Dumb luck and incorporeal

[Domime Nox]

Why would you round both of them to 4, and then only apply "Damage = 4" and throw away "Reduced = 4"? You clearly can't apply both (which would be paradoxical), and also not in the book is any description of how to choose which one to apply.

I'm only rounding them both after the fact. The actual damage and reduction is 3.5. So it would be applied as 3.5 reduced and 3.5 taken. It would be THEN that you go "But I can't do it that way, I need to round." So the damage taken would be 4 because that is the result of the rounding after you have calculated half.

"Reduced by" has a meaning, and it leads to only one way to interpret the calculation.

Yes, it does. It means you reduce the damage by half, as stated above. It does not say split in half then round the reduced by number and subtract.

[Mike3838]

How would you normally calculate "10, reduced by 3"?

Subtraction? Thought so.

How would you normally calculate 543, reduced by half of 64"?

Division of 64 by 2, followed by subtraction? Thought so.

You have to admit there's no funky maths involved in the route that leads to only 3 damage...

In the examples we're discussing, it more resembles "543, reduced by half of 543", which is more of a special case. We have a shorthand for working that out (divide by two), but the rounding throws it out and it *does* cause ambiguity.

I can see where you're coming from, but there are plenty of ways to write it so there's zero ambiguity.

[Dracomax]

To be fair, it could also be resolved by simply adding the line "rounding is only done after all other mathematical operations are complete" to the book, as it is the interaction between the two rules that becomes a problem.

[Domime Nox]

How would you normally calculate 543, reduced by half of 64"?

This right here. If the Question was instead "How would you calculate 543, reduced by half of 63? (round the answer)" I believe you would end up with 543 minus 31.5, which would give you 511.5, and then you would say your answer was 512. While if you rounded before the subtraction you'd end up with 511 which would not be the correct answer.

I can see your point, but I stand by rounding is at the end, not in process. But as with any ruleset there is room for interpretation.

[mythicFOX]

It would be very unusual to round any number in the middle of a calculation. Normally you only round the result.

May be one for a future FAQ tbh.

[hypoking]

That's because in a sane and rational world whole integers are generally more convenient to work with, in the rules of the game rounding is triggered by the act of division. They say when you divide you round. In the RAW its not about giving you a whole number at the end of the process its a reflexive trigger to the operation itself.

[Domime Nox]

They say when you divide you round, in the raw its not about giving you a whole number at the end of the process its a reflexive trigger to the operation itself.

Then following this guideline when you get 3.5 and 3.5 you round, getting 4 and 4. The 3.5 is reducing it by half, then you round as per math and by the rules. Since the wording says 'reduce by half' you get the half, then round.

If the damage was 8, would you go "So half of 8 is four, so now I need to reduce the 8 damage by 4, so you take 4 damage"? Or would you go "My 8 damage is reduced by half, so take 4"? I think the latter, so again it would be "You take 7 damage, reduced by half is 3.5, we have to round so take 4."

[Dracomax]

The problem is that the text of the rule only refers to the damage reduced. Therefore, in the 4 and 4 analogy, only the 4 being subtracted from the damage is relevant.

However, the devs have said that it should actually be referring to the damage taken. Which would mean that in the 4 and 4 analogy, only the 4 damage remaining is relevant.

It definitely needs clarification in a FAQ, and probably needs some sort of errata, because the wording itself is the source of the confusion.

However, if the order of operations when dealing with rounded numbers is clarified in the core rules, then the wording of the rule becomes less relevant(until someone brings up specificity, but that is another argument.)

Providing a FAQ related to the core, and an errata with changes to the wording is probably the best solution, but a FAQ that clarifies both order of operations and the intended interaction in relationship to this rule would be acceptable.

---------- Post added at 09:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 AM ----------

Then following this guideline when you get 3.5 and 3.5 you round, getting 4 and 4. The 3.5 is reducing it by half, then you round as per math and by the rules. Since the wording says 'reduce by half' you get the half, then round.

If the damage was 8, would you go "So half of 8 is four, so now I need to reduce the 8 damage by 4, so you take 4 damage"? Or would you go "My 8 damage is reduced by half, so take 4"? I think the latter, so again it would be "You take 7 damage, reduced by half is 3.5, we have to round so take 4."

the problem is that when you say the half of 8 is 4, damage is reduced by half, so you take four, you are actually saying 8-4+4, so you take 4 damge. You just skip the step because the math is so easy you don't have to worry about it with small even numbers. You never have to figure out at what point to round because rounding is entirely irrelivant to the conversation. With odd numbers, you have to worry about it because the numbers aren't easy or whole.

If I had seven apples, and you told me I had to get rid of half of them, I'd get rid of 3--because I'm selfish, and want to keep as many apples in my collection as possible, so I interpret half to mean what is best for me. In real life, without any additional rules, this doesn't work for damage, because you come back and say that I should have used the other division.

If, however, you told me I always have to round up when I have a less than whole number, and that I have to get rid of half of my apples, I'd get rid of 4 of them. because I have to get rid of the partial apple. That leaves me with 3 apples. This is how the rule is currently written. I have incoming damage, I have to get rid of half of it. when dividing, I always use the higher number because I always have to round up. so the damage I take is 3.

WIth small modifications, however, it works the way it was intended. You have 7 apples. I am taking half of them, and have to round up. I take 4 apples from you.

The problem is the use of reduction. because, as currently written the rounding occurs after division(which is, as you have stated, not a normal thing mathematically, but is common in real world problems) whether it is being subtracted from the total damage to create the incoming damage, or whether it is being totaled as incoming damage makes a difference.

[RagingRodian]

Dracomax is correct. Basically, the badly worded rule makes us divide before we subtract in order to figure out what half of the starting damage is, and according to page 29 of the rulebook you always round that result from division up, then subtract the rounded number. But this clearly is too complicated and needs to be fixed. The rule should be that you divide the damage by 2 and apply rounding.

Rules as written, incorporeal target turns 7 damage into 3 damage taken.

Rules as they should be written, incorporeal target turns 7 damage into 4 damage taken.

Being as Rami just takes half of the damage the target takes (straight division) not "subtract half" damage, he would suffer two damage whether the target took either 3 or 4 damage.

There is way too much math comprehension involved in the current incorporeal rules, they do need to be reworded.

Edited September 12, 2013 by RagingRodian

[CRC]

I think the problem might be that they REALLY want to stuff the word "reduce" in there, so that the interaction with things that prevent reduction is clear.

Then again, I also think the biggest problem with Justin's opinion is that he said that reduction is an "action", which is already a game term.

[Domime Nox]

But I am applying the rounding after the division... it's just that I'm ONLY doing the division. I divide the number in half and that number is then the only one that matters. Because by dividing it in half I have figured out how much the damage is reduced by, and how much gets through. This added step of going it is reduced by x so now let me take the rounded number away, seems like an unnecessary extra step. I have already reduced it by half by doing the division, and have therefore met the requirements of the RAW, it would be then that I would round, as that is after the division that reduced the damage.

So I'm saying the division IS the reduction. So why subtract afterwards?

Sorry to be beating a dead horse, I've just come from the GW world where rules lawyers have looked at things and been mindblowingly obstinate on some pretty whacky interpretations, and so when I see some of these I really have to wonder why people see it a certain way. Not saying the people with the other opinion are wrong btw, just not following where this other interpretation comes from. *takes foot out of mouth*

Edited September 12, 2013 by Domime Nox

[hypoking]

You are describing reducing to half, not reducing by half. And with that I am done with this conversation.

We have a rules forum, I'm actually fairly partial to it. If we could use this space for more shin-digs, hootenannies, and theorize'n on how to best perforate the enemy rather than ruminating on rule construction I would be deeply grateful to all involved parties.