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.

So, Nosferatu, where does it say you must spend as much as 25% on rares? Even using your flawed logic, thee is nothing that forces you to spend your maximum allocation. This means that you still have no right to break the UP TO part of the rule.
I suppose that your interpretation may allow for spending 499.5 on core, but it certainly doesn't force you to choose between two rules. Up to wins.

Niteware wrote:
So, Nosferatu, where does it say you must spend as much as 25% on rares? Even using your flawed logic, thee is nothing that forces you to spend your maximum allocation. This means that you still have no right to break the UP TO part of the rule.
I suppose that your interpretation may allow for spending 499.5 on core, but it certainly doesn't force you to choose between two rules. Up to wins.

You can move units "Up to its Movement Value" (page 13.)
Page 26 shows how DtC allows a unit to exceed an "Up To" Limit.

Elf with 5" move can move up to 5".
Movement Sideways "Counts the distance moved as being double what it actually is". (page 26)

For example, a unit of Elves (Move 5) would be able to move 5" forward or 3" (2.5" rounded up) backwards or to the side.

3", the distance moved, doubled as per the directions, is 6". 6 is more than 5.
6 inches is not "up to" 5 inches.

It's a direct rulebook example telling you that Divide Then Conquer crushes "up to".

Hello everyone...I put this in the other thread and saw there were 2...
This argument is circular but I think it ends with the result of 499 because of the process involved

Can I write my list with these totals in my 1999 point army?
Rare 500pts
Core 500pts
Heroes/Lords 500pts
Special 500pts
Totaling 2000pts
I have followed the rule that I can spend 500 because I have not exceeded the 25% using Dividing to Conquer rounded up...so where do I have to remove my points from??



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Still circular isn't it ? 499 stops the cycle.

Niteware wrote:
So, Nosferatu, where does it say you must spend as much as 25% on rares? Even using your flawed logic, thee is nothing that forces you to spend your maximum allocation. This means that you still have no right to break the UP TO part of the rule.
I suppose that your interpretation may allow for spending 499.5 on core, but it certainly doesn't force you to choose between two rules. Up to wins.

I can move "up to" half my movement allowance. An elf moving half their movement allowance can move up to...what value now?

Oh, look, your argument still fails. You have specific permission to alter the value you are allowed to go "up to", due to the rule on page 7 stating what happens when you have fractions from division.

Look, the RAW is still 500. Who'd a thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peasant - not circular. You are also constrained on spending no more than your maximum points allowance

For example I could spend 25% on lords - 500, 25% on heroes - 500, 50% on core - 1000, 50% on special - 1000, and 25% on rare - 500. Total of 3500 in a 1999 point game. Oh, wait, I cannot, because then I have spent more than my points allowance (and look - there it is again, eveything comes back to actual points, NOT percentages!) which is ALSO a constraining factor.

This thread is NOT for discussion of the rules; there is already a thread for that. Stop it.

...what is this thread's purpose then? Just add a poll to the other one so we can keep all the circle-argumentation in one place :/

 Sigvatr wrote:
...what is this thread's purpose then? Just add a poll to the other one so we can keep all the circle-argumentation in one place :/

Drop it. Right now.

76% correct so far - this poll is on for a 1st / A

Actually, the poll is incorrect - isn't it? Shouldn't the limit be 499.75 points?

499.75 is exactly 25% of 1999 and it's a value that can be reached as there are models that cost .5 pts themselves or have upgrades that cost .25 pts.

Good . . . point.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Actually, the poll is incorrect - isn't it? Shouldn't the limit be 499.75 points?

499.75 is exactly 25% of 1999 and it's a value that can be reached as there are models that cost .5 pts themselves or have upgrades that cost .25 pts.

Nothing is 1/4 of a point.

Gnoblars have half points, slaves have half point upgrades.

Which would fit in the .75 allowed.

/shrug

Are either Rare choices?

 Janthkin wrote:
Are either Rare choices?

Touche.

Even so, the point(s value issue) is valid.
Mayhap they will be.