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.

Hi guys, just wanted to confirm something.

Can the striking scorpion exarch wield the scorpion's claw + chainsword with crushing blow, essentially giving it s8 ap2 i6 attacks and an added attack from 2 melee weapons (4 attacks on the charge)?

Couldn't find anything else on it so If I'm understanding this wrong please let me know.

Thanks

Well first of all you do multiplication before addition so it would be (3x2)+1+1 so Strength 8.

However unless otherwise specified you can't get the benefits from two weapons stats in combat. So you're either choosing the the Claw to attack with or the chainsword.

You will get an extra attack on the charge though.

Ok, I thought you got an extra attack for having 2 melee weapons that aren't specialist?

Exactly how is the exarch getting the +2 strength before the scoprion's claw? Unless they can take crushing blow twice or something

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Exactly how is the exarch getting the +2 strength before the scoprion's claw? Unless they can take crushing blow twice or something

+1S from scorpion chainsword, +1S from claw. I just did the Sx2 after adding those 2 points instead of before

Right, I knew about the doubling goof, but I was under the impression that you don't get any of the benefit from the off hand weapon besides the additional attack, so you wouldn't get the +1 from the chainsword.

Page 51 of the main rulebook, under the section titled, "More Than One Weapon," has the relevant rule. ^^

Thank you, Pouncey, that is the rule I was looking for

Thanks Pouncey.

So it's S7 and 4 attacks on the charge.

Actually, I'm not entirely sure about that.

Crushing Blow doesn't read "This model has +1 Strength in Close Combat", or some other conditional modifier.

It reads, "This model has +1 Strength."

If we take the Bike rules as the precedent on that, then it means that Scorp Exarchs with the power are S4, not S3+1.

^I agree with this. it is a permanent modifier unlike furious charge for Orks and their power claws.

That is how I read it too, however I see it as causing a lot heated debates until an FAQ comes out for it.

Yeah I too read Crushing blow as a stat increase so 4 S8 attacks on the charge. But likewise it is clearly going to cause controversy so it is probably worth playing it S7 until there is an faq. S7 I6 Ap2 is pretty brutal as is .

 redkeyboard wrote:
^I agree with this. it is a permanent modifier unlike furious charge for Orks and their power claws.

So, its a modifier?

Permanent or not, you are told how to treat multiple modifiers. S7 is total RAW

Added to the FAQ thread because it could do with clarification. I'd assumed it was the double strength then add 1 but I can see the case for both sides.

Can you cite any rules which state you include the additive modifier before multiplying? For example an explicit rule such as for Hammerhand

So far there havent been any presented in this thread.

Yeah you're absolutely right, I thought that section was worded differently.

Nos does S7 cause ID on a Farseer on a bike? (T3+1, doubled or in other words multiplied by two).

Hammer hand has an explicit exception which is missing from Crushing Blow but the wording implies a stat increase not a modifier. Granted RaW you are right it is S7, but I believe the rules are that it is S8, this makes a massive difference to whether you take crushing blow or not. I expect an faq to rule S8 as that appears to be the rule hence the question.

Much like RaW Wraithguard/lords/knights can't shoot but the rules are clearly not this. This case is not as cut and dried an I could easily see the faq going the other way, but it is a valid question.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Nos does S7 cause ID on a Farseer on a bike? (T3+1, doubled or in other words multiplied by two).

Hammer hand has an explicit exception which is missing from Crushing Blow but the wording implies a stat increase not a modifier. Granted RaW you are right it is S7, but I believe the rules are that it is S8, this makes a massive difference to whether you take crushing blow or not. I expect an faq to rule S8 as that appears to be the rule hence the question.

Much like RaW Wraithguard/lords/knights can't shoot but the rules are clearly not this. This case is not as cut and dried an I could easily see the faq going the other way, but it is a valid question.

Nope. Not a valid question. Multiple modifiers are clearly explained. Any attempt to apply multiple modifiers in a different order to the rulebook defined one will need explicit permission like Hammerhand. Absent explicit permission assuming otherwise is easter egg hunting. And as ID doesn't involve multiple modifiers, it's a strawman.

FlingitNow wrote:Nos does S7 cause ID on a Farseer on a bike? (T3+1, doubled or in other words multiplied by two).

Have you read the rules for 6th edition ID? Noted that "modified" toughness, as a concept applied to ID, no longer exists?

No, S7 does NOT ID a farseer on jetbike, because the rules for ID do not require "unmodified" Toughness to be considered. In 5th it required unmodified.

There is a clear difference, and one which also has NOTHING whatsoever to do with this rule.

FlingitNow wrote:Hammer hand has an explicit exception which is missing from Crushing Blow but the wording implies a stat increase not a modifier.

Wrong, it exactly fits the definition of a modifier as given on, from memory, page 3. Do you have an argument otherwise?

FlingitNow wrote: Granted RaW you are right it is S7, but I believe the rules are that it is S8,

Nope, the rules as written, which are THE RULES as the rulebook so helpfully states in BIG BOLD letters is that it is S7. No argument about this is possible, unless you refuse to acknowledge the rules on page 3, or have decided to make up a new category, one that doesnt exist, to try to claim it isnt a modifier. Do you have such a made up rule you can present?

FlingitNow wrote:this makes a massive difference to whether you take crushing blow or not. I expect an faq to rule S8 as that appears to be the rule hence the question.

No, there is currently no way in 6th edition it can be consaidered to be the rule that it is S7. Absolutely none. Your question is answered 100% within the rules of the game as S7, with no ambiguity in the answer possible.

FlingitNow wrote:Much like RaW Wraithguard/lords/knights can't shoot but the rules are clearly not this. This case is not as cut and dried an I could easily see the faq going the other way, but it is a valid question.

No, it is not a valid question. Absent an EXPLICIT exception to the ruels for applying multiple modifiers, the RULES are that you do multiplication before addition.

S7.

Have you read the rules for 6th edition ID? Noted that "modified" toughness, as a concept applied to ID, no longer exists?

No, S7 does NOT ID a farseer on jetbike, because the rules for ID do not require "unmodified" Toughness to be considered. In 5th it required unmodified.

There is a clear difference, and one which also has NOTHING whatsoever to do with this rule.

Modified toughness does indeed apply to ID. But the ID threshold it self is not a modifier. The point I was making is if 3+1*2 = 7 then 7 wound ID that Farseer (not 6). As an example in the rules where 3+1*2 = 8. So if you doubled the Toughness of that Farseer would he be T7 or T8?

So nos if they do indeed faq that the Scorpions claw with crushing blow is a stat increase (as opposed to a modifier, which let's face it is pretty likely), how will you deal with that as you've stated it is not even a valid question?

I also think the Illicit infiltrate and super infiltrate not applying to squads he joins needs an faq although the RaW is pretty clear (as is the RaI in my opinion), that it does not. People will still argue as the infiltrate needs an faq because at the very least the wording is missleading.

Sigh. Youre not even doing ID right. The ID threshold calculation is not a multiple modifier.

How will I deal with it? By pointing out that, yet again, GW have created a ruling out of thin air. It wouldnt be the first time. Your inability to separate emotion is rather telling.

I think you should re read my post I am doing ID right.

GW have very rarely plucked a ruling out of thin air, generally when they have it has be later reverse (FC + CA anyone). If they rule this way it is actually a very natural reading of the rule. Whilst not the literal reading of the rule. Why can't you ever look at anything but in the most literal way?

It's mostly just inconsistency on the part of GW that's causing the question to be raised. If you double the Toughness of a model on a bike, what do you double it to? Or is it a case of GW simply oversimplifying troop statlines vs character statlines?

A Guardian on a Jetbike is simply listed at T4. So he would double to 8.

A Warlock on a Jetbike would be... what? T3+1, and so double to 7? Or T4 and double to 8?

As I said, I'm not entirely sure. Which means that I'll play it as S7 until such time as GW clarifies it (or doesn't), but I do adore consistency.

This is YMDC. People here are REQUIRED to see things literally. How will it be ruled in a FAQ or tournaments? It's a different story, but so far, in this thread, it's S7. Unfortunately.

FlingitNow wrote:I think you should re read my post I am doing ID right.

No, you are not. Because the doubling is not a multiple modifier, mainly. You are, yet again, misapplying rules and not understanding why people disagree with you.

FlingitNow wrote:GW have very rarely plucked a ruling out of thin air, generally when they have it has be later reverse (FC + CA anyone).

Tyranids and quad guns (or any battlefield weapon). Totally plucked out of thin air. Claiming "very rarely" is a very, very weak claim. Or would you like more? They consisntely rule on questions noone has seemingly asked, certainly not on this forum which is a fairly good cross section of the questions that seem to get asked.

FlingitNow wrote:If they rule this way it is actually a very natural reading of the rule.

Not at all natual, given you are told it is a modifier, it meets not only the NATURAL definition of a modifier but also the RULES that define a modifier, so it it totally unnatural to claim it somehow isnt a modifier. Espeically when you are totally lacking a single rules baased argument.

FlingitNow wrote:Whilst not the literal reading of the rule. Why can't you ever look at anything but in the most literal way?

Why cant you ever stop claiming you know what "the rules" are, despite not being a member of the studio? Why cant you take something that is PRECISELY written as a modifier, something with a CLEAR definition in the rules, and treat it as such?

You arent given any written reason to think it is something else. You cannot make an "intent" argument here, as you are not a member of the studio. So why cant you take the simplest route that a MODIFIER, additive, is ACTUALLY an additive modifier?

Especially when we have 100% irrefutable evidence in hammerhand of how you write something that ignores the additive modifier sequence? We have 100% irrefutable evidence that GW are aware of how to write such a rule, yet despite you knowing notihing about their intent, having no written information giving you ANY ambiguity as to the actual, written, literal rule being anything other than it plain-as-day-is - you STILL insist somehow you know better?

I think this problem and confusion partially stems out of the fact that SW Thunderwolves gain +1S and GW put in their FAQ that this applies to their base profile.

So in a way, they've opened up that possibility that you can have modifiers that apply directly to the models profile which is somehow different than modifiers that are applied during the game.

I don't think given 6th editions clear rules regarding modifiers and how they are applied, that the SW FAQ regarding Thunderwolves should be looked at like an exception (that's how I am), and any other situation should be resolved how the 6th edition rules say.

But I certainly understand why people ask these questions, because GW has caved before and granted an exception.

Thank you for the clear precedent Yakface.

Nos you are either misreading what I'm saying or deliberately miss representing it. I have not said that I know the intent here. I have not said that RaW it is S8. I've said that the rule looks like a stat increase like the Thunderwolf rather than a modifier like say Furious charge. It is a change that occurs before the game and appears to alter the stat line of the model.

I would not be surprised if the ruling went either way (As already stated). I would say it is more likely to go with S8 (previous Kelly codexes have this in common including that wolf one). I would not attempt to impose S8 on an opponent as it stands as the intent is not clear and the RaW is so Id play RaW until an faq clears up intent. All I am saying is that is a worth while question.

Why does it "appear" to alter the stat line of the model?

You are creating an arbitrary distinction between something pre and during game, despite both being exactly the same as presented in the rules.

I strongly dislike this debate. That said though a T-wolf was FAQ'd to be that way, or is worded specially. I can't recall atm and don't have the energy to look.

That said anything that states +1 appears to be a modifier.