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.

so plus 1 strength against armor if he doesnt move. So would a demolisher be strength 11?

No, as you cannot go above S10.

Nope, sorry just S10.

The only statline characteristics that are officially allowed to be above 10 are AV of vehicles, HTH attacks and # of shots from a shooting weapon.

I think that's the only 3 anyway.

DoW

EDIT: Ninja!

DogofWar - technically incorrect. Your Attack stat CANNOT be above 10. However the number of attacks you get in any one specific round CAN go above 10, but only through bonus attacks

nosferatu1001 wrote:DogofWar - technically incorrect. Your Attack stat CANNOT be above 10. However the number of attacks you get in any one specific round CAN go above 10, but only through bonus attacks

Yes, I thought that assumption was clear in my post (since I can't think of anyone who has base 10 attacks anyway?), but evidently not. My apologies.

DoW

... er he doesn't add plus one strength ... he adds plus 1 to the penetration roll.

Its the same as tank hunter. He gives you Str 10 + D6 + 1 ... giving you results of 12-17

DogofWar - but you said something different, which is you said the "stat" can be above 10; it cannot be. However you actual number of calculated attacks CAN be above 10, through bonuses.

Tri - if he adds +1 to the penetration roll, then he can indeed make a S10 weapon "effectively" S11...

like i said. plus one strenght against armor...or armor penetration...(same thing). So yes strength 11 cuss its considered bonus correct?

nosferatu1001 wrote:DogofWar - but you said something different, which is you said the "stat" can be above 10; it cannot be. However you actual number of calculated attacks CAN be above 10, through bonuses.

Tri - if he adds +1 to the penetration roll, then he can indeed make a S10 weapon "effectively" S11...

... effectively nothing. He adds +1 to the penetration roll. No Strength bonus ... No going above S10. ... miss read that ...

Any way you really want to put him in a exterminator. BS4 TL ... and Str7+1

Kasrkin52 wrote:like i said. plus one strenght against armor...or armor penetration...(same thing). So yes strength 11 cuss its considered bonus correct?

No, i isnt the same thing at all.

A +1S bonus would do NOTHING to a S10 weapon, as Strength CANNOT go above 10 even with bonuses - As I said, only Attacks can go above 10 through bonuses.

+1 to armour penetration is similar to having a S11 weapon in this case, but importantly it isnt S11 - it is S10 +1 for armour penetration.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Kasrkin52 wrote:like i said. plus one strenght against armor...or armor penetration...(same thing). So yes strength 11 cuss its considered bonus correct?

No, i isnt the same thing at all.

A +1S bonus would do NOTHING to a S10 weapon, as Strength CANNOT go above 10 even with bonuses - As I said, only Attacks can go above 10 through bonuses.

+1 to armour penetration is similar to having a S11 weapon in this case, but importantly it isnt S11 - it is S10 +1 for armour penetration.

That and things like the monolith would ignore the bonus due to Tank Hunters. It is a very small but important difference.

He does not get +1 str, he gets +1 to the penetration roll. So he is effectively str 11 Vs vehicles but it is, in actuality, (Str 10 +(D6+1)) = Penetration.

nosferatu1001 wrote:DogofWar - but you said something different, which is you said the "stat" can be above 10; it cannot be. However you actual number of calculated attacks CAN be above 10, through bonuses.

Thank you, Nosferatu1001, I understand how the rule works.

I miss-spoke and you have now pointed that out (twice). I also incorrectly implied that # of shots from a weapon is a statline characteristic, which is also incorrect. Since we're on the subject of my faults, I also used sentence fragments, incorrect punctuation, and failed to correctly agree with a plural.

Can we please move on now or would you like to discuss it further?

DoW

DoW: what Nos is trying to say is that we cannot assume you mean 1 thing when you state a completely different thing. It is all well and good that you understand what you meant; but the OP may not understand what you meant, especially when it is not what you said.

The reason Nos corrected you was that what you typed was wrong. Your defense was then that what you said should have been assumed to be the correct thing instead of ... what you said. Then you frankly became indignant when you were corrected so nos again had to explain why he corrected you, which clearly lead to further indignation.

I am not typing all of this to belittle you; I want to make that abundantly clear. You are helpful on this forum, I am just trying to mediate and help you be more helpful.

Nungunz wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Kasrkin52 wrote:like i said. plus one strenght against armor...or armor penetration...(same thing). So yes strength 11 cuss its considered bonus correct?

No, i isnt the same thing at all.

A +1S bonus would do NOTHING to a S10 weapon, as Strength CANNOT go above 10 even with bonuses - As I said, only Attacks can go above 10 through bonuses.

+1 to armour penetration is similar to having a S11 weapon in this case, but importantly it isnt S11 - it is S10 +1 for armour penetration.

That and things like the monolith would ignore the bonus due to Tank Hunters. It is a very small but important difference.

Which the Monolith will do anyways, as the Tank Hunter +! to penetration is something more than 'unaugmented strength of wepaon plus 1d6'........... No Tank Hunter bonus against a Monolith.

DogofWar wrote:"Yes, I thought that assumption was clear in my post (since I can't think of anyone who has base 10 attacks anyway?), but evidently not. My apologies."

I wasn't defending my point, in fact I was conceding it. I thought I had said something clear, but I obviously hadn't. I agreed with his assertion and I apologised for my inaccuracy. How is that being indignant?

No-one was confused and no-one was arguing (including the OP) so why was it necessary to further exacerbate the situation and reiterate:

Nosferatu wrote:DogofWar - but you said something different, which is you said the "stat" can be above 10; it cannot be. However you actual number of calculated attacks CAN be above 10, through bonuses.

What did that accomplish? What more could someone possibly want than an admission of guilt, inaccuracy and an apology?

Completely unnecessary. I'm not losing sleep over this, I suggest no-one else do the same.

DoW

I said plus one strength, But what I meant was (and understand) plus one to the armor pen. This makes it seem like its S11 but its really S10 plus bonus armor pen (+1). So everything is understood. And this bonus as no effect on the monolith right? If yes then everythings clear.

It wasnt completely un-needed, as what you had stated was you had "assumed" that people would understand you did not mean "stat" when you had, in fact, stated "stat".

the trouble with a text only forum is that short handing things doesnt always work, and I was explaining why I felt I needed to clarify, to make sure anyone reading understood why the statement was incorrect.

@ Nos and DoW It has been corrected plenty of times now and everyone that reads this thread knows what DoW meant. So its all good guys

nosferatu1001 wrote:It wasnt completely un-needed, as what you had stated was you had "assumed" that people would understand you did not mean "stat" when you had, in fact, stated "stat".

the trouble with a text only forum is that short handing things doesnt always work, and I was explaining why I felt I needed to clarify, to make sure anyone reading understood why the statement was incorrect.

Then we'll agree to disagree.

Next time, f you could just stick to correcting rules errors rather than visiting on my intentions and trying to 'educate' me personally, I would appreciate it. Rule 5 of the Tenets of YMDC specifically addresses this.

Thanks.

DoW

.... He said she said ... come on people question answered do we need any of this ...

Dow - Tenet 5?

"5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations."

I *did* discuss the rules. Which was the point. You got the rules wrong, due to an "assumption" on your part that people would understand that you didn't mean "stat" when you said "stat" .

Sigh. I'll leave you to your private indignation.

Wonderful stuff.