GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
9,211 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
17 Days Left
Support:
Nick Dotzenrod
United States Novi Michigan

So "(For every three Hidden Warbands that the Faction has there (rounded
down)" a loss is taken.
What does "rounded down" mean?
I would assume that if you have 5 hidden warbands, only 1 loss is taken. But by including the "rounded down" comment, I then think that if you have 5 hidden warband, that means 1.66 losses, rounding up means 2 total losses.
Can someone confirm which is correct?
Is the "rounded down" unnecessary?

A K Vikhagen
Sweden Gothenborg

That's how I played it too, curious to see if others have a different understanding.

Brian Train
Canada Victoria British Columbia

I think when you see this text, it is short for "remainders rounded down".
So 5 warbands = 3 warbands + 2 warbands = 1 loss for 3, and 0 loss for 2 (since the remainder of 2 is rounded down)
That's how I play it (and write it).
Brian

Niko
Canada Calgary Alberta

The "rounded down" means that you round whatever number you get after dividing a factions hidden warbands by three down to closest integer.
In your example of 5 warbands resulting in 1.66 losses rounding this down (not up, it says to round down after all ) means 1 loss is taken.
Stating "rounded down" is indeed necessary as otherwise it would not be clear what would happen in this situation: You can't really take 1.66 losses, so some sort of rounding needs to happen. Should it be always rounded down, always rounded up, or to the closest integer?
My default is to round to the nearest integer, so if "round down" was not included I would assume that 4 hidden warbands would result in 1 loss (1.33 rounds to 1) but 5 warbands would result in 2 losses (1.66 rounds to 2) It sounds like your default is to always round down, hence the confusion why it needs to be stated in the rules.

Nick Dotzenrod
United States Novi Michigan

I guess my default for "rounded down" is if you have a fraction of 1.5 (which mathematically rounds to 2, but most board games seem to consider 1.5 a 1).
Mathematically, I don't think you can round 1.66 down to 1. That is why I assume you would need to consider 1.66 as 2.
But, I guess I am overthinking this.

Niko
Canada Calgary Alberta

bassman211 wrote: I guess my default for "rounded down" is if you have a fraction of 1.5 (which mathematically rounds to 2, but most board games seem to consider 1.5 a 1).
Mathematically, I don't think you can round 1.66 down to 1. That is why I assume you would need to consider 1.66 as 2.
But, I guess I am overthinking this. That's why it specifies round down, not just round. Technically I guess it is truncating the number rather than rounding, but common parlance for that is still rounding down AFAIK.

Rodger Samuel
United States Beaver Falls Pennsylvania

Sure you can round 1.66 down to 1. If your instructions are to round fractions down to the nearest integer, then you round 1.66 down to 1.
In real life this effect is dealt with constantly. If something costs $1, and you have $1.66, how many can you buy?
You can't tell the clerk, "But, mathematically, 1.66 rounds up to 2."

Alex P
France La Plaine StDenis IledeFrance

Definitely underthinking that part: in any math or computer science class I ever took, "round down" meant that 1.999999999 became 1.

Michal K
Poland Otwock Mazowieckie

DrZaat wrote: Sure you can round 1.66 down to 1. If your instructions are to round fractions down to the nearest integer, then you round 1.66 down to 1.
In real life this effect is dealt with constantly. If something costs $1, and you have $1.66, how many can you buy?
You can't tell the clerk, "But, mathematically, 1.66 rounds up to 2."
I very much like your comparison; pretty well explains the "round down" logic.

The Jigsaw Man
United States Goose Creek South Carolina

bassman211 wrote: But by including the "rounded down" comment, I then think that if you have 5 hidden warband, that means 1.66 losses, rounding up means 2 total losses.
Just so we're clear, you suggest that after reading "round down," that you should round up?
You can round down either after dividing, or before, but I'm not sure why you would make "round down" into "round up."


