Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Had a question come up in a game that we couldn't find the answer to, and a search hasn't given me very much to go on.

Specific example: A unit of Nobz with a Waagh Banner are affected by Paroxysm (is that right one?), the Nid power that lowers the WS of the unit to 1. The question, does the power overwrite the unit's current WS, setting it to 1 regardless of other factors, or does the Waagh Banner just continuously add +1 to the current WS, bumping it up to 2 in this case? It's an important question if the unit is then assaulted by WS 3 things (like Ol' One Eye and his Carni buddies, or endless masses of Term/Horm/Gargs).

In general, is there any consensus about how things that "set" a characteristic interact with things that modify a characteristic? The same example could come up in fighting a Seer council with Enhance, for example.

It should be base WS of 4 plus the bonus of the banner...

which is then reduced to 1 by the psychic power.

***after looking over the rules for each and then seeing willydstyle's response... I have to concur... there is not 'order' of how modifiers are applied. It might not be answerable...

GW rules doesn't go into enough detail for multiple modifiers. This is a glaring oversight.

The rules cannot answer this question.

It would be 1, for the reason of "Break no Rule".

Waaagh! Banner Says to Add +1 to WS.
Paroxysm says That unit must reduce its Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill to 1 until the beginning of the Hive Tyrant's next turn.

So, by reducing it to 1 and then adding +1, you are breaking Paroxysm's rule, which says it must be 1.

By adding 1, then setting it to 1, you are not breaking any rules.

Gwar! wrote:It would be 1, for the reason of "Break no Rule".

Waaagh! Banner Says to Add +1 to WS.
Paroxysm says That unit must reduce its Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill to 1 until the beginning of the Hive Tyrant's next turn.

So, by reducing it to 1 and then adding +1, you are breaking Paroxysm's rule, which says it must be 1.

By adding 1, then setting it to 1, you are not breaking any rules.

I think this interpretation has value.

However, the fact that the rules don't specifically tell you this or have an order of operations is pretty dumb.

willydstyle wrote:I think this interpretation has value.

However, the fact that the rules don't specifically tell you this or have an order of operations is pretty dumb.

True, but, one could also argue that you follow the rules of Mathematics by Dividing first, then Multiplying, then adding, then subtracting. While Paroxysm doesn't explicitly subtract, it is, in 99.9% of cases (i.e. models who have greater than 1 WS/BS) lowering (subtracting from) the value.

I agree that there is no good interpretation. I'm not particularly solid on my opinion here... but to play the devil's advocate...

Perhaps since in Warhammer you modify stats before you add (in the case of a nob+power klaw charging, they are strength 9 and not 10 with furious charge because you double there strength then add)

So in the same vein you could perhaps say you should reduce to 1 then add. Not the most brilliant reasoning, but hey, poor reasoning for a poor rule right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To relate it to Gwar's example i guess I'm saying that I see Paroxism as closer to dividing than subtracting

Gwar! wrote:It would be 1, for the reason of "Break no Rule".

Waaagh! Banner Says to Add +1 to WS.
Paroxysm says That unit must reduce its Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill to 1 until the beginning of the Hive Tyrant's next turn.

So, by reducing it to 1 and then adding +1, you are breaking Paroxysm's rule, which says it must be 1.

By adding 1, then setting it to 1, you are not breaking any rules.

Agreed. I think the rules for Paroxysm clear this one up... what about something like Banshee's Warshout? don't have a codex/holiday-ing in Canada so i can't read this up

just thinking, does a Waaagh! banner add +1 to the WS in the same way that a Bike adds +1 toughness? ie T4(5) for a marine biker, WS4(5) for the Waaagh Banner?

Gwar! wrote:True, but, one could also argue that you follow the rules of Mathematics by Dividing first, then Multiplying, then adding, then subtracting. While Paroxysm doesn't explicitly subtract, it is, in 99.9% of cases (i.e. models who have greater than 1 WS/BS) lowering (subtracting from) the value.

But the order of operations in mathematics doesn't go like that - it's bracketed expressions, then exponents, then multiplication and division simultaniously, then addition and subtraction simultaniously. Adding 3 and then subtracting 2 is the same as subtracting 2 and then adding 3.

Mathematics makes no distinction between adding and subtracting because preforming a mathematical addition and subtraction it makes no difference which order you apply them - in fact, they're different names for the same operation subtraction is just the addition of a negative number.

Paroxysm doesn't fit this, since the order in which you're applying the operations changes the value which you are subtracting - something which cannot be shown as a mathematical subtraction in any mathematical formula. So no, the fact that it reduces the value doesn't mean paroxysm is not a mathematical subtraction. Dividing by 2 would reduce the value, but you wouldn't say that makes it a subtraction, even though there is some value you could subtract from the original number which would produce the same result.

The BRB only provides an order of operations to tell us to multiply before adding, and we can't use the mathematical order of operations, since "setting" a value is not technically a mathematical operation at all.

The closest mathematical description (in my opinion) to paroxysm's effect would be raising to the power of zero, since any number to the power of zero gives a result of 1. If you chose to interpret it this way, then paroxysm would apply first, then the +1, raising it to 2. But this is just trying to make it fit another set of rules, rather than those set out in the BRB, and can't be considered RAW. You could also see paroxysm as dividing the WS value by itself (multiplying by it's reciprocal), in which case the BRB tells us to apply the multiplication first, then addition, again with the result of 2.

The RAW don't give a solid answer in this case, so I lean towards Gwar's "break no rule" explanation.

CodGod wrote:

Gwar! wrote:True, but, one could also argue that you follow the rules of Mathematics by Dividing first, then Multiplying, then adding, then subtracting. While Paroxysm doesn't explicitly subtract, it is, in 99.9% of cases (i.e. models who have greater than 1 WS/BS) lowering (subtracting from) the value.

But the order of operations in mathematics doesn't go like that - it's bracketed expressions, then exponents, then multiplication and division simultaniously, then addition and subtraction simultaniously. Adding 3 and then subtracting 2 is the same as subtracting 2 and then adding 3.

I was under the impression that it was Brackets, Ordinals (powers, Exponents whatever), Division, Multiplication, Addition then Subtraction, in that order?

Gwar! wrote:I was under the impression that it was Brackets, Ordinals (powers, Exponents whatever), Division, Multiplication, Addition then Subtraction, in that order?

I suspect it depends on where and when you were taught.

We were taught 'BOMDAS'... more or less the same as you, but with Multiplication before Division.

In practice, it generally makes no difference whether you do Multiplication then Division, or vice versa. Likewise with Addition and Subtraction.

I was taught BODMAS

And it does make a huge difference.

(500/2)*3=750

500/(2*3) = 83.333...

@Gwar: Three years of university maths says otherwise, at least in my experience. Although I know in early high school my brother was taught something along those lines, at higher levels, as I said, subtraction and addition are recognised as being the same operation. Any addition can be expressed as a subtraction, and vis versa.

The reason it's taught at early levels with as a full order is because it's easier for some people to learn it that way as they never have to worry about what to do next, and it makes no difference to the final result - if you do apply the addition first, then the subtraction, that makes no difference to the result to if you'd done it the other way, and I have seen that order taught both ways to fit different acronyms or mnemonic aids - neither makes a difference to the result, but it would be horribly confusing to some kid who transfers to a new school where the teach it the other way.

The very fact that the paroxysm result changes depending which order you apply them in shows that it's not a straight mathematical subtraction. The value being subtracted isn't determined in this case until the point you try to do it, which can't be expressed as a subtraction in a mathematical formula.

EDIT: Wow you guys are fast around here

I agree with Gwars statement about paroxym, but for many other things its hard to find out what GW really intended.

Twalks wrote:You added brackets.... try it without them.

I was demonstrating the difference between doing division first and multiplication first

Ya I realized that afterwards. Poo on me for not doing a full read.

Gwar! wrote:I was taught BODMAS

And it does make a huge difference.

(500/2)*3=750

500/(2*3) = 83.333...

It the situation written as just "500 / 2 * 3", the operations have the same mathematical precedence, and are evaluated left-to-right (giving 750)

I'd forgotten about such cases because I much more used to formulae being written explicitly as either:

500
----- * 3 (=750)
2

Or

500
---- (= 83.3 recurring)
2*3


Since the part on the top and on the bottom are treated as though each was separately bracketed.
It's actually been several years since I've seen someone do division inline, like most people are taught in schools. wow.

In any case, "Break no rule" is an adequate way of resolving this, yes?

Seems like the best way, yeah. It still seems to me like it could be interpreted either way, but the break no rule thing is the best argument we have, and to me at least seems quite intuitive, so I think it's pretty sound.

sorry for getting the thread too much into the maths and too far away from the actual issue at hand

Gwar! wrote:And it does make a huge difference.

(500/2)*3=750

500/(2*3) = 83.333...

Yup, that's my shaky 'it's been a heck of a long time since High School' memory...

It's actually down to precedence, rather than not actually mattering specifically. Division and multiplication have the same precedence, so without the brackets you would just work from left to right.

So 'BOMDAS' and 'BODMAS' are effectively the same thing.

And of course, there is the fact that none of this order of operations stuff has anything to do with the rules of mathematics. They are purely conventions used in mathematical notation.

Mathematics would function just fine if the order of operations went the other way around completely. It would just force people to rewrite all their equations to match the new conventions.

For example, if all mathematicians decided that addition should go before multiplication, the expression 1+2x would actually be the equivalent of our (1+2)x. The system of mathematics works either way.

In word problems, the standard is different. You typically evaluate from left to right. So if I tell you to take a number, add 5, and multiply by 6, this means (n+5)6, not n+5*6. The problem is that in these cases, there are two effects written in different places, and neither one comes before the other.

In short: Gwar! is right with his break no rule interpretation and for no other reason.