specific than rules which apply in one specific circumstance.
You are given a hard limit - in the army books as well as the BRB - so no general rule can over ride it.

whereas 3)

The 500'ers are simply doing what the rule tells you: spending up to 25% of 1999, which is spending up to 499.75, which is spending up to 500 points, by applying all the actual rules

One is a very simple, straightforward and RAW way of working. The other involves making gak up.

The 500ers are simply riding roughshod over the rules, mathematics, logic and sense. They have no RAW, no RAI and no substantive argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasant - except, you know, when youre instructed to do so whenever you divide. There is no limitation on when you round -just a command, to round when you divide.

Which you have done. So you round.

Sig - so you ignore the rule on page 7, which states whenever you divide you round? Will you ever grace this thread with an actual argument as to why? You know, following the rules of this forum and all would be very helpful.

How about we try to wrap it up with closing statements.
Because this is all j see on the 500 side

This discussion goes in circles because the basis of your position is...
pg 7 says if you divide and get a fraction you round.
And you defend your position as..
Pg 7 says if you divide and get a fraction you round.
That's it..not much there.

A single equation (division) connects pg 7 to your points and disregards any other parts of your points or calculations?
Is this a fair summary? Would you add a missed portion?

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Sig - so you ignore the rule on page 7, which states whenever you divide you round? Will you ever grace this thread with an actual argument as to why? You know, following the rules of this forum and all would be very helpful.

Have done so in the beginning of the thread. Will summarize.

First of all, the 500 crowd already makes a pretty far stretch by relating points to "any other value" in the DtC rule.
Secondly, DtC in its examples only refers to anything that happens in-game and the introducing paragraph before DtC explicitely refers to events that happen "while you play" (p.6) which clearly exclues army composition. And on top of that, everything else in the same chapter ("Measuring distances", "Dice", etc.) only refer to anything happening in-game as well. Furthermore, p.140 explicitely excludes army composition from actually playing too (bolded paragraph, right under the headline).
Thirdly, you are never called upon to divide point values, the (25)% limit already exists, so you're not being called upon.

25% of 1999 is exactly 499.75, 500 is too much and 499 allows you to spend another .75 points.

kirsanth wrote:

 Tangent wrote:
But that's the point - a percentage MUST reference a specific value to be relevant.

No. That is the point of the percentage.

You are comparing what is a variable.

Your points spent can total up to 25%, which can be verified without knowing what the 25% actually would be.

Which is to say you never need to divide 1999 by 4 to determine that you have broken a rule.

No, I'm saying that a percentage must reference a specific TOTAL value to be relevant. It has no meaning otherwise. If you just say "25%", it begs the question, "25% of what?" Just saying "25%" doesn't translate into any meaningful numbers that we can actually use. You have to know that it's 25% of 2000, or whatever.

Sigvatr wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Sig - so you ignore the rule on page 7, which states whenever you divide you round? Will you ever grace this thread with an actual argument as to why? You know, following the rules of this forum and all would be very helpful.

Have done so in the beginning of the thread. Will summarize.

First of all, the 500 crowd already makes a pretty far stretch by relating points to "any other value" in the DtC rule.
Secondly, DtC in its examples only refers to anything that happens in-game and the introducing paragraph before DtC explicitely refers to events that happen "while you play" (p.6) which clearly exclues army composition. And on top of that, everything else in the same chapter ("Measuring distances", "Dice", etc.) only refer to anything happening in-game as well. Furthermore, p.140 explicitely excludes army composition from actually playing too (bolded paragraph, right under the headline).
Thirdly, you are never called upon to divide point values, the (25)% limit already exists, so you're not being called upon.

25% of 1999 is exactly 499.75, 500 is too much and 499 allows you to spend another .75 points.

So the main crux of your argument is basically that DtC doesn't apply because when you're forming your army list you're not yet playing the game?

 Tangent wrote:


So the main crux of your argument is basically that DtC doesn't apply because when you're forming your army list you're not yet playing the game?

There ain't a "main" reason, all those are valid reasons, showing why DtC is not to be applied and the exact answer is 499.75.