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.

 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.

1) are you saying that points aren't a value? "Any" is pretty all inclusive.
2) read through page 3, we've already shown how building a list falls into playing a game.
3) the 25% limit doesn't "already exist", any more than any other value "already exists".

Why are you rounding the allowed points instead of the allowance stated?
You can calculate the percentage you brought following the rules and compare that to the allowed percentage.

You are not specifically called upon to determine the number of points, only the percentage they take.

Rounded, you spent 26%, right?

Ignoring the strawman parts...

HawaiiMatt wrote:

3) the 25% limit doesn't "already exist", any more than any other value "already exists".

...incorrect. If this was correct, all units costsof e.g. .5 would always be 1 and you know as well as I do that this isn't how it works. Same as fractions during army composition. 25% of X is a fixed value. You are not called upon to divide it...as I stated above. Just as others already did.

Not going to take part in the circle-argumentation here, I'll just repeat my previous post on the new page(s) to help people who are looking for an answer to the issue.

...and this just aside: nobody who is actually interested in the RAW-answer to the question at hand will even be interested in the answer as people who play with 1999 pts are playing at such a value because they *don't* want 25% to be 500 and thus play it the RAW-way already...which means that 25% are <500 (exactly: 499.75) points. So all in all, I don't even see the purpose of this thread, other than some people (not referring to anyone in special here) feeling the need to prove their self-assumed superior understanding of the rules to the mere peasants below. Just don't take it personal. The same people who are wrong on this case (the 500 crowd) is usually right about most other rule questions and everyone makes mistakes every now and then

...and really, we're arguing over .25 points here

Its a moot point.
So we called a moot.

Sigvatr - so points arent a value? That is considered a "stretch" by you?

Hilarious

I will continue to follow the rules and, when called upon to divide (when finding the points limit I can spend on models) I will round up.

I am never called upon to work out the percentage I have spent, so I havent spent 26%. Nice strawman though. Wait, it isnt....

Oh, and page 3 doesnt prove that building your list is part of playing the game? You just ignore the proof there, and call it a strawman? Your gall is impressive. Ignore anything proving your wrong!

Nite - your "responses" are ignored, as they failed to actually use any rules, same as your entire argument this thread. Thatnks for agreeing you have no rules argument, and are playing a houserule, now please add this explicitly to your future thread, mkay?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
when finding the points limit I can spend on models I will round up.

You are told to bring a percentage, not a specific value.
Determining what that value would be is never called for, simply verifying that it is not more than 25%.

Doing so, using your version of math, results in 26%.

editing to clarify what "your version of math is":

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

1/2 is not rounded, but 500/1999 is because all values are rounded.

/nod

Nosferatu, I love that when you disagree with people's interpretation of rules, you state that they have not used rules.
I love that you argue with points by saying that they are wrong, rather than giving evidence.
And I love that you sidestep arguements that you cannot refute.
Thank you for continuing to persist with your phelonious statements in the face of all the evidence.
I find this thread very entertaining.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sigvatr - so points arent a value? That is considered a "stretch" by you?

Hilarious

I will continue to follow the rules and, when called upon to divide (when finding the points limit I can spend on models) I will round up.

I am never called upon to work out the percentage I have spent, so I havent spent 26%. Nice strawman though. Wait, it isnt....

Oh, and page 3 doesnt prove that building your list is part of playing the game? You just ignore the proof there, and call it a strawman? Your gall is impressive. Ignore anything proving your wrong!

Nite - your "responses" are ignored, as they failed to actually use any rules, same as your entire argument this thread. Thatnks for agreeing you have no rules argument, and are playing a houserule, now please add this explicitly to your future thread, mkay?

There have been plenty of reasons given as to why the answer to all this is 499 not 500.
The only reason the 500 crowd believes they apply DtC is because one paragraph on pg 7 references the terms dividing and any value. That is a stretch. Especially when the defense by the 500 were told that you can multiply to get 25%...so then multiplication semantically was division etc. this continues to be reaching.
No example given references points.

Here are the rules and paragraphs that show maybe not decisively, but have more foundation then a few words in a single paragraph.

You are told to spend up to 25% of your points It just told you to find out what percentage to spend..up to 25%.
You are never told to round.
As was stated before..the chapter that includes pg7 is General principles and makes specific reference to the turn sequence. So figuring out points my be part of the game but not the turn sequence. All examples given are turn sequence examples.

You want someone to believe 'any value' stretches to points yet you are ignoring that you can spend 'up to 25%.'
You are never told anywhere else to round your points
You don't believe being told to spend up to 25% asks for a percentage? It's in the section on points..
You haven't been asked to work out a percentage so you haven't spent 26%???? Then what have you spent?
The percentage can't disappear. I spent 550 but I don't need a percentage so it should be ok..
The words don't specifically say to get a percentage so it is not a valid point?
But because a paragraph in different chapter mention the words dividing and a value that holds more weight.?
Who's stretching farther.
You have nothing to prove you are right. You are playing your own house rule at 500.

1) You do not NEED to be told to round. You just need to divide, and page 7 then forces you to round

2) Is a points VALUE *any* value? Yes? then gee,I guess it is covered EXACTLY by this rule. No stretch

3) You are told this applies IN GAME. Writing a list isdefined as IN GAME. Stop repeating debunked arguments.

4) "up to 25% OF YOURS POINTS LIMIT"

What IS 25% of your points limit? 499.75
Have you divided? YES! Then you use page 7, as a points VALUE is indeed ANY VALUE! So we get 500

Not. Tricky..

Proven over and over and over and over that this is right, but keep on believing your own house rules. Night.

Edit: as a query - given you have arbitrarily decided that a points value ISNT covered by DTC, would you care to exaplin which values are not covered by "any value"? Page and paragraph to back up your decision, or concede that argument and stop repeating

Nite: felonious, I assume you meant. ANother contentless post from you there! No arguments were sidestepped, every single "artgument" you have presented, made up rules and everything, has been picked apart, debunked, and sent back in tiny little pieces. The amusement apparently works both ways, as your posts degenerate every time in this thread it seems.

You have a minimum and maximum percentage allowing you to spend up to 100%
Others have said it well...
You are never asked about specific points just a percentage.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
What IS 25% of your points limit?

25% of the limit. Full stop.

Your limit is 25%. Absolutely no need to calculate the points needed, you are told the value limit.

Which is less than the 25.01250625312656% you spent (which you should round to 26, apparently).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Debunked. Next argument?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) You do not NEED to be told to round. You just need to divide, and page 7 then forces you to round

2) Is a points VALUE *any* value? Yes? then gee,I guess it is covered EXACTLY by this rule. No stretch

3) You are told this applies IN GAME. Writing a list isdefined as IN GAME. Stop repeating debunked arguments.

4) "up to 25% OF YOURS POINTS LIMIT"

What IS 25% of your points limit? 499.75
Have you divided? YES! Then you use page 7, as a points VALUE is indeed ANY VALUE! So we get 500

Not. Tricky..

Proven over and over and over and over that this is right, but keep on believing your own house rules. Night.

Edit: as a query - given you have arbitrarily decided that a points value ISNT covered by DTC, would you care to exaplin which values are not covered by "any value"? Page and paragraph to back up your decision, or concede that argument and stop repeating

Nite: felonious, I assume you meant. ANother contentless post from you there! No arguments were sidestepped, every single "artgument" you have presented, made up rules and everything, has been picked apart, debunked, and sent back in tiny little pieces. The amusement apparently works both ways, as your posts degenerate every time in this thread it seems.

You accuse people of repeating and ignoring..yet you repeat and ignore? Interesting.

1. Fine..round. Round all you want.
I have never been told to divide.
There is no specific process given other than making sure I have only spent up to 25%. If I have spent 500 points or more I have exceed 25%
2. Guess all you want and continue to round.
500 is still 25.01% of 1999. Therefore illegal.
3. You are not told that it is 'in game'. You are told...'Sometimes you'll be called upon to divide the result of a dice roll (when do we divide dice? Turn sequence) a characteristic (when do we use characteristics? turn sequence) or some other value.
Doesn't state 'in game' at all.
What other value are they referring too?..it is reasonable to most that they are referring to movement, number of dice rolled, number of combatants, or similar instances. Though you disagree in its use and application, points has its own chapter. All other rules that need referencing else where reference you to a page number. Even the annotation on page 134 references you to page 11.
Any value is vague enough to apply anywhere. But when taken in context of the paragraph and chapter it is more reasonable where the application is used.
Excluding points..what other times are you called upon to divide? Bet they are all in turn sequence.
Your disagreement does not 'debunk' anything .
4. And most importantly
Finally you are almost there...
You just answered the whole problem. What is 25% of your points. 499.75.....say it with me 499.75.
Fine... round that number...
What percentage of your points is 500.? Hint..25.01 %. Is 25.01% up to 25%...no it is more.
So lets put it this way even IF you can apply DtC anywhere you want just don't break the most important rule which in this case is ....up to 25%. You have no permission to exceed 25%. Points values are hard limits.
And no..DtC does not change 'up to 25%'
As for your query just retread this post section '3'
All this has been said.
Continue your house rules..hopefully all your group is having fun

How about this then... seeing as you ignored the posts where I made actual points and only commented when I noted your lack of content...

Army book says "up to 25%".
Army book > BRB
500 > 25% of 1999

Really simple, rules based proof.

Niteware wrote:
How about this then... seeing as you ignored the posts where I made actual points and only commented when I noted your lack of content...

Army book says "up to 25%".
Army book > BRB
500 > 25% of 1999

Really simple, rules based proof.

You're truncating the quote. "Up to 25% of your points".

Army book > BRB Which comes into play how? Page 134 says that you use "the army lin in the relevant Warhammer Armies book, and the system presented here."
Basic vs Advance on page 11 gives a context of when a conflict exists. None does between the new books and the rule book, they both have the same structure for armies. The old books are told to use the new book via the current Erratas.

500 > 25% of 1999; which is irrelevant if you divide to find the rare limit, as DTC would kick in forcing you to round above the limit; just like it does for movement.



NEWS FLASH, here's something new. Yup, it's been about 4 pages now, time for something new.
Page 3, on the right hand sidebar has the statement that ends this discussion.
In a game of 1999, played at 1999 to limit double Steamtanks, you cannot spend 500 points on double steam tanks.
It breaks the spirit of the game rule.

-Matt

Twenty-five percent of your points is more easily verified by finding out if you spent more than 25% than by figuring out what 25% would be and comparing.

Ridiculous silliness for those creating loops for others to jump through...

Irrelevant circles for the sake of distraction.

(And for rounding number for the sake of advantage - unless you want to argue that 25.01250625312656% is less than 25% when ACTUAL, NON_GW math is applied. At which point I will just ignore you and move on with actual debates with non-trolls.)

 kirsanth wrote:
Twenty-five percent of your points is more easily verified by finding out if you spent more than 25% than by figuring out what 25% would be and comparing.

More easily verified?
Are you saying
Sum of Rare points spent / army size < 25%
is easier than
Army Size * 25% > sum of Rare points spent
It's exactly the same variables.

Here is the rare choices I ran in my last fun game of vampire counts. It's a 2500 point list. You tell me which is easier.
4 Blood knights with standard (gleaming pendant) (215 points)
Black Coach (195 points)
Varghulf (175)
585 points spent in rares.
Do you think 585 divided by 2500 is easier, or 2500 divided by 4 and compare?


How about the last 2400 point wood elf army I faced?
5 waywatchers + 1 waywatcher unit champ (152 points)
2 great eagles (50 each)
1 Treeman (285)
What's percentage of 2400 is 537?
I'm pretty good at math, but I can't do that in my head quickly. And if I did, would you believe my answer?
What my children CAN do is divide by 4. And add.

The opposite of what you're saying is actually true.
It's much easier to divide by 4 to determine the rare limit, and then compare that limit to the total of point spent.

-Matt

* I am willing to give the 500's the fact that DTC implies that 500 is indeed 25% of 1999 by using Division. (GW math)

Yes most people divide the total points to get an "estimate" of what the total that you can use for each Category. Yes you are told to divide the totals for each category. However, you do not divide your points to get the total of points you use.

** You add your points of rare models until you reach the cap of "up to 25%", You add the points for each model. This total number that you get after adding not dividing cannot be above 25% of 1999 and DTC does not apply to adding. So weather you add two models that cost, 250 or 10 models that cost 50 points the total is 500 points no Division has ben used., You then check this number and what do you find, Well i'll be; 500 is in fact 25.01% of 1999 apply DTC (500/1999) works out to 26%. and as such you are over the total allowed,

*** You are told to divide you forces into each category. The keyword is forces not points, you are then allowed to take up to 25% in Rare. You do not divide your points you divide your forces. So again After you have added your totals for each section that total cannot exceed 25%, See above.

Below is references to rules pages used. I hope this can put an end to this.

Rules to back this

* page 7 DTC

** page 132 paragraph 3. Point Values:

*** page 134 Unit Categories

Peasant - erm, reread page 3 of this thread. Proves, to anyone who can comprehend some very short rules quotes, that creating a list is part of the game.

So points are not a value? Can you really, honestly with a straigth face say that ANY VALUE cannot apply to a points value?

I've ignored the rest of your responses, as you still havent used any actual rules.

NIte - wrong, no conflict. Try again. You seem to struggle with specific > general, as evidenced in this and other threads, so perhaps you should do some research on this. Thanks


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:
How about this then... seeing as you ignored the posts where I made actual points and only commented when I noted your lack of content...

Army book says "up to 25%".
Army book > BRB
500 > 25% of 1999

Really simple, rules based proof.

what is 25% of 1999? According to the rulebook it is 500.

500 = 500

Debunked again. Shocking.

Nosferatu, one of us does indeed struggle with general vs specific, but it is not me. As you triedto claim that a rule listed under general principles was more specific than something which only applies to one tiny part of the game, you obviously don't understand the concept.

Building a list is proved to be both part of and not part of the game (quotes throughout this thread).

You consistently ignore the bits of people's arguements with which you cannot disagree. Thes have generally been rules based and accurate. Good job.

Matt is correct about the spirit of the game meaning that 499.75 is correct.

Niteware wrote:
Nosferatu, one of us does indeed struggle with general vs specific, but it is not me. As you triedto claim that a rule listed under general principles was more specific than something which only applies to one tiny part of the game, you obviously don't understand the concept.

Building a list is proved to be both part of and not part of the game (quotes throughout this thread).

You consistently ignore the bits of people's arguements with which you cannot disagree. Thes have generally been rules based and accurate. Good job.

Matt is correct about the spirit of the game meaning that 499.75 is correct.

It is not correct. I can still spend 500 points by taking 2x luminarks and 2x hurricani (I think that's the plural of hurricanum). While I'm not saying that is a good idea... It can still be done. Or 2x hurricani/luminark (I forget which is 130 Pts) and 2x volley guns.

This if you want to ban dual steam tanks. Ban dual steam tanks. I don't know that is your intent by 1999, unless you state it out in the open. I cannot break "the spirit of the game" if I don't know your objectives. Thus coming outright and saying it is the ONLY way to play.

The object could reasonably be conjectured as limiting Lords, Heroes and rares to under 500. That would be both the spirit and the letter of the rules.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
The opposite of what you're saying is actually true.
It's much easier to divide by 4 to determine the rare limit, and then compare that limit to the total of point spent.

-Matt

It might very well be easier, but it certainly isn't as accurate in determing what percentage of your points you actually spent.

Now your just grasping at straws with the "spirit" argue kent as it is really up to conjecture and vague. I disagree completely. If your doing something that your opponent specifically mentions he doesn't want to face, yes your going against the "spirit of the game" but if he only says 1999 because perhaps that's all he owns, you are not breaking the spirit of the game by taking 500.

I cannot be expected to be a mind reader and understand what it is or why he picked that value.

Likewise, I'd have expected to HAVE to take 500 points of core, not 499.

You do HAVE to take 500 points of core, because that is a minimum of 25%.
The spirit arguement is purely icing on the cake of rules, which say 499.

I would expect to HAVE to take 499.75 points if I could manage it. If I cannot, I would have to spend more than 25% and not less.

The exact opposite of the discussion here.

The target is 25%, not the points that it may represent.

Good point, well made.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Peasant - erm, reread page 3 of this thread. Proves, to anyone who can comprehend some very short rules quotes, that creating a list is part of the game.

So points are not a value? Can you really, honestly with a straigth face say that ANY VALUE cannot apply to a points value?

I've ignored the rest of your responses, as you still havent used any actual rules.

NIte - wrong, no conflict. Try again. You seem to struggle with specific > general, as evidenced in this and other threads, so perhaps you should do some research on this. Thanks


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niteware wrote:
How about this then... seeing as you ignored the posts where I made actual points and only commented when I noted your lack of content...

Army book says "up to 25%".
Army book > BRB
500 > 25% of 1999

Really simple, rules based proof.

what is 25% of 1999? According to the rulebook it is 500.

500 = 500

Debunked again. Shocking.

You have ignored parts, as is typical because you often state you are ignoring things and therefore missing important parts.
Had you read my post in its entirety you would have learned...quick summary.
I disagree with you on the part of the game points is. Both are opinion. Yours is no more/less valid than mine.
Apply and round all you want..
The points section states 'UP TO 25%' you cannot exceed. Period.
Most important rule is your points it trumps, everything. You are never allowed to break points rules.
500 exceeds your points limit in rares. It is 25.01%.

Go back and read my post and many others.

You ignore so much it begs the question if at this point you are just trolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stoupe wrote:

Niteware wrote:
Nosferatu, one of us does indeed struggle with general vs specific, but it is not me. As you triedto claim that a rule listed under general principles was more specific than something which only applies to one tiny part of the game, you obviously don't understand the concept.

Building a list is proved to be both part of and not part of the game (quotes throughout this thread).

You consistently ignore the bits of people's arguements with which you cannot disagree. Thes have generally been rules based and accurate. Good job.

Matt is correct about the spirit of the game meaning that 499.75 is correct.

It is not correct. I can still spend 500 points by taking 2x luminarks and 2x hurricani (I think that's the plural of hurricanum). While I'm not saying that is a good idea... It can still be done. Or 2x hurricani/luminark (I forget which is 130 Pts) and 2x volley guns.

This if you want to ban dual steam tanks. Ban dual steam tanks. I don't know that is your intent by 1999, unless you state it out in the open. I cannot break "the spirit of the game" if I don't know your objectives. Thus coming outright and saying it is the ONLY way to play.

Yes the thread started in reference to double steam tank..move past that.
We have done this already.
1999 is obviously chosen to limit something.
If a tournament operator chose those points everyone would know it is to limit something.
Does the TO have to list every single reason?
The points you choose to play are always chosen to limit something. Time, units, unit sizes, number of units

And no you can't take those combinations because you will exceed 25%. You'll have 25.01% Youll have to change one.
(Edit) added then removed from here.

Niteware wrote:
Nosferatu, one of us does indeed struggle with general vs specific, but it is not me. As you triedto claim that a rule listed under general principles was more specific than something which only applies to one tiny part of the game, you obviously don't understand the concept.

Wrong. The more *specific* rule overrides the more *general* rule. Here the more *specific* rule is that, when you divide, you round up fractions. Have you divided? Yes? Then you round up

I suggest you do a search for Yaks post on how a permissive ruleset works. Your knowledge on this is woefully inadequate to be taking part in a rules debate on it.

Niteware wrote:Building a list is proved to be both part of and not part of the game (quotes throughout this thread).

Proven to be part of, actually. Or will you actually use some rules based argument for once and prove otherwise? anything?

Niteware wrote:
You consistently ignore the bits of people's arguements with which you cannot disagree. Thes have generally been rules based and accurate. Good job.

Wrong. Answered every single rules argument you have made, and every single amusing "argument" not based on rules you have made, and you have been found lacking every. single. time.

Niteware wrote: Matt is correct about the spirit of the game meaning that 499.75 is correct.

What spirit? That you dishonestly tried to hide your intentions (limiting double stank) by picking a value you *thought* would have that affect? Bollocks. I am not going to try to divine the intent behind you picking a specific points value - after all, you could have picked 2200 because you wanted someone to now be able to take as many crushers, or to not be able to take fateweaver (i think he is still 600 points plus...) and so on. Your "spirit" argument holds no water.

Still waiting for your proof that you can ignore the VERY SPECIFIC RULE stating that, when you divide, you round up. You have dividied (as proven on page 7, percentages are division) so MUST round up.

Peasant - I read your post. It missed a lot of rules, and some basic concepts of how rules operate.

What is 25% of my points limit? That is what I am not allowed to exceed. I am not allowed to exceed 500 points - so I will not.

You have no permission to calculate 25.01%, so you may not do so.

Find a rule stating you can calculate that. The actual rules say otherwise. Page nd graph.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
What is 25% of my points limit?

The value you cannot go over.

You are not called upon to calculate how many points that would be.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Niteware wrote:
Nosferatu, one of us does indeed struggle with general vs specific, but it is not me. As you triedto claim that a rule listed under general principles was more specific than something which only applies to one tiny part of the game, you obviously don't understand the concept.

Wrong. The more *specific* rule overrides the more *general* rule. Here the more *specific* rule is that, when you divide, you round up fractions. Have you divided? Yes? Then you round up

I suggest you do a search for Yaks post on how a permissive ruleset works. Your knowledge on this is woefully inadequate to be taking part in a rules debate on it.

Niteware wrote:Building a list is proved to be both part of and not part of the game (quotes throughout this thread).

Proven to be part of, actually. Or will you actually use some rules based argument for once and prove otherwise? anything?

Niteware wrote:
You consistently ignore the bits of people's arguements with which you cannot disagree. Thes have generally been rules based and accurate. Good job.

Wrong. Answered every single rules argument you have made, and every single amusing "argument" not based on rules you have made, and you have been found lacking every. single. time.

Niteware wrote: Matt is correct about the spirit of the game meaning that 499.75 is correct.

What spirit? That you dishonestly tried to hide your intentions (limiting double stank) by picking a value you *thought* would have that affect? Bollocks. I am not going to try to divine the intent behind you picking a specific points value - after all, you could have picked 2200 because you wanted someone to now be able to take as many crushers, or to not be able to take fateweaver (i think he is still 600 points plus...) and so on. Your "spirit" argument holds no water.

Still waiting for your proof that you can ignore the VERY SPECIFIC RULE stating that, when you divide, you round up. You have dividied (as proven on page 7, percentages are division) so MUST round up.

Peasant - I read your post. It missed a lot of rules, and some basic concepts of how rules operate.

What is 25% of my points limit? That is what I am not allowed to exceed. I am not allowed to exceed 500 points - so I will not.

You have no permission to calculate 25.01%, so you may not do so.

Find a rule stating you can calculate that. The actual rules say otherwise. Page nd graph.

Frankly, the majority of that post is idiotic. For a start, arguing that a rule listed under "general principles" is specific is ridiculous.secondly, your selective memory is missing the quotes from page 134, that building your list happens before you play, while DTC says that it applies during game play. I know that other places include picking your army as part of the game. This is why I said that both points are proved by the BRB.

You are also still ignoring the fact that the rule on army selection demands a percentage. I know you pretend that it doesn't, but read the actial words. You may spend up to 25% of your points. What percentage of your points are you advocating? More than 25... hmmmm