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.

danny1995 wrote:
It's cast in the assault phase, if you are affected by enfeeble the grey knight would be S3 before the power is cast. Then when the power is activated theircurrent profile strength of 3 is boosted to 4 until the end of the assault phase. My point that I'm covering is that unlike weapons that give bonuses, or furious charge, etc. the effects of the power are relevant outside of combat and therefore calculated before combat.

You're applying modifiers from 2 different powers to the model's profile. Cite permission without referencing Multiple Modifiers.

I can't, you are correct, however the wording of rules makes it clear to me that enfeeble affects all uses of the strength, before it is input into any formula. Where as hammer hand is in combat and therefore must be used on determining the models striking strength as per BEDMAS (or whatever alternate national version of it you use). I will continue to play it this way, despite the fact that if it worked that enfeeble affected after smash I'd be at an advantage. I play eldar, if I'm worried about enfeeble on my monstrous creature I'll give him a big old sword and the strength effect is immediately irrelevant.

danny1995 wrote:
I can't, you are correct, however the wording of rules makes it clear to me that enfeeble affects all uses of the strength, before it is input into any formula. Where as hammer hand is in combat and therefore must be used on determining the models striking strength as per BEDMAS (or whatever alternate national version of it you use). I will continue to play it this way, despite the fact that if it worked that enfeeble affected after smash I'd be at an advantage. I play eldar, if I'm worried about enfeeble on my monstrous creature I'll give him a big old sword and the strength effect is immediately irrelevant.

Right, so your method invents rules in favor of using ones in the rulebook.
I think we're done here then.

I'm not sure where I'm inventing rules. The ones in the rule book to me apply to the affects of multiple modifiers caused on the same phase. This is especially true in this situation because HOW would be resolved at the models strength-1 which means his strength has already been calculated for that phase.

danny1995 wrote:
I'm not sure where I'm inventing rules. The ones in the rule book to me apply to the affects of multiple modifiers caused on the same phase. This is especially true in this situation because HOW would be resolved at the models strength-1 which means his strength has already been calculated for that phase.

Because you yourself said, and I quote,
"I can't, you are correct"
When I asked you to cite permission to apply 2 modifiers from different powers without citing Multiple Modifiers. If you can't cite permission you're inventing rules.

And why is the calculation only per phase?

danny1995 wrote:
I'm not sure where I'm inventing rules. The ones in the rule book to me apply to the affects of multiple modifiers caused on the same phase. This is especially true in this situation because HOW would be resolved at the models strength-1 which means his strength has already been calculated for that phase.

HOW is resolved at unmodified Strength.

But HOW will be modified because Enfeeble reduces your models strength, no matter what.

danny1995 wrote:
But HOW will be modified because Enfeeble reduces your models strength, no matter what.

False.
Enfeeble is a modification. Fact.
HoW is resolved with unmodified Strength. Fact.

Allowing Enfeeble to modify the STR HoW is resolved at is breaking a rule.

danny1995 wrote:
But HOW will be modified because Enfeeble reduces your models strength, no matter what.

No it wont.

This is because HoW specifies the unmodified Str.

If the MC is enfeebled, its HoW attacks are still Str 6 even though its modified Str is 5 because of enfeeble. It says unmodified Str right in the enfeeble rules...

danny1995 wrote:
But HOW will be modified because Enfeeble reduces your models strength, no matter what.

And where does Enfeeble say it overrides the "unmodified Strength" of HOW?

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:

Chrysis wrote:You can't cap the result until after you know what it is, which means after applying all the multipliers.

CrownAxe wrote:Not how it works. You don't cap it at 10 until you finished all modifiers so you double it first (so would go to S20) then subtract 1 (to 19) then i caps to 10

PrinceRaven wrote:It wouldn't, an Enfeeble'd Wraithknight would be Strength 19, capped at 10, when making Smash attacks.

Except that there is a cap built into the Smash rule, it's not just a flat x2 like with a power fist.

"A Smash Attack also doubles
the model's Strength (to a maximum
of 10) for the purposes of that Attack."

So throw in order of operations for multiple modifiers and for a S6 model it'd be:
6 x 2 (capped at 10 from the smash rule) = 10
10 - 1 = 9

So unless the MC has another source of bonus strength from their weapon/furious charge/whatever they'd max out at S9 Smashes if they're enfeebled. I'm not saying it makes sense, but according to the rules that's how it looks like it works to me.

According to page 2 set values occur last, so it would be strength 10 multiplied to 20 then you subtract to 19, then according to both the Smash rule and the modifiers rules you set it to 10.

I think the confusion is coming from the "set value modifier". Capping the strength at 10 is not a set value modifier; it's a limit. A set value modifier is something like Lysander's hammer or a Tau Onager Gauntlet. You can double their strength, halve it, add 2, or subtract 3 and it will always be strength 10.

A limit (or "maximum" to use the BRB's language) is not applied last. It's taken into consideration when doubling or adding.

Do you have a quote that says that? Cause what I'm seeing is you do the calculation then if the result is 11+ it's set to 10 and if it's 0- it's set to 1. I don't see anything in the multiple modifiers rule that says you interrupt the calculation.

Siphen wrote:
I think the confusion is coming from the "set value modifier". Capping the strength at 10 is not a set value modifier; it's a limit. A set value modifier is something like Lysander's hammer or a Tau Onager Gauntlet. You can double their strength, halve it, add 2, or subtract 3 and it will always be strength 10.

A limit (or "maximum" to use the BRB's language) is not applied last. It's taken into consideration when doubling or adding.

Please show permission to cap mid calculation, when you are told to apply all multiple modifiers in a sequence with no gap to "cap" listed. Page and para.

It's worth noting, since Hammerhand was mentioned, that it's +1S applies to the profile before the daemonhammer's 2X strength is applied resulting in a base S4 model hitting at S10 ((4+1)x2=10). Page 25 of the GK codex includes an explicit reminder.

Yes, Hammerhand is an exception to the multiple modifiers rule.

Siphen wrote:
I think the confusion is coming from the "set value modifier". Capping the strength at 10 is not a set value modifier; it's a limit. A set value modifier is something like Lysander's hammer or a Tau Onager Gauntlet. You can double their strength, halve it, add 2, or subtract 3 and it will always be strength 10.

A limit (or "maximum" to use the BRB's language) is not applied last. It's taken into consideration when doubling or adding.

How do you know you need to cap it at ten prior to the calculation being finished?
Do you round off during a calculation? Where I am from that is the last operator in the equation.