Rare choices in an army of 1999

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.

**Peasant**

Nosferatu-

As in another thread your snide remarks in an attempt to be superior add nothing to the thread, your credibility, or your case and should be left out.

Some people choose their points to up their limit and get more. Reread my other post. Every time you choose a points limit you are limiting something. There is no need to state all the specifics. I prefer to play 1500 points that is limit enough their is no need to state that I like that limit because it limits everyone to typically 1 lord with limited gear, less death stars, less rares, forces you to pick and choose units rather than taking everything you want, shortens game time so we can play more games etc. That is the reason for setting a points limit...to LIMIT. Some do prefer 2500-3000 to get more with less limitation.
.

It can't get more specific than 'up to 25% of your points' How can this be any more clear?

I don't need permission to calculate anything other than making sure I have not exceeded 25% of my points. I can use any technique I want to achieve

You know the page and the paragraph. It is the same one that has been posted repeatedly.
You have permission to do use your points as long as you only spend up to 25%. It cannot get any simpler than that.
This is actually a ridiculous debate.
It never says not to exceed 500 points it says. You may spend up to 25% of your points.
500 is 25.01% of 1999 And you know this. That is why your defense is that you are not told to calculate it. Which is ridiculous.

**Tangent**

kirsanth wrote:
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.

That's totally absurd. Your argument is unusable. The term "25%" is completely meaningless within the game unless used as part of a calculation. Because 25% of what?

**kirsanth**

Tangent wrote:
kirsanth wrote:
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.

That's totally absurd. Your argument is unusable. The term "25%" is completely meaningless within the game unless used as part of a calculation. Because 25% of what?

It is not.

It is a comparison of ratios.
The percentage of the total spent, which is to say 500/1999 is the math that you are called upon to use.
Determining that 1999/4 should be rounded is uncalled for, exactly as 1/2 does not need to be rounded.

**Tangent**

But you are called upon to calculate how many points are representative of the term "25%" in any given game that you play. How you calculate them (which is what I think you're getting at, here) only differs semantically.

**Niteware**

You aren't actually asked to calculate 25% of your points, just told to spend up to 25% or at least 25%.
Calculating 25% may help, but is not required.

**cawizkid**

It is really funny that about 90% of this tread is just 3 or 4 people whining back and forth about nonsense, they have turned this in to a Cock Fight, valid arguments get ignored. This thread has lost its way, like a few others, where a few people have chosen to fight anything the other says. I know this is not unique, as anyone can but on their big boy pants and hide behind a screen name, It happen everywhere on the web, but really people lets grow up and get back on the topic. I posted some stuff referencing the rules, and it totally got ignored, by the posturing by a few childish behaving posters. So lets get back on the subject, Grow up a little and cut back on the none important posts.

**Sigvatr**

cawizkid wrote:
It is really funny that about 90% of this tread is just 3 or 4 people whining back and forth about nonsense, they have turned this in to a Cock Fight, valid arguments get ignored. This thread has lost its way, like a few others, where a few people have chosen to fight anything the other says. I know this is not unique, as anyone can but on their big boy pants and hide behind a screen name, It happen everywhere on the web, but really people lets grow up and get back on the topic. I posted some stuff referencing the rules, and it totally got ignored, by the posturing by a few childish behaving posters. So lets get back on the subject, Grow up a little and cut back on the none important posts.

The thread's going nowhere. You two sides with differing opinions, there's no compromise and the entire discussion is about "MY PRIMARY GENITAL IS BIGGER THAN YOURS".

...and I mean, really, if a thread in YMDC goes for more than 2 pages, it's garbage.

**nosferatu1001**

Again...25% of your points limit is what value again? You ARE called to calculate it, as that is the value you are comparing

You are NOT told to compare your percentage spent on rare to 25%. That would be an entirely different sentence

Nite - aaaaand ignored, as you are still attacking the poster, not the post. You clearly do not understand specific vs general sufficiently well to debate its use. See the post written by Yak for an excellent summation of this, and the permissive gameset, that you appear to have difficulties understanding.

yakface wrote:

Actually all games ever use a permissive rules set, because that's literally the only way to write games.

So there is absolutely no need to spell out in the rulebook that the game is permissive, because it is essentially meaningless. By reading the rules you are participating in a permissive rules set.

Because before you read the rules, the game doesn't exist for you...you have no frame of reference on what you are allowed or not allowed to do to play the game.

Once you crack open a rulebook you find that the game will give you rules of what you are allowed to do within the game to play it...these are all the things you're given permission to do in order to play the game.

Then once they've laid out these permissions, they'll then lay out some restrictions as well, within those general permissions, which then restricts some of the permissions they previously granted to you.

So the rules will say that you're allowed to move all your models in the movement phase. This is a permission and therefore you are allowed to do it. Then they might say stuff like, but you cannot move through impassable terrain. This is then a restriction within the greater permission of being able to move your models in the movement phase.

But following this same train of thought, if the rules don't mention that you are allowed to move your models in the shooting phase, then guess what? You are not allowed to move your models in the shooting phase because there are no rules giving you permission to do so.

This basic framework is the same for every game ever invented from Monopoly to games of tag and everything in between.

Even an imaginary game that said: you can do anything at all you like, but the first person to do X wins the game is still permission based gameplay. Just in this case, you are given permission to do absolutely anything, with the lone restriction that when someone does 'X' then the game ends with a winner.

So the idea that GW should define the basic nature of what rules even means is frankly silly. It would be like them explaining the definition of every word in the rulebook, explaining the meaning of language, etc. These are basic fundamental principles that we already live and exist by. There is literally no way to play a game without this basic understanding, so explaining it is redundant.

**Janthkin**

I think we're done here.