TWC has basic S5. So a TWC model with a power fist is S10.
Yet, a Wolf Lord has basic S4. So while he has a thunderwolf mount and a power fist he is only S9.
TWC has basic S5. So a TWC model with a power fist is S10.
Yet, a Wolf Lord has basic S4. So while he has a thunderwolf mount and a power fist he is only S9.
Is that correct?
No, both thee the TWC and the Wolf Lord are Str 4 X2 =8 +1 for the mount = 9.
Even though the TWC profile is 5 Str, they get a +1 Bonus from the TWC mount giving them a Profile of Str 5 but that is a modified profile.
Don't take DeathReaper's word on this, many (most?) people who replied to the last thread about this didn't not agree with his interpretation. Suffice to say, the intent of the authors is not at all clear, and this needs an FAQ.
DanielBeaver wrote: Don't take DeathReaper's word on this, many (most?) people who replied to the last thread about this didn't not agree with his interpretation. Suffice to say, the intent of the authors is not at all clear, and this needs an FAQ.
My first thought when reading it was "TWC don't actually have the TWC mount wargear". They didn't in the last Codex, the rules were just built in. The S5 was part of the profile.
Turns out after checking, they do have it. Which does suggest it's a modifier.
Maybe. Honestly, they should have kept the T 4(5) system they used in 5th edition, as it clarified cases like this. Given how common TWC with PF is for Space Wolves, and given how important the difference between S 9 and S 10 is (for purposes of Instant Death). This is definitely an issue in my local meta - our Space Wolves player likes using the 6HQ detachment to spam Wolf Lords, and myself and the Chaos players regularly use multiwound T5 models (Daemon Princes and Bike Captains). More than one game I've played has been decided because a S10 hit killed my beatstick bike captain on turn 2.
TWC has basic S5. So a TWC model with a power fist is S10.
Yet, a Wolf Lord has basic S4. So while he has a thunderwolf mount and a power fist he is only S9.
Is that correct?
That is correct RAW. However, many play the Lord at S5 with the wolf giving him S10 as well.
TWC has basic S5. So a TWC model with a power fist is S10.
Yet, a Wolf Lord has basic S4. So while he has a thunderwolf mount and a power fist he is only S9.
Is that correct?
That is correct RAW. However, many play the Lord at S5 with the wolf giving him S10 as well.
ive also seen people play that twin linked weapons get to shoot two times as many shots with rerolls, which obviously is not the rules.
wargear states its a bonus, bonus is a modifier, TWC are strength 5, which includes the +1 bonus from wargear, so they are really strength (4+1)=5, if they hit with a weapon thats x2 strength the strength is at (4*2)+1=9 because the rules say that's how modifiers from wargear work, the TWF being wargear and the x2 strength weapon being wargear.
The LVO this year is playing it as S10. It was S10 last edition, and as soon as GW gets around to putting out a FAQ or Erata for it it will be S10 again this edition. For both Wolf Lords and TWC.
Of course all the zealots screaming in all caps that its S9 will be quiet on that day, or maybe even act like they knew it was S10 all along. That day can't come soon enough.
ive also seen people play that twin linked weapons get to shoot two times as many shots with rerolls, which obviously is not the rules.
wargear states its a bonus, bonus is a modifier, TWC are strength 5, which includes the +1 bonus from wargear, so they are really strength (4+1)=5, if they hit with a weapon thats x2 strength the strength is at (4*2)+1=9 because the rules say that's how modifiers from wargear work, the TWF being wargear and the x2 strength weapon being wargear.
The twin linked issue you brought up is completely wrong with in RAW so it should have no baring on this question, just like my models get to take armor, cover, and invulnerable saves for the same wound.
On the issue I think we can all agree that any +x (where x is an integer) is a modifier as listed in the BRB. The issue comes from the fact that the thunderwolf mount increases the models strength but doesn't say +1 any where in the rule, so it is not a modifier and any x2 would be off the strength 5. If the rule read that a model with the thunderwolf mount gets +1 to strength, wounds, toughness, and attacks then it would be a modifier and follow your math as above.
TWC has basic S5. So a TWC model with a power fist is S10.
Yet, a Wolf Lord has basic S4. So while he has a thunderwolf mount and a power fist he is only S9.
Is that correct?
That is correct RAW. However, many play the Lord at S5 with the wolf giving him S10 as well.
ive also seen people play that twin linked weapons get to shoot two times as many shots with rerolls, which obviously is not the rules.
wargear states its a bonus, bonus is a modifier, TWC are strength 5, which includes the +1 bonus from wargear, so they are really strength (4+1)=5, if they hit with a weapon thats x2 strength the strength is at (4*2)+1=9 because the rules say that's how modifiers from wargear work, the TWF being wargear and the x2 strength weapon being wargear.
Too much reverse engineering going on there - you're using the LEAST rules supported answer. Nowhere in the game are you ever told when/where/how to deconstruct a model's profile.
From the 'Thunderwolf Mount' entry in Codex Space Wolves:
In addition, a model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks and Wounds characteristics by 1 (these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear).
With that, I have to agree with DeathReaper and blaktoof that a Thunderwolf Cavalry Pack Leader with a power fist should be striking at S9.
The rules have changed since then. They didn't have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their wargear.
Now they do, with a note stating the increased strength is a bonus.
Models with a Thunderwolf mount change their unit type to Cavalry, as described in Warhammer 40,000: The Rules. All close combat attacks made by a model with a Thunderwolf mount have the Rending special rule. In addition, a model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks and Wounds characteristics by 1 (these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear).
A model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks, and Wounds characteristics by 1.
As you can see the model does not receive a +1 modifier to their characteristics, instead their base characteristics are increased by ,1 thus a Wolflord on a Thunderwolf with a Powerfist or Thunderhammer has strength 10 (5 * 2 = 10)
Now if the description of a Thunderwolf mount read A model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount receives +1 Strength, Toughness, Attacks, and Wounds then they would indeed be strength 9 when wielding a Powerfist or Thunderhammer, but as previously stated the Thunderwolf provides a base modifier not a +x modifier.
NightHowler wrote: The LVO this year is playing it as S10. It was S10 last edition, and as soon as GW gets around to putting out a FAQ or Erata for it it will be S10 again this edition. For both Wolf Lords and TWC.
Of course all the zealots screaming in all caps that its S9 will be quiet on that day, or maybe even act like they knew it was S10 all along. That day can't come soon enough.
while the LVO has created a house rule for their event that in no way represents the actual rules of the game, much like their ruling on ICs gaining infiltrate when attached to a unit with infiltrate despite the RAW specifically saying the opposite, their house rule is just a house rule at the end of the day and is not representative of the actual rules of the game.
Anyone is of course welcome to play by house rules if they/opponents agree, but they are in the end not the actual rules.
A model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks, and Wounds characteristics by 1.
As you can see the model does not receive a +1 modifier to their characteristics, instead their base characteristics are increased by ,1 thus a Wolflord on a Thunderwolf with a Powerfist or Thunderhammer has strength 10 (5 * 2 = 10)
Now if the description of a Thunderwolf mount read A model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount receives +1 Strength, Toughness, Attacks, and Wounds then they would indeed be strength 9 when wielding a Powerfist or Thunderhammer, but as previously stated the Thunderwolf provides a base modifier not a +x modifier.
increases is the word telling you that its a modifier.
if it stated it was not a modifier, then it would not be a modifier. As it fails to state that it isn't a modifier, and it is obviously saying it modifies a stat by +1, it is a modifier.
increases is the word telling you that its a modifier.
if it stated it was not a modifier, then it would not be a modifier. As it fails to state that it isn't a modifier, and it is obviously saying it modifies a stat by +1, it is a modifier.
No you are incorrect, in this game we have to play rules as written, not rules as we would like them to be, not even rules as would probably make sense.
In the base rulebook under modifiers (page 8)
Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)
There is no +1 in the Thunderwolf mount description thus it is not a modifier as defined in the modifier section thus it is not beholden to the rules for modifiers.
Rules as written for Strength for Wolflords on Thunderwolf mounts with powerfists is 5 x 2 =10
Sorry, but you're wrong. Increasing something by one is the same as adding to it or +1. Perhaps you can provide actual support for your claims that if it's not written as "+/-" then it's not a modifier.
Look you have to take the rules literally, and precisely as they are written. The modifiers section delineates what a modifier is, if the rule does match those specifications then it is not a modifier. I agree that it would make complete sense that increases by 1 is the same as +1 but rules exactly as written says otherwise.
Ghaz wrote: Sorry, but you're wrong. Increasing something by one is the same as adding to it or +1. Perhaps you can provide actual support for your claims that if it's not written as "+/-" then it's not a modifier.
can you provide actual rule support from the brb that increasing something is the same as giving it +1?
Yes, because its the English language. Increasing something by one is adding one. Unless the rulebook says it MUST use very specific wording (which it doesn't) then they're both modifiers.
You can't use the english language you have to use the language established in the rulebook and in the rulebook they establish that a modifier has a mathemetical device attached to it (=, -, x, etc) this is why GW had to errata FMC's in 6th edition because the rule said that when they failed a grounding check they became grounded but failed to say that they are no longer swooping and did not even define what grounded meant. Thus RAW in 6th you could only fire snapshots at FMC's that failed a grounding check despite the fact that the english language made it really easy to see what was intended.
Language and RAW do not always match up with one another.
And saying increase can also be written as + (Note the modifiers rules say that if something is added to something else, it is a modifier).
So they are interchangeable.
The TW mount is a piece of wargear that does modify a models characteristic positively by adding to it.
"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)"
If you can't use the English language, how are you even reading the rulebook? Do you need them to define every single word? Where do they define the words 'a' or 'one' or anything else? Only when they've provided a specific definition do you use it. So where do they define a 'modifier' as only being specifically noted as 'adding' or +?
You use the English language, and in the English language when you increase something you've added to it.
the wargear Thunderwolf uses +1, and says it is a increase, a bonus, to the normal profile.
that is a modifier.
it is not the base profile, but a bonus/increase.
using the logic you are putting forth anything that changes a stat is not a modifier, and there are no such things as modifiers. which is silly.
btw the wording is the same as the wording for the increase their toughness characteristic by 1 from bikes, further support beyond the obvious RAW that other RAW also coincides with the same wording and means the same thing.
@Ghaz: English definitions don't matter, and they define a 'modifier' as "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)". Now correct me if I'm wrong but I think that would be a pretty specific list of what constitutes as a modifier and I do not see increased on the list.
@blaktoof: the wargear Thunderwolf does not use +1, that is why there is a question about it.
blaktoof wrote: the wargear Thunderwolf uses +1, and says it is a increase, a bonus, to the normal profile.
that is a modifier.
it is not the base profile, but a bonus/increase.
using the logic you are putting forth anything that changes a stat is not a modifier, and there are no such things as modifiers. which is silly.
btw the wording is the same as the wording for the increase their toughness characteristic by 1 from bikes, further support beyond the obvious RAW that other RAW also coincides with the same wording and means the same thing.
its a modifier.
This is false. Nowhere in the space wolves codex does it say that a thunderwolf mount gives +1 to anything. It says that it increases S, T, W, and A characteristics by 1. This logic is no more silly than assuming that increase by 1 is the same thing (rules wise) as +1. Also, comparing bikes in this case is irrelevant since there is no situation where a character can take a bike and then also take wargear that gives T x2.
The fact of the matter is that if tournaments are playing it as S10, then if tournaments are important to you, it's S10. If games at your FLGS are more important to you, then it's whatever your FLGS plays it as. My FLGS also plays it as S10. So for as far as I'm concerned, since both Tournaments and my FLGS are playing it as S10, it's S10 and that's all that matters to me.
When a rule is this ambiguous, any argument on this website is unlikely to convince the other side, since, like any religion, the opinions are informed by belief rather than logic.
Ghaz wrote: If you can't use the English language, how are you even reading the rulebook? Do you need them to define every single word? Where do they define the words 'a' or 'one' or anything else? Only when they've provided a specific definition do you use it. So where do they define a 'modifier' as only being specifically noted as 'adding' or +?
You use the English language, and in the English language when you increase something you've added to it.
Not when the rulebook defines a modifier as something else, you may not like it but this is how rules have to be interpreted. It is pedantic, rules lawyery, and stupid but ultimately it is the only way disputes like these can be mediated.
Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote: @Ghaz: English definitions don't matter, and they define a 'modifier' as "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)". Now correct me if I'm wrong but I think that would be a pretty specific list of what constitutes as a modifier and I do not see increased on the list.
@blaktoof: the wargear Thunderwolf does not use +1, that is why there is a question about it.
English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.
English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.
I've already provided you with the direct quote or have you not been reading on page 8 there is a section titled Modifiers which I have listed off to you verbatim.
Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)
Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote: @Ghaz: English definitions don't matter, and they define a 'modifier' as "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)". Now correct me if I'm wrong but I think that would be a pretty specific list of what constitutes as a modifier and I do not see increased on the list.
@blaktoof: the wargear Thunderwolf does not use +1, that is why there is a question about it.
English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.
Show me a rule in the rulebook where it says that increase and add to are interchangeable.
English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.
I've already provided you with the direct quote or have you not been reading on page 8 there is a section titled Modifiers which I have listed off to you verbatim.
Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)
And again, where does that say that IT MUST USE THOSE SPECIFIC TERMS? It doesn't. In order to increase a value, you must add to it. It means the exact same thing.
Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote: @Ghaz: English definitions don't matter, and they define a 'modifier' as "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)". Now correct me if I'm wrong but I think that would be a pretty specific list of what constitutes as a modifier and I do not see increased on the list.
@blaktoof: the wargear Thunderwolf does not use +1, that is why there is a question about it.
English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.
Show me a rule in the rulebook where it says that increase and add to are interchangeable.
It's the English language. Show me where they're not. Show me where GW says that you ignore the English language and it MUST be those specific terms.
English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.
I've already provided you with the direct quote or have you not been reading on page 8 there is a section titled Modifiers which I have listed off to you verbatim.
Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)
And again, where does that say that IT MUST USE THOSE SPECIFIC TERMS? It doesn't. In order to increase a value, you must add to it. It means the exact same thing.
Unfortunately, you can't choose to be super pedantic about the wording of a rule when it suits you, and then choose not to when it would help an argument you disagree with. It doesn't say +1, so it is not adding 1 to the S, it is increasing it to 5. In English it is the exact same thing. Ruleswise it is not.
blaktoof wrote: so you believe the toughness increase from bikes modifies the base profile?
it uses the same wording.
yes absolutely that is why str8 weapons don't insta-death bikes
actually that is not true.
Any Wound allocated to a model has the Instant Death special rule (see below) if the Strength value of that attack is at least double the Toughness value (after modifiers) of that model.
blaktoof wrote: so you believe the toughness increase from bikes modifies the base profile?
it uses the same wording.
yes absolutely that is why str8 weapons don't insta-death bikes
actually that is not true.
Any Wound allocated to a model has the Instant Death special rule (see below) if the Strength value of that attack is at least double the Toughness value (after modifiers) of that model.
note how they point out modifiers.
toughness after modifiers.
Note also that they are not talking specifically about bikers
blaktoof wrote: so you believe the toughness increase from bikes modifies the base profile?
it uses the same wording.
yes absolutely that is why str8 weapons don't insta-death bikes
actually that is not true.
Any Wound allocated to a model has the Instant Death special rule (see below) if the Strength value of that attack is at least double the Toughness value (after modifiers) of that model.
note how they point out modifiers.
toughness after modifiers.
Yep you got me there, however I still stand by the fact that bikes are a base increase and not a modifier. if there were any wargear that provided a multiplier to toughness we could use that as an example however there isn't :(
English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.
I've already provided you with the direct quote or have you not been reading on page 8 there is a section titled Modifiers which I have listed off to you verbatim.
Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)
And again, where does that say that IT MUST USE THOSE SPECIFIC TERMS? It doesn't. In order to increase a value, you must add to it. It means the exact same thing.
Unfortunately, you can't choose to be super pedantic about the wording of a rule when it suits you, and then choose not to when it would help an argument you disagree with. It doesn't say +1, so it is not adding 1 to the S, it is increasing it to 5. In English it is the exact same thing. Ruleswise it is not.
Yet you're choosing to be super pedantic to suit yourself. You're claiming that unless they use a very specific wording then its not a modifier. That's the definition of being a pedant, yet you've provided nothing to back up that position that any synonym of the words 'add' or 'subtract' or multiply' can be used to indicate a modifier yet you're totally unwilling to back that up with a rules quote. You want to totally ignore the English language and claim GW has it's own unique, specific definition but you constantly refuse to provide said definition.
blaktoof wrote: so there are rules for changing states based on the modifier system in the rulebook.
where are the rules for changing stats that are not done by modifiers?
This is where we get to use the english language normally, since "increase" isn't defined normal communication methods proceed as normal (because modifier is defined we must use the GW definition) and the characteristic is increased not modified as defined under modifiers.
English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.
I've already provided you with the direct quote or have you not been reading on page 8 there is a section titled Modifiers which I have listed off to you verbatim.
Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)
And again, where does that say that IT MUST USE THOSE SPECIFIC TERMS? It doesn't. In order to increase a value, you must add to it. It means the exact same thing.
Unfortunately, you can't choose to be super pedantic about the wording of a rule when it suits you, and then choose not to when it would help an argument you disagree with. It doesn't say +1, so it is not adding 1 to the S, it is increasing it to 5. In English it is the exact same thing. Ruleswise it is not.
Yet you're choosing to be super pedantic to suit yourself. You're claiming that unless they use a very specific wording then its not a modifier. That's the definition of being a pedant, yet you've provided nothing to back up that position that any synonym of the words 'add' or 'subtract' or multiply' can be used to indicate a modifier yet you're totally unwilling to back that up with a rules quote. You want to totally ignore the English language and claim GW has it's own unique, specific definition but you constantly refuse to provide said definition.
You misunderstand me. I'm saying that we all have to be super pedantic at all times. Implying that you couldn't stop being pedantic when analyzing this rule. Because it doesn't say +1 it's not following the rule for adding to a characteristic.
blaktoof wrote: so there are rules for changing states based on the modifier system in the rulebook.
where are the rules for changing stats that are not done by modifiers?
This is where we get to use the english language normally, since "increase" isn't defined normal communication methods proceed as normal (because modifier is defined we must use the GW definition) and the characteristic is increased not modified as defined under modifiers.
You have just dug yourself into a hole. Wargear "increasing" a characteristic isn't defined by the rules. Wargear modifying a characteristic is defined by the rules. We cannot take undefined steps in the rules.
Not so, in this case we have to use english normally, since there isn't a special definition for increase we can use the word as it is commonly used. This is why GW doesn't have to define words like "the" or "measure"
blaktoof wrote: so there are rules for changing states based on the modifier system in the rulebook.
where are the rules for changing stats that are not done by modifiers?
This is where we get to use the english language normally, since "increase" isn't defined normal communication methods proceed as normal (because modifier is defined we must use the GW definition) and the characteristic is increased not modified as defined under modifiers.
You have just dug yourself into a hole. Wargear increasing a characteristic isn't defined by the rules. Wargear modifying a characteristic is defined by the rules. We cannot take undefined steps in the rules.
no holes have been dug. the rules under Thunderwolf Mount in the space wolves wargear section clearly states how the wargear works. It increases S, T, W, and A by 1. There is no +1 anywhere in there, and yet the rule is unambiguous in it's result. We know that after taking this wargear the stats of the wolf lord who takes a Thunderwolf Mount will be S5, T5, W4, and A5.
and when this "increase" which is not a modifier, despite the fact it modifies the characteristic is called out as being a 'bonus' and no where does it state it changes the base characteristic you still feel its not a modifier.
a bonus of course being something more than normal.
blaktoof wrote: so there are rules for changing states based on the modifier system in the rulebook.
where are the rules for changing stats that are not done by modifiers?
This is where we get to use the english language normally, since "increase" isn't defined normal communication methods proceed as normal (because modifier is defined we must use the GW definition) and the characteristic is increased not modified as defined under modifiers.
You have just dug yourself into a hole. Wargear increasing a characteristic isn't defined by the rules. Wargear modifying a characteristic is defined by the rules. We cannot take undefined steps in the rules.
no holes have been dug. the rules under Thunderwolf Mount in the space wolves wargear section clearly states how the wargear works. It increases S, T, W, and A by 1. There is no +1 anywhere in there, and yet the rule is unambiguous in it's result. We know that after taking this wargear the stats of the wolf lord who takes a Thunderwolf Mount will be S5, T5, W4, and A5.
Can you point me to the section on "Increasing" Characteristics?
We have defined ways of acting on the statement by applying the rules provided for modifying characteristics. You are suggesting we invent rules here and act on profiles in ways that have not been defined.
no mention of bonuses in the arithmetic formula for modifiers so even if the thunderwolf is a "bonus" with no mention of "bonuses" under modifiers it doesn't matter what you call the thunderwolf mount stat buff so long as you don't incorrectly state that it is a modifier.
Aftersong wrote: no mention of bonuses in the arithmetic formula for modifiers so even if the thunderwolf is a "bonus" with no mention of "bonuses" under modifiers it doesn't matter what you call the thunderwolf mount stat buff so long as you don't incorrectly state that it is a modifier.
RAW is str 10 powerfist thunderwolf riding lords
You are inventing your own definition here and going down a path you are defining (ie house ruling). "Increasing" characteristics is not defined by rules.
like I said, if a word is not specifically defined (like the way modifier is) then common usage applies. The word "remove" isn't defined in the BRB but we all know what it means when they say remove a model as a casualty. Since "modifier" is defined we have to use the exact narrow definition GW gives us. I am not inventing anything I am going precisely by the rules.
Aftersong wrote: like I said, if a word is not specifically defined (like the way modifier is) then common usage applies. The word "remove" isn't defined in the BRB but we all know what it means when they say remove a model as a casualty. Since "modifier" is defined we have to use the exact narrow definition GW gives us. I am not inventing anything I am going precisely by the rules.
You are relying on "increase" as a way you have invented to change a characteristic line when GW provides a defined way to do that.
Like I said, you are suggesting we invent rules here and act on profiles in ways that have not been defined.
Aftersong wrote: like I said, if a word is not specifically defined (like the way modifier is) then common usage applies. The word "remove" isn't defined in the BRB but we all know what it means when they say remove a model as a casualty. Since "modifier" is defined we have to use the exact narrow definition GW gives us. I am not inventing anything I am going precisely by the rules.
You are relying on "increase" as a way you have invented to change a characteristic line when GW provides a defined way to do that.
Like I said, you are suggesting we invent rules here and act on profiles in ways that have not been defined.
This is part of why discussing ambiguous rules on the internet is so frustrating. We both have reasons for believing what we do and those reasons are often based on the way that we understand many different rules and the way that they interact.
The fact of the matter is that this is not a clear cut case of "it is, or it isn't". The precedent from from the previous edition is that it would be S10. But as you have pointed out, rules change so this does little more than hint at the intention of the authors. In fact, the previous edition even had the same problem - the way that it was initially worded was not clear enough and those people who did not want TWC to be S10 made the exact same arguments that people are making now. It wasn't until the FAQ came out and specifically said, "a character with a thunderwolf mount and a powerfist is S10" that people finally accepted that it was so.
The same problem this time. It is clear to many that it is supposed to be S10. It is also clear to many that it is supposed to be S9. But the truth is that it is not clear.
Fortunately for space wolves players, many tournaments play it as S10. Unfortunately for space wolves players a very very vocal minority on the internet refuse to accept this and try constantly to sway public opinion to believe that it should be S9.
So for now, I'll play it as S10, you play it as S9, and we'll see when the FAQ comes out.
Aftersong wrote: like I said, if a word is not specifically defined (like the way modifier is) then common usage applies. The word "remove" isn't defined in the BRB but we all know what it means when they say remove a model as a casualty. Since "modifier" is defined we have to use the exact narrow definition GW gives us. I am not inventing anything I am going precisely by the rules.
You are relying on "increase" as a way you have invented to change a characteristic line when GW provides a defined way to do that.
Like I said, you are suggesting we invent rules here and act on profiles in ways that have not been defined.
This is part of why discussing ambiguous rules on the internet is so frustrating. We both have reasons for believing what we do and those reasons are often based on the way that we understand many different rules and the way that they interact.
The fact of the matter is that this is not a clear cut case of "it is, or it isn't". The precedent from from the previous edition is that it would be S10. But as you have pointed out, rules change so this does little more than hint at the intention of the authors. In fact, the previous edition even had the same problem - the way that it was initially worded was not clear enough and those people who did not want TWC to be S10 made the exact same arguments that people are making now. It wasn't until the FAQ came out and specifically said, "a character with a thunderwolf mount and a powerfist is S10" that people finally accepted that it was so.
The same problem this time. It is clear to many that it is supposed to be S10. It is also clear to many that it is supposed to be S9. But the truth is that it is not clear.
Fortunately for space wolves players, many tournaments play it as S10. Unfortunately for space wolves players a very very vocal minority on the internet refuse to accept this and try constantly to sway public opinion to believe that it should be S9.
So for now, I'll play it as S10, you play it as S9, and we'll see when the FAQ comes out.
It's 100 % ok to resolve it as s10 after a FAQ justifies it and you are welcome to have a big smile of satisfaction about it, but right now, at this present moment in time, the rules only support resolving it at s9. It's also ok for TOs to house rule the way they choose to on this issue (to satisfy public outcry), however that does not change what the rules provide as the solution.
Aftersong wrote: like I said, if a word is not specifically defined (like the way modifier is) then common usage applies. The word "remove" isn't defined in the BRB but we all know what it means when they say remove a model as a casualty. Since "modifier" is defined we have to use the exact narrow definition GW gives us. I am not inventing anything I am going precisely by the rules.
You are relying on "increase" as a way you have invented to change a characteristic line when GW provides a defined way to do that.
Like I said, you are suggesting we invent rules here and act on profiles in ways that have not been defined.
This is part of why discussing ambiguous rules on the internet is so frustrating. We both have reasons for believing what we do and those reasons are often based on the way that we understand many different rules and the way that they interact.
The fact of the matter is that this is not a clear cut case of "it is, or it isn't". The precedent from from the previous edition is that it would be S10. But as you have pointed out, rules change so this does little more than hint at the intention of the authors. In fact, the previous edition even had the same problem - the way that it was initially worded was not clear enough and those people who did not want TWC to be S10 made the exact same arguments that people are making now. It wasn't until the FAQ came out and specifically said, "a character with a thunderwolf mount and a powerfist is S10" that people finally accepted that it was so.
The same problem this time. It is clear to many that it is supposed to be S10. It is also clear to many that it is supposed to be S9. But the truth is that it is not clear.
Fortunately for space wolves players, many tournaments play it as S10. Unfortunately for space wolves players a very very vocal minority on the internet refuse to accept this and try constantly to sway public opinion to believe that it should be S9.
So for now, I'll play it as S10, you play it as S9, and we'll see when the FAQ comes out.
It's 100 % ok to resolve it as s10 after a FAQ justifies it and you are welcome to have a big smile of satisfaction about it, but right now, at this present moment in time, the rules only support resolving it at s9.
Actually, most of the tournaments already play it as S10, so I'll go ahead and play it that way.
And when the FAQ comes out then it will be totally ok for you to play it as S9.
It's also ok for TOs to house rule the way they choose to on this issue (to satisfy public outcry), however that does not change what the rules provide as the solution.
col_impact wrote: It's also ok for TOs to house rule the way they choose to on this issue (to satisfy public outcry), however that does not change what the rules provide as the solution.
The problem is that the rules don't provide a solution. You're saying that it's totally clear to you, and I'm sure it is. But it's also totally clear to me that the rules say it should be S10 and I've explained why, but you disagree. We'll just have to disagree.
To you, I'm wrong.
To me, you're wrong.
Fortunately for me, I can play it the way that I want when I go to tournaments, as well as at my FLGS.
I'm not sure where you play, but hopefully you all agree and play it your way there.
col_impact wrote: It's also ok for TOs to house rule the way they choose to on this issue (to satisfy public outcry), however that does not change what the rules provide as the solution.
The problem is that the rules don't provide a solution. You're saying that it's totally clear to you, and I'm sure it is. But it's also totally clear to me that the rules say it should be S10 and I've explained why, but you disagree. We'll just have to disagree.
To you, I'm wrong.
To me, you're wrong.
Fortunately for me, I can play it the way that I want when I go to tournaments, as well as at my FLGS.
I'm not sure where you play, but hopefully you all agree and play it your way there.
You are not playing it by the rules. You are inventing rules (unwittingly) and then playing it that way, by ways that have not been defined by GW. All of this is of course okay if its collectively agreed upon, but it is house ruling and not RAW.
col_impact wrote: It's also ok for TOs to house rule the way they choose to on this issue (to satisfy public outcry), however that does not change what the rules provide as the solution.
The problem is that the rules don't provide a solution. You're saying that it's totally clear to you, and I'm sure it is. But it's also totally clear to me that the rules say it should be S10 and I've explained why, but you disagree. We'll just have to disagree.
To you, I'm wrong.
To me, you're wrong.
Fortunately for me, I can play it the way that I want when I go to tournaments, as well as at my FLGS.
I'm not sure where you play, but hopefully you all agree and play it your way there.
You are not playing it by the rules. You are inventing rules (unwittingly) and then playing it that way, by ways that have not been defined by GW. All of this is of course okay if its collectively agreed upon, but it is house ruling and not RAW.
Not that it matters anymore, but:
from the Sept '13 FAQ:
Q: Is the +1 Strength from a Thunderwolf Mount a modification to
the base characteristic? (p62)
A: Yes.
Happyjew wrote: To the people claiming that "increase" is not a modifier.
Please explain what it is and how to apply it using the rules as listed in the rulebook.
I will try, but I would also like for the people who claim that it is a modifier also explain why GW ruled that it was S10 in the last edition.
Certainly many of the rules have changed since the last edition, but the definition of "modifier" hasn't changed. If it was supposed to be a modifier, then why did they make an FAQ to clarify that a TWC with a power fist was S10 in the last edition?
Here's my reasoning for believing that it is S10: I believe that the Thunderwolf mount is unique among most other pieces of wargear. Almost all other pieces of wargear which have a modifier to strength are weapons, and absolutely all of them either double strength or have a +1, +2, +3, etc in their description. In the last edition, the thunderwolf mount was also different than bikes in that while a bike was T4(5), a thunderwolf mount was explained to change the base stat to T5. In the new edition all bikes now follow this precedent and characters who take a bike have their base toughness changed to 5. This shows me that the adjustment to toughness, strength, wounds, and attacks for the thunderwolf mount, just like last edition, and just like bikes do now, is a change of the base stat. I think GW did not feel it was necessary to write all of this out and so in their traditional sloppy style they did not. But I think that we have enough to go on to see that the thunderwolf mount is different. First of all it does not say +1 to strength, it uses the same word for strength that it uses for toughness - increase by 1. I'm not inventing rules here, I'm simply saying that rules for changing their strength to 5 are codex specific and do not say +1 so do not follow the big rule book rule on "modifying" stats.
There's the gist of my position.
Can one of the S9 advocates please write out a brief description of why they believe GW would rule that it was S10 last edition and then make it S9 this edition - not by stating that it was so, but by the convoluted method of not including a FAQ stating that it was? I understand that since the FAQ was erased with the new codex many believe that this makes it S9, but my question is why would they say its S10 last edition and change it to S9, not with a rule specifically stating it is so, but rather by failing to include wording specifically stating that it was S10.
Happyjew wrote: To the people claiming that "increase" is not a modifier.
Please explain what it is and how to apply it using the rules as listed in the rulebook.
For bonus points, include a description of the Attacks characteristics vs the number of attacks made:
Assuming all hits, how many "to wound" rolls does a A4 Chapter master with Hammer of Wrath and two close combat weapons get? If that number greater than his attack characteristic? If so, how.
Be sure to include things like hammer of wrath, mandiblasters and lash whips, as well as verbiage from things like furious charge for RAW completeness...
e.g. If I reduce your Attacks characteristic to A1 for 1 attack, does that means you get your jump pack's hammer of wrath and nothing else as a few Daemon guys say, or the 1 base attack plus 1 for hammer of wrath at i10 and 1 from having a pair of close combat weapons, like paired lightening claws, that everyone else says?
Getting back to TWC as RAW, a model with a profile printed as S5 in the codex hits at S10 with a PF while a S4 profile who gets the same +1 modifier off an option that makes the other guys profile S5 by default strikes at S9 with the same fist. It helps to realize that RAW doesn't have to make sense fluffwise to be correct RAW. If you need fluff, assume he's less instinctive with the +1 modifier and so hits at a slightly uncorrected angle vs the guys who've been using it day in and out all the time.
Can one of the S9 advocates please write out a brief description of why they believe GW would rule that it was S10 last edition and then make it S9 this edition - not by stating that it was so, but by the convoluted method of not including a FAQ stating that it was? I understand that since the FAQ was erased with the new codex many believe that this makes it S9, but my question is why would they say its S10 last edition and change it to S9, not with a rule specifically stating it is so, but rather by failing to include wording specifically stating that it was S10.
The rules as written resolve it at s9. If they wanted some other result than s9 they would have to provide some overrule to the contrary (e.g. FAQ) or special line in the codex. We have to accept that they want s9 and not s10 until we have actual rules that support s10. It's really just that simple.
The problem with that picture is that if I circled the line that says, "if a model with Strength 4 has both '+1 Strenghth' and 'double Strength' in the top box and then circled the line that says "Thunderwolf mount increases their strength" in the bottom box, I'd have an argument for S10.
Can one of the S9 advocates please write out a brief description of why they believe GW would rule that it was S10 last edition and then make it S9 this edition - not by stating that it was so, but by the convoluted method of not including a FAQ stating that it was? I understand that since the FAQ was erased with the new codex many believe that this makes it S9, but my question is why would they say its S10 last edition and change it to S9, not with a rule specifically stating it is so, but rather by failing to include wording specifically stating that it was S10.
The rules as written resolve it at s9. If they wanted some other result than s9 they would have to provide some overrule to the contrary (e.g. FAQ) or special line in the codex. We have to accept that they want s9 and not s10 until we have actual rules that support s10. It's really just that simple.
This avoids my question. I asked why they would change it to S9 the way that they did, not whether or not you think they changed it to S9.
Nighthowler, that argument is already represented in the picture by the legend identifying the yellow circles as "modify vs increase". Which is what that line boils down to. the difference on those words.
when you increase the models strength, the value has not been modified so therefore the bonus included in the profile from that piece of wargear is not modifycing the actual value of the characteristic in any way.
I'm saying the picture does not support any argument. It displays the problem that is causing both interpretations. It highlights the key words that both sides are using and their relation in the different rules sections. It sums up what everyone is saying. How people interpret it depends on the individual.
I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.
I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.
There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"
The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.
I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.
There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"
The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.
Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.
I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.
I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.
There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"
The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.
Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.
I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.
Arguments that are supported by rules win out over arguments that are not supported by rules, insofar as we are determining RAW.
I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.
There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"
The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.
Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.
I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.
Arguments that are supported by rules win out over arguments that are not supported by rules, insofar as we are determining RAW.
And what rules do you have that an increase is a modifier? Page and paragraph please.
I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.
There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"
The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.
Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.
I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.
Arguments that are supported by rules win out over arguments that are not supported by rules, insofar as we are determining RAW.
Either you're having trouble reading my comments or you're choosing to ignore them. Which ever it is, it makes it difficult to have a true discussion... I'll go to the trouble of writing a well thought out argument and you'll reply "Rules say its not S10". Then I go to all the trouble of trying to find a better way of explaining it to you and you reply "Rules say its not S10".
I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.
There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"
The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.
Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.
I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.
Arguments that are supported by rules win out over arguments that are not supported by rules, insofar as we are determining RAW.
And what rules do you have that an increase is a modifier? Page and paragraph please.
"Increase" characteristic isn't something separately defined. "Increase by 1" falls under "any additions" in the Multiple Modifiers rule.
I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.
There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"
The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.
Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.
I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.
Arguments that are supported by rules win out over arguments that are not supported by rules, insofar as we are determining RAW.
And what rules do you have that an increase is a modifier? Page and paragraph please.
"Increase" characteristic isn't something separately defined. "Increase by 1" falls under "any additions" in the Multiple Modifiers rule.
Saying it is so does not make it so. Please provide a page number for the rule you're using to decide that "increase by 1" falls under "any additions".
I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.
There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"
The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.
Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.
I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.
Arguments that are supported by rules win out over arguments that are not supported by rules, insofar as we are determining RAW.
And what rules do you have that an increase is a modifier? Page and paragraph please.
"Increase" characteristic isn't something separately defined. "Increase by 1" falls under "any additions" in the Multiple Modifiers rule.
Saying it is so does not make it so. Please provide a page number for the rule you're using to decide that "increase by 1" falls under "any additions".
There is absolutely no problem applying this rule.
Spoiler:
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).
You need to supply a page number for "increase" characteristic being separately defined. Otherwise, we only have modify characteristics as the defined by GW way of resolving. You are not allowed to invent up your own way of changing characteristics. The burden is on you to show that "increase" characteristics is a defined Thing by GW.
There is absolutely no problem applying this rule.
Spoiler:
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).
You need to supply a page number for "increase" characteristic being separately defined. Otherwise, we only have modify characteristics as the defined by GW way of resolving. You are not allowed to invent up your own way of changing characteristics. The burden is on you to show that "increase" characteristics is a defined Thing by GW.
Wow. See? That is the exact same rule that I would use to prove you wrong. There are no additions or subtractions listed under the Thunderwolf Mount wargear section in the Space Wolves codex.
I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.
There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"
The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.
Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.
I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.
Arguments that are supported by rules win out over arguments that are not supported by rules, insofar as we are determining RAW.
And what rules do you have that an increase is a modifier? Page and paragraph please.
"Increase" characteristic isn't something separately defined. "Increase by 1" falls under "any additions" in the Multiple Modifiers rule.
Well that would be conclusive if thunderwolf mounts gave a +1, but since it is being increased by 1 and is not a modifier so does not follow Multiple Modifiers. So again rule that says Increase by 1 is the same as +1.
There is absolutely no problem applying this rule.
Spoiler:
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).
You need to supply a page number for "increase" characteristic being separately defined. Otherwise, we only have modify characteristics as the defined by GW way of resolving. You are not allowed to invent up your own way of changing characteristics. The burden is on you to show that "increase" characteristics is a defined Thing by GW.
Wow. See? That is the exact same rule that I would use to prove you wrong. There are no additions or subtractions listed under the Thunderwolf Mount wargear section in the Space Wolves codex.
Where is your god now col_impact?
Except that you don't have an argument, only smoke and mirrors. Modify Characteristics is defined. "Increase" Characteristics is a fiction you have made up. "Increase by 1" counts as "any additions." Feel free to prove me otherwise. Everything I am saying is defined by the rules.
There is absolutely no problem applying this rule.
Spoiler:
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).
You need to supply a page number for "increase" characteristic being separately defined. Otherwise, we only have modify characteristics as the defined by GW way of resolving. You are not allowed to invent up your own way of changing characteristics. The burden is on you to show that "increase" characteristics is a defined Thing by GW.
Wow. See? That is the exact same rule that I would use to prove you wrong. There are no additions or subtractions listed under the Thunderwolf Mount wargear section in the Space Wolves codex.
Where is your god now col_impact?
Except that you don't have an argument, only smoke and mirrors. Modify Characteristics is defined. "Increase" Characteristics is a fiction you have made up. Feel free to prove me otherwise. Everything I am saying is defined by the rules.
The proof is in the necessity for precision. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread the word "pedantic". I really liked it because we do have to be pedantic with these sloppy rules we've been given - we have to use the words EXACTLY as they are given to us. I'm making no assumptions and taking the rules exactly as they are worded - "modify" and "+1 to strength" are used in the rule you quoted, the rule you claim applies to my thunderwolf. But when I look up the thunderwolf mount I can't find the word modify anywhere... and I don't see +1 to Strength anywhere... instead, the thunderwolf rules say increase by 1.
For me these two rules are different enough to be considered different in how they are applied to the game mechanics.
For you they're not.
You see, it's not smoke and mirrors. I'm not making up definitions. I'm being very precise with the rules. I would dare say, even more precise than you are.
Edited to add that everything we both say is defined by the rules.
There is absolutely no problem applying this rule.
Spoiler:
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).
You need to supply a page number for "increase" characteristic being separately defined. Otherwise, we only have modify characteristics as the defined by GW way of resolving. You are not allowed to invent up your own way of changing characteristics. The burden is on you to show that "increase" characteristics is a defined Thing by GW.
Wow. See? That is the exact same rule that I would use to prove you wrong. There are no additions or subtractions listed under the Thunderwolf Mount wargear section in the Space Wolves codex.
Where is your god now col_impact?
Except that you don't have an argument, only smoke and mirrors. Modify Characteristics is defined. "Increase" Characteristics is a fiction you have made up. Feel free to prove me otherwise. Everything I am saying is defined by the rules.
The proof is in the necessity for precision. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread the word "pedantic". I really liked it because we do have to be pedantic with these sloppy rules we've been given - we have to use the words EXACTLY as they are given to us. I'm making no assumptions and taking the rules exactly as they are worded - "modify" and "+1 to strength" are used in the rule you quoted, the rule you claim applies to my thunderwolf. But when I look up the thunderwolf mount I can't find the word modify anywhere... and I don't see +1 to Strength anywhere... instead, the thunderwolf rules say increase by 1.
For me these two rules are different enough to be considered different in how they are applied to the game mechanics.
For you they're not.
You see, it's not smoke and mirrors. I'm not making up definitions. I'm being very precise with the rules. I would dare say, even more precise than you are.
Since "Increase" Characteristics is not a separately defined Thing we are free to link "increase by one" and "+1" as synonymous.
"increase by 1" is synonymous with "increment by 1" which is synonymous with "+1". In fact, +1 is mathematical notation for "increase by 1."
Of course, all you have to do is show where "increase" characteristics is a separately defined Thing in the rules and you can win this argument. So feel free to do so.
Since "Increase" Characteristics is not a separately defined Thing we are free to link "increase by one" and "+1" as synonymous.
"increase by 1" is synonymous with "increment by 1" which is synonymous with "+1". In fact, +1 is mathematical notation for "increase by 1."
Of course, all you have to do is show where "increase" characteristics is a separately defined Thing in the rules and you can win this argument. So feel free to do so.
And this is the point were we disagree.
When the game says remove as a casualty, I can't assume that it's the same as removed from play. The reason we cant is that there are two separate rules at work here. This is where the need for pedantics comes from. The same is true for the rule for modifying a characteristic and the rule for thunderwolves. +1 Strength is not the same as Increase Strength by 1 for this very reason.
Since "Increase" Characteristics is not a separately defined Thing we are free to link "increase by one" and "+1" as synonymous.
"increase by 1" is synonymous with "increment by 1" which is synonymous with "+1". In fact, +1 is mathematical notation for "increase by 1."
Of course, all you have to do is show where "increase" characteristics is a separately defined Thing in the rules and you can win this argument. So feel free to do so.
And this is the point were we disagree.
When the game says remove as a casualty, I can't assume that it's the same as removed from play. The reason we cant is that there are two separate rules at work here. This is where the need for pedantics comes from. The same is true for the rule for modifying a characteristic and the rule for thunderwolves. +1 Strength is not the same as Increase Strength by 1 for this very reason.
Sorry. Writing "increase strength by 1" is literally just the longhand version of "+1 strength". And, since "increase" characteristics is not a separately defined thing in the rules, we are free to use English and logical rules to simply affirm those as semantically and logically synonymous.
How it should be played: Agree with your opponent beforehand.
There are two sides to this debate since the FAQ for S10 w/ PF was removed and it's never going to be solved as this thread and practically every thread made on this (when the FAQ hasn't been in place) has shown us so the best thing you can do OP is simply communicate to your opponent how you will play it in a game and come to an agreement.
Since "Increase" Characteristics is not a separately defined Thing we are free to link "increase by one" and "+1" as synonymous.
"increase by 1" is synonymous with "increment by 1" which is synonymous with "+1". In fact, +1 is mathematical notation for "increase by 1."
Of course, all you have to do is show where "increase" characteristics is a separately defined Thing in the rules and you can win this argument. So feel free to do so.
And this is the point were we disagree.
When the game says remove as a casualty, I can't assume that it's the same as removed from play. The reason we cant is that there are two separate rules at work here. This is where the need for pedantics comes from. The same is true for the rule for modifying a characteristic and the rule for thunderwolves. +1 Strength is not the same as Increase Strength by 1 for this very reason.
Sorry. Writing "increase strength by 1" is literally just the longhand version of "+1 strength". And, since "increase" characteristics is not a separately defined thing in the rules, we are free to use English and logical rules to simply affirm those as semantically and logically synonymous.
You have no argument.
Really? That's like saying, "Oh, I'm sorry, saying removed from play is literally the same thing as saying removed as a casualty so my model gets to use it's special rule here."
Unfortunately for you, both arguments are incorrect. The difference in wording is important. And this is not English class so it doesn't matter if it's a synonym, antonym, homonym, or dangling participle.
I'm sorry that you're unable to see the distinction, but being incapable of seeing the distinction does not make you correct.
The fact of the matter is that I'm not even arguing that it's S10. I really don't care since the next tournament I'm playing in calls it as S10 and my FLGS plays it as S10. I'm only arguing that you can't say with such certainty that it's S9. It's ambiguous and I just want to help you see that.
Since "Increase" Characteristics is not a separately defined Thing we are free to link "increase by one" and "+1" as synonymous.
"increase by 1" is synonymous with "increment by 1" which is synonymous with "+1". In fact, +1 is mathematical notation for "increase by 1."
Of course, all you have to do is show where "increase" characteristics is a separately defined Thing in the rules and you can win this argument. So feel free to do so.
And this is the point were we disagree.
When the game says remove as a casualty, I can't assume that it's the same as removed from play. The reason we cant is that there are two separate rules at work here. This is where the need for pedantics comes from. The same is true for the rule for modifying a characteristic and the rule for thunderwolves. +1 Strength is not the same as Increase Strength by 1 for this very reason.
Sorry. Writing "increase strength by 1" is literally just the longhand version of "+1 strength". And, since "increase" characteristics is not a separately defined thing in the rules, we are free to use English and logical rules to simply affirm those as semantically and logically synonymous.
You have no argument.
Really? That's like saying, "Oh, I'm sorry, saying removed from play is literally the same thing as saying removed as a casualty so my model gets to use it's special rule here."
Unfortunately for you, both arguments are incorrect. The difference in wording is important. And this is not English class so it doesn't matter if it's a synonym, antonym, homonym, or dangling participle.
I'm sorry that you're unable to see the distinction, but being incapable of seeing the distinction does not make you correct.
The fact of the matter is that I'm not even arguing that it's S10. I really don't care since the next tournament I'm playing in calls it as S10 and my FLGS plays it as S10. I'm only arguing that you can't say with such certainty that it's S9. It's ambiguous and I just want to help you see that.
"Remove from play" has different rules defined for it than "remove as a casualty" so your example actually proves my point since you have failed to separately define "increase" characteristics in the rules. You are not permitted to simply invent definitions and apply them unless you openly admit to resorting to a house rule to do so. Since "increase by one" is not separately defined it can be taken as the longhand version of "+1" because indeed that is precisely what it is per English and per logic.
@ Col_impact: Dude. Seriously? Do you just kind of skim through my comments and pick out the parts you think you can disprove?
I just finished saying that the rules for thunderwolves and the BRB rules for modifying a characteristic were different, just like "remove from play" and "remove as casualty" are different. Next time just slow down and read each word; it will make it easier to understand what other people are writing. Please.
@ Happyjew: page 13 of the BRB says, "Models that are 'removed from play' by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the game rules are concerned." but I was using the difference to illustrate a point that I thought might make it easier for col_impact to understand what I was saying.
Happyjew wrote: Wait, did they remove the whole "RFP=RFPaaC" thing that they finally clarified in 6th?
Not sure if this is what you meant but 'Removed as a Casualty and Completely Destroyed' (BRB, pg 13):
"Models that are 'removed from play' by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the game rules are concerned".
col_impact wrote: Just to be clear, NightHowler, are you saying that a rule that says move 6" is different mechanically than a rule that says move six inches?
Not exactly. I'm saying that there are 2 different rules and that one uses the words increase strength by 1, while another one says +1 to strength, and that this difference in wording is enough to cast doubt on the second applying to the first. I'm saying this because there have been rules in this game where minor differences in the way two rules were worded made an enormous difference in the way that they were played and I believe that this is an example of precisely that.
Strictly out of curiosity, are there any other pieces of wargear besides the thunderwolf mount that use the words "increase strength by 1"? I know that bikes increase toughness, but I'm looking for strength in particular. If there were, it might help clear this up for me personally.
Edited to add: Actually, I think it would be even more revealing if there were no other pieces of wargear with this exact wording.
Edited again to add: To answer your question a little further, I would say that two rules would be played differently and impact the game differently if one said move 6" and another rule said place a model 6 inches from where it was.
col_impact wrote: Just to be clear, NightHowler, are you saying that a rule that says move 6" is different mechanically than a rule that says move six inches?
Not exactly. I'm saying that there are 2 different rules and that one uses the words increase strength by 1, while another one says +1 to strength, and that this difference in wording is enough to cast doubt on the second applying to the first. I'm saying this because there have been rules in this game where minor differences in the way two rules were worded made an enormous difference in the way that they were played and I believe that this is an example of precisely that.
Strictly out of curiosity, are there any other pieces of wargear besides the thunderwolf mount that use the words "increase strength by 1"? I know that bikes increase toughness, but I'm looking for strength in particular. If there were, it might help clear this up for me personally.
Edited to add: Actually, I think it would be even more revealing if there were no other pieces of wargear with this exact wording.
Look. It's real simple. If you want to show that there is an issue you have to relate "increase" characteristic to some definably recognizable thing by GW or else its just words that they are using, sometimes shorthand and sometimes longhand.
Increase by 1 is literally longhand for +1. Move six inches is longhand for move 6".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another way of showing the fundamental problem in your argument is that you are unable to find a rule that looks like this . .
Spoiler:
Increasing or Decreasing a Characteristic
A model that has a characteristic increased or decreased has its unmodified base characteristic value reset to the new value without modification.
You are unable to find a rule that defines "increase" characteristic in that way. You don't get to invent that definition.
col_impact wrote: Just to be clear, NightHowler, are you saying that a rule that says move 6" is different mechanically than a rule that says move six inches?
Not exactly. I'm saying that there are 2 different rules and that one uses the words increase strength by 1, while another one says +1 to strength, and that this difference in wording is enough to cast doubt on the second applying to the first. I'm saying this because there have been rules in this game where minor differences in the way two rules were worded made an enormous difference in the way that they were played and I believe that this is an example of precisely that.
Strictly out of curiosity, are there any other pieces of wargear besides the thunderwolf mount that use the words "increase strength by 1"? I know that bikes increase toughness, but I'm looking for strength in particular. If there were, it might help clear this up for me personally.
Edited to add: Actually, I think it would be even more revealing if there were no other pieces of wargear with this exact wording.
Look. It's real simple. If you want to show that there is an issue you have to relate "increase" characteristic to some definably recognizable thing by GW or else its just words that they are using, sometimes shorthand and sometimes longhand.
Increase by 1 is literally longhand for +1. Move six inches is longhand for move 6".
I hear what you're saying, and I understand why you feel there is no difference. I simply disagree that the the difference is irrelevant in this situation for a number of reasons. One reason is that nowhere else is a piece of wargear that words the alteration of the strength characteristic this way. Another reason is that we know in previous editions this was an argument that people had and when the FAQ came out, it was revealed that they were intended to be S10 (I know that this only shows intent and does not have a direct impact on RAW, but it is part of why I think that the difference in wording is important). Finally, I have to add that if it said thunderwolves are +1 strength, I would agree with you completely, but anytime two rules use completely different wording to describe something and in no place in any book do they use the same wording, I believe that we have to question whether they are intended to be interchangeable.
Even if one is simply shorthand for the other. And while I agree that "move six inches" is longhand for "move 6 inches", I believe that a more accurate comparison would be to compare "+1 strength" and "increase strength by 1" with "move six inches" and "place a model 6 inches away from where it started".
col_impact wrote: Just to be clear, NightHowler, are you saying that a rule that says move 6" is different mechanically than a rule that says move six inches?
Not exactly. I'm saying that there are 2 different rules and that one uses the words increase strength by 1, while another one says +1 to strength, and that this difference in wording is enough to cast doubt on the second applying to the first. I'm saying this because there have been rules in this game where minor differences in the way two rules were worded made an enormous difference in the way that they were played and I believe that this is an example of precisely that.
Strictly out of curiosity, are there any other pieces of wargear besides the thunderwolf mount that use the words "increase strength by 1"? I know that bikes increase toughness, but I'm looking for strength in particular. If there were, it might help clear this up for me personally.
Edited to add: Actually, I think it would be even more revealing if there were no other pieces of wargear with this exact wording.
Look. It's real simple. If you want to show that there is an issue you have to relate "increase" characteristic to some definably recognizable thing by GW or else its just words that they are using, sometimes shorthand and sometimes longhand.
Increase by 1 is literally longhand for +1. Move six inches is longhand for move 6".
I hear what you're saying, and I understand why you feel there is no difference. I simply disagree that the the difference is irrelevant in this situation for a number of reasons. One reason is that nowhere else is a piece of wargear that words the alteration of the strength characteristic this way. Another reason is that we know in previous editions this was an argument that people had and when the FAQ came out, it was revealed that they were intended to be S10 (I know that this only shows intent and does not have a direct impact on RAW, but it is part of why I think that the difference in wording is important). Finally, I have to add that if it said thunderwolves are +1 strength, I would agree with you completely, but anytime two rules use completely different wording to describe something and in no place in any book do they use the same wording, I believe that we have to question whether they are intended to be interchangeable.
Even if one is simply shorthand for the other. And while I agree that "move six inches" is longhand for "move 6 inches", I believe that a more accurate comparison would be to compare "+1 strength" and "increase strength by 1" with "move six inches" and "place a model 6 inches away from where it started".
You need to provide more rules support than "gut feeling"
Another way of showing the fundamental problem in your argument is that you are unable to find a rule that looks like this . .
Spoiler:
Increasing or Decreasing a Characteristic
A model that has a characteristic increased or decreased has its unmodified base characteristic value reset to the new value without modification.
You are unable to find a rule that defines "increase" characteristic in that way. You don't get to invent that definition.
Actually, I believe that the fact that no other rule defines "increase" in that way supports my position for the reasons I have listed.
LOL. It needs to be actively defined as such. "Increase" characteristic isn't even a defined thing. You need to support what you say with rules and find rules basis for handling "increase" characteristics in this way,and unless you start doing so your contribution to this thread seems to be nothing more than an obtuse dismissal of the obvious based on pedantics.
Again, feel free to find rules basis for "increase" characteristics being defined as anything. You are not permitted to invent your own definitions unless you want to admit to house ruling. Are you admitting to house ruling?
You need to provide more rules support than "gut feeling"
My argument is in no way based off of my "gut feeling". I never said that, and I don't approve of you trying to belittle my side by saying that I base everything on a gut feeling.
I've explained to you repeatedly that the two rules are worded differently, and there is no argument that they are worded differently because it's clear.
Your argument is that they are "close enough" to be the same because one is "shorthand" for the other.
My argument is that they are "different enough" to be treated differently.
You need to provide more rules support than "gut feeling"
My argument is in no way based off of my "gut feeling". I never said that, and I don't approve of you trying to belittle my side by saying that I base everything on a gut feeling.
I've explained to you repeatedly that the two rules are worded differently, and there is no argument that they are worded differently because it's clear.
Your argument is that they are "close enough" to be the same because one is "shorthand" for the other.
My argument is that they are "different enough" to be treated differently.
Clearly we will never agree.
Modify characteristic is a defined thing.
Increase characteristic is not a defined thing.
You are not permitted to invent your own definitions and claim RAW.
You can claim HYWPI.
You have no RAW argument, but really I wish you all the luck with getting to play SW the way you want to. I am not lobbying for playing it s10 or s9. I am only arguing what RAW is.
And if you want to engage in a debate about RAW then you need to support what you say with rules.
You need to provide more rules support than "gut feeling"
My argument is in no way based off of my "gut feeling". I never said that, and I don't approve of you trying to belittle my side by saying that I base everything on a gut feeling.
I've explained to you repeatedly that the two rules are worded differently, and there is no argument that they are worded differently because it's clear.
Your argument is that they are "close enough" to be the same because one is "shorthand" for the other.
My argument is that they are "different enough" to be treated differently.
Clearly we will never agree.
Modify characteristic is a defined thing.
Increase characteristic is not a defined thing.
You are not permitted to invent your own definitions and claim RAW.
You can claim HYWPI.
You have no RAW argument, but really I wish you all the luck with getting to play SW the way you want to. I am not lobbying for playing it s10 or s9. I am only arguing what RAW is.
And if you want to engage in a debate about RAW then you need to support what you say with rules.
So we can't invent a definition for Increase that puts it out of the Modify rules, but you can invent a definition that puts it in with the Modify rules? Because as you said it isn't in the brb then what rules are you using to define it as a modifier? RAW is that modifiers are +, -, x, or set values and Increase is not one of those. As Nighthowler as said you can take a logical leap and lump it in with Modifiers just as easily as you can take a logical leap and have it not be a modifier.
You need to provide more rules support than "gut feeling"
My argument is in no way based off of my "gut feeling". I never said that, and I don't approve of you trying to belittle my side by saying that I base everything on a gut feeling.
I've explained to you repeatedly that the two rules are worded differently, and there is no argument that they are worded differently because it's clear.
Your argument is that they are "close enough" to be the same because one is "shorthand" for the other.
My argument is that they are "different enough" to be treated differently.
Clearly we will never agree.
Modify characteristic is a defined thing.
Increase characteristic is not a defined thing.
You are not permitted to invent your own definitions and claim RAW.
You can claim HYWPI.
You have no RAW argument, but really I wish you all the luck with getting to play SW the way you want to. I am not lobbying for playing it s10 or s9. I am only arguing what RAW is.
And if you want to engage in a debate about RAW then you need to support what you say with rules.
So we can't invent a definition for Increase that puts it out of the Modify rules, but you can invent a definition that puts it in with the Modify rules? Because as you said it isn't in the brb then what rules are you using to define it as a modifier? RAW is that modifiers are +, -, x, or set values and Increase is not one of those. As Nighthowler as said you can take a logical leap and lump it in with Modifiers just as easily as you can take a logical leap and have it not be a modifier.
Increase by 1 is longhand for +1. Move six inches is longhand for move 6".
Would you consider "double strength" to be a modifier?
If so, what is the difference (besides mathematical function), between "double strength" and "increase strength by 1"?
Double strength is a modifier and longhand for S x 2. Increase strength by 1 is a modifier and longhand for S + 1. Double strength is a multiplicative modifier and Increase strength by 1 is an additive modifier.
This is because GW does not reserve "double" or "increase" for separately defined rules usage.
Is there something that "doubles strength" and not x2? If there is i will agree on your longhand/shorthand increase/+1 but if not i fail to see a point.
Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote: Is there something that "doubles strength" and not x2? If there is i will agree on your longhand/shorthand increase/+1 but if not i fail to see a point.
I think more importantly you should read this rule very carefully . . .
Spoiler:
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values. For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).
Would you consider "double strength" to be a modifier?
If so, what is the difference (besides mathematical function), between "double strength" and "increase strength by 1"?
Sorry to keep you waiting. I have ample access to the internet at work, but once I get home I have dinner, tuck my son in bed, and tonight I also had to help my wife with her chemistry homework.
To answer your question, I would have to say that "double strength" is a modifier because it is specifically mentioned in the Multiple Modifiers rule.
The difference between "double strength" and "increase strength by 1" (aside from the mathematical function) is that "double strength" is specifically mentioned in the Multiple Modifiers rule, whereas "increase strength by 1" is specifically not mentioned in the wording of that rule. I think it is an important distinction.
I also feel the need to add that I think it's clear to everyone that whether or not a phrase is shorthand for something else is completely irrelevant to this conversation.
Would you consider "double strength" to be a modifier?
If so, what is the difference (besides mathematical function), between "double strength" and "increase strength by 1"?
Sorry to keep you waiting. I have ample access to the internet at work, but once I get home I have dinner, tuck my son in bed, and tonight I also had to help my wife with her chemistry homework.
To answer your question, I would have to say that "double strength" is a modifier because it is specifically mentioned in the Multiple Modifiers rule.
The difference between "double strength" and "increase strength by 1" (aside from the mathematical function) is that "double strength" is specifically mentioned in the Multiple Modifiers rule, whereas "increase strength by 1" is specifically not mentioned in the wording of that rule. I think it is an important distinction.
I also feel the need to add that I think it's clear to everyone that whether or not a phrase is shorthand for something else is completely irrelevant to this conversation.
What about triple strength? Is that a modifier? Shorthand versus longhand is actually extremely relevant to this conversation.
the -only- way to change a stat in the rulebook is to use the modifier rules.
increasing something by 1, from 4 to 5 is a modifier.
if its not a modifier then increasing by 1 would make 4 to 4. as nothing has been modified.
if the TWC is not modifying the models strength, then the models strength would be unchanged.
I've heard the "they mean the same thing" argument before, but it doesn't explain why my point is wrong, it tries to ignore my point.
I freely admit that in English adding 1 is the same as +1 is the same as increase by one is the same as go up by one.
But my point is that we're not arguing about the English language, we're arguing about how GW is using that language to make rules, and when they use two completely different phrases to describe something in two different rules its because they're intended to be used differently. I've even given the example of the old problem with "removed from play" and "removed as a casualty" to support this position.
I've also heard the "if it's not a modifier it can't be modified" argument, which is completely false. There are plenty of rules in this game which are have different versions in different book, or even the same book. Example: a psychic shooting attack isn't a shooting attack but it's a shooting attack. These kinds of differences are some of the biggest problems we face when trying to divine the meaning of these poorly written rules we've been given. Just ask someone on this very board if you have to roll to hit for psychic scream and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Since the thunderwolf mount rules say the new strength is 5, I don't need to go to the big rule book and use the "multiple modifiers rule" to upgrade my wolf lord. Everything I need is right there in the space wolves codex, so there is no ground to stand on with the whole "you have to modify it or it's not modified" argument - I just use the thunderwolf rules as written.
Please keep in mind that I'm not arguing that I can prove it's S10. I'm only saying that you can't prove it's S9, and everyone will have to decide how to play it in each game.
As you are going by RAI (trying to guess what GW "wanted" for these rules), I'd say it actually points in the other direction.
The old Codex used to say that the TW mount increased the "base" characteristic: Somehow increasing the profile of the model before any of the "in game" modifiers cropped up (also an argument you could still make here).
Problem is, they removed that (IMHO important) word from the rule, suggesting their thoughts were more on a "standard" modifier, rather than a "profile modifier".
the -only- way to change a stat in the rulebook is to use the modifier rules.
increasing something by 1, from 4 to 5 is a modifier.
if its not a modifier then increasing by 1 would make 4 to 4. as nothing has been modified.
if the TWC is not modifying the models strength, then the models strength would be unchanged.
I've heard the "they mean the same thing" argument before, but it doesn't explain why my point is wrong, it tries to ignore my point.
I freely admit that in English adding 1 is the same as +1 is the same as increase by one is the same as go up by one.
But my point is that we're not arguing about the English language, we're arguing about how GW is using that language to make rules, and when they use two completely different phrases to describe something in two different rules its because they're intended to be used differently. I've even given the example of the old problem with "removed from play" and "removed as a casualty" to support this position.
I've also heard the "if it's not a modifier it can't be modified" argument, which is completely false. There are plenty of rules in this game which are have different versions in different book, or even the same book. Example: a psychic shooting attack isn't a shooting attack but it's a shooting attack. These kinds of differences are some of the biggest problems we face when trying to divine the meaning of these poorly written rules we've been given. Just ask someone on this very board if you have to roll to hit for psychic scream and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Since the thunderwolf mount rules say the new strength is 5, I don't need to go to the big rule book and use the "multiple modifiers rule" to upgrade my wolf lord. Everything I need is right there in the space wolves codex, so there is no ground to stand on with the whole "you have to modify it or it's not modified" argument - I just use the thunderwolf rules as written.
Please keep in mind that I'm not arguing that I can prove it's S10. I'm only saying that you can't prove it's S9, and everyone will have to decide how to play it in each game.
If you follow rules as written the strength resolves at 9 without any problems.
I'm not going by RAI, I'm saying that the difference in wording is significant enough that it can not be definitively stated to be S9. That's all.
But if we were to discuss RAI, I'd say that I think it's pretty clear they intended it to be S10. They didn't just leave out the FAQ, they also changed the wording of the thunderwolf mount to take out any mention of +1. Now it says increase by 1. I think this was intentional.
the -only- way to change a stat in the rulebook is to use the modifier rules.
increasing something by 1, from 4 to 5 is a modifier.
if its not a modifier then increasing by 1 would make 4 to 4. as nothing has been modified.
if the TWC is not modifying the models strength, then the models strength would be unchanged.
I've heard the "they mean the same thing" argument before, but it doesn't explain why my point is wrong, it tries to ignore my point.
I freely admit that in English adding 1 is the same as +1 is the same as increase by one is the same as go up by one.
But my point is that we're not arguing about the English language, we're arguing about how GW is using that language to make rules, and when they use two completely different phrases to describe something in two different rules its because they're intended to be used differently. I've even given the example of the old problem with "removed from play" and "removed as a casualty" to support this position.
I've also heard the "if it's not a modifier it can't be modified" argument, which is completely false. There are plenty of rules in this game which are have different versions in different book, or even the same book. Example: a psychic shooting attack isn't a shooting attack but it's a shooting attack. These kinds of differences are some of the biggest problems we face when trying to divine the meaning of these poorly written rules we've been given. Just ask someone on this very board if you have to roll to hit for psychic scream and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Since the thunderwolf mount rules say the new strength is 5, I don't need to go to the big rule book and use the "multiple modifiers rule" to upgrade my wolf lord. Everything I need is right there in the space wolves codex, so there is no ground to stand on with the whole "you have to modify it or it's not modified" argument - I just use the thunderwolf rules as written.
Please keep in mind that I'm not arguing that I can prove it's S10. I'm only saying that you can't prove it's S9, and everyone will have to decide how to play it in each game.
If you follow rules as written the strength resolves at 9 without any problems.
RAW: s9
HYWPI: s10
It's like you don't read anything that doesn't agree with what you've already said and so you just keep repeating yourself.
Stating something over and over again doesn't make you right. Read what I wrote and address those issues.
Otherwise I'll just start repeating
RAW: S10
HYWPI: S9
Over and over again like you do. Then all discussion will have effectively ended.
DeathReaper wrote: There is no mechanism for Increase by 1 if you do not use the modifier rules.
Therefore:
Either Increase by 1 does nothing
Or It uses the modifier rules and is the same as +1 (Note that +1 is not mentioned in the rule, only in the example).
I've already addressed this, but in case you didn't read that comment, I'll say it again.
I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. I then use the "multiple modifiers" rule which applies to my power fist to double his strength of 5 to 10.
NightHowler wrote: I'm not going by RAI, I'm saying that the difference in wording is significant enough that it can not be definitively stated to be S9. That's all.
But if we were to discuss RAI, I'd say that I think it's pretty clear they intended it to be S10. They didn't just leave out the FAQ, they also changed the wording of the thunderwolf mount to take out any mention of +1. Now it says increase by 1. I think this was intentional.
the -only- way to change a stat in the rulebook is to use the modifier rules.
increasing something by 1, from 4 to 5 is a modifier.
if its not a modifier then increasing by 1 would make 4 to 4. as nothing has been modified.
if the TWC is not modifying the models strength, then the models strength would be unchanged.
I've heard the "they mean the same thing" argument before, but it doesn't explain why my point is wrong, it tries to ignore my point.
I freely admit that in English adding 1 is the same as +1 is the same as increase by one is the same as go up by one.
But my point is that we're not arguing about the English language, we're arguing about how GW is using that language to make rules, and when they use two completely different phrases to describe something in two different rules its because they're intended to be used differently. I've even given the example of the old problem with "removed from play" and "removed as a casualty" to support this position.
I've also heard the "if it's not a modifier it can't be modified" argument, which is completely false. There are plenty of rules in this game which are have different versions in different book, or even the same book. Example: a psychic shooting attack isn't a shooting attack but it's a shooting attack. These kinds of differences are some of the biggest problems we face when trying to divine the meaning of these poorly written rules we've been given. Just ask someone on this very board if you have to roll to hit for psychic scream and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Since the thunderwolf mount rules say the new strength is 5, I don't need to go to the big rule book and use the "multiple modifiers rule" to upgrade my wolf lord. Everything I need is right there in the space wolves codex, so there is no ground to stand on with the whole "you have to modify it or it's not modified" argument - I just use the thunderwolf rules as written.
Please keep in mind that I'm not arguing that I can prove it's S10. I'm only saying that you can't prove it's S9, and everyone will have to decide how to play it in each game.
If you follow rules as written the strength resolves at 9 without any problems.
RAW: s9
HYWPI: s10
It's like you don't read anything that doesn't agree with what you've already said and so you just keep repeating yourself.
Stating something over and over again doesn't make you right. Read what I wrote and address those issues.
Otherwise I'll just start repeating
RAW: S10
HYWPI: S9
Over and over again like you do. Then all discussion will have effectively ended.
My argument is simply that there is no problem following this rule . . .
Spoiler:
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).
And you come up with s 9.
My RAW resolution is easy and simple. No problems.
The burden is on you to show that there is a problem with it.
All of these kinds of modifiers are to the base profile.
IMO it's pretty clear, the intent. TWC have the bonuses included in their profile as a flat one. Just like ALL toughness attributes of Bikers or Mark of Nurgle models is ACTUAL to the statline changes, not "asterisk" changes as we used to call them.
The power fist modifier only applies when the power fist is used, the rest of the time the profile is Strength 5 as shown. There is nothing to indicate the model is strength 4+1. To me, the fact there is a profile there is concrete enough that in no way is Strength 4 a part of the model's consideration as they exist. There is unfortunately to the best of my knowledge no similar wargear which modifies your stats directly (other than bikes, but they are never used with anything that doubles and adds +1 like this). Further evidence toward RAI is from the fact that the old book specified the "for real, this edits the base profile" bit because in that edition it was necessary to make clear it wasn't a modifier. In this edition, less so -- and so such clarification was omitted. To me, RAI is clear (especially since the characteristics section is worded so newbishly in the rulebook...those rules for modified profiles should be under weapons or maybe in the case of toughness, the first to-wound rules, not there).
It strikes me as a really pedantic argument to have anyway. It will still wound pretty much everything in the game on a 2+, and against 99% of vehicles it is hitting rear armor with a strength of either auto-pen or auto-pen on anything but a 1.
I think people are just really grognarding this one, looking for some kind of secret easter egg that clearly isn't there. It's the 3+ invul all over again... "that CAN'T be right!!" Well, the game's changed, man. We got things like Transcendant C'tan and Imperial Knights walking around in pick-up games. Strength 10 Wolf Lord doesn't even register on my list of potential issues when we have things like mass MCs with Iron Arm, the Tranny, and such.
I mean...what other model do you have UNmodify their default profile to apply the rules?
I really think this is just people being sore at a model's awesome statline and, unfortunately unlike in most cases, an ambiguity was found and latched onto.
And you come up with s 9.
My RAW resolution is easy and simple. No problems.
The burden is on you to show that there is a problem with it.
My case in point. What, exactly, overrides that the standard T-wolf profile from being Strength 5? I mean...it says the thing is Strength 5, and it says if a unit has this wargear by default, the change is included in their profile. So it is clear this is intended to modify the base profile.
Like I said before...since when do you have to unmodify your base statline to apply the rules? You say "it's easy and simple" but it isn't -- no new player or player checking his codex is going to do that. He's going to see "Strength 5" on the profile and come to the conclusion of it being Strength 10.
DeathReaper wrote: There is no mechanism for Increase by 1 if you do not use the modifier rules.
Therefore:
Either Increase by 1 does nothing
Or It uses the modifier rules and is the same as +1 (Note that +1 is not mentioned in the rule, only in the example).
I've already addressed this, but in case you didn't read that comment, I'll say it again.
I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. I then use the "multiple modifiers" rule which applies to my power fist to double his strength of 5 to 10.
Except the thunderwolf mount rules do not give any mechanism to apply the 1.
So that rule alone is not enough to apply an increase, as we do not know how to apply an increase without using the modifier rules in the BRB.
More pedantic stuff. This means you have to argue any bonus in the game that isn't worded with a plus or minus sign.
We don't need rules to define this. There is a number there. It is higher than usual.
I'd argue the whole point is moot anyway, as "increases their characteristics by 1" in the T-wolf rules is not a modifier and it is also expressly not "+1" like attacks which modify strength or buffs which modify toughness. To me, that alone clearly stats the stats themselves are higher at the base, not modified.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, the bike increase is considered part of the base statline, and it is worded the same way -- "an increase to their Toughness characteristic by 1."
How can one argue it's not base modification to the profile in the face of that?
Fenris Frost wrote: More pedantic stuff. This means you have to argue any bonus in the game that isn't worded with a plus or minus sign.
We don't need rules to define this. There is a number there. It is higher than usual.
I'd argue the whole point is moot anyway, as "increases their characteristics by 1" in the T-wolf rules is not a modifier and it is also expressly not "+1" like attacks which modify strength or buffs which modify toughness. To me, that alone clearly stats the stats themselves are higher at the base, not modified.
Increase by one is longhand for +1. Double is longhand for x2. The rules expressly allow for longhand to be used and are not pedantically limited to x2.
Moreover, "increase" characteristic is not a Thing in the rules. You are making up rules and saying "increase" gives you the power to reset the base profile. No such rule exists. You are not permitted to make up rules and have it count as RAW argument.
It still seems foolish to me. It is clearly shown to be a different thing, by changing the actual characteristic. I don't know why this is even a thing, as you literally have to undermine the change to the characteristic to re-apply the math mid-game, and that is clearly not the intention.
I'm not saying there is some difference between "increase by 1" and "+1". I'm saying the wargear tells you to literally CHANGE the characteristic (which is defined in the book as the number on the statline). They just chose (perhaps poorly) to say they increase by one, to account for the varied profiles that result with TWC for different characters. You can't then, mid-game, unchange that characteristic to change the math. It's the profile at that point, everything that happens to it is a modifiers.
I dunno. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, since other things which are accepted as changing the literal profile use literally identical language. I don't think you can just hand-wave that fact away by saying that it's a modifier. It seems pretty clear to me that this is for the in-game effects of things like Furious Charge, Psychic Powers, etc. I mean, otherwise, you have to force every unit in the game with a benefit to their base profile in this way to use their original number (Toughness Test on Nurgle Biker = Toughness 4, for example).
I agree it's not clear and you can make a case either way but it is apparent to me that, since it is intentionally worded differently from pretty much any other stuff in the game that works as a modifier, that it was clearly and deliberately intended to change the base characteristics of the model, and that clearly this -- like any other thing that modifies the stats prior to the game -- is their base.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just think people are way hung up on this one. No one argues their Nurgle Biker Lord isn't really Toughness 6. Why is this any different?
(and yes, I know, the rules specifically state otherwise in the case of toughness, but still...that is later and specific only to instant death, and is to allow for temporary bonuses to affect ID. There doesn't seem to be any debate there otherwise. Why? Because we're used to Toughness 6 and don't care. But a guy with 5-7 Strength 10 attacks?! That must be broken, right?! Next thing you know they will have an Invul save above 4+, or Guardsmen with 3+ armor!!!)
Fenris Frost wrote: I just think people are way hung up on this one. No one argues their Nurgle Biker Lord isn't really Toughness 6. Why is this any different?
Because To Wound rolls and Instant Death don't fall under the scope of the rules in question (Multiple Modifiers) while the power fist does.
I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.
I then use the "multiple modifiers" rule which applies to my power fist to double his strength of 5 to 10.
Edited to add that I've decided to use a tactic in this explanation which I learned from col_impact and deathreaper. Ignore what the other person says and just repeat yourself. I see why they do it. It's actually much easier than thinking about what the other person says.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Fenrisfrost: I hear you man. And you've written out a very thoughtful and well written explanation of your position. But I'll warn you (because I've been doing the same long, well written, thoughtful posts for a couple of pages now), they just ignore it and repeat the same thing over and over. They won't address the points you make, they'll just say "its a modifier". It becomes tiring.
NightHowler wrote: I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.
So if you have this modifier and this non-modifier increase, what rule are you using to pick the order in which they are applied?
When it comes to striking, both of these must be applied to the base characteristic (and this self contained rule doesn't state it applies as some sort of base characterist increase, it calls out what it is).
So there must be an order, correct?
A rule exists for this order of operations, it's called "Sequencing". Are you intending to use a different rule?
I purchase a Bike for an independent Character which begun with a Toughness of 4, then I test against the Model's unmodified Toughness:
What value would I use, the number listed on the profile or that number increased by 1?
NightHowler wrote: I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.
The multiple modifier rule does apply.
The Thunderwolf mount rule says increase strength by 1 which is the longhand of +1.
Modifiers expressed longhand are expressly permitted by the rule.
There is no problem applying the rule. It resolves at s9.
You are unable to find a rule that supports the fictional way you are trying to resolve it at s10. You are unable to find a rule which does this . . .
Spoiler:
Increasing or Decreasing a Characteristic
A model that has a characteristic increased or decreased has its unmodified base characteristic value reset to the new value without modification.
If you could find such a rule, you could claim RAW. But, as is, you can only claim HYWPI since you have to make up rules to resolve at s10.
I really feel for the SW players. They have had the rules support for s10 erode out from under them without a clear FAQ affirming that this is what GW intends. However, RAW is RAW and there is no ambiguity here.
JinxDragon wrote: I purchase a Bike for an independent Character which begun with a Toughness of 4, then I test against the Model's unmodified Toughness:
What value would I use, the number listed on the profile or that number increased by 1?
If you were testing for instant death, you'd test against 5. Unfortunately, this doesn't tell us much because the instant death rule now says that you test against the toughness after modifiers, and while I would argue that the "increase toughness by 1" isn't a modifier, I would say that the -1 from Enfeeble would be considered a modifier.
NightHowler wrote: I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.
The multiple modifier rule does apply.
The Thunderwolf mount rule says increase strength by 1 which is the longhand of +1.
Modifiers expressed longhand are expressly permitted by the rule.
There is no problem applying the rule. It resolves at s9.
You are unable to find a rule that supports the fictional way you are trying to resolve it at s10. You are unable to find a rule which does this . . .
Spoiler:
Increasing or Decreasing a Characteristic
A model that has a characteristic increased or decreased has its unmodified base characteristic value reset to the new value without modification.
If you could find such a rule, you could claim RAW. But, as is, you can only claim HYWPI since you have to make up rules to resolve at s10.
I really feel for the SW players. They have had the rules support for s10 erode out from under them without a clear FAQ affirming that this is what GW intends. However, RAW is RAW and there is no ambiguity here.
I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.
NightHowler wrote: I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.
So if you have this modifier and this non-modifier increase, what rule are you using to pick the order in which they are applied?
When it comes to striking, both of these must be applied to the base characteristic (and this self contained rule doesn't state it applies as some sort of base characterist increase, it calls out what it is).
So there must be an order, correct?
A rule exists for this order of operations, it's called "Sequencing". Are you intending to use a different rule?
I like this question because I think it supports my position.
The change to strength from a thunderwolf happens during list building. The modifiers to Strength happen during the assault phase when you pick which weapon you attack with. So my wolf lord with a thunderwolf mount, frost sword, and power fist would have to choose either a +1 modifer to his Strength of 5 or a x2 modifier to his strength of 5. He can't choose not to be S5, but he can choose between the two modifiers to that Strength.
JinxDragon wrote: I purchase a Bike for an independent Character which begun with a Toughness of 4, then I test against the Model's unmodified Toughness:
What value would I use, the number listed on the profile or that number increased by 1?
If you were testing for instant death, you'd test against 5. Unfortunately, this doesn't tell us much because the instant death rule now says that you test against the toughness after modifiers, and while I would argue that the "increase toughness by 1" isn't a modifier, I would say that the -1 from Enfeeble would be considered a modifier.
NightHowler wrote: I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.
The multiple modifier rule does apply.
The Thunderwolf mount rule says increase strength by 1 which is the longhand of +1.
Modifiers expressed longhand are expressly permitted by the rule.
There is no problem applying the rule. It resolves at s9.
You are unable to find a rule that supports the fictional way you are trying to resolve it at s10. You are unable to find a rule which does this . . .
Spoiler:
Increasing or Decreasing a Characteristic
A model that has a characteristic increased or decreased has its unmodified base characteristic value reset to the new value without modification.
If you could find such a rule, you could claim RAW. But, as is, you can only claim HYWPI since you have to make up rules to resolve at s10.
I really feel for the SW players. They have had the rules support for s10 erode out from under them without a clear FAQ affirming that this is what GW intends. However, RAW is RAW and there is no ambiguity here.
I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.
Are you saying that increase strength by 1 isn't longhand for +1 to strength? Longhand is expressly permitted in the multiple modifiers rule.
Double is longhand for x2. Increase Strength by 1 is longhand for Strength +1. Move six inches is longhand for move 6".
col_impact wrote: I really feel for the SW players. They have had the rules support for s10 erode out from under them without a clear FAQ affirming that this is what GW intends. However, RAW is RAW and there is no ambiguity here.
They've also gained Fending on all their attacks (not just on basic CCW Attacks) and easy access to Furious Charge, if extra strength is needed.
Man... I really feel sorry for non-SW players... they don't seem to know how to address opposing points in a debate and instead fall back on repeating themselves or changing the subject.
NightHowler wrote: Man... I really feel sorry for non-SW players... they don't seem to know how to address opposing points in a debate and instead fall back on repeating themselves or changing the subject.
You are in the position of having to find rules to support resolving at s10. I am not in the position of having to find rules. The rules support s9. If I am repeating myself, it's because you have no RAW argument. And that point will be repeated until you provide rules.
NightHowler wrote: I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.
So if you have this modifier and this non-modifier increase, what rule are you using to pick the order in which they are applied?
When it comes to striking, both of these must be applied to the base characteristic (and this self contained rule doesn't state it applies as some sort of base characterist increase, it calls out what it is).
So there must be an order, correct?
A rule exists for this order of operations, it's called "Sequencing". Are you intending to use a different rule?
I like this question because I think it supports my position.
The change to strength from a thunderwolf happens during list building. The modifiers to Strength happen during the assault phase when you pick which weapon you attack with. So my wolf lord with a thunderwolf mount, frost sword, and power fist would have to choose either a +1 modifer to his Strength of 5 or a x2 modifier to his strength of 5. He can't choose not to be S5, but he can choose between the two modifiers to that Strength.
You'll need to prove that the order in which a model gains the bonuses applies.
Rules such as Multiple Modifers and sequencing show that's the order in which a model gains bonuses (list building, then later in combat) actually have no bearing. So what rule are you using to apply an order?
For example furious charge and a powerfist.
You gain Furious Charge before you choose to swing with the Powerfist. That's the order they are gained. Yet the order they are applied is the other way around.
Now I know you're claiming this doesn't use the Multiple Modifiers rule. Fair enough. But what rule are you using to apply the order of your bonuses? Chronological order is consistently not used thought the rules.
NightHowler wrote: Man... I really feel sorry for non-SW players... they don't seem to know how to address opposing points in a debate and instead fall back on repeating themselves or changing the subject.
You are in the position of having to find rules to support resolving at s10. I am not in the position of having to find rules. The rules support s9. If I am repeating myself, it's because you have no RAW argument. And that point will be repeated until you provide rules.
I'm not in a position of having to do anything. I've already said many, many times that everyone at my FLGS already plays it as S10. I've also explained that the tournament I'm attending this February plays it as S10.
And on a side note you could take some notes from Grendel 083. No offense, but unlike you, he actually does a pretty good job of finding rules to support his arguments.
NightHowler wrote: Man... I really feel sorry for non-SW players... they don't seem to know how to address opposing points in a debate and instead fall back on repeating themselves or changing the subject.
You are in the position of having to find rules to support resolving at s10. I am not in the position of having to find rules. The rules support s9. If I am repeating myself, it's because you have no RAW argument. And that point will be repeated until you provide rules.
I'm not in a position of having to do anything. I've already said many, many times that everyone at my FLGS already plays it as S10. I've also explained that the tournament I'm attending this February plays it as S10.
And on a side note you could take some notes from Grendel 083. No offense, but unlike you, he actually does a pretty good job of finding rules to support his arguments.
Good for you. You will be able to play s10 per a house rule by your FLGS. And that is 100% fine by me.
We aren't debating house rules here, though. We are debating RAW. If you want to participate in a debate about RAW you need to justify what you do with rules.
NightHowler wrote: I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.
So if you have this modifier and this non-modifier increase, what rule are you using to pick the order in which they are applied?
When it comes to striking, both of these must be applied to the base characteristic (and this self contained rule doesn't state it applies as some sort of base characterist increase, it calls out what it is).
So there must be an order, correct?
A rule exists for this order of operations, it's called "Sequencing". Are you intending to use a different rule?
I like this question because I think it supports my position.
The change to strength from a thunderwolf happens during list building. The modifiers to Strength happen during the assault phase when you pick which weapon you attack with. So my wolf lord with a thunderwolf mount, frost sword, and power fist would have to choose either a +1 modifer to his Strength of 5 or a x2 modifier to his strength of 5. He can't choose not to be S5, but he can choose between the two modifiers to that Strength.
You'll need to prove that the order in which a model gains the bonuses applies.
Rules such as Multiple Modifers and sequencing show that's the order in which a model gains bonuses (list building, then later in combat) actually have no bearing. So what rule are you using to apply an order?
For example furious charge and a powerfist.
You gain Furious Charge before you choose to swing with the Powerfist. That's the order they are gained. Yet the order they are applied is the other way around.
Now I know you're claiming this doesn't use the Multiple Modifiers rule. Fair enough. But what rule are you using to apply the order of your bonuses? Chronological order is consistently not used thought the rules.
I use the order given in the "multiple modifiers" section for any modifiers to strength. I would argue that the bonus from furious charge and the bonus from the powerfist both happen in the assault phase and so they both follow the rules for multiple modifiers. The assault phase happens after deployment. Deployment happens after I've purchased wargear for my wolf lord.
I'm also saying that the change to strength from thunderwolf mount happens when I purchase the thunderwolf mount and that it is a change to his stats, not an additive +1. The wording in the rules for the thunderwolf mount are where I'm getting the difference, and why I'm saying it's not a modifier.
NightHowler wrote: Man... I really feel sorry for non-SW players... they don't seem to know how to address opposing points in a debate and instead fall back on repeating themselves or changing the subject.
You are in the position of having to find rules to support resolving at s10. I am not in the position of having to find rules. The rules support s9. If I am repeating myself, it's because you have no RAW argument. And that point will be repeated until you provide rules.
I'm not in a position of having to do anything. I've already said many, many times that everyone at my FLGS already plays it as S10. I've also explained that the tournament I'm attending this February plays it as S10.
And on a side note you could take some notes from Grendel 083. No offense, but unlike you, he actually does a pretty good job of finding rules to support his arguments.
Good for you. You will be able to play s10 per a house rule by your FLGS. And that is 100% fine by me.
We aren't debating house rules here, though. We are debating RAW. If you want to participate in a debate about RAW you need to justify what you do with rules.
you're not actually debating anything. You're ignoring everything that I say and then repeating yourself. Please just look at the delightful conversation that Grendel083 and I are having for an example of how to listen to the other person in a conversation. It's refreshing and his comments actually provide some challenge to my position
I use the order given in the "multiple modifiers" section for any modifiers to strength. I would argue that the bonus from furious charge and the bonus from the powerfist both happen in the assault phase and so they both follow the rules for multiple modifiers. The assault phase happens after deployment. Deployment happens after I've purchased wargear for my wolf lord.
I'm also saying that the change to strength from thunderwolf mount happens when I purchase the thunderwolf mount and that it is a change to his stats, not an additive +1. The wording in the rules for the thunderwolf mount are where I'm getting the difference, and why I'm saying it's not a modifier.
This is a procedure that you are making up. It all hinges on things 'you are saying' and not what 'the rules are saying'. You have no rules basis for following this procedure. Feel free to prove otherwise and find rules that back this procedure you have made up.
These are the rules I follow to resolve at s9.
Spoiler:
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).
NightHowler wrote: I use the order given in the "multiple modifiers" section for any modifiers to strength. I would argue that the bonus from furious charge and the bonus from the powerfist both happen in the assault phase and so they both follow the rules for multiple modifiers. The assault phase happens after deployment. Deployment happens after I've purchased wargear for my wolf lord.
Hammerhand cast on a unit with a Thunderhammer? A common appearance in GK armies. The Str bonus from the power isn't in the same phase, possibly also not the same turn.
Would these modifiers then be applied in order rather than using the Multiple Modifiers rule?
NightHowler wrote: I use the order given in the "multiple modifiers" section for any modifiers to strength. I would argue that the bonus from furious charge and the bonus from the powerfist both happen in the assault phase and so they both follow the rules for multiple modifiers. The assault phase happens after deployment. Deployment happens after I've purchased wargear for my wolf lord.
Hammerhand cast on a unit with a Thunderhammer? A common appearance in GK armies. The Str bonus from the power isn't in the same phase, possibly also not the same turn.
Would these modifiers then be applied in order rather than using the Multiple Modifiers rule?
These are all examples of modifiers and so follow the multiple modifiers rule.
I'm saying that the change to the characteristics from a thunderwolf mount is not a "modifier" in the sense used in the multiple modifiers rule. I'm saying that the clue to this difference is in the wording. It says that when you upgrade to a thunderwolf mount you increase the strength, toughness, attacks, and wounds characteristics by 1. It does not say that when you purchase a thunderwolf mount you get a +1 to strength in close combat. It does not present a weapon profile with +1S listed. It says that you increase strength, toughness, attacks, and wounds by 1 when you upgrade to a thunderwolf mount (stress added to help with sequencing).
NightHowler wrote: I use the order given in the "multiple modifiers" section for any modifiers to strength. I would argue that the bonus from furious charge and the bonus from the powerfist both happen in the assault phase and so they both follow the rules for multiple modifiers. The assault phase happens after deployment. Deployment happens after I've purchased wargear for my wolf lord.
Hammerhand cast on a unit with a Thunderhammer? A common appearance in GK armies. The Str bonus from the power isn't in the same phase, possibly also not the same turn.
Would these modifiers then be applied in order rather than using the Multiple Modifiers rule?
These are all examples of modifiers and so follow the multiple modifiers rule.
I'm saying that the change to the characteristics from a thunderwolf mount is not a "modifier" in the sense used in the multiple modifiers rule. I'm saying that the clue to this difference is in the wording. It says that when you upgrade to a thunderwolf mount you increase the strength, toughness, attacks, and wounds characteristics by 1. It does not say that when you purchase a thunderwolf mount you get a +1 to strength in close combat. It does not present a weapon profile with +1S listed. It says that you increase strength, toughness, attacks, and wounds by 1 when you upgrade to a thunderwolf mount (stress added to help with sequencing).
1) If it's not a "modifier" then what is it? Find in the rules where we have some other definition we can apply to it. Otherwise you are making up your own definition here. The rules are not providing you any way to treat it, except as a modifier. We are not permitted to make up our own definitions and then apply them. Doing so is house ruling and not RAW.
2) Increase strength by 1 is longhand for +1 Strength. Longhand is expressly permitted by the Multiple Modifiers rule. Double is longhand for x2. Increase strength by 1 is longhand for +1 Strength. There are no problems with applying the Multiple Modifiers rule.
The strength increase of the TWC mount is also a modifier.
"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.)..." Models and Units chapter, Modifiers section).
The Thunderwolf is a piece of wargear that modifies a model’s characteristics positively by adding to it.
An increase is an addition. a decrease is a subtraction. (As per standard English definitions which we must use here because the BRB does not define increase).
DeathReaper wrote: The strength increase of the TWC mount is also a modifier.
"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.)..." Models and Units chapter, Modifiers section).
The Thunderwolf is a piece of wargear that modifies a model’s characteristics positively by adding to it.
An increase is an addition. a decrease is a subtraction. (As per standard English definitions which we must use here because the BRB does not define increase).
Thanks for the quote. That helps. It specifically says "adding to it" and specifically uses +1 to describe what a "modifier" is for the purposes of the "multiple modifiers" rule. The thunderwolf mount does not use this language to describe what happens when you upgrade to a thunderwolf mount. Instead, it uses the language "increases the model's toughness by 1". It avoids using +1 and in doing so, sets it apart from the wargear being described in the rule.
Just because two words have the same meaning in the English language does NOT imply that they are necessarily used the same in 40k. I've already provided an example of this above. So please do not try to use the fact that "it's shorthand" to prove your point, because this is not about whether or not the two words mean the same thing. The fact is that there are two different phrases used and it sets them apart.
NightHowler wrote: I'm saying that the change to the characteristics from a thunderwolf mount is not a "modifier" in the sense used in the multiple modifiers rule.
Yes, I understand what you're saying. The point being, if you look at similar rules, you'll see the rules don't care the time order in which a unit gains these bonuses.
For example Hammerhand and a Thunderhammer. The Thunderhammer will be applied before the Spell even though it could have been cast last turn. The time order doesn't matter. Last turn, same phase, list building, deployment. It's recalculated from scratch every time it changes.
So if your bonus falls outside of a modifier, you'll have 2 changes to apply to the Str stat (your bonus, and the x2 Str bonus), and you'll need to justify the order in which you're applying these bonuses. The Sequencing rule would cover this (I'm assuming you really don't want to use this one?), or is there an alternative?
grendel083 wrote: Yes, I understand what you're saying. The point being, if you look at similar rules, you'll see the rules don't care the time order in which a unit gains these bonuses.
For example Hammerhand and a Thunderhammer. The Thunderhammer will be applied before the Spell even though it could have been cast last turn. The time order doesn't matter. Last turn, same phase, list building, deployment. It's recalculated from scratch every time it changes.
So if your bonus falls outside of a modifier, you'll have 2 changes to apply to the Str stat (your bonus, and the x2 Str bonus), and you'll need to justify the order in which you're applying these bonuses. The Sequencing rule would cover this (I'm assuming you really don't want to use this one?), or is there an alternative?
Right. I only mentioned sequencing because you had asked me when I thought the change to toughness happens.
It's not that I don't want to use the sequencing rule. I'm saying that since the sequencing rule is part of the multiple modifiers rule and that I the change to toughness from the thunderwolf isn't a modifier as defined in that rule (specifically a +1 bonus added to a characteristic), then naturally sequencing wouldn't apply to this change. Like adding a jetpack changes a model when you purchase it allowing you to put it into depstrike reserves during deployment, purchasing a thunderwolf mount changes the model making it T5 rather than saying it's T4+1.
This is the distinction that sets the mount apart from wargear and spells that add to a stat with the +1S bonus.
DeathReaper wrote: The strength increase of the TWC mount is also a modifier.
"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.)..." Models and Units chapter, Modifiers section).
The Thunderwolf is a piece of wargear that modifies a model’s characteristics positively by adding to it.
An increase is an addition. a decrease is a subtraction. (As per standard English definitions which we must use here because the BRB does not define increase).
Thanks for the quote. That helps. It specifically says "adding to it" and specifically uses +1 to describe what a "modifier" is for the purposes of the "multiple modifiers" rule. The thunderwolf mount does not use this language to describe what happens when you upgrade to a thunderwolf mount. Instead, it uses the language "increases the model's toughness by 1". It avoids using +1 and in doing so, sets it apart from the wargear being described in the rule.
Just because two words have the same meaning in the English language does NOT imply that they are necessarily used the same in 40k. I've already provided an example of this above. So please do not try to use the fact that "it's shorthand" to prove your point, because this is not about whether or not the two words mean the same thing. The fact is that there are two different phrases used and it sets them apart.
Your argument is breaking down to just an obtuse one. Longhand is expressly permitted by the Multiple Modifiers rule. There is absolutely no problem resolving the Multiple Modifiers rule with modifiers expressed in longhand.
NightHowler wrote: I'm saying that since the sequencing rule is part of the multiple modifiers rule and that I the change to toughness from the thunderwolf isn't a modifier as defined in that rule (specifically a +1 bonus added to a characteristic), then naturally sequencing wouldn't apply to this change.
I'm referring to the Sequencing rule, it's not tied to multiple modifiers. It's for any situation where you have 2 simultaneous actions that need an order.
It's a seperate rule, it's not part of multiple Modifers. I would give a page number, but I only have the iPad version, so number won't help much.
NightHowler wrote: I'm saying that since the sequencing rule is part of the multiple modifiers rule and that I the change to toughness from the thunderwolf isn't a modifier as defined in that rule (specifically a +1 bonus added to a characteristic), then naturally sequencing wouldn't apply to this change.
I'm referring to the Sequencing rule, it's not tied to multiple modifiers. It's for any situation where you have 2 simultaneous actions that need an order.
It's a seperate rule, it's not part of multiple Modifers. I would give a page number, but I only have the iPad version, so number won't help much.
Spoiler:
SEQUENCING
While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.
I think my point was overlooked: A Rule informing us to test against the unmodified value, with 'increase by 1' being a non-modifier, could be testing against a value different then that found on the profile. The reverse is also true, a Rule granting us permission to test against the modified value would be forced to ignore the 'increase by 1' if it is not a modification.
So, logically, how is it possible to have an "unmodified" Value that is lower then the "modified" value after applying a Rule which increased the value?
DeathReaper wrote: The strength increase of the TWC mount is also a modifier.
"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.)..." Models and Units chapter, Modifiers section).
The Thunderwolf is a piece of wargear that modifies a model’s characteristics positively by adding to it.
An increase is an addition. a decrease is a subtraction. (As per standard English definitions which we must use here because the BRB does not define increase).
Thanks for the quote. That helps. It specifically says "adding to it" and specifically uses +1 to describe what a "modifier" is for the purposes of the "multiple modifiers" rule. The thunderwolf mount does not use this language to describe what happens when you upgrade to a thunderwolf mount. Instead, it uses the language "increases the model's toughness by 1". It avoids using +1 and in doing so, sets it apart from the wargear being described in the rule.
Just because two words have the same meaning in the English language does NOT imply that they are necessarily used the same in 40k. I've already provided an example of this above. So please do not try to use the fact that "it's shorthand" to prove your point, because this is not about whether or not the two words mean the same thing. The fact is that there are two different phrases used and it sets them apart.
Except your argument falls short.
+1 and increase by 1 are saying the exact same thing.
NightHowler wrote: I'm saying that since the sequencing rule is part of the multiple modifiers rule and that I the change to toughness from the thunderwolf isn't a modifier as defined in that rule (specifically a +1 bonus added to a characteristic), then naturally sequencing wouldn't apply to this change.
I'm referring to the Sequencing rule, it's not tied to multiple modifiers. It's for any situation where you have 2 simultaneous actions that need an order.
It's a seperate rule, it's not part of multiple Modifers. I would give a page number, but I only have the iPad version, so number won't help much.
I see what you're saying.
I would say that the bonuses from modifiers are calculated whenever they are used (ie: the assault phase). If anyone can find a rule that says otherwise it may shed some light on this.
We know that the change to the profile from purchasing a thunderwolf mount happens when you purchase the wargear as the rule specifically says that this is when it happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
grendel083 wrote: JinxDragon - Hammer of Wrath would be a relevant example, has it uses Unmodified Str and it's something Cavalry have?
Col_impact - thanks for supplying the rule.
Actually cavalry do have it. And most people play it as a S5 hammer of wrath since the TWC profile is an unmodified S5.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's funny, because when I started posting in this thread it was just to say that I don't think we can tell from the rules whether it's S10 or S9, but the more we talk about it, the more I'm convinced that it's S10.
NightHowler wrote: Actually cavalry do have it. And most people play it as a S5 hammer of wrath since the TWC profile is an unmodified S5.
Thats understandable, most people don't look beyond the profile. Doesn't mean it's correct.
It's funny, because when I started posting in this thread it was just to say that I don't think we can tell from the rules whether it's S10 or S9, but the more we talk about it, the more I'm convinced that it's S10.
When I started I was convinced it was S10, now I'm seeing it as S9.
A change to a stat that isn't a modifier, just doesn't fit for me. There isn't enough rules to back this up.
I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule. It isn't a +1 S, it's a change to the profile that happens before the game even begins, when the thunderwolf is purchased.
They used to call it a change to the "base stat", and the old FAQ had to explain that the +1 to strength was a change to the base stat to explain why it was 10. It seems that they dropped the FAQ since changing the wording of the rule to say "increase strength by 1" instead of "a thunderwolf mount gives the user +1 strength" which is what it used to say. Probably the change was to prevent confusion, but it has only made more confusion.
grendel083 wrote: So when Hammer of Wrath says "Unmodified Strength", do you think it should be S4 or S5?
Would it only cover multiple-modifiers or all modifiers?
I think it's S5. The Hammer of Wrath rule says to use the models' unmodified strength. Since the increase in strength isn't a modifier so much as a change to the profile, you would use the new profile of S5.
NightHowler wrote: I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule. It isn't a +1 S, it's a change to the profile that happens before the game even begins, when the thunderwolf is purchased.
They used to call it a change to the "base stat", and the old FAQ had to explain that the +1 to strength was a change to the base stat to explain why it was 10. It seems that they dropped the FAQ since changing the wording of the rule to say "increase strength by 1" instead of "a thunderwolf mount gives the user +1 strength" which is what it used to say. Probably the change was to prevent confusion, but it has only made more confusion.
If the rules still said that it was a change to the base stat then it would resolve at s10. However, the rules no longer say that, so it resolves per the rules as s9. Your recourse is house rule or wait for the FAQ.
NightHowler wrote: I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule. It isn't a +1 S, it's a change to the profile that happens before the game even begins, when the thunderwolf is purchased.
They used to call it a change to the "base stat", and the old FAQ had to explain that the +1 to strength was a change to the base stat to explain why it was 10. It seems that they dropped the FAQ since changing the wording of the rule to say "increase strength by 1" instead of "a thunderwolf mount gives the user +1 strength" which is what it used to say. Probably the change was to prevent confusion, but it has only made more confusion.
If the rules still said that it was a change to the base stat then it would resolve at s10. However, the rules no longer say that, so it resolves per the rules as s9. Your recourse is house rule or wait for the FAQ.
If you had paid attention you would have seen that I am claiming they did away with the phrase "change to a base stat" because they changed the wording of the rule from +1 to increase by one. Please try to read what is said closely to prevent these kinds of mistakes.
NightHowler wrote: I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule.
NightHowler wrote: Since the increase in strength isn't a modifier so much as a change to the profile.
Bit of a contradiction between two posts.
Can you see why I'm finding your theory difficult to accept? It's a modifier, but not one of "those" modifiers, then it's not a modifier at all?
Yes, I certainly see why it's confusing, but I'm not contradicting myself. "I'm not saying it isn't a modifier" means that it isn't one of the "modifiers" listed in that rule, but clearly the word modification means to change something and the thunderwolf mount changes the statline of a character who takes it.
I understand why you would be unconvinced.
It really hangs on whether or not you think a piece of wargear has to say +1 to a stat or double a stat to fall under the multiple modifiers rule. I say it does. colon_impact says it doesn't.
NightHowler wrote: I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule. It isn't a +1 S, it's a change to the profile that happens before the game even begins, when the thunderwolf is purchased.
They used to call it a change to the "base stat", and the old FAQ had to explain that the +1 to strength was a change to the base stat to explain why it was 10. It seems that they dropped the FAQ since changing the wording of the rule to say "increase strength by 1" instead of "a thunderwolf mount gives the user +1 strength" which is what it used to say. Probably the change was to prevent confusion, but it has only made more confusion.
If the rules still said that it was a change to the base stat then it would resolve at s10. However, the rules no longer say that, so it resolves per the rules as s9. Your recourse is house rule or wait for the FAQ.
If you had paid attention you would have seen that I am claiming they did away with the phrase "change to a base stat" because they changed the wording of the rule from +1 to increase by one. Please try to read what is said closely to prevent these kinds of mistakes.
NightHowler wrote: I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule.
NightHowler wrote: Since the increase in strength isn't a modifier so much as a change to the profile.
Bit of a contradiction between two posts.
Can you see why I'm finding your theory difficult to accept? It's a modifier, but not one of "those" modifiers, then it's not a modifier at all?
Yes, I certainly see why it's confusing, but I'm not contradicting myself. "I'm not saying it isn't a modifier" means that it isn't one of the "modifiers" listed in that rule, but clearly the word modification means to change something and the thunderwolf mount changes the statline of a character who takes it.
I understand why you would be unconvinced.
It really hangs on whether or not you think a piece of wargear has to say +1 to a stat or double a stat to fall under the multiple modifiers rule. I say it does. colon_impact says it doesn't.
The rules support what I am saying. The rules don't support what you are saying.
grendel083 wrote: So why would "unmodified" apply to only modifiers listed in Multiple-Modifiers and not all modifications?
As you say, it's been changed or modified.
What I've been trying to say without coming out and saying it, is that the phrase "increase strength by 1" is the new way of saying "+1 to base strength". I've been trying to show that the dropping of the FAQ coincided with a change in the way that the rule was worded because by saying you increase the strength by 1 you say that you are changing the profile, while saying x piece of wargear gives +1 to strength shows that it you are modifying a profile.
Unfortunately we'll have to wait for the FAQ to know for sure.
NightHowler wrote: I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule. It isn't a +1 S, it's a change to the profile that happens before the game even begins, when the thunderwolf is purchased.
They used to call it a change to the "base stat", and the old FAQ had to explain that the +1 to strength was a change to the base stat to explain why it was 10. It seems that they dropped the FAQ since changing the wording of the rule to say "increase strength by 1" instead of "a thunderwolf mount gives the user +1 strength" which is what it used to say. Probably the change was to prevent confusion, but it has only made more confusion.
If the rules still said that it was a change to the base stat then it would resolve at s10. However, the rules no longer say that, so it resolves per the rules as s9. Your recourse is house rule or wait for the FAQ.
If you had paid attention you would have seen that I am claiming they did away with the phrase "change to a base stat" because they changed the wording of the rule from +1 to increase by one. Please try to read what is said closely to prevent these kinds of mistakes.
NightHowler wrote: I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule.
NightHowler wrote: Since the increase in strength isn't a modifier so much as a change to the profile.
Bit of a contradiction between two posts.
Can you see why I'm finding your theory difficult to accept? It's a modifier, but not one of "those" modifiers, then it's not a modifier at all?
Yes, I certainly see why it's confusing, but I'm not contradicting myself. "I'm not saying it isn't a modifier" means that it isn't one of the "modifiers" listed in that rule, but clearly the word modification means to change something and the thunderwolf mount changes the statline of a character who takes it.
I understand why you would be unconvinced.
It really hangs on whether or not you think a piece of wargear has to say +1 to a stat or double a stat to fall under the multiple modifiers rule. I say it does. colon_impact says it doesn't.
The rules support what I am saying. The rules don't support what you are saying.
Good lord man, can you shut it for like 2 seconds and let the mature people in the room discuss this? I've never been this annoyed by anyone on the internet before.
"increase strength by 1" does not say "+1 to base strength". You will have to wait for a FAQ to resolve it as s10 without a house rule. If GW intent was to resolve at s10 then they obviously messed it up, since the rules no longer resolve at s10.
col_impact wrote: "increase strength by 1" does not say "+1 to base strength". You will have to wait for a FAQ to resolve it as s10 without a house rule. If GW intent was to resolve at s10 then they obviously messed it up, since the rules no longer resolve at s10.
Per RAW, it resolves as s9.
I understand you persistence perfectly now. I also understand why all you do is repeat yourself. You're trolling for a rise.
Have fun with that, but I'll be ignoring you from now on.
It is an interesting theory, but Col_impact is correct:
Without a quote from the Rule book which specifically states that 'increase by 1' changes the unmodified / base value, how do we prove that it has changed the Base Value?
col_impact wrote: "increase strength by 1" does not say "+1 to base strength". You will have to wait for a FAQ to resolve it as s10 without a house rule. If GW intent was to resolve at s10 then they obviously messed it up, since the rules no longer resolve at s10.
Per RAW, it resolves as s9.
I understand you persistence perfectly now. I also understand why all you do is repeat yourself. You're trolling for a rise.
Have fun with that, but I'll be ignoring you from now on.
Feel free to ignore me. Since "increase strength by 1" does not say "increase base strength by 1", it sums up perfectly the fatal flaw in your argument. You should consider ignoring this thread until you have something substantive to contribute, per YMDC thread rules (ie support what you say with rules)
grendel083 wrote: So why would "unmodified" apply to only modifiers listed in Multiple-Modifiers and not all modifications?
As you say, it's been changed or modified.
What I've been trying to say without coming out and saying it, is that the phrase "increase strength by 1" is the new way of saying "+1 to base strength". I've been trying to show that the dropping of the FAQ coincided with a change in the way that the rule was worded because by saying you increase the strength by 1 you say that you are changing the profile, while saying x piece of wargear gives +1 to strength shows that it you are modifying a profile.
I understand what you're saying.
A "modifier" to the profile versus a "change" to the profile. One affected by the rules of modifiers and multiple-modifiers, the other not.
Problem being, one is well defined, the other isn't. If it exists, the only evidence is one phrase slightly different from a standard modifier but meaning the same thing.
The reference to "base-stat" used in previous editions was clear. Why would they change this to a different system, yet neglect to mention or make note of it? Something a little clearer? The whole Basic Princliples section of the rulebook was streamlined in this edition to have less exceptions to the "core" rules (For example, Hammerhand used its own rules for modifiers rather than Multiple Modifiers in previous editions). Yet if you're right that there is a difference, this is such a stealth change that practically no one recognises it as anyting different from the well-established rules.
Writing things out long hand is nothing new, whole weapons have had a longhand profile in the past rather than the standard profile. If you want to convince anyone this is other than simply a long-hand modifier, you'll need more rules support.
JinxDragon wrote: It is an interesting theory, but Col_impact is correct:
Without a quote from the Rule book which specifically states that 'increase by 1' changes the unmodified / base value, how do we prove that it has changed the Base Value?
I'm saying that there is no more "base value" for anything anymore. It's not in the book. By getting rid of that mechanic, they had to get rid of the old FAQ because the phrase "base value" is no longer being used.
How are they supposed to say that something increases the base value when they don't use the concept of a base value anymore? They say that it increases the characteristic of the profile, and they chose +1 to a value to describe changes which they call "modifiers" and the phrase "increase by 1" to describe changes to the profile.
The wording of modifiers states that some wargear adds to a characteristic (+1, +2, etc). I argue that increasing a stat is different than adding to a stat. In the rules for the thunderwolf mount there is no +1 to anything. There is no adding to a stat. It instructs us to increase the strength by 1. Why would they word it differently? Why not simply say +1 strength, +1 toughness? I argue that it is because the rule for thunderwolf mounts is not designed to be affected by the multiple modifiers rule.
NightHowler wrote: How are they supposed to say that something increases the base value when they don't use the concept of a base value anymore?
But you're proposing the same thing as base value.
That they haven't gotten rid of it, just removed it's name and all reference to it, and it's still there.
Personally I think they have gotten rid of base value. Completely. There is no system of increasing base values, just go with the one mechanic of modifiers. It certainly makes things easier. They've already removed it from Instant Death, and things like bikes (remember 4(5)?).
What support is there that this is the new incarnation of increasing Base Stats, and not just longhand?
NightHowler wrote: How are they supposed to say that something increases the base value when they don't use the concept of a base value anymore?
But you're proposing the same thing as base value.
That they haven't gotten rid of it, just removed it's name and all reference to it, and it's still there.
Personally I think they have gotten rid of base value. Completely. There is no system of increasing base values, just go with the one mechanic of modifiers. It certainly makes things easier. They've already removed it from Instant Death, and things like bikes (remember 4(5)?).
What support is there that this is the new incarnation of increasing Base Stats, and not just longhand?
Only the difference in wording found in the thunderwolf mount entry.
NightHowler wrote: Only the difference in wording found in the thunderwolf mount entry.
It's also found in the "Iron Steed" rule for bikes in the rulebook. Same terminology.
I'm all up for exploring new ideas, but I feel more support is needed for this one. A different way of writing things is all there is, no explanation as to what that difference means.
NightHowler wrote: Only the difference in wording found in the thunderwolf mount entry.
It's also found in the "Iron Steed" rule for bikes in the rulebook. Same terminology.
I'm all up for exploring new ideas, but I feel more support is needed for this one. A different way of writing things is all there is, no explanation as to what that difference means.
How are they supposed to say that something increases the base value when they don't use the concept of a base value anymore? - Nighthowler.
The very same question can be asked to you, if the concept of 'Base Value' has been removed by the game why would any Author tell is to increase this Value?
When the brothers of the VI Legion wake up in the ....... (morning? first time that week? what ever), After they say their prayers to the Allfather, before they put on their power armour, slip on their power fist, hop on their trusty thunder wolf, they are str 4. Just like every other Astartes ( since 2nd Ed). EVERY astartes from Chapter master to fresh scout recruit is Str 4. Every one of us who cares about this topic even a little bit, can recite the base stat line for a Astartes, 4/4/4/4/1/4/1/8. Anything that changes this is a Modifier. If there are multiple modifiers, then we have a clear rule as to how to get to the final #. If the Thunder Wolves themselves had Power Paws then i could accept str 10. They don't, its the Riders who ware them so its str 9.
This argument wont be setteld untill GW gets so many questions that they choke on them. If you want to help this happen please send GW a few questions. Here is the link to do so.
NightHowler wrote: Only the difference in wording found in the thunderwolf mount entry.
It's also found in the "Iron Steed" rule for bikes in the rulebook. Same terminology.
I'm all up for exploring new ideas, but I feel more support is needed for this one. A different way of writing things is all there is, no explanation as to what that difference means.
Who knows, an FAQ may change it all.
I will have to point out as well that Bikes follow the exact same rule (they are T4 "increased" to T5)
It has been said that ID counts all modifiers, but if any rule were to call upon a "base Toughness test", any on the S9 for TWC would have to test on T4 for bikers.
I'm quite sure most of the S9 side actually believes all Bikes/Jetbikes to be T5 "always". They would have to swap to the S10 side.
NightHowler wrote: Only the difference in wording found in the thunderwolf mount entry.
It's also found in the "Iron Steed" rule for bikes in the rulebook. Same terminology.
In case of bikes i would say that it isn't a modifier as used in other parts of the rules, because it states that its a bonus and states an increase to their toughness characteristic. This is very distinct from the wording used in most (haven't had time to check all) psychic powers for example which all talk about a -x or +x to their Strength/Toughness, not to their characteristic however, so that might be their way of telling us that its an increase to the base profile.
Right now however i play it as S9 as its a lot guessing RaI and only based on small differences in wording that do not have support (or are mentioned at all) in other parts of the BrB. (Like i said i think that it should be S10 but thats just my RaI and not my RaW interpretation).
Lord Lorne Walkier wrote: When the brothers of the VI Legion wake up in the ....... (morning? first time that week? what ever), After they say their prayers to the Allfather, before they put on their power armour, slip on their power fist, hop on their trusty thunder wolf, they are str 4. Just like every other Astartes ( since 2nd Ed). EVERY astartes from Chapter master to fresh scout recruit is Str 4. Every one of us who cares about this topic even a little bit, can recite the base stat line for a Astartes, 4/4/4/4/1/4/1/8. Anything that changes this is a Modifier. If there are multiple modifiers, then we have a clear rule as to how to get to the final #. If the Thunder Wolves themselves had Power Paws then i could accept str 10. They don't, its the Riders who ware them so its str 9.
This argument wont be setteld untill GW gets so many questions that they choke on them. If you want to help this happen please send GW a few questions. Here is the link to do so.
Gamefaqs@gwplc.com
Gamefaqs@gwplc.com
Gamefaqs@gwplc.com
Fill their inbox!
If you're saying that even thunderwolf cavalry are S9, then you are not only wrong but also unaware that the argument is only about wolf lords who take the thunderwolf mount.
When I buy a unit of thunderwolf cavalry, they come S5 from the start. Their profile says S5. When I buy them a powerfist it is S5 x2. The modifier from the powerfist modifies their profile and the bonus from the thunderwolf is already included in that.
When I buy a wolf lord, give him a thunderwolf mount, and then buy him a powerfist, the situation is unfortunately very different. The wolf lord comes out of the box at S4. The thunderwolf mount increases his strength to 5, and then the powerfist doubles it to 10. Since there is nothing in the rules written out that specifically says in clear language that the increase to his strength is an increase to his "base profile" many people argue that this means the wolf lord is S9. This same argument can not be applied to the cavalry models since their profile says S5. Anyone who says that the cavalry models are also S9 have to come up with a rule explaining why a profile of S5 adjusted by a powerfist of x2 comes out to 9.
NightHowler wrote: Only the difference in wording found in the thunderwolf mount entry.
It's also found in the "Iron Steed" rule for bikes in the rulebook. Same terminology.
I'm all up for exploring new ideas, but I feel more support is needed for this one. A different way of writing things is all there is, no explanation as to what that difference means.
Who knows, an FAQ may change it all.
I will have to point out as well that Bikes follow the exact same rule (they are T4 "increased" to T5)
It has been said that ID counts all modifiers, but if any rule were to call upon a "base Toughness test", any on the S9 for TWC would have to test on T4 for bikers.
I'm quite sure most of the S9 side actually believes all Bikes/Jetbikes to be T5 "always". They would have to swap to the S10 side.
Consistency.
Are you saying that even bikes like swiftclaw bikers or ravenwing bike units count their unmodified T as 4? Or only characters who take a bike as wargear?
NightHowler wrote: Are you saying that even bikes like swiftclaw bikers or ravenwing bike units count their unmodified T as 4? Or only characters who take a bike as wargear?
I'm saying all bikes, yes. Or at least all models with "bike" in their Wargear. Just as the Thunderwolf is in some model's wargear.
Since the 5th Ed Book in 2009 Thundervolves were pretty much a "form of Bike" and the rules very very similar.
NightHowler wrote: Are you saying that even bikes like swiftclaw bikers or ravenwing bike units count their unmodified T as 4? Or only characters who take a bike as wargear?
I'm saying all bikes, yes. Or at least all models with "bike" in their Wargear. Just as the Thunderwolf is in some model's wargear.
Since the 5th Ed Book in 2009 Thundervolves were pretty much a "form of Bike" and the rules very very similar.
So even though the profile is now T5 instead of the old T4(5), you still believe that the unmodified toughness is 4? I'm not clear how you come to that conclusion, can you explain your reasoning to me?
NightHowler wrote: Are you saying that even bikes like swiftclaw bikers or ravenwing bike units count their unmodified T as 4? Or only characters who take a bike as wargear?
I'm saying all bikes, yes. Or at least all models with "bike" in their Wargear. Just as the Thunderwolf is in some model's wargear.
Since the 5th Ed Book in 2009 Thundervolves were pretty much a "form of Bike" and the rules very very similar.
So even though the profile is now T5 instead of the old T4(5), you still believe that the unmodified toughness is 4? I'm not clear how you come to that conclusion, can you explain your reasoning to me?
If you look at the Armoured Steed rule, it's an increase to the toughness value.
It says that in the case of units with a bike as their default equipment, this bonus has already been included in their profile.
They've had a stat increase, the same as a character that purchases a bike as Wargear.
Thunderwolf Cavalry are also in the same boat. If you look at their Wargear you'll see that the mount is listed. The stat increases have been included in their profile, but it is still a stat increase. So the Strength argument isn't just limited to Characters with the mount, but anyone with the mount.
grendel083 wrote: If you look at the Armoured Steed rule, it's an increase to the toughness value.
It says that in the case of units with a bike as their default equipment, this bonus has already been included in their profile.
They've had a stat increase, the same as a character that purchases a bike as Wargear.
Thunderwolf Cavalry are also in the same boat. If you look at their Wargear you'll see that the mount is listed. The stat increases have been included in their profile, but it is still a stat increase. So the Strength argument isn't just limited to Characters with the mount, but anyone with the mount.
Then just like I have to admit that the wolf lord with a fist is S9 WAR, I'm afraid I would need you to show me where it says in the rules that a profile of S5 is actually a modified S4 +1.
I'm afraid you'll have a hard time finding a rule for that one. I'm fully aware that it says the bonuses for a thunderwolf mount are already included in the profile of thunderwolf cavalry, but nowhere does it give an original strength of 4. We are only given a profile with S5. Sure, we can do the math and subtract 1, but show me in the rules where we're supposed to do that. Sure, all know that they are marines, and we all know that a marines strength is 4, but we can't use fluff or prior knowledge to determine the rules - if we could, I'd have a much stronger argument for my wolf lord being S10.
I'm afraid that this argument does not hold water. I would need to see a rule specifically stating that a bonus already included in a profile is the same thing as a modifier, and it would need to be spelled out in exactly those words, or it just doesn't hold up.
Edited to add: I'll admit that RAW my wolf lord on a mount with a powerfist is S9, but I can't see any way for someone to prove that the cavalry are the same.
The unmodified toughness is 4, because you are told the toughness has been modified (increased by 1) by the mount.
Increase by 1 is long hand for add 1. Otherwise, as Happyjew (I believe, Jet lagged atm!) was trying to point out, mathematically you cannot complete the required operation, and a TWM lord is only S8 with a power fist
(If you are saying increase by 1 is NOT equivalent longhand to +1, you CANNOT use the mathematical operator to find the resutl of increasing by 1, meaning the S stays at 4. A pfist then doubles this to S8.)
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unmodified toughness is 4, because you are told the toughness has been modified (increased by 1) by the mount.
Increase by 1 is long hand for add 1. Otherwise, as Happyjew (I believe, Jet lagged atm!) was trying to point out, mathematically you cannot complete the required operation, and a TWM lord is only S8 with a power fist
(If you are saying increase by 1 is NOT equivalent longhand to +1, you CANNOT use the mathematical operator to find the resutl of increasing by 1, meaning the S stays at 4. A pfist then doubles this to S8.)
I think you've missed a few paragraphs here. I admit that RAW the wolf lord is S9. But the claim that cavalry are S9 is ridiculous.
The profile is S5. The modifier I get from giving them a power fist is x2. 5x2=10.
If the cavalry came S4 and I had to buy them a mount for +1, and then a powerfist for x2, then I'd admit that they are also S9, but they're not, because they don't come as S4.
In addition, a model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks and Wounds characteristics by 1 (these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear).
The rule calls it out as a bonus and that it was included in the profile. If it is a modifier (which I believe it is) then you have to calculate any new modifiers (such as power fist) with this in mind. So clearly their base str is currently 4 + 1 and thus with a power fist is 4 x 2 + 1 = 9. They should have kept the profile as 4 (5) for these kinds of things but in the process of streamlining rules they decided to take a shortcut.
If you're saying that even thunderwolf cavalry are S9, then you are not only wrong but also unaware that the argument is only about wolf lords who take the thunderwolf mount.
Do you realize that it's completely aberrant (even if you are right, it's against common sense)
Toughness was clarify because of Instant death before 6th ed, we don't care anymore.
In the new SW codex, TW are in the list of TWC equipments. It changes everything !!!!
"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics..."
Increase a value, +1, bonus of 1... They all mean the same thing...
The bonus is included in the profile, and so ?
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unmodified toughness is 4, because you are told the toughness has been modified (increased by 1) by the mount.
Increase by 1 is long hand for add 1. Otherwise, as Happyjew (I believe, Jet lagged atm!) was trying to point out, mathematically you cannot complete the required operation, and a TWM lord is only S8 with a power fist
(If you are saying increase by 1 is NOT equivalent longhand to +1, you CANNOT use the mathematical operator to find the resutl of increasing by 1, meaning the S stays at 4. A pfist then doubles this to S8.)
I think you've missed a few paragraphs here. I admit that RAW the wolf lord is S9. But the claim that cavalry are S9 is ridiculous.
The profile is S5. The modifier I get from giving them a power fist is x2. 5x2=10.
If the cavalry came S4 and I had to buy them a mount for +1, and then a powerfist for x2, then I'd admit that they are also S9, but they're not, because they don't come as S4.
Yes they do. They are S4, modified to S5. As the rule for the mount - which they have as wargear, so the rule ABSOLUTELY applies to them - states they have been increased by 1
Do you agree that an increase of 1 to S is the same as +1S?
NightHowler wrote: So even though the profile is now T5 instead of the old T4(5), you still believe that the unmodified toughness is 4? I'm not clear how you come to that conclusion, can you explain your reasoning to me?
I never said i believed anything... I said anyone who advocated that TWC (& Lords) are S4 (+1 Increase) to be S9 must also advocate Bikers are T4 for any Toughness test.
I personally believe that there is a big confusion and am not taking a side, mainly because of the removal of the word "Base" stat.
Ed:
My next question to all (both sides) is this: If a TWC Unit is required to make a Strength test, are we rolling 4+ or 5+ to Fail?
BlackTalos wrote: I said anyone who advocated that TWC (& Lords) are S4 (+1 Increase) to be S9 must also advocate Bikers are T4 for any Toughness test.
I will gladly concede to that on the condition you show me where the rules say Characteristic Tests are taken on unmodified characteristics.
BlackTalos wrote: I said anyone who advocated that TWC (& Lords) are S4 (+1 Increase) to be S9 must also advocate Bikers are T4 for any Toughness test.
I will gladly concede to that on the condition you show me where the rules say Characteristic Tests are taken on unmodified characteristics.
My added question should show that, having read the rules for Characteristic Tests, i don't actually know...
It says to take the profile value. So base value?
BlackTalos wrote: I said anyone who advocated that TWC (& Lords) are S4 (+1 Increase) to be S9 must also advocate Bikers are T4 for any Toughness test.
I will gladly concede to that on the condition you show me where the rules say Characteristic Tests are taken on unmodified characteristics.
My added question should show that, having read the rules for Characteristic Tests, i don't actually know... It says to take the profile value. So base value?
And I would point out that Toughness characteristic on a SM Biker's profile says "5".
I would also point out that the edit was posted while I was replying. Which is why I missed it.
The multiple modifiers rules states that there are pieces of wargear that modify the profile.
Nowhere in that rule does it state that we are to include modifications that happen before the profile is printed in the codex.
Just as I now admit it is a stretch to try and prove WAR that a wolf lord with a mount and a powerfist is S10, it is an equally large stretch to try and claim that we have to deconstruct the profile of a model and then use the multiple modifiers rule to reconstruct them to come to a final value.
Modifiers modify the profile. If the bonus from wargear is already included in the profile then it can not modify the profile. It's already included. Therefore, a thunderwolf cavalry with a profile S5 and a powerfist modifier of x2, would have a final strength of 10.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
grendel083 wrote: The Cavalry have the same peace of wargear as the Lord.
Their profile says S5 and we know a +1 Str bonus has been added.
They have the same wargear, but not the same profile. A modifier modifies something. You told me that. But if a bonus is "already included in the profile" how does it modify the profile?
If you can explain to me in clear terms how something already included in the profile then also modifies that profile, it may be easier for me to see your side.
With the wolf lord, the reason he is S9 and not S10 is that the mount modifies his profile and the powerfist modifies his profile. I don't like it, but that's how the rules are written.
With the cavalry, the bonuses from the mount are already included in the profile and so they can not be included in the list of "modifiers", because they're already a part of the profile you're trying to modify.
Happyjew wrote: And I would point out that Toughness characteristic on a SM Biker's profile says "5".
I would also point out that the edit was posted while I was replying. Which is why I missed it.
The profile on the TWC says "5" and "5" for S & T, so i start doubting what to read from the rules when:
Ghaz wrote: From the 'Thunderwolf Mount' entry in Codex Space Wolves:
In addition, a model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks and Wounds characteristics by 1 (these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear).
With that, I have to agree with DeathReaper and blaktoof that a Thunderwolf Cavalry Pack Leader with a power fist should be striking at S9.
DeathReaper wrote: The strength increase of the TWC mount is also a modifier.
"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.)..." Models and Units chapter, Modifiers section).
The Thunderwolf is a piece of wargear that modifies a model’s characteristics positively by adding to it.
An increase is an addition. a decrease is a subtraction. (As per standard English definitions which we must use here because the BRB does not define increase).
NightHowler wrote: Actually cavalry do have it. And most people play it as a S5 hammer of wrath since the TWC profile is an unmodified S5.
Thats understandable, most people don't look beyond the profile. Doesn't mean it's correct.
It's funny, because when I started posting in this thread it was just to say that I don't think we can tell from the rules whether it's S10 or S9, but the more we talk about it, the more I'm convinced that it's S10.
When I started I was convinced it was S10, now I'm seeing it as S9.
A change to a stat that isn't a modifier, just doesn't fit for me. There isn't enough rules to back this up.
Now in reply to:
NightHowler wrote: The multiple modifiers rules states that there are pieces of wargear that modify the profile.
Nowhere in that rule does it state that we are to include modifications that happen before the profile is printed in the codex.
Just as I now admit it is a stretch to try and prove WAR that a wolf lord with a mount and a powerfist is S10, it is an equally large stretch to try and claim that we have to deconstruct the profile of a model and then use the multiple modifiers rule to reconstruct them to come to a final value.
Modifiers modify the profile. If the bonus from wargear is already included in the profile then it can not modify the profile. It's already included. Therefore, a thunderwolf cavalry with a profile S5 and a powerfist modifier of x2, would have a final strength of 10.
The main problem that ultimately stems from this is:
How can you have the same model (Space Marine on Thunderwolf) be S10 because his profile is written "S5", and a S9, just because the book reads "S4"?
Both are Space Marines on <Equipment> Thunderwolf.
Both have "(these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear)" bonuses to their S&T
Except they do have the same profile, only one has the stat increase already included in what the book has printed and the other, we need to add it ourselves then write down the new profile (That being Str 5 instead of Str 4).
DeathReaper wrote: Except they do have the same profile, only one has the stat increase already included in what the book has printed and the other, we need to add it ourselves then write down the new profile (That being Str 5 instead of Str 4).
So you also agree, for consistency, that their Hammer of Wrath is S4. You also agree that any Bikers (Bike, Jetbike) will only pass base Toughness tests on 4 or lower (if Marines) or 3 or lower (Eldar)?
The main problem that ultimately stems from this is:
How can you have the same model (Space Marine on Thunderwolf) be S10 because his profile is written "S5", and a S9, just because the book reads "S4"?
Both are Space Marines on <Equipment> Thunderwolf.
Both have "(these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear)" bonuses to their S&T
Because the "multiple modifiers" rule says that some wargear modifies a profile. Then it gives us rules for how to apply those modifiers.
The profile for a Wolf Lord is S4. The thunderwolf mount in the wargear section says that it increases S,T,W,and A by 1. The powerfist is x2 to strength. The "multiple modifiers" rule says that we multiply first and add last. Therefore (4x2)+1=9.
The profile for a Thunderwolf Cavalry model is S5. It has the mount listed in it's wargear, but the bonus is already included in the profile. The rules for "multiple modifiers" say nothing about deconstructing profiles and then reconstructing them, it only says what to do when there are multiple modifiers to a profile. Since the bonus to Strength and Toughness are already included in the profile, they can not be considered modifiers. They're already in there. The profile is S5, T5.
Because of this difference, when a thunderwolf cavalry model takes a powerfist, the multiple modifiers rule does not take effect. His profile is already S5, so we only consider modifiers to that. The powerfist is the only modifier of x2. Now if there are additional modifiers that come later, like from furious charge, then we would follow the "multiple modifiers" rule and multiply first, add last.
DeathReaper wrote: Except they do have the same profile, only one has the stat increase already included in what the book has printed and the other, we need to add it ourselves then write down the new profile (That being Str 5 instead of Str 4).
So you also agree, for consistency, that their Hammer of Wrath is S4. You also agree that any Bikers (Bike, Jetbike) will only pass base Toughness tests on 4 or lower (if Marines) or 3 or lower (Eldar)?
Well since HoW goes off of unmodified Str, yes, since the increase is not included since it is a modifier to the Str.
Not sure what a base toughness test is, but if something calls for an unmodified Toughness test, then bikers would use 4 or lower if Marines or 3 or lower if Eldar.
DeathReaper wrote: Except they do have the same profile, only one has the stat increase already included in what the book has printed and the other, we need to add it ourselves then write down the new profile (That being Str 5 instead of Str 4).
So you also agree, for consistency, that their Hammer of Wrath is S4. You also agree that any Bikers (Bike, Jetbike) will only pass base Toughness tests on 4 or lower (if Marines) or 3 or lower (Eldar)?
Well since HoW goes off of unmodified Str, yes, since the increase is not included since it is a modifier to the Str.
Not sure what a base toughness test is, but if something calls for an unmodified Toughness test, then bikers would use 4 or lower if Marines or 3 or lower if Eldar.
Ok, consistent. I just have a memory of all YMDC agreeing that Marine Bikes made unmodified Toughness tests on their "base stat" of 5. I guess things change...
The main problem that ultimately stems from this is:
How can you have the same model (Space Marine on Thunderwolf) be S10 because his profile is written "S5", and a S9, just because the book reads "S4"?
Both are Space Marines on <Equipment> Thunderwolf.
Both have "(these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear)" bonuses to their S&T
Because the "multiple modifiers" rule says that some wargear modifies a profile. Then it gives us rules for how to apply those modifiers.
The profile for a Wolf Lord is S4. The thunderwolf mount in the wargear section says that it increases S,T,W,and A by 1. The powerfist is x2 to strength. The "multiple modifiers" rule says that we multiply first and add last. Therefore (4x2)+1=9.
The profile for a Thunderwolf Cavalry model is S5. It has the mount listed in it's wargear, but the bonus is already included in the profile. The rules for "multiple modifiers" say nothing about deconstructing profiles and then reconstructing them, it only says what to do when there are multiple modifiers to a profile. Since the bonus to Strength and Toughness are already included in the profile, they can not be considered modifiers. They're already in there. The profile is S5, T5.
Because of this difference, when a thunderwolf cavalry model takes a powerfist, the multiple modifiers rule does not take effect. His profile is already S5, so we only consider modifiers to that. The powerfist is the only modifier of x2. Now if there are additional modifiers that come later, like from furious charge, then we would follow the "multiple modifiers" rule and multiply first, add last.
I understood the whole debate from the 7 Pages i've been through...
I'm just saying that is very inconsistent. I used to be in the S10 for both models camp, now undecided and just reading through opinions...
(That side use to be: Bikes made unmodified Toughness tests on their "base stat" of 5.
TWC made unmodified Strength tests on their "base stat" of 5.
Lord on TWC made unmodified Strength tests on their "base stat" of 5 (where base stat increase given by the TW is included.)
Unfortunately the rule lost the word "Base", so i've migrated to undecided until clear RaW given by any side chooses for me or we get an FAQ of sorts....
regarding characterstic tests, IE toughness tests for bikes
Models with Multiple Profiles Where a model has more than one value for the same characteristic, a characteristic test is always taken against the highest of the values.
so the test would be taken against the higher value, unless it would state to use the unmodified characteristic specifically.
I understood the whole debate from the 7 Pages i've been through...
I'm just saying that is very inconsistent. I used to be in the S10 for both models camp, now undecided and just reading through opinions...
(That side use to be: Bikes made unmodified Toughness tests on their "base stat" of 5.
TWC made unmodified Strength tests on their "base stat" of 5.
Lord on TWC made unmodified Strength tests on their "base stat" of 5 (where base stat increase given by the TW is included.)
Unfortunately the rule lost the word "Base", so i've migrated to undecided until clear RaW given by any side chooses for me or we get an FAQ of sorts....
I agree that it's inconsistent, but there is an inconsistency in the profiles for Wolf Lord and Thunderwolf Cavalry. I still feel very strongly that a Wolf Lord with a mount and a powerfist is supposed to be S10, but unfortunately, the rules as written make this hard to prove.
As to "base" stats, getting rid of that concept was probably supposed to make this less complicated, but failed to do so. Since we no longer have the concept of "base" stats, we can only use the profile we are given when trying to interpret the rules. The Wolf Lord is S4, T4, and the Thunderwolf Cavalry model is S5, T5.
Edited to add: I must say that while I find it extremely dificult to prove that a Wolf Lord with a mount and powerfist is S10 using the RAW, I'm 100% confident that if GW addresses it in an FAQ they will state that he is supposed to be S10. I am also 100% confident that they will probably fail to clarify why (because without the concept of base stats it will be difficult to word it well).
The TW is S4+1, as you are told that the bonus has already been included. It has already been modified, so you absolutely *can* derive their original, unmodified S and T (and W...) if you are required to do so. You are required to do so when hitting with powerfists, when called to make a S test on unmodified strength, etc.
You cannot honestly say that they are "unmodified" S5; we KNOW they are not as we have been told their profile was modified. We know how it has been modified, exactly, so we can, and therefore MUST, derive the unmodified value if called upon to do so.
Absolute RAW, both TWC and TWM lords are S9 with powerfists.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The TW is S4+1, as you are told that the bonus has already been included. It has already been modified, so you absolutely *can* derive their original, unmodified S and T (and W...) if you are required to do so. You are required to do so when hitting with powerfists, when called to make a S test on unmodified strength, etc.
You cannot honestly say that they are "unmodified" S5; we KNOW they are not as we have been told their profile was modified. We know how it has been modified, exactly, so we can, and therefore MUST, derive the unmodified value if called upon to do so.
Absolute RAW, both TWC and TWM lords are S9 with powerfists.
Show me a thunderwolf profile that says S4+1 and I will agree with you.
Show me the part of the "multiple modifiers" rule that says that, instead of using the profile, we try to calculate what the profile would be before all the included wargear, and then go back and include that wargear as a modifier. If you can do that I will agree with you.
Until you do that, the "profile" being "modified" is S5, and the modifier is x2. From there it's simple math: 5x2=10.
Only the Wolf Lord starts with a profile of S4. So only the Wolf Lord is S9.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The TW is S4+1, as you are told that the bonus has already been included. It has already been modified, so you absolutely *can* derive their original, unmodified S and T (and W...) if you are required to do so. You are required to do so when hitting with powerfists, when called to make a S test on unmodified strength, etc.
You cannot honestly say that they are "unmodified" S5; we KNOW they are not as we have been told their profile was modified. We know how it has been modified, exactly, so we can, and therefore MUST, derive the unmodified value if called upon to do so.
Absolute RAW, both TWC and TWM lords are S9 with powerfists.
And as long as the same "derived" profile can be taken from any Bike Units, having Marine bikers at T4 and Eldar at T3, i agree with your statement.
(Although the SM codex shows "T5" and Eldar codex has a printed "T4")
NightHowler wrote: Multiple Modifiers It's only wargear that is not already included in a characteristic that is considered a "modifier".
This is something that you are making up. It's not in the rules. We are not permitted to make up our own rules.
Spoiler:
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).
This is the rule that requires me to factor in TWC wargear. RAW is clear, unambiguous, and straightforward.
NightHowler wrote: Multiple Modifiers It's only wargear that is not already included in a characteristic that is considered a "modifier".
This is something that you are making up. It's not in the rules. We are not permitted to make up our own rules.
Spoiler:
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).
This is the rule that requires me to factor in TWC wargear. RAW is clear, unambiguous, and straightforward.
I'm really starting to think that you intentionally avoid reading what other people write and just start typing away.
Please read my post. Slowly. I think you'll see why your post looks a little ridiculous if you do.
If it's too long for you, I can summarize: the rule you quoted says that wargear modifies a characteristic. This means that if something is already included in the characteristic, it is part of what's getting modified - not a modifier. Look at it closely and you'll see what I'm saying. Unless there was some head injury you haven't told me about. In which case I would apologize, because serious head injuries are nothing to laugh about.
NightHowler wrote: Multiple Modifiers It's only wargear that is not already included in a characteristic that is considered a "modifier".
This is something that you are making up. It's not in the rules. We are not permitted to make up our own rules.
Spoiler:
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).
This is the rule that requires me to factor in TWC wargear. RAW is clear, unambiguous, and straightforward.
I'm really starting to think that you intentionally avoid reading what other people write and just start typing away.
Please read my post. Slowly. I think you'll see why your post looks a little ridiculous if you do.
If it's too long for you, I can summarize: the rule you quoted says that wargear modifies a characteristic. This means that if something is already included in the characteristic, it is part of what's getting modified - not a modifier. Look at it closely and you'll see what I'm saying. Unless there was some head injury you haven't told me about. In which case I would apologize, because serious head injuries are nothing to laugh about.
In order to resolve at s10 you are making up distinctions and acting on distinctions that are not in the rules. I am pointing out where you are making up your own distinctions. That is not permitted unless you want to admit to house ruling.
If you follow the rules as they are written then you resolve at s9.
The concept that the profile's Value is "unmodified" would be accurate if it wasn't for this line: (these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear).
Why would they include instructions telling us that the profile has already been modified if they intended for it to be the 'unmodified value?'
JinxDragon wrote: The concept that the profile's Value is "unmodified" would be accurate if it wasn't for this line:
(these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear).
Thanks dude. I think I said that earlier, but col_impact never reads what I write. It makes discussing this with him very frustrating.
So clearly, since the wargear is already included in the profile, and the characteristics come from the profile, and the multiple modifiers rule applies to wargear that modifies the characteristic, the characteristic being modified on a thunderwolf cavalry model is a S5, and the modifier is a x2.
Nighthowler, It is unprofessional for me to say it, but I have to simply wonder: How does logic twist so much in your head?
You just tried to state that a Rule informing us that the listed profile has already been altered to include the bonuses means that the listed profile is unmodified....
JinxDragon wrote: Nighthowler,
It is unprofessional for me to say it, but I have to simply wonder:
How does logic twist so much in your head?
You just tried to state that a Rule informing us that the listed profile has already been altered to include the bonuses means that the listed profile is unmodified....
I'm not the one twisting logic.
I'm taking the rules as simple as possible.
The multiple modifiers rule says that some wargear modifies a characteristic.
When I look at the thunderwolf cavalry entry, the characteristic listed is S5.
Its the S9ers who are adding an extra step saying that that's not the REAL characteristic, and then adding extra steps saying that we have to go back and recalculate what that characteristic might have been if there were no thunderwolf mount listed in the wargear, and then start all over again, with the multiple modifiers rule.
The phrase "already included in the profile" tells me that its already part of the profile before we start looking at wargear that might modify it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Multiple Modifiers page 8
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic...
Characteristic Profiles page 9
Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values for it's characteristics...
The characteristic listed for Thunderwolf Cavalry is WS4, BS4, S5, T5, W2, A4...
It seems fairly cut and dried that we DO NOT try to calculate what the characteristics were before wargear that's included in the profile were added.
It's only wargear that is not already included in a characteristic that is considered a "modifier".
Night - firstly, reported. Head injury jabs about col, really?
Secondly - you are told,clearly, that the statline you see has been modified. It must be - the profile already has the modifier included.
If the modifier is already included, the char must have been modified. This is a farily simple, impossible to argue against in good faith, statement. Please indicate if you disagree.
If it has been modified, then you must follow the multiple modifiers, and multiply first THEN add in the +1. if you do not do this, you have broken a rule.
So, again; do you treat "increase by 1" as equivalent to "add 1" or "+1"? If no, please explain how you then perform the operation on a TWC Lord.
Hopefully you agree they are equivalent, in which case we CAN and MUST derive the unmodified value. We know the unmodified value is 4. We know we multiply, then add. Therefore, again RAW, we get to S9.
If you disagree, cite an actual rule that supports your argument this time, as so far its done the opposte.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Night - firstly, reported. Head injury jabs about col, really?
Secondly - you are told,clearly, that the statline you see has been modified. It must be - the profile already has the modifier included.
If the modifier is already included, the char must have been modified. This is a farily simple, impossible to argue against in good faith, statement. Please indicate if you disagree.
If it has been modified, then you must follow the multiple modifiers, and multiply first THEN add in the +1. if you do not do this, you have broken a rule.
So, again; do you treat "increase by 1" as equivalent to "add 1" or "+1"? If no, please explain how you then perform the operation on a TWC Lord.
Hopefully you agree they are equivalent, in which case we CAN and MUST derive the unmodified value. We know the unmodified value is 4. We know we multiply, then add. Therefore, again RAW, we get to S9.
If you disagree, cite an actual rule that supports your argument this time, as so far its done the opposte.
I have cited rules. I fail to see the S9ers posting any rules that disagree with what I'm saying.
Instead, what the S9ers say is that I have to add an extra step. Go back to a time before the wargear was included in the profile, take it out, calculate a new characteristic, then add it back in using the multiple modifiers rule.
That's not what the rule says to do. It says that the characteristic is found in the profile (not calculated somehow by taking off wargear that was already included). When I look at the profile it says S5.
Hoping and wishing that it was S4 so that TWC wouldn't be so scary to you is not how the game works.
1) so now you are insinuating bias in players, because they disagree with - and have rules proving their assertions - your stance? Another fallacy, please refrain from doing this.
2) You have cited rules. Just none that support your position that a piece of wargear whcih states it has modified the profile somehow hasnt modified the profile
3) you failed to, at all, address my argument, or answer the queries put to you. I will make a negative inference that answering would have further undermined your stance.
So I'll try again: when told the modifier is already included, does that mean a) the profile is unmodified or b) the profile is modified? Answer a) or b) please.
nosferatu1001 wrote: 1) so now you are insinuating bias in players, because they disagree with - and have rules proving their assertions - your stance? Another fallacy, please refrain from doing this.
2) You have cited rules. Just none that support your position that a piece of wargear whcih states it has modified the profile somehow hasnt modified the profile
3) you failed to, at all, address my argument, or answer the queries put to you. I will make a negative inference that answering would have further undermined your stance.
So I'll try again: when told the modifier is already included, does that mean a) the profile is unmodified or b) the profile is modified? Answer a) or b) please.
1) I'm using words playfully. From now I'll try to talk like a robot to make you happier.
2) I have cited rules and they clearly support my position. The only way that they do not is if you add extra steps.
3) I didn't answer your question because I'm addressing the questions of 3 or 4 people at once. I am truly sorry if this offended you.
4) To answer your question, the wargear that is already included in the profile does not fall under the "multiple modifiers" rule because the "multiple modifiers" rule says that some wargear modifies a characteristic. Where do you get that characteristic? I get it from the profile. The S9ers get it from some new rule they made up that says the real profile is the profile minus any wargear that was already included in the profile.
edited to add: I'm not told that any "modifiers are added". I'm told that the bonuses are already included in their profile.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Night - firstly, reported. Head injury jabs about col, really?
Secondly - you are told,clearly, that the statline you see has been modified. It must be - the profile already has the modifier included.
If the modifier is already included, the char must have been modified. This is a farily simple, impossible to argue against in good faith, statement. Please indicate if you disagree.
If it has been modified, then you must follow the multiple modifiers, and multiply first THEN add in the +1. if you do not do this, you have broken a rule.
So, again; do you treat "increase by 1" as equivalent to "add 1" or "+1"? If no, please explain how you then perform the operation on a TWC Lord.
Hopefully you agree they are equivalent, in which case we CAN and MUST derive the unmodified value. We know the unmodified value is 4. We know we multiply, then add. Therefore, again RAW, we get to S9.
If you disagree, cite an actual rule that supports your argument this time, as so far its done the opposte.
I have cited rules. I fail to see the S9ers posting any rules that disagree with what I'm saying.
Instead, what the S9ers say is that I have to add an extra step. Go back to a time before the wargear was included in the profile, take it out, calculate a new characteristic, then add it back in using the multiple modifiers rule.
That's not what the rule says to do. It says that the characteristic is found in the profile (not calculated somehow by taking off wargear that was already included). When I look at the profile it says S5.
Hoping and wishing that it was S4 so that TWC wouldn't be so scary to you is not how the game works.
Hoping and wishing you can not follow the normal rules for modifiers to make a unit s10 so you can be more scary is not how the game works.
All of you are repeating the same arguments over and over, of which rules have been cited for and support S4 for Wolf Lord and Thunderwolf Cavalry - but that's irrelevant since most tournaments and most players use HYWPI and allow models on Thunderwolfs being S10 w/ Power Fist and S5 without for Hammer of Wrath purposes.
As I said in my post on page four, agree with your opponent over whether it's going to be played as strictest RAW and S4+1 and S9 w/PF or HYWPI and S5 and S10 w PF. Even if you do play RAW and S9, SW have got lots of options to add Furious Charge to ensure the S10.
This question has been asked before and like those other threads, seriously needs locking before you all start to resort to name-calling.
Frozocrone wrote: All of you are repeating the same arguments over and over, of which rules have been cited for and support S4 for Wolf Lord and Thunderwolf Cavalry - but that's irrelevant since most tournaments and most players use HYWPI and allow models on Thunderwolfs being S10 w/ Power Fist and S5 without for Hammer of Wrath purposes.
As I said in my post on page four, agree with your opponent over whether it's going to be played as strictest RAW and S4+1 and S9 w/PF or HYWPI and S5 and S10 w PF. Even if you do play RAW and S9, SW have got lots of options to add Furious Charge to ensure the S10.
This question has been asked before and like those other threads, seriously needs locking before you all start to resort to name-calling.
I like you Frozocrone. You seem like a nice and reasonable fellow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: 1) so now you are insinuating bias in players, because they disagree with - and have rules proving their assertions - your stance? Another fallacy, please refrain from doing this.
2) You have cited rules. Just none that support your position that a piece of wargear whcih states it has modified the profile somehow hasnt modified the profile
3) you failed to, at all, address my argument, or answer the queries put to you. I will make a negative inference that answering would have further undermined your stance.
So I'll try again: when told the modifier is already included, does that mean a) the profile is unmodified or b) the profile is modified? Answer a) or b) please.
Looking back, I see that I didn't actually answer your question the way that you wanted me to. You want me to tell you if I think the profile is modified or not. The answer is that the profile listed in the codex is clearly not modified yet. There is, as yet, no change to the characteristics listed in that profile.
Looking back, I see that I didn't actually answer your question the way that you wanted me to. You want me to tell you if I think the profile is modified or not. The answer is that the profile listed in the codex is clearly not modified yet. There is, as yet, no change to the characteristics listed in that profile.
This, of course, is incorrect.
"A model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks, and wounds characteristics by 1 (These bonuses are already includedin the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf as a part of their wargear)." SW codex.
Looking back, I see that I didn't actually answer your question the way that you wanted me to. You want me to tell you if I think the profile is modified or not. The answer is that the profile listed in the codex is clearly not modified yet. There is, as yet, no change to the characteristics listed in that profile.
This, of course, is incorrect.
"A model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks, and wounds characteristics by 1 (These bonuses are already includedin the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf as a part of their wargear)." SW codex.
You're reading the rule and missing the most important part. "a model upgraded to have a thunderwolf mount".
Thunderwolf cavalry aren't upgraded. They come with it. This is an important distinction.
Their profile doesn't change because they already have the wargear included. The rules for "muliple modifiers" says that some wargear modifies a characteristic. The thunderwolf's strength characteristic is already 5. So the wargear included in the profile is not covered by the "multiple modifiers" rule.
Looking back, I see that I didn't actually answer your question the way that you wanted me to. You want me to tell you if I think the profile is modified or not. The answer is that the profile listed in the codex is clearly not modified yet. There is, as yet, no change to the characteristics listed in that profile.
This, of course, is incorrect.
"A model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks, and wounds characteristics by 1 (These bonuses are already includedin the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf as a part of their wargear)." SW codex.
It would have to say this in order to resolve at s10.
"A model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their base Strength, Toughness, Attacks, and wounds characteristics by 1 (These bonuses are already includedin the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf as a part of their wargear)."
We are not permitted to act on those rules as if the base bit was in there. So it resolves at s9.
JinxDragon wrote: NightHowler,
(these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear
That line specifically mentions what occurs when the Wargear is already part of the wargear, not when it is purchased as an upgrade.
Right. We're reading the exact same rule.
You guys believe that because it says wargear, you have to use the multiple modifiers rule on it.
I'm saying that because it's already included in the profile the multiple modifiers rule doesn't apply to it. This is because the characteristic listed is 5. The multiple modifiers rule says that some wargear modifies a characteristic. The thunderwolf mount listed in the wargear for thunderwolf cavalry doesn't do that since it's already included. The characteristic is 5.
It's not that I don't understand what your saying. It's just that I feel it is inaccurate to change the characteristic to 4 and then add the mount back in. The mount is already added in. It's too late to consider it with the multiple modifiers rule, because the characteristic listed in the profile is 5.
NightHowler,
My post was in direct reply to this:
You're reading the rule and missing the most important part. "a model upgraded to have a thunderwolf mount". Thunderwolf cavalry aren't upgraded. They come with it. This is an important distinction. - NightHowler
If the Rule is only applied when the Unit purchases the Wargear as an upgrade, the section in parathesis makes no sense as it addresses "Standard Wargear" and not purchased upgrades....
JinxDragon wrote: NightHowler,
My post was in direct reply to this:
You're reading the rule and missing the most important part. "a model upgraded to have a thunderwolf mount". Thunderwolf cavalry aren't upgraded. They come with it. This is an important distinction. - NightHowler
If the Rule is only applied when the Unit purchases the Wargear as an upgrade, the section in parathesis makes no sense as it addresses "Standard Wargear" and not purchased upgrades....
Then let's look at some examples of standard wargear. The iron priest comes with a thunderhammer. He's listed as S4. A dreadnought comes with a powerfist and he's listed as S6. A Thunderwolf comes with a thunderwolf mount, but strangely, he's listed as S5... This doesn't seem incongruous to you?
The difference between the iron priest, the dreadnought, and the thunderwolf cavalry, is that one has his wargear already included in his profile and the first two do not.
I'm saying that this difference is critical in the way that we interpret the multiple modifiers rule.
JinxDragon wrote: NightHowler,
My post was in direct reply to this:
You're reading the rule and missing the most important part. "a model upgraded to have a thunderwolf mount". Thunderwolf cavalry aren't upgraded. They come with it. This is an important distinction. - NightHowler
If the Rule is only applied when the Unit purchases the Wargear as an upgrade, the section in parathesis makes no sense as it addresses "Standard Wargear" and not purchased upgrades....
Then let's look at some examples of standard wargear. The iron priest comes with a thunderhammer. He's listed as S4. A dreadnought comes with a powerfist and he's listed as S6. A Thunderwolf comes with a thunderwolf mount, but strangely, he's listed as S5... This doesn't seem incongruous to you?
those weapons let you resolve attacks at x2 strength, and have no change on the models strength outside of the assault phase when they are making attacks with those weapons.
If the weapon confers a Strength bonus, the Strength of the weapon’s attacks is equal to that of the user after any such modifiers have been applied.
as the bonus to strength is only conferred during making attacks, they are not shown on the models profile as the modifier is not present at all times.
Gravmyr wrote: Does the iron priest or Dreadnought say the modifier is included?
No. And I'm saying that if it were, and their profiles were listed as S8 and S10, then any modifiers to that stat would use the multiple modifiers rule on S8 and S10, because those would be the characteristics listed in the profile.
JinxDragon wrote: NightHowler,
My post was in direct reply to this:
You're reading the rule and missing the most important part. "a model upgraded to have a thunderwolf mount". Thunderwolf cavalry aren't upgraded. They come with it. This is an important distinction. - NightHowler
If the Rule is only applied when the Unit purchases the Wargear as an upgrade, the section in parathesis makes no sense as it addresses "Standard Wargear" and not purchased upgrades....
Then let's look at some examples of standard wargear. The iron priest comes with a thunderhammer. He's listed as S4. A dreadnought comes with a powerfist and he's listed as S6. A Thunderwolf comes with a thunderwolf mount, but strangely, he's listed as S5... This doesn't seem incongruous to you?
those weapons let you resolve attacks at x2 strength, and have no change on the models strength outside of the assault phase when they are making attacks with those weapons.
since the weapons only modify strength during a certain subphase of a game phase, and not all the time, they are not shown on the models profile.
a s4 model with a powerfist is s4, but their attacks are resolved at (4x2)=8 during the assault phase. as the wargear doesn't modify the models characteristics during other times, its not adjusted in their profile.
if a model is on a bike, it never has the option to not be on the bike, so the modifier for being on a bike will be included in the profile.
JinxDragon wrote: NightHowler,
My post was in direct reply to this:
You're reading the rule and missing the most important part. "a model upgraded to have a thunderwolf mount". Thunderwolf cavalry aren't upgraded. They come with it. This is an important distinction. - NightHowler
If the Rule is only applied when the Unit purchases the Wargear as an upgrade, the section in parathesis makes no sense as it addresses "Standard Wargear" and not purchased upgrades....
Then let's look at some examples of standard wargear. The iron priest comes with a thunderhammer. He's listed as S4. A dreadnought comes with a powerfist and he's listed as S6. A Thunderwolf comes with a thunderwolf mount, but strangely, he's listed as S5... This doesn't seem incongruous to you?
those weapons let you resolve attacks at x2 strength, and have no change on the models strength outside of the assault phase when they are making attacks with those weapons.
If the weapon confers a Strength bonus, the Strength of the weapon’s attacks is equal to that of the user after any such modifiers have been applied.
as the bonus to strength is only conferred during making attacks, they are not shown on the models profile as the modifier is not present at all times.
And you don't see how this only supports what I'm saying?
It sounds like something that changes the strength permanently is different from a modifier like +1 or x2... but I won't go there because I don't want to get off track.
changing the strength all the time, is still a modifier. its not a change to the base value, and there are no rules for such a thing.
that some things modify strength always, because the model has no option to not use it, and some things modify strength sometimes, are not indicitive of them being different in how they modify things, ie one a modifier and the other not. They are solely indicitive that one is a item that you can use sometimes to modify a stat if you want, and another is an item the model is always using and modifies a stat even if you do not want it to.
given that bikes do the same thing as TWC in regards to "increase a stat by 1"
and are in the core rulebook, and this remains unadressed in the core rulebook as anything different than a modifier, or not a modifier.
Then its obvious that the only way to modify a models stats that we are given rules for, is the modifier system
JinxDragon wrote: The Rule being discussed is not found on Thunder Hammers or on Power Fists.
It is, however, found on and specifically mentions Thunderwolves....
Why would any Rule only found on X, and specifically mentioning X, ever be applied to Y?
I wasn't aware that the multiple modifier rule specifically mentions thunderwolf mounts. Does it specifically mention thunderwolf cavalry? Or thunderwolf mounts that might be taken by a wolf lord, wolf guard battle leader, or iron priest? Because for the first, the bonus is included in the profile. In the other three it is added as a modifier.
NightHowler wrote: The difference between the iron priest, the dreadnought, and the thunderwolf cavalry, is that one has his wargear already included in his profile and the first two do not.
I'm saying that this difference is critical in the way that we interpret the multiple modifiers rule.
The problem with your argument is that YOU are saying that this difference is critical.
However, the rules are not saying that this difference is critical.
Nighthowler - not offended, I'm pointing out that your "playfulness" is not apparent, and all it does is suggest your argument is so weak you have to insinuate bias in others, as you cannot critically refute their argument. And as so far you have NOT refuted any argument - as the rules clearly show a BONUS is included, meaning a MODIFIER is included, in the profile of TWC - all thats left is your attempt to pretend the arguemnt against is only born out of bias.
RAW S9 for both. The rules clearly and utterly refute your notion that the modified profile is somehow not modified by the standard wargear, and honestly, I really dont understand the postiion you are in - it is unsupportable. Same as the rules refuted the bizarre concept that "increase by 1" is different to "add 1" or "+1"
Yes they do. They are S4, modified to S5. As the rule for the mount - which they have as wargear, so the rule ABSOLUTELY applies to them - states they have been increased by 1
Do you agree that an increase of 1 to S is the same as +1S?
I'll bite.
Armoured Steed: Bike and Jetbike riders benefit from an increase to their Toughness characteristic by 1. If the Bike or Jetbike is part of the model’s standard wargear, this bonus is already included on its profile.
Note that that is an change to the base characteristic, essentially, setting it to a set value of the old value plus one, not a modifier. For support, see Furious Charge:
In a turn in which a model with this special rule charges into combat, it adds +1 to its Strength characteristic until the end of the Assault phase
Furious Charge is clearly a bonus modifier and (at least here) is explicitly a temporary change on top of that.
For another example of how a bonus modifier instead of a base (set to) change, look at a power axe.The Power Axe gives you a +1 to your strength (for attacks), not to your ability to pass a S characteristic test, etc.
By those RAW quotes and the Multiple Modifiers rule, we see that:
RAW S9 T5
RAI S9 T5 - the Lord isn't always on the wolf so it's not as natural for him to swing that way, but the basics of being on an armoured steed makes the "increase Toughness characteristic by 1" more than a +1T modifier.
RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote: Note that that is an change to the base characteristic, essentially, setting it to a set value of the old value plus one, not a modifier.
Where does it state it is a change to the base characteristic?
Where in the rulebook does it mention base characteristics and how changes to those are different to modifiers?
A model equipped with a Power fist can have a 2nd weapon. If that weapon is say, a power sword, then you can choose the weapon you want to strike with. If you want to strike at I 4, then use the Sword, if not, wait till I 1 to use the fist. If the Fist changed your Stat line then the sword that strikes at I 4, would hit at Str 8 also.....
The TWC wargear however makes the Power Sword and/ or Fist, hit 1 harder. Str 5 for the Sword, 9 for the Fist.
NightHowler... That you can admit the Wolf Lords are Str 9 with P fists is telling. You KNOW that the TWC are not stronger then their Lord. You know this. I understand you feel they should both be 10 but since you can see how the lord is only 9, maybe just maybe your feeling is wrong.
I agree RAW is S9, but I do feel its incredibly silly the ways its worked out.
I mean, people talk about base values but really if whats in a models profile is not the base or unmodified char what is? 4?8?0? who knows?
The profile should always contain unmodified or 'base' values. I wouldn't be surprised if this was FAQ'd to be 10, in case they meant the 'Increase' to actually increase the base (Which they probably think is the profile...) considering also they could have not 'included' anything in any profile and just a general rule to increase when they have X wargear means if they really did intend for the increase to fall under the modifier rule then they went a very long, illogical and inconsistent route about doing so.
Don't know where I'm going with this other than it really annoys me from a mechanics point of view.
Yes they do. They are S4, modified to S5. As the rule for the mount - which they have as wargear, so the rule ABSOLUTELY applies to them - states they have been increased by 1
Do you agree that an increase of 1 to S is the same as +1S?
I'll bite.
Armoured Steed: Bike and Jetbike riders benefit from an increase to their Toughness characteristic by 1. If the Bike or Jetbike is part of the model’s standard wargear, this bonus is already included on its profile.
Note that that is an change to the base characteristic, essentially, setting it to a set value of the old value plus one, not a modifier. For support, see Furious Charge:
All modifiers are a change to the base characteristic.
But it in no way sets a value of the old value plus one. If it did Thunderhammers (on TWC) would strike at Str 5 because you multiply then apply set values.
It is a modifier, as it falls under the rules for modifiers. It fits the definition of a modifier, so is one unless you can prove otehrwise. Nothing suggested you can prove otherwise
RAW they are T5, but if called upon to make a toughness test *on unmodified toughness* they would test at T4. After all, theyre not always on a TWM.
NightHowler,
The Rule you and I are discussing is this one:
(these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear)
Why would a Rule informing us that the bonus granted by a Thunderwolf Mount is already included in the profile be applied to a Thunder Hammer?
No. And I'm saying that if it were, and their profiles were listed as S8 and S10, then any modifiers to that stat would use the multiple modifiers rule on S8 and S10, because those would be the characteristics listed in the profile.
We understand what you are saying but it doesn't so bringing them into the picture, when they only affect strength on an attack with the weapons, doesn't provide any support for your stance. In order for us to take them as separate from the rules for modifiers you would need to provide a rule that states so. Without that you are arguing intent. Most people, I believe, agree that is what they intended, S10. Unfortunately they write rules and then playtest them as they think they should be played. This doesn't help us outside of their company. Can you provide such a quote?
the biggest problem i see with this whole argument is that a powerfist doesn't modify anyone's profile at all, ever. It uses the model's strength value to determine the strength value of it's own profile.
Powerfist
Strength: User x2
AP: 2
User = 4+1
Modified, increased no one cares, it's going to be 5 and that's never going to be changed, it's going to stay 5, it doesn't get increased by the powerfist, the powerfist just uses it to determine the weapon's own profile.
in this instance Strength = 5x2 = 10
In the same sense that a plasma gun is Strength 7 but your model is Strength 5. It never makes your strength higher. You have a strength 5 model using a weapon with a higher strength characteristic than the model that is wielding it.
Krargan wrote: the biggest problem i see with this whole argument is that a powerfist doesn't modify anyone's profile at all, ever. It uses the model's strength value to determine the strength value of it's own profile.
Powerfist
Strength: User x2
AP: 2
User = 4+1
Modified, increased no one cares, it's going to be 5 and that's never going to be changed, it's going to stay 5, it doesn't get increased by the powerfist, the powerfist just uses it to determine the weapon's own profile.
in this instance Strength = 5x2 = 10
In the same sense that a plasma gun is Strength 7 but your model is Strength 5. It never makes your strength higher. You have a strength 5 model using a weapon with a higher strength characteristic than the model that is wielding it.
Stop being dumb.
I think before calling anyone dumb, you should instead read the applicable rule, which indicates the order modifiers are applied. Your way is simply wrong according to the rules.
Spoiler:
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).
Coming from previous editions we've always assumed this new 'melee weapon' thing was just a fancy way to modify a model's characteristics. But thinking more on it, perhaps Krargan has it right. They don't modify a model's characteristics... they use the model's characteristic to determine the weapon's strength which is separate from the strength of the model.
Zimko wrote: Coming from previous editions we've always assumed this new 'melee weapon' thing was just a fancy way to modify a model's characteristics. But thinking more on it, perhaps Krargan has it right. They don't modify a model's characteristics... they use the model's characteristic to determine the weapon's strength which is separate from the strength of the model.
I take the user strength of 4, double it, then add the 1 from the TWC. Where's the confusion?
When you attack in melee, do you use the model's strength or the strength of his weapon?
The confusion is determining if weapons simply modify a model's strength or if you're supposed to use the weapon's strength (which is dependant on the model's strength but it does not modify the model's strength... it simply uses it to calculate the weapon's strength)
Zimko wrote: When you attack in melee, do you use the model's strength or the strength of his weapon?
The confusion is determining if weapons simply modify a model's strength or if you're supposed to use the weapon's strength (which is dependant on the model's strength but it does not modify the model's strength... it simply uses it to calculate the weapon's strength)
What do the rules tell us to do?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Krargan wrote: The confusion is with you doubling the user's strength for no reason.
What do the rules tell us to do?
Spoiler:
Strength
If the weapon’s Strength is ‘User’, then attacks made with that weapon are resolved at the wielder’s Strength value. If the weapon has a fixed Strength, i.e. a number between 1 and 10, this is the Strength of attacks made with that weapon. If a weapon has a D instead of a Strength value in its profile, it means it is a Destroyer weapon. For example, if an Imperial Guardsman (Strength 3) makes a shooting attack with a lasgun (Strength 3), his shots are resolved at Strength 3. If he shoots with a heavy bolter (Strength 5), his shots are resolved at Strength 5.
If the weapon confers a Strength bonus, the Strength of the weapon’s attacks is equal to that of the user after any such modifiers have been applied. For example, if an Imperial Guardsman (Strength 3) attacks with a weapon with Strength ×2, his attack is Strength 6 (3×2). If he attacks with a weapon with Strength +1, his attacks are Strength 4 (3+1).
Spoiler:
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).
I'm not sure what the rules say without my rulebook but I know where to look. Do we use a model's strength to fight in melee or do we use the weapon's strength?
If the weapon's strength, then when a weapon has a strength of 'user x2' then that weapon does NOT alter the model's strength. It uses the model's strength to calculate the weapon's profile. Thus the multiple modifier rule doesn't come into play.
Zimko wrote: I'm not sure what the rules say without my rulebook but I know where to look. Do we use a model's strength to fight in melee or do we use the weapon's strength?
If the weapon's strength, then when a weapon has a strength of 'user x2' then that weapon does NOT alter the model's strength. It uses the model's strength to calculate the weapon's profile. Thus the multiple modifier rule doesn't come into play.
Krargan wrote: Even then the Strength description shows that you just take the models strength from it's profile then use it to determine the strength of the weapon.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, and the user strength has been modified. We know this for a fact.
Prove why this can be ignored. Page and graph will do.
no, we do not,
you keep saying it, but its not true
the profile clearly states the models str value is 5,
not 4+1.
it has a str value of 5, written in stone, look at the unit entry page, there it is.
having a bonus already included in your profile is not a characteristic modification, otherwise having a "str of 6" already included in your profile would mean you have a set modifier and can never go over str 6.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yes, and the user strength has been modified. We know this for a fact.
Prove why this can be ignored. Page and graph will do.
no, we do not,
you keep saying it, but its not true
the profile clearly states the models str value is 5,
not 4+1.
it has a str value of 5, written in stone, look at the unit entry page, there it is.
having a bonus already included in your profile is not a characteristic modification, otherwise having a "str of 6" already included in your profile would mean you have a set modifier and can never go over str 6.
The wargear would have to state that it resets the base value or changes the unmodified characteristic for it to work the way you want.
Otherwise we apply this rule and the rules don't give us any choice about it.
Spoiler:
Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).
Hopefully an FAQ will come along to give you what you need. But as is GW dropped the ball and the rules don't get to S 10.
easysauce wrote: the profile clearly states the models str value is 5,
not 4+1.
it has a str value of 5, written in stone, look at the unit entry page, there it is.
having a bonus already included in your profile is not a characteristic modification, otherwise having a "str of 6" already included in your profile would mean you have a set modifier and can never go over str 6.
Look at the rules in question for the Thunderwolf mount:
In addition, a model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks and Wounds characteristics by 1 (these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear).
The profile has a bonus included, so it is indeed 4+1 and not 5.
This thread should be locked. There is clearly a group that believes firmly that it is S9 for both Wolf Lords and TWC, a group that believes that it is S9 for Wolf Lords and S10 for TWC, and a group that believes that it is S10 for both groups.
No agreement can be found when the rules are so poorly written and all sides are so firmly convinced that they are correct.
NightHowler wrote: This thread should be locked. There is clearly a group that believes firmly that it is S9 for both Wolf Lords and TWC, a group that believes that it is S9 for Wolf Lords and S10 for TWC, and a group that believes that it is S10 for both groups.
No agreement can be found when the rules are so poorly written and all sides are so firmly convinced that they are correct.
This.
Why was this thread opened again? Agree with your opponent before the game if it's S9 or S10.
NightHowler wrote: This thread should be locked. There is clearly a group that believes firmly that it is S9 for both Wolf Lords and TWC, a group that believes that it is S9 for Wolf Lords and S10 for TWC, and a group that believes that it is S10 for both groups.
No agreement can be found when the rules are so poorly written and all sides are so firmly convinced that they are correct.
This.
Why was this thread opened again? Agree with your opponent before the game if it's S9 or S10.
Communication is king. Communication is life.
This thread only sorts out what the RAW is. That is important to some play groups but not all play groups. Krargan brought up some ideas that were worth looking at. Even if they didn't bear fruit for a RAW argument, I am sure the rumbling HYWPI crowd got something there.
NightHowler wrote: This thread should be locked. There is clearly a group that believes firmly that it is S9 for both Wolf Lords and TWC, a group that believes that it is S9 for Wolf Lords and S10 for TWC, and a group that believes that it is S10 for both groups.
No agreement can be found when the rules are so poorly written and all sides are so firmly convinced that they are correct.
This.
Why was this thread opened again? Agree with your opponent before the game if it's S9 or S10.
Communication is king. Communication is life.
Why close the thread? Some one will just make a new one. If you don't want to be bothered with it just don't click it open.
I don't really think there is much of an argument outside of Strength 10 envy and the usual "the game didn't have strength 10 in [whatever edition] so this must be wrong!" attitude that always prevails everything in this game.
Modifiers are things that change your strength in the game, things that permanently directly modify it are during the list-building phase, totally different. The profile for a normal T-wolf is Strength 5...I don't see why applying the logic to the point of de-engineering the base stat of the T-wolf Cav's Strength to 4+1 instead of the 5 it says is so high on everyone's priority list.
I'll say the same I say about multiple relics on characters -- the game has Imperial Knights, infinite detachments, formations with huge army-changing bonuses for no extra points, characters like Belakor, units like Wraithknights and Riptides, super heavies and Strength D are a part of normal gameplay...and you guys think these little subtle nuanced quirks that you have latched onto are actually intended to be the more restrictive of the two possibilities?
The Jervis rule -- "Always say yes" -- would do this particular lot some good.
Fenris Frost wrote: Modifiers are things that change your strength in the game, things that permanently directly modify it are during the list-building phase, totally different.
You can of course quote the rule that explains this difference?
Modifiers are things that change your strength in the game, things that permanently directly modify it are during the list-building phase, totally different.
Page and graph. As per the tenets.
Also, dont insinuate bias in others. This isnt a "I dont want more S10..." its "these are theactual rules, do with that knowledge as you want".
Fenris Frost wrote: I don't really think there is much of an argument outside of Strength 10 envy and the usual "the game didn't have strength 10 in [whatever edition] so this must be wrong!" attitude that always prevails everything in this game.
Modifiers are things that change your strength in the game, things that permanently directly modify it are during the list-building phase, totally different. The profile for a normal T-wolf is Strength 5...I don't see why applying the logic to the point of de-engineering the base stat of the T-wolf Cav's Strength to 4+1 instead of the 5 it says is so high on everyone's priority list.
Do you feel the same way about the ICTWC riders like the Wolf Lord or Priest? Their profile says 4...
Both sides believe that they are right. I'll admit it. I believe that I am right, and I know that the S9ers believe that they are right.
The problem with a poorly written rule is that it is often possible to interpret that rule more than one way. Why do you think that there are so many denominations of the major religions? Because even a holy book can be interpreted different ways. And even though I'm reading the same rule book as the S9ers, we worship in two completely different denominations.
To me it's clear that S5 x 2 = 10. To the S9ers it equals 9. We simply don't agree.
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
Unless it specifically said that it also changed their profile, it would be 5.
Their S in the profile is 5, so unless this hypothetical spell specifically stated that it changed their profile, their S would still be 5.
Look, I know I've said it 30 or 40 times in the 10 pages of this thread, but just so there's no confusion, I'll say it again -
The multiple modifiers rule is talking about things that modify the profile. We're never given a profile of 4. We're given a profile of 5. Any modifiers will modify the profile so they'll modify a 5. Any changes that may have happened before we're given the profile are irrelevant. No where in the rules does it say that we do anything but modify a profile and the strength in the profile is 5.
With wolf lords I believe that the intention was for them to also be S10, but unfortunately, I have come to a place where I have to admit that RAW it is actually 9 for a wolf lord. I still play it as 10 because I believe that is RAI and I make sure that I agree with my opponent about this before any games. But for TWC I don't have to make any such admission because their profile was never 4, it was, is, and always has been 5.
I think that GW rules writers, too ignorant of the extent we go to to try and prognosticate the meaning of their rules to realize that this is their fault, would be shocked that anyone would try to play it as S9.
But this is the world we live in and the rules we've been given for our game. So we argue about it.
NightHowler wrote: The multiple modifiers rule is talking about things that modify the profile. We're never given a profile of 4. We're given a profile of 5.
Yet the TWM rules (which the TWC are listed as having) are clear that these are modifiers, and this modifier has already been included in the profile.
The Profile has been modified. And there's only one rule that covers that.
I agree with the religion analogy, but it's more like Religion Vs. Science.
One is back by belief, the other facts.
NightHowler wrote: The multiple modifiers rule is talking about things that modify the profile. We're never given a profile of 4. We're given a profile of 5.
Yet the TWM rules (which the TWC are listed as having) are clear that these are modifiers, and this modifier has already been included in the profile.
The Profile has been modified. And there's only one rule that covers that.
Yes, I keep hearing this argument. But the multiple modifiers rule makes no mention of taking into account wargear that is already included in the profile. If you can find anywhere where it says that we must also take into account items already included in the profile I would have no ground to stand on and I would have to agree with you.
But the profile is S5 and the multiple modifiers rule only applies to things that modify the profile. The profile is 5. It's not 4+1. It's 5. For a wolf lord the scenario is different, the profile strength is 4, and although I'm certain that RAI the thunderwolf mount was supposed to be a change to the base profile, it doesn't say that so I have to house rule it to be 10 when I play with a wolf lord. No such problem exists with the cavalry models because the change is already included in the profile and the multiple modifiers rule only applies to things that change that profile.
Edited to add that everyone believes their religion is fact. Even atheists and scientists. Scientists once believed that if man traveled faster than the speed of sound they would die and they warned people that "science" was right and they should never try to go that fast. Evidence is great, but "truth" is something I would leave out of an argument about poorly written rules.
the profile says its strength 5, however it is listed as having wargear TWM which states in the wargear that the strength of the model is increased by 1, and that this bonus is already included in the profile for TWC.
this means that the wargear is saying it has modified the profile, we know this because it has increased the value by 1 as a bonus, this is a modification.
the only rules for how stats can change are the rules for modifiers, as this is not called out as being something other than a modifier, it is indeed a modifier.
the rules for modifiers never allow for different types of "modifiers" or times when things are modifiers or not modifiers, there is the base stat and there is the modified stat. there is no other thing.
as such the profile may list 5, but the unmodified profile is 4. the profile listed is modified by the wargear the model already has, just like the space wolf bikers which are T5 in their profile, because it includes the modifier for the bike,
multiple modifiers do not care when when the stat was modified, or how it was modified, and by what it was modified, it just cares that there are multiple sources of modifiers to a stat.
as such TWC are str 4 unmodified, their profile includes the modified 1 increase to strength as called out by the wargear they come stock with, and any further modifiers require the use of multiple modifiers rule, as there are no other rules for how to determine the models strength otherwise.
NightHowler wrote: Yes, I keep hearing this argument. But the multiple modifiers rule makes no mention of taking into account wargear that is already included in the profile.
There's simply one rule. No other way to handle it. No indication that timing or source matter.
If you can find a rule that lets you handle modifiers other than the modifiers rule, then great. But until then it's a modifier, and should be treated as such.
NightHowler wrote: Yes, I keep hearing this argument. But the multiple modifiers rule makes no mention of taking into account wargear that is already included in the profile.
There's simply one rule. No other way to handle it. No indication that timing or source matter.
If you can find a rule that lets you handle modifiers other than the modifiers rule, then great. But until then it's a modifier, and should be treated as such.
It's not about timing. It's not about modifiers other than modifiers. Its about the profile and the profile is S5. The rule tells us that some wargear modifies a profile. When was the profile S4? Can you tell me when that was? When was the +1 added? I'll tell you, it's already included. We're told that it's already included. So the profile we're given is then modified by x2 of the powerfist. That's the only modifier to the profile because the thunderwolf mount is already included in that profile. The only modifier is the x2.
I know you don't see it this way, but your science is a lot more like my religion than you'd like to admit. Maybe you're more of a scientologist?
NightHowler wrote: Yes, I keep hearing this argument. But the multiple modifiers rule makes no mention of taking into account wargear that is already included in the profile.
There's simply one rule. No other way to handle it. No indication that timing or source matter.
If you can find a rule that lets you handle modifiers other than the modifiers rule, then great. But until then it's a modifier, and should be treated as such.
It's not about timing. It's not about modifiers other than modifiers. Its about the profile and the profile is S5. The rule tells us that some wargear modifies a profile. When was the profile S4? Can you tell me when that was? When was the +1 added? I'll tell you, it's already included. We're told that it's already included. So the profile we're given is then modified by x2 of the powerfist. That's the only modifier to the profile because the thunderwolf mount is already included in that profile. The only modifier is the x2.
I know you don't see it this way, but your science is a lot more like my religion than you'd like to admit. Maybe you're more of a scientologist?
The latest codex dropped the concept of changing the base value. Without that concept there is no way per RAW to resolve at s10. If we use the rules we are given we come up with s9.
col_impact wrote: The latest codex dropped the concept of changing the base value. Without that concept there is no way per RAW to resolve at s10. If we use the rules we are given we come up with s9.
Mmmhmm. Thanks. I'll consider that when I'm playing it RAW S10.
The issue is the profile states 5, but the wargear they come stock with states they are 4 increased by 1.
or 4+1.
If you are claiming their base profile is 5, you might as well claim they are strength 6 on a TWM because TWM increases strength by 1, and if their base unmodified strength is 5 because profile says so, then its now 6.
however RAW the wargear tells us the bonus is already in the profile.
so yes their profile says 5.
but their unmodified strength is 4.
their wargear gives them a bonus which is an increase of 1, giving them 4+1 or a profile of 5.
as you have no option to not buy TWC without TWM the profile shows the modified strength, which is 5. from 4+1.
much like the space wolves bikes which show a T of 5, which is not their unmodified toughness, but the toughness of 4+1 with the increae of 1 to toughness from the bike, which is a non optional piece of wargear that modifies their toughness, already included.
that the modifier from wargear they have to take is already included in their profile, which is called out in the wargear itself, does not mean the profile is an umodified value.
so your RAW s10 TWC are as RAW as ork Nobz have S10 on the charge from furious charge and powerklaws, which is not RAW at all of course.
col_impact wrote: The latest codex dropped the concept of changing the base value. Without that concept there is no way per RAW to resolve at s10. If we use the rules we are given we come up with s9.
Mmmhmm. Thanks. I'll consider that when I'm playing it RAW S10.
There is no way I can prevent you from deluding yourself or from being obtuse. I can only point it out to yourself and others that you are deluding yourself.
blaktoof wrote: The issue is the profile states 5, but the wargear they come stock with states they are 4 increased by 1.
or 4+1.
If you are claiming their base profile is 5, you might as well claim they are strength 6 on a TWM because TWM increases strength by 1, and if their base unmodified strength is 5 because profile says so, then its now 6.
however RAW the wargear tells us the bonus is already in the profile.
so yes their profile says 5.
but their unmodified strength is 4.
their wargear gives them a bonus which is an increase of 1, giving them 4+1 or a profile of 5.
as you have no option to not buy TWC without TWM the profile shows the modified strength, which is 5. from 4+1.
so your RAW s10 TWC are as RAW as ork Nobz have S10 on the charge from furious charge and powerklaws, which is not RAW at all of course.
Blaktoof, I hear what you're saying and I understand your argument, but I disagree. There is no unmodified profile of S4 because the thunderwolf mount is already included before they even print the profile in the codex. The multiple modifiers rule never says that we have to consider what went into a profile. It only says that we have to consider things that modify the profile. If it's already included it's not modifying it. You can say that we know it was added in, but that is irrelevant because the rule only talks about things that modify the profile and the profile was never 4. It's printed in the codex as 5. They thunderwolf mount in the wargear, but the profile has already been printed as S5.
