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.

B4 this thread is closed... I must say all TWC and Mounted IC's with a Thunderhammer or Power fist should be counted at Str 9. Too bad GW wont FAQ this because they are winning to many tournaments with the bad ruling on this.

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
RaW they are all S9 however GW have made it clear they are all supposed to be S10 some people want to gain any unfair advantage they can so will try to argue for S9 and hide behind RaW for their houserule. Check with your opponent or TO to see if they want to use a house rule or whether they want to play by the 40k rules and thus have them S10.

By "GW have made it clear" do you mean GW made it clear for a different iteration of the rule set, 2 editions ago?

Any other 5th edition rulings you rely on to show the "true" 40k rules?

Because the actual rules point to S9. Feel free to hosuerule S10 if you wish, and your opponent agrees.

Yes the only time GW has offered clarity on this issue they've said S10. Infiltrating Shrike is another time we need to go to a 5th Ed ruling to know how the rules work.

Feel free to house rule is as S9 if your opponent agrees.

On a different unit, with different wargear. Noticed the explicit rule stating the bonus is included yet? Or will you make up an alternative rule to suit your preconceived ideas?

Daniel - the actual written rules allow for no other result than s9. You have to ignore the exceptionally clearly written rule stating it is a modifier, and then pretend the multiple modifier rule.

So yes, if you ignore rules and pretend they don't exist, or hark back to a 5th edition FAQ for a unit with different wargear and rules , only then can you state s10.

I'll take the Version in the actual rules, however, and leave the house rule gal to fling.

Nos you are free to play by what ever house rules you and your opponents agree on I. I'll play S10 unless my opponemt wants to create a house rule. We both know how the rule works but you choose to ignore that which is your right.

 FlingitNow wrote:
If you think your strawman is relevant I can't help you.

Please enlighten me as to how my comment was a strawman.

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
If you think your strawman is relevant I can't help you.

Please enlighten me as to how my comment was a strawman.

Because you took an entirely different situation, equated it to the rules and then pointed out the different situation was false.

Again. This has been discussed multiple times and there are two camps that will never agree.

As long as we're all voicing our opinions, mine is that RAW its S10 for normal TWC and S9 for characters, but RAI S10 for both. Fortunately most tournaments play it S10 for both so this debate doesn't vex me as much as it used to.

Now, can we get it locked up before it devolves into insults and personal attacks?

 NightHowler wrote:
Again. This has been discussed multiple times and there are two camps that will never agree.

That is only because the Str 10 camp is flat out ignoring the rules. (Or they are telling people How They Would Play It, and I missed them saying that).

As long as we're all voicing our opinions

We aren't (Unless people were talking about HTWPI), were voicing RAW which, by the multiple modifiers rule, comes to Str 9.

mine is that RAW its S10 for normal TWC and S9 for characters, but RAI S10 for both. Fortunately most tournaments play it S10 for both so this debate doesn't vex me as much as it used to.

Nice house rule/HYWPI, but that is not at all what the rules actually say.

The rules only support Str 9 for TWC and characters. Anything else is a house rule.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
If you think your strawman is relevant I can't help you.

Please enlighten me as to how my comment was a strawman.

Because you took an entirely different situation, equated it to the rules and then pointed out the different situation was false.

No. He drew a parallel to your reasoning for supporting the S10 idea based on an outdated FAQ for a codex from two editions ago, which is a legitimate comparison.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
If you think your strawman is relevant I can't help you.

Please enlighten me as to how my comment was a strawman.

Because you took an entirely different situation, equated it to the rules and then pointed out the different situation was false.

No. He drew a parallel to your reasoning for supporting the S10 idea based on an outdated FAQ for a codex from two editions ago, which is a legitimate comparison.

It wasn't even remotely a legitimate comparison as the example he took was not a grey area that had only been addressed in the past. Had he used Shrikes remain unseen rule that would have been a legitimate comparison.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Again. This has been discussed multiple times and there are two camps that will never agree.

That is only because the Str 10 camp is flat out ignoring the rules. (Or they are telling people How They Would Play It, and I missed them saying that).

As long as we're all voicing our opinions

We aren't (Unless people were talking about HTWPI), were voicing RAW which, by the multiple modifiers rule, comes to Str 9.

mine is that RAW its S10 for normal TWC and S9 for characters, but RAI S10 for both. Fortunately most tournaments play it S10 for both so this debate doesn't vex me as much as it used to.

Nice house rule/HYWPI, but that is not at all what the rules actually say.

The rules only support Str 9 for TWC and characters. Anything else is a house rule.

That's not true at all, to actually minus statistics off a thunder wolf calvary model would be house ruling as no form of weapon use at all they can utilise asks or requires for that to be done, furthermore even if it did, whoever said that the multiple of the power fist ext is done before the addition of strength from the thunder wolf? It makes far more sense and is much more logical to keep the additional characteristics before anything else is applied after all as the model is on the wolf by default.

lollie123 wrote:


That's not true at all, to actually minus statistics off a thunder wolf calvary model would be house ruling as no form of weapon use at all they can utilise asks or requires for that to be done, furthermore even if it did, whoever said that the multiple of the power fist ext is done before the addition of strength from the thunder wolf? It makes far more sense and is much more logical to keep the additional characteristics before anything else is applied after all as the model is on the wolf by default.

Except the rules say otherwise.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
As long as we're all voicing our opinions

We aren't (Unless people were talking about HTWPI), were voicing RAW which, by the multiple modifiers rule, comes to Str 9.

The rules only support Str 9 for TWC and characters. Anything else is a house rule.

We’re not voicing our opinions? Because it looks like it to me.

Ok, if we’re going strict RAW, let me write out my 3 favorites:

Modifiers (page 8, paragraph 3)
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.

Multiple Modifiers (page 8, paragraph 4)
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.

But wait!!! Where do we find these “characteristics” that keep getting mentioned? Are they written out for us? Do we have to calculate them ourselves? Let’s read on and see…

Characteristic Profiles (page 9, paragraph 1)
Every model in 40K has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics. You can find these profiles in a variety of GW publications, including codexes.

Example:
_____________WS__BS__S__T__W__I__A__Ld__Sv
Space marine___4____4__4__4__1__4__1__8___3+
Thunderwolf____4____4__5__5__2__4__4__9___3+


Very clearly the thunderwolf mount DOES NOT modify the characteristic profile of the standard thunderwolf cavalry – it’s bonuses are already included. We’re told where to find the characteristics, you find them in the profile. SO when you go to a thunderwolf cavalry model’s profile in the codex you see that it’s strength is listed as 5. This is the characteristic you modify when you add any additional wargear – not some re-calculated value that you get from stripping away what is already included in the profile – we are NEVER told to do that.

When the x2 modifier of a power fist or thunder hammer modifies the characteristic of a thunderwolf cavalry model there are ZERO rules written anywhere in any book telling us to subtract out wargear that is already included in the characteristic profile before recalculating the final characteristic.

So for thunderwolf cavalry models, I buy a powerfist. I know that it modifies the strength of a thunderwolf cavalry model by x2, so I go to the characteristics profile to see what their strength is. In the space wolves codex on page 120, down near the bottom I see the profile shows a strength of 5. So I follow the modifiers rule: I take the characteristic found in the profile and multiply first add second. The characteristic is 5 multiplied by 2 gives me 10.

Unfortunately for characters taking a thunderwolf mount as wargear the +1 strength is not already included in their profile, so when I go to their characteristic profile to find what their strength is I find 4, then you multiply first (2x4=8) then add (8+1=9). But I imagine that this was a discrepancy on GW’s part, and if they ever do another FAQ I would fully expect them to say that even characters should be S10.

This is RAW: standard thunderwolf cavalry are S10, characters are S9 (until the FAQ).

I’ve listed the rules that support my argument.

I understand your argument, I just find that it lacks the rule that tells us to calculate a new characteristic profile instead of using the one found in the book (like my argument does).

Your task is now to show where it says we must subtract out of the characteristic profile all wargear that is already included before re-calculating the new characteristic with added wargear.

I’ll wait to see what rules you come up with.

Its convenient to argue rules when you leave out the most important one.

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).

GW conveniently tells you they already added to the Profile. Its no different than any other +1, x2 modifier.

Fragile wrote:
Its convenient to argue rules when you leave out the most important one.

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).

GW conveniently tells you they already added to the Profile. Its no different than any other +1, x2 modifier.

Sigh..... I already said it's already included in the profile.

And since you obviously replied without even reading my post, you're back on the ignore list again Fragile.

Can someone actually quote a rule that tells us to strip bonuses out of a profile and then "re-modify" that characteristic again with the same bonus? Until that rule is found, the strength characteristic being modified is 5.

 Frozocrone wrote:
This has been done before.

A fair few times actually.

There are a few more threads that you can search on this but essentially it's the same argument flying around each and everytime.

Quite.


We can but hope GW get their act together and release some FAQs,