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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Thankfully the idiotic arguments about whether the relic battle cannon is a turret weapon get to die.

Though totally expected and understood, sad to see that there's no longer hope that Indomitus Crusaders is anything but codex marine only.

1) It's a special snowflake FAQ that ignores the rules.

2) The fact they FAQed it proves the RaW people were right all along.

This is truly motivated reasoning. Look, nobody is denying that RAW people know how to read a few sentences and interpret them with zero context. I'm not even saying that's not a useful skill at times. You correctly read that Grinding advance only works for certain weapons, and the Hammer of Whatever wasn't one of them. congratulations. If we all chip in and buy you a hat that says "very clever lad" will you be happy?

The problem is, people don't ask rules questions to win rules debates. They want to play games. And RAW has a terrible track record as a method of predicting how to actually play the game. Anybody with a fifth grade education can pick nits, but the useful skill is to look at context, parallel cases, and precedent to see how GW and TOs are actually going to rule. And see, here, you argue that because they FAQ'd it the opposite of what you said RAW was, you were correct. What would you have done if they had FAQ'd it to say the same as RAW? That you were correct? So... you're simply saying that you are always correct, despite what happens?

I think that part of the problem is that you are in the grips of your own bias: you are so keen to show that the rules are poorly written, you seek out the methods that prove that. And again, good job! You are a very clever lad! But your analysis simply isn't helpful to most people trying to play the game.

so wait... are Chaos terminators still more expensive for some reason? I don't play Chaos but I would presume having the same stats and crap they should be pointed the same.

Waaaghpower wrote:

nareik wrote:
Ork buggies, skorchas and tracks got their adjusted points cost back too.

I'm just baffled why they did get their points back, but Sisters of Battle didn't get readjusted Eviscerators.

i'm guessing no one emailed to ask if the entry was missing or which publication should be used?

 mokoshkana wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
The multiplication before addition is straight out of the rulebook as far as characterisitics go.

Except when you multiply then add, then multiply:

Designer's Commentary Page 1:

Q: If a rule modifies a model’s Strength characteristic, and that model is equipped with a melee weapon that also has a modifier (e.g. ‘x2’), could you explain the order in which the modifiers are applied to the characteristics and the weapon’s Strength?

A: First you must determine the model’s current Strength characteristic. To do so apply all modifiers to it that multiply or divide the value, then apply any that add or subtract to it. Having done this, you
then modify this value as described by the weapon’s Strength characteristic. For example, let’s imagine a model with a basic Strength characteristic of 3 is under the effects of two psychic powers: a friendly one that doubles their Strength characteristic, and an enemy one that subtracts 1 from their Strength characteristic. That model’s current Strength is therefore 5. If this model then fights with a weapon like a power fist, which has a Strength characteristic of ‘x2’, that attack will therefore be resolved at Strength 10.

Unless it explicitly states that weapon modifications happen after all others somewhere

A weapon does not modify a models base characteristics, and you always determine base characteristics first.
A warlord trait that adds +1 strength to the model modifies a models base characteristic.
A warlord trait that adds +1 strength to a models attacks does not modify a models base characteristics
A chapter trait that adds +1 strength to the model while charging modifies a models base characteristic.

When determining a melee weapons strength (unless it is a fixed strength), you use the models base characteristic, then apply modifiers to the attack - so a S5 model with a x2 Weapon ends up with a S10 attack, while a S4 model that has a x2 weapon and is given a +1 strength to it's attacks ends up with a S9 attack.

 lolman1c wrote:
so wait... are Chaos terminators still more expensive for some reason? I don't play Chaos but I would presume having the same stats and crap they should be pointed the same.

Right, it's apparently intentional (or they completely overlooked it and nobody bothered to ask). I've heard it's because of the stratagems that CSM get (i.e. doubletapping with Slaaneshi marked terminators) but stratagems have no business being factored into the points cost of a unit.

Mayyybe generic Terminators are destined to be a legacy unit if a new kit comes out. We’ll see as Vigilus progresses.

What is the issue with chaos terminators?
Did they get a point drop that was then redacted or similar?

nareik wrote:
What is the issue with chaos terminators?
Did they get a point drop that was then redacted or similar?

All terminators got a point drop, but Chaos terminators are 5 points more than loyalist (including Space Wolves, who have similar weapon options to Chaos Terminators)

nekooni wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
The multiplication before addition is straight out of the rulebook as far as characterisitics go.

Except when you multiply then add, then multiply:

Designer's Commentary Page 1:

Q: If a rule modifies a model’s Strength characteristic, and that model is equipped with a melee weapon that also has a modifier (e.g. ‘x2’), could you explain the order in which the modifiers are applied to the characteristics and the weapon’s Strength?

A: First you must determine the model’s current Strength characteristic. To do so apply all modifiers to it that multiply or divide the value, then apply any that add or subtract to it. Having done this, you
then modify this value as described by the weapon’s Strength characteristic. For example, let’s imagine a model with a basic Strength characteristic of 3 is under the effects of two psychic powers: a friendly one that doubles their Strength characteristic, and an enemy one that subtracts 1 from their Strength characteristic. That model’s current Strength is therefore 5. If this model then fights with a weapon like a power fist, which has a Strength characteristic of ‘x2’, that attack will therefore be resolved at Strength 10.

Unless it explicitly states that weapon modifications happen after all others somewhere

A weapon does not modify a models base characteristics, and you always determine base characteristics first.
A warlord trait that adds +1 strength to the model modifies a models base characteristic.
A warlord trait that adds +1 strength to a models attacks does not modify a models base characteristics
A chapter trait that adds +1 strength to the model while charging modifies a models base characteristic.

When determining a melee weapons strength (unless it is a fixed strength), you use the models base characteristic, then apply modifiers to the attack - so a S5 model with a x2 Weapon ends up with a S10 attack, while a S4 model that has a x2 weapon and is given a +1 strength to it's attacks ends up with a S9 attack.

But both the Psytronome of Iyanden and the Wrath of the Dead strat modify the model's base attacks characteristic, so this isn't about that. I feel like this is GW writing a FAQ and forgetting about the designers' commentary bit that you're replying to. The verbiage they use in the Vigilus FAQ certainly doesn't help make the situation any more clear.

Wow, no changes to Stompa mob. Guess GW really want to show Ork players that the model is dead to them.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
The multiplication before addition is straight out of the rulebook as far as characterisitics go.

Except when you multiply then add, then multiply:

Designer's Commentary Page 1:

Q: If a rule modifies a model’s Strength characteristic, and that model is equipped with a melee weapon that also has a modifier (e.g. ‘x2’), could you explain the order in which the modifiers are applied to the characteristics and the weapon’s Strength?

A: First you must determine the model’s current Strength characteristic. To do so apply all modifiers to it that multiply or divide the value, then apply any that add or subtract to it. Having done this, you
then modify this value as described by the weapon’s Strength characteristic. For example, let’s imagine a model with a basic Strength characteristic of 3 is under the effects of two psychic powers: a friendly one that doubles their Strength characteristic, and an enemy one that subtracts 1 from their Strength characteristic. That model’s current Strength is therefore 5. If this model then fights with a weapon like a power fist, which has a Strength characteristic of ‘x2’, that attack will therefore be resolved at Strength 10.

Unless it explicitly states that weapon modifications happen after all others somewhere

A weapon does not modify a models base characteristics, and you always determine base characteristics first.
A warlord trait that adds +1 strength to the model modifies a models base characteristic.
A warlord trait that adds +1 strength to a models attacks does not modify a models base characteristics
A chapter trait that adds +1 strength to the model while charging modifies a models base characteristic.

When determining a melee weapons strength (unless it is a fixed strength), you use the models base characteristic, then apply modifiers to the attack - so a S5 model with a x2 Weapon ends up with a S10 attack, while a S4 model that has a x2 weapon and is given a +1 strength to it's attacks ends up with a S9 attack.

But both the Psytronome of Iyanden and the Wrath of the Dead strat modify the model's base attacks characteristic, so this isn't about that. I feel like this is GW writing a FAQ and forgetting about the designers' commentary bit that you're replying to. The verbiage they use in the Vigilus FAQ certainly doesn't help make the situation any more clear.

So then what's the issue? If BOTH modify the characteristic you're again doing multiplication first. Isn't that like math 101?

Wayniac wrote:

Q: If the Acceptable Casualties rule is being used in the mission,
and I concede, does my opponent still win the battle?
A: Yes.

Wow. They take the time to answer this, but won't answer if Wolf Guard Pack Leaders are 16 points, or 14 points, because Wolf Guards are now 14 points base.

nekooni wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
The multiplication before addition is straight out of the rulebook as far as characterisitics go.

Except when you multiply then add, then multiply:

Designer's Commentary Page 1:

Q: If a rule modifies a model’s Strength characteristic, and that model is equipped with a melee weapon that also has a modifier (e.g. ‘x2’), could you explain the order in which the modifiers are applied to the characteristics and the weapon’s Strength?

A: First you must determine the model’s current Strength characteristic. To do so apply all modifiers to it that multiply or divide the value, then apply any that add or subtract to it. Having done this, you
then modify this value as described by the weapon’s Strength characteristic. For example, let’s imagine a model with a basic Strength characteristic of 3 is under the effects of two psychic powers: a friendly one that doubles their Strength characteristic, and an enemy one that subtracts 1 from their Strength characteristic. That model’s current Strength is therefore 5. If this model then fights with a weapon like a power fist, which has a Strength characteristic of ‘x2’, that attack will therefore be resolved at Strength 10.

Unless it explicitly states that weapon modifications happen after all others somewhere

A weapon does not modify a models base characteristics, and you always determine base characteristics first.
A warlord trait that adds +1 strength to the model modifies a models base characteristic.
A warlord trait that adds +1 strength to a models attacks does not modify a models base characteristics
A chapter trait that adds +1 strength to the model while charging modifies a models base characteristic.

When determining a melee weapons strength (unless it is a fixed strength), you use the models base characteristic, then apply modifiers to the attack - so a S5 model with a x2 Weapon ends up with a S10 attack, while a S4 model that has a x2 weapon and is given a +1 strength to it's attacks ends up with a S9 attack.

But both the Psytronome of Iyanden and the Wrath of the Dead strat modify the model's base attacks characteristic, so this isn't about that. I feel like this is GW writing a FAQ and forgetting about the designers' commentary bit that you're replying to. The verbiage they use in the Vigilus FAQ certainly doesn't help make the situation any more clear.

So then what's the issue? If BOTH modify the characteristic you're again doing multiplication first. Isn't that like math 101?

Both the strat and the relic start "at the beginning of the charge phase...". Until GW says otherwise, as the player using a stratagem and activating a relic, I would think that I have the agency to decide the order in which they occur. So not being an idiot, I would use the strat first and then activate the relic since they both say "at the beginning of the charge phase". And then, much like with a power fist, the thing that happens first would occur first. But say you're right and you have to activate them at exactly the same time. What does that mean?

A) Duh, they happen at the same time (in which case, okay, fine, multiply first). But let's unpack that for a minute. What are the ramifications of that? In something like this where you add and multiply, we know how this is supposed to work from elementary school math. But what if it's not adding and multiplying? Here's something concrete. Two armies are fighting, both have a "fight again at the end of the phase" strat. Both players want to use this strat. How do you resolve who goes first? Per what we established before, the answer is A) Duh, they happen at the same time... but how does that work? It obviously doesn't.

TL;DR, this is a complex situation. GW has completely muddied the waters with this latest FAQ. This is the sort of thing that sadly separates 40k as a game from something like MtG -- this stuff is rigorously spelled out in Magic. In 40k, it's "let's just 4+ it!" It makes any kind of detailed, complex rules discussion incredibly disappointing to have because there are some questions that just don't have answers.

Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a turret
weapon for the purposes of Grinding Advance?
A: Yes.

Well this puts to rest this thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/767991.page

Still waiting for the 1+FNP for Ultramarines :p

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:


TL;DR, this is a complex situation. GW has completely muddied the waters with this latest FAQ. This is the sort of thing that sadly separates 40k as a game from something like MtG -- this stuff is rigorously spelled out in Magic. In 40k, it's "let's just 4+ it!" It makes any kind of detailed, complex rules discussion incredibly disappointing to have because there are some questions that just don't have answers.

But is not about agency but math.
It's always the same order.

A=base characteristic

If A is both modified by plus one and by doubling it, its:
A=base characteristic * 2 + 1

For attacks you're done now.
For an attacks strength you now calculate again

B = strength characteristic
If this is modified by adding one and doubling it, this also goes like this:

B=strength characteristic *2 +1

If you plug in the calculation for the characteristic you end up with:

B = (base characteristic *2 +1) *2 +1

And that's really simple to solve.

nekooni wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:


TL;DR, this is a complex situation. GW has completely muddied the waters with this latest FAQ. This is the sort of thing that sadly separates 40k as a game from something like MtG -- this stuff is rigorously spelled out in Magic. In 40k, it's "let's just 4+ it!" It makes any kind of detailed, complex rules discussion incredibly disappointing to have because there are some questions that just don't have answers.

But is not about agency but math.
It's always the same order.

A=base characteristic

If A is both modified by plus one and by doubling it, its:
A=base characteristic * 2 + 1

For attacks you're done now.
For an attacks strength you now calculate again

B = strength characteristic
If this is modified by adding one and doubling it, this also goes like this:

B=strength characteristic *2 +1

If you plug in the calculation for the characteristic you end up with:

B = (base characteristic *2 +1) *2 +1

And that's really simple to solve.

Yes, as I tried to imply above, I understand order of operations and how parentheses work. What I'm trying to establish is that GW's answer to this question is stupid, because it only applies in the case where the operations being ordered are addition and multiplication. What if the operation is an out-of-sequence action, as I mentioned earlier? There's no PEMDAS heuristic for that, it's just an unanswered question. If they utilized concepts like "priority" or "the stack", they could solve all these problems and have a rules set that doesn't fall apart/resort to awful, unintuitive answers like this one.

Basically, there's no reason why attacks and strength characteristics should be treated any differently yet people (with GW's assistance) have managed to cook up this awful, contorted, ex post facto rationale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, looking back, I can't tell how your reply is relevant to the conversation at hand. We're not talking about any kind of doubly-nested situation. If things were sensible, a buffed Wraithblade would get (2+1+1)*2 + 1 attacks. But they're not, and apparently they get 2*2 + 1 + 1 + 1 attacks instead. So, voila I guess.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, looking back, I can't tell how your reply is relevant to the conversation at hand. We're not talking about any kind of doubly-nested situation. If things were sensible, a buffed Wraithblade would get (2+1+1)*2 + 1 attacks. But they're not, and apparently they get 2*2 + 1 + 1 + 1 attacks instead. So, voila I guess.

Exactly, because we're told to always multiply first. The double nested thing is what gets people confused as it leads to an apparent multiply, add, multiply, while it's simply applying the multiply first rule for two different occasions. And in many cases it's a apparent add first, then multiply.

It's almost as if they didn't want Haarkan to be used for his profile at all. I'd literally rather buy a Deathclaw and transport a Dark Apostle to boost my Raptors now.

He also still can't use his Spear in melee. STILL.

BIMDAS BODMAS BOMDAS PIMDAS PEMDAS. Good lord. We can't even agree on the name of the rules of mathematics!
Index/order and bracket/parentheses I knew about. E for exponent (?) I was surprised by.

Zustiur wrote:
BIMDAS BODMAS BOMDAS PIMDAS PEMDAS. Good lord. We can't even agree on the name of the rules of mathematics!
Index/order and bracket/parentheses I knew about. E for exponent (?) I was surprised by.

I'm sorry I don't know the correct English term,especially if that offended you. Next time I'll just use "PUNKT VOR STRICH DU MADE", I hope that's OK with you then.

Wayniac wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
so wait... are Chaos terminators still more expensive for some reason? I don't play Chaos but I would presume having the same stats and crap they should be pointed the same.

Right, it's apparently intentional (or they completely overlooked it and nobody bothered to ask). I've heard it's because of the stratagems that CSM get (i.e. doubletapping with Slaaneshi marked terminators) but stratagems have no business being factored into the points cost of a unit.

Tell that to ragtag Chaos Cultists that are more expensive than Guardsmen despite Guardsmen getting orders, better armor, better BS, and tons of phenomenal Regiments to buff them.

Also the Haarken Worldclaimer nerf is a Bait-and-Switch if I ever saw one. You'll never see him on the table. I went ahead and converted mine to have a power fist and plasma pistol and I'll use him as a Chaos Lord with jump pack instead.

What I found really interesting was the FAQ for the Hammer of Sunderance.

I would have answered it thusly?

Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a Battlecannon for all purposes, [Including Grinding Advance?]
A: Yes.

The way they have answered it implies rather forcefully that it _Isn't_ a Battlecannon. [But you can still shoot twice with it.] Which seems a strange Special Snowflake way to go, as it implies if anything else turns up later that affects Battlecannons, it still won't count as one.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
What I found really interesting was the FAQ for the Hammer of Sunderance.

I would have answered it thusly?

Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a Battlecannon for all purposes, [Including Grinding Advance?]
A: Yes.

The way they have answered it implies rather forcefully that it _Isn't_ a Battlecannon. [But you can still shoot twice with it.] Which seems a strange Special Snowflake way to go, as it implies if anything else turns up later that affects Battlecannons, it still won't count as one.

I'd say you're trying to read way too much from a some question,even though your conclusion is right RAW and the next LR main gun Relic hopefully has a line saying it counts as its normal main gun version for grinding advance.

If they hadn't added the GA limitation some people might have argued that since it IS a battle Cannon you have to use a battle Cannon profile. People asked if they lose when conceding...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Mayyybe generic Terminators are destined to be a legacy unit if a new kit comes out. We’ll see as Vigilus progresses.

That would mean that more then 50% of the whole GK army is a legacy one. Most GK units that are not vehicles are wearing termintor armor.

Kdash wrote:
So, apparently modifying attack characteristics works differently to modifying strength characteristics now.
Wraithblades confirmed to only have 7 attacks when using the Iyandan relic, 2 swords and the Vigilus stratagem on the charge. Apparently you do all multiplication before additions, though catachan power fists still go additions then multiplication.

Glad they got in there quick and prevented Ynnari from using the new detachments though, that could have gotten out of hand imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:


* In the CA FAQ someone actually asked this question:

Q: If the Acceptable Casualties rule is being used in the mission,
and I concede, does my opponent still win the battle?
A: Yes.


[/quote

Yeah, some of the questions they answer and then also fail to answer continuously astounds me. It just goes to show that a lot of people just can't be bothered to read the rules and would rather just be lazy.

Yea, i was thinking about using this spears and blades +1 attack and second action. I guess them fixing it was super important.
7 attacks look scary, but its really hard to bring Wraithblades + Spiritseer in good position.
The question is if you dot`t get max 6 = 2x2(relic) +1(blades) +1(strat)

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
What I found really interesting was the FAQ for the Hammer of Sunderance.

I would have answered it thusly?

Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a Battlecannon for all purposes, [Including Grinding Advance?]
A: Yes.

The way they have answered it implies rather forcefully that it _Isn't_ a Battlecannon. [But you can still shoot twice with it.] Which seems a strange Special Snowflake way to go, as it implies if anything else turns up later that affects Battlecannons, it still won't count as one.

I don't find it strange at all. The Hammer of Sunderance is not a Battlecannon. GW just failed to explain their answer. I would have written the entry as:

Q: Does the Hammer of Sunderance Relic count as a turret weapon for the purposes of Grinding Advance?
A: Yes. Any relic that replaces a turret weapon counts as a turret weapon for the purposes of Grinding Advance.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/01/15/a-lord-of-raptors-he-is-returned/

Hilarious. Yet they didn't take the time to actually fix him to make him not still awful. Watch people jumping on to say "See guys? GW does listen to us!" and giving them praise for nothing.

 Ghaz wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/01/15/a-lord-of-raptors-he-is-returned/

Still trash.

I gotta say, the FAQ work looks extremely flip-floppy with this Haarken debacle now. Outright random with zero actual gameplay consideration.

'Oh we made his aura affect only Black Legion Raptors'

*Internet discussions about the situation*

'Oh we added his aura back to affect all the Raptors, because internet outrage'

It's just arbitrary.