Wolf lords on thunderwolf mounts with thunder hammer only strength 9?

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.

**easysauce**

siiight,
last try here nos, you are confusing dictionary terms with rules.

yes dictionary definion of a modify holds,

40k RULES for modification do not,

those are different then being told to increase a profile stat.

otherwise, yes very much, you are asserting that the profile = modifiers,

so if you are to claim that additive modifiers are in the actual profile, you are also claiming that set modifiers are there as well,

you cannot pick and choose as you are and still be RAW.

the two RAW answers are either:

TWC STR is a modifier(s) (set at 4 + 1) so TWC with a PFIST is 4 x 2 + 1 but set at 4

or

twc str is 5, with a p fist str x 2 = 10

you are only following your own arguement partially to arrive at the 9 number, which doesnt even follow your own assertations of RAW.

or perhaps you would like to quote pg # with RAW stating that a models PROFILE is a modifier.

**blaktoof**

Where are the rules for increasing or decreasing profiles, that are not modifiers?

swiftclaw bikers profile shows they have toughness 5 in the profile, but this of course includes the modifier, because they are toughness 4+1, not actually 5. from their bike, as called out in the wargear for bikes. Of course for ID this means they are toughness 5 as ID says you can include modifiers, but things that might ask for an unmodified toughness test would test against toughness 4.

same is for TWC they are strength 5 in their profile, but if we refer to the wargear they have, it shows their profile has a modifier already included, so they are str 5, but from 4+1. so if you add in a powerfist 4+1x2 you have (4x2)+1 from the rules for modifiers.

if you can cite some rules that modifers from wargear change the base profile and don't follow the rules for modifiers that would be great.

**easysauce**

those rules are under TWC, and similar ones under bike rules.

notice that TWC specifically states your PROFILE is increased,

notice that BRB modifier rules state you modify a characteristic.

characteristic =/= profile

RAW proof is that you notice TWC profile entry has str T W profile that show the increase, but you wont see models that come with Pfists listed as str 8.

**Mywik**

easysauce wrote:
those rules are under TWC, and similar ones under bike rules.

notice that TWC specifically states your PROFILE is increased,

notice that BRB modifier rules state you modify a characteristic.

characteristic =/= profile

RAW proof is that you notice TWC profile entry has str T W profile that show the increase, but you wont see models that come with Pfists listed as str 8.

Uhm. It does say you modify the characteristic.

Space Wolves Codex wrote:
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).

**osirisx69**

Mywik wrote:
easysauce wrote:
those rules are under TWC, and similar ones under bike rules.

notice that TWC specifically states your PROFILE is increased,

notice that BRB modifier rules state you modify a characteristic.

characteristic =/= profile

RAW proof is that you notice TWC profile entry has str T W profile that show the increase, but you wont see models that come with Pfists listed as str 8.

Uhm. It does say you modify the characteristic.

Space Wolves Codex wrote:
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).

I was wondering if anyone was going to show him the Actual rules....

**easysauce**

and those rules state what I have said,

that in one case, the PROFILE is increased (note it does not say modifyed, the profile may be increased and literally changed permanently, but it doesnt even use the word modifier),

where as in modifiers, you just modify the stat.

RAW states TWC have str 5, not 4+1 as you incorrectly state.

raw also states a character with TW mount has a profile to match.

you either follow that rule for the characters too, or break it, and follow one rule for TWC and one made up rule for characters with TW mounts.

you are not applying your own interpretation of RAW uniformly to both situations, hence why your interpretation of RAW is incorrect.

if you call the bonus from TWC a modifyer, against RAW as TWC do not show 4+1, they show 5, then you are calling a models profile itself a modifier andmust treat it as such (IE set modifiers)

**Mywik**

easysauce wrote:
and those rules state what I have said,

that in one case, the PROFILE is increased ,

where as in modifiers, you just modify the stat.

RAW states TWC have str 5, not 4+1 as you incorrectly state.

raw also states a character with TW mount has a profile to match.

you either follow that rule for the characters too, or break it, and follow one rule for TWC and one made up rule for characters with TW mounts.

you are not applying your own interpretation of RAW uniformly to both situations, hence why your interpretation of RAW is incorrect.

Please reread the rulesquote i posted. It says that the characteristics are increased by 1 (which is indeed a modifier) and that these bonuses are already included in the profile. It doesnt say the profile is increased at any point in the rule.

**easysauce**

yes, it says those characteristics are increased,

not modified.

again, backing up my interpretation of RAW.

again, you have not given any rules backing to treating TWC as str 5 while not treating IC's on mounts as str 5,

you are saying that TWC have str 4+1, but want to treat them as str 5,

and you are saying TWC IC's are alsop str 4+1, and want to treat them as str 4+1,

which is a self contradictorary interpretation of RAW.

(these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear).

says right there, profiles include the bonus.

we see that after this bonus, TWC have str t 5 (not 4+1)

hence by RAW, its str 5, not 4+1 or it would SAY 4+1

following RAW gives us that profile that says str 5, explicitly.

following that same RAW gives us str 5 on the IC's as well, if raw ended up with 4+1 on the IC, it would end up as 4+1 on the TWC as well.

so look at TWC stats, do they say 5 or 4+1?

since TWC and ICs have the EXACT same rules for their profile increase,

and TWC end up with str 5, then IC must also have str 5.

**Mywik**

easysauce wrote:
yes, it says those characteristics are increased,

not modified.

again, backing up my interpretation of RAW.

again, you have not given any rules backing to treating TWC as str 5 while not treating IC's on mounts as str 5,

you are saying that TWC have str 4+1, but want to treat them as str 5,

and you are saying TWC IC's are alsop str 4+1, and want to treat them as str 4+1,

which is a self contradictorary interpretation of RAW.

I only pointed out the rule doesnt say what you were assuming. Its always helpful to post the rule in question as a reminder. An increase by 1 is a modifier though. No doubt about that.

Look i play space wolves. My group decided to rule TWC str5. But not because of your assumption that there is a unknown kind of modifier that isnt described in the BRB but because we think GW is stupid when it comes to making the same mistakes over and over again. Therefore we think they intended them to be str5. Sadly thats not what the actual rules say.

**Ghaz**

From 'Modifiers' in the 7th edition rulebook:

Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it..., subtracting from it..., multiplying it..., or even setting its value...

By GW's own definition, it does qualify as a modifier.

**easysauce**

that fine, you can disagree on RAW,

if one model with an upgrade by RAW is str 5, then another model with the same upgrade, following the same rules, is also str 5.

nothing changed, so why doing the same thing, to the same stat, results in two different outcomes has yet to be properly explained.

in fact, you are inserting a modification where there isnt one when you claim TWC are str 4+1 despite the profile saying otherwise.

if you claim that ANY "increase" is by RAW a modifyer, then you are also claiming that any decrease or anty SET value is also a modifier, hence why your interpretation means that str 5 is also a set modifyer.

you cannot just say "any increase is a modifier" without also saying "any set value is a set modifier"

my interpretation of RAW is

t 4 marine + TWC rules = t5 marine

hence why
T4 IC marine + twc rules = t5 IC

your interpretation of RAW=

t 4 marine + TWC rules = t5 marine

and
T4 IC marine + twc rules = t4+1 IC

notice how your interpretation of RAW, makes "TWC rules" into two separate things, despite the actual RAW being identical for both.

**DeathReaper**

Ghaz wrote:
From 'Modifiers' in the 7th edition rulebook:

Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it..., subtracting from it..., multiplying it..., or even setting its value...

By GW's own definition, it does qualify as a modifier.

This is correct.

The +1 Str for having a Thunderwolf is most certainly a modifier, as the rules Ghaz has posted prove.

**easysauce**

by that definition,

the str value of 4 is a set modifier then.

again, you are treating all additions as modifiers, but only treating some set values as set modifiers.

either ALL + - / * set values are modifiers, or they all are not.

you are picking and choosing what is and isnt a modifier inconsistantly, and therefore not RAW.

**Lord Lorne Walkier**

I can not say it any better then hyudun over on bols.

This is how I read it:

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.)..." (Models & Units)

This establishes that when a piece of Wargear changes a model's characteristics, it is considered a Modifier (capital M).

In the Space Wolves Codex entry, Thunderwolf Mount is listed as Wargear. (Wargear of the Fang -> Special Issue Wargear)

"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)." (Wargear of the Fang -> Special Issue Wargear -> Thunderwolf Mount)

This implies that the "original" (not ever formally defined, but we are forced to infer its existence here) S, T, A, and W characteristic of any unit that comes with a Thunderwolf Mount is 1 less than what's listed in the unit entry & summary pages.

So back to:
"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." (Models & Units)

If it doesn't come with a Thunderwolf Mount standard, then x2 for the fist and + 1 for the Mount = 9 in most, if not all, cases.
If it does come with a Thunderwolf Mount standard, then -1 to get original value, then x2 for the fest and + 1 for the Mount = 9 in most, if not all, cases.

My conclusion: it's Str 9 for any model with a Powerfist and a Thunderwolf Mount.

Side note: I don't think the 4(5) comparison is relevant because the 4(5) rule outright negated modifiers from any special rule in specific contexts, rather than determine the order in which it is applied.

Aslo Kenny on Forge the Narrative put it this way..

Forge The Narrative

Kenny here,
I have relented on my argument for S10vsS9 TWC....after having it presented to me over and over again....i decided to put together this simple graphic. I photographed the rules instead of typing them and built a pretty simple key in photoshop. I believe in my heart that they are meant to be S10 but i can only prove that they are S9. Unless you want to argue that "to increase" is not a "modification" ....which is dumb because obviously is you increase something you have modified it in some way. At least in this context.

https://www.facebook.com/ForgeTheNarrative/photos/pb.123306367860140.-2207520000.1410604171./266590066865102/?type=3

**osirisx69**

Lord Lorne Walkier wrote:
I can not say it any better then hyudun over on bols.

This is how I read it:

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.)..." (Models & Units)

This establishes that when a piece of Wargear changes a model's characteristics, it is considered a Modifier (capital M).

In the Space Wolves Codex entry, Thunderwolf Mount is listed as Wargear. (Wargear of the Fang -> Special Issue Wargear)

"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)." (Wargear of the Fang -> Special Issue Wargear -> Thunderwolf Mount)

This implies that the "original" (not ever formally defined, but we are forced to infer its existence here) S, T, A, and W characteristic of any unit that comes with a Thunderwolf Mount is 1 less than what's listed in the unit entry & summary pages.

So back to:
"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." (Models & Units)

If it doesn't come with a Thunderwolf Mount standard, then x2 for the fist and + 1 for the Mount = 9 in most, if not all, cases.
If it does come with a Thunderwolf Mount standard, then -1 to get original value, then x2 for the fest and + 1 for the Mount = 9 in most, if not all, cases.

My conclusion: it's Str 9 for any model with a Powerfist and a Thunderwolf Mount.

Side note: I don't think the 4(5) comparison is relevant because the 4(5) rule outright negated modifiers from any special rule in specific contexts, rather than determine the order in which it is applied.

Aslo Kenny on Forge the Narrative put it this way..

Forge The Narrative

Kenny here,
I have relented on my argument for S10vsS9 TWC....after having it presented to me over and over again....i decided to put together this simple graphic. I photographed the rules instead of typing them and built a pretty simple key in photoshop. I believe in my heart that they are meant to be S10 but i can only prove that they are S9. Unless you want to argue that "to increase" is not a "modification" ....which is dumb because obviously is you increase something you have modified it in some way. At least in this context.

https://www.facebook.com/ForgeTheNarrative/photos/pb.123306367860140.-2207520000.1410604171./266590066865102/?type=3

QFT

**easysauce**

again, maybe actually read it

if you are saying "every single instance where we add, subtract, multyiply, divide or set a value is a modifier"

then you have to apply that universally,

which you are not doing.

if every +1 is a modifier, then every set value is also a modifier.

you are saying +1 is a modifyer, but saying a set value is not, which is not consistent with your own interpretation of RAW.

**Unit1126PLL**

easysauce wrote:
if you are saying "every single instance where we add, subtract, multyiply, divide or set a value is a modifier"

The bold part doesn't actually reflect any claims that have been made.

**nosferatu1001**

Easy - so a profile is a set value in your "logic" now?

No. It isn't a set value modifier, because it isn't modifying anything: it IS the thing.

We're being consistent, you're just ignoring it in your rambling responses

**easysauce**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Easy - so a profile is a set value in your "logic" now?

No. It isn't a set value modifier, because it isn't modifying anything: it IS the thing.

We're being consistent, you're just ignoring it in your rambling responses

no, again, you are not reading what I am writing and resorting calling my posts rambling instead of actually ADDRESING THE ISSUE IM BRINGING UP.

YOU are the one saying everything is a modifier,

you are saying every +1 is a modifier, great lets accept this as truth for a moment, if every + is a modifier means that every set value is also a modifier.

set values, are modifyers by RAW, and the value is set by the profile, and under your interpretation that every single + - X / or set function must be a modifier, means that profiles are also set modifiers (this follows from your interpretation, not mine)

GW themselves wrote TWC profile, in that profile STR = 5 this is 100% raw.

you are claiming that the SW dex does not say str=5 you are saying its 4+1, which is not RAW.

since GW themselves have said:

model with str4 + TWC rules = str5

then a model with str 4 + twc = str 5, by raw that is the profile of the model, IE str 5 is the thing that is now open to being modified, it is not itself a modification.

you keep inserting a modifyer where there isnt one,

and claiming that "hey we added +1, it must be a modifier because ALL additions are modifiers"

If all instances of addition are modifiers, then all instances of set values must be modifiers as well.

you seem to grasp that the models statline is not a modifier, is is the thing being modified.

so when a stat line says 5, its *5* not 4+1, which is 100% the case with TWC, and IC's on TWC, their stat says 5, not 4+1.

yet you claim one part of the stat is a modifier, but the other part is not.

**Unit1126PLL**

easysauce wrote:

GW themselves wrote TWC profile, in that profile STR = 5 this is 100% raw.

Yes, this is true.

It is also with the caveat that the STR = 5 because "a model with a TFC as its default wargear has the bonus already included in its profile" [paraphrasing].

So if the STR of a TWC is 5, and it includes a +1 bonus, then what is the base STR?

**easysauce**

base str is 5, as thats what the profile says, by RAW.

if TWC was a modifier, it wouldnt be be in the profile, simple as that.

if you are claiming every single mention of adding to any thing is a modifier, then you have to accept that every single mention of a set value is a modifier too.

now deal with the issues this interpretation brings up, or concede the point

you cannot just keep repeating that every + is a modifier without dealing with the reprecussions of every set value also being a modifier, as both follow from your interpretation.

By RAW, a st4 model with the rules from TWC becomes *st5* on their unmodified base profile as the codex shows.

this is irrefutable, the codex plainly stats str5

if applying a rule to a t4 model results in this in one instance, appling the exact same rule to another t4 model must as well.

**Unit1126PLL**

easysauce wrote:
base str is 5, as thats what the profile says, by RAW.

if TWC was a modifier, it wouldnt be be in the profile, simple as that.

if you are claiming every single mention of adding to any thing is a modifier, then you have to accept that every single mention of a set value is a modifier too.

now deal with the issues this interpretation brings up, or concede the point

you cannot just keep repeating that every + is a modifier without dealing with the reprecussions of every set value also being a modifier, as both follow from your interpretation.

By RAW, a st4 model with the rules from TWC becomes *st5* on their unmodified base profile as the codex shows.

this is irrefutable, the codex plainly stats str5

if applying a rule to a t4 model results in this in one instance, appling the exact same rule to another t4 model must as well.

You seem to be ignoring the last sentence of the Thunderwolf wargear rules. Let me help you:

**nosferatu1001**

I wouldn't bother unit - the rules have been given over and over, and they are clear (if potentially not intuitive) and easy still ignores that an increase of 1 is defined as a modifier, and a profile, by definition, is not.

Time to stop feeding.

**easysauce**

you keep ignoring that a set value is also a modifier, by definition.

address the issue I bring up, instead of repeating things that address a completely different thing.

**nosferatu1001**

easysauce wrote:you keep ignoring that a set value is also a modifier, by definition.

address the issue I bring up, instead of repeating things that address a completely different thing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Easy - so a profile is a set value in your "logic" now?

No. It isn't a set value modifier, because it isn't modifying anything: it IS the thing.

We're being consistent, you're just ignoring it in your rambling responses

No, addressed, twice now. There's one as a reminder

A profile is not a set modifier. It hasn't modified anything. It IS the thing.

Raw has been proven over and over, you refuse to listen

**Amiricle**

easysauce wrote:
you keep ignoring that a set value is also a modifier, by definition.

address the issue I bring up, instead of repeating things that address a completely different thing.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I am legitimately confused by what you are saying here.
"you keep ignoring that a set value is also a modifier"
"if every +1 is a modifier, then every set value is also a modifier. "
What exactly do you mean by that and how is it applicable?

**Zewrath**

So if my bikers need to take a toughness test, they are assumed toughness 4? Just asking.

**easysauce**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
easysauce wrote:you keep ignoring that a set value is also a modifier, by definition.

address the issue I bring up, instead of repeating things that address a completely different thing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Easy - so a profile is a set value in your "logic" now?

No. It isn't a set value modifier, because it isn't modifying anything: it IS the thing.

We're being consistent, you're just ignoring it in your rambling responses

No, addressed, twice now. There's one as a reminder

A profile is not a set modifier. It hasn't modified anything. It IS the thing.

Raw has been proven over and over, you refuse to listen

no, you are not addressing it,

you are asserting that a profile cannot be a modifier, in the case of a set modifier, then in the next breath you claim a "profile" contains an additive modifier.

so the profile is the thing, great glad you agree on that point, it means that the "profile" is "the thing modified" by all modifiers, not just set ones.

which disproves your point, that the "profile" states 4+1 for TWC stats, when it clearly states 5

the profile states 5, and will for both TWC and IC on TW's, as the profile is THE THING, not the modifier.

hence why bonuses like this are, and I quote the rules "already included in the profile"

stats that are supposed to be already included in the profile, are supposed to be "included in the profile", which is raw, and since the "profile" is what you modify, not the product of modifiers.

while you are stating that stats that are to be "already included in the profile" are to be added in at a later time as a modification to the original profile, as opposed to being part of the original profile.

as we plainly see a new profile between units on and off thunderwolf cav, we see what the RAW effect of adding a mount actually is, its clear that the original profile is 5, not 4+1, or the models profiles would STATE 4+1.

**DeathReaper**

You modify the characteristic, not the profile.

**blaktoof**

Zewrath wrote:
So if my bikers need to take a toughness test, they are assumed toughness 4? Just asking.

if it says unmodified toughness for the test, yes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
the profile is the characteristic+any modifiers

and your definition of what a set modifier is incorrect, I suggest you refer to the BRB.