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 a Nemesis Force Halberd has the following rule:

Nemesis halberds are two-handed weapons. In addition, the wielder of a Nemesis halberd strikes at +2 Initiative.

A canoptek Wraith can get the "Whip coils" upgrade which reads

Whilst any enemy model is in base contact with a model with whip coils they count their initiative value as 1, regadles of their actual initiative value.

The discussion is as follows:
One side claims GK strike at initiative 1 because the Cnaoptek Wraith sais they have initiative 1 no matter what their actual initiative may be. The other side claims the GK actually strike at initiative 3 because their models might have initiative one but the rules just say that the Force Halberd allows you to strike 2 initiative steps above your initiative without adjusting the actual value.

So what is it then?

They are reduced to 1, then go up to 3. Same with Mark of Slaanesh CSMs.

The rule book is explicit on this. Set modifiers trump any incremental adjustments and set modifiers do not stack with incremental. BRB page 2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 viewfinder wrote:
They are reduced to 1, then go up to 3. Same with Mark of Slaanesh CSMs.

This is incorrect. It does not go up - set modifiers (in this case Initiative set to 1) is not modified after it is set.

DaPino wrote:
So a Nemesis Force Halberd has the following rule:

Nemesis halberds are two-handed weapons. In addition, the wielder of a Nemesis halberd strikes at +2 Initiative.

A canoptek Wraith can get the "Whip coils" upgrade which reads

Whilst any enemy model is in base contact with a model with whip coils they count their initiative value as 1, regadles of their actual initiative value.

The discussion is as follows:
One side claims GK strike at initiative 1 because the Cnaoptek Wraith sais they have initiative 1 no matter what their actual initiative may be. The other side claims the GK actually strike at initiative 3 because their models might have initiative one but the rules just say that the Force Halberd allows you to strike 2 initiative steps above your initiative without adjusting the actual value.

So what is it then?

You have two modifiers. Two is more than one - meaning multiple.
What do the rules regarding multiple modifiers say?

Special Rule >Multiply/Divide > Add/Subtract > Replace Value

The issue is that both models have special rules, one has a +2 to Init, the other sets Init to 1. Per the GK FAQ that no longer exists, the GKT would swing at Initiative step 1 (there was a specific FAQ on this, which went against precedent at the time).

SJ

Rigeld2,
I disagree that we have two Modifiers in this situation, but it does not matter as 'Counts As' has always trumped 'Set to.'

Special Rules informing us to count X as Y require us to do just that, ignore whatever X is completely in order to treat it as Y. Any action other then treating it as Y would therefore be ignoring the instructions we where just presented, with no Specific Permission granted to do so, and be illegal. This is no different when it comes to characteristics, modified or not, as the Special Rule requires us to treat the value as Y in order to legally resolve said Rule. Simply having permission to set something to X is not enough to still count it as X in situations where we are told to count it as Y.

This concept is best proven by the Snap Shot Rules, which has been repetitively shown to trump 'set to' modifiers found in other Special Rules.

We do have two modifiers in this case. First is a +2 modifier and second is a "set to 1" modifier. The rules show up how to apply them, which is Rigeld's point.

Fragile wrote:
We do have two modifiers in this case. First is a +2 modifier and second is a "set to 1" modifier. The rules show up how to apply them, which is Rigeld's point.

Except the modifiers are modifying two different things (if the quotes are accurate). The Whips modify the model's Initiative, the Halberd modifies the Initiative at which a model attacks. Normally these two things are the same value, but not always as we see with rules like Unwieldy. If you want to be consistent with the fact that Unwieldy trumps things like Quicksilver, then a model with a Halberd and a Wraith buddy will have to strike at Initiative 3. At least until they put the FAQs back.

Unwieldly and Quicksilver are both set modifiers - poor comparison.

rigeld2 wrote:
Unwieldly and Quicksilver are both set modifiers - poor comparison.

Not really a poor comparison, no. While they are both set modifiers the point is that they modify different things. Otherwise the player could choose the order they were applied, and would always choose to apply Quicksilver last, or would have to roll to see which wins. But he doesn't, and can't. Unwieldy "wins" over Quicksilver every time when it comes to making attacks, because Unwieldy modifies when the model makes attacks and Quicksilver modifies the model's Initiative.

Whip Coils and the Halberd are the same situation. Whip Coils modify the model's Initiative, while the Halberd modifies when the model makes attacks. Two different things. When the model makes attacks is based on the model's Initiative, but they are not the same thing and so there isn't a conflict.

Both modify when the attacks are made. The set modifier wins out by rule.

Fragile wrote:
Both modify when the attacks are made. The set modifier wins out by rule.

The Whip Coils only modify it indirectly, by modifying the model's base Initiative. The Halberd modifies it directly, by modifying when the wielder strikes. These are two different things.

Or are you arguing in favour of players choice or a coin flip when Unwieldy and Quicksilver are in effect on the same model?

I have two large problems with the concept that 'counts as' is synonymous with 'set to.'

The first is the fact that count as instructions are not limited to just characteristics, they are often used to change all sorts of things both on profiles and off. Had they been limited to just the Modifying Characteristic section, which by the way has nothing informing us that 'count as' instructions are applied last, it would be plausible to state these instructions are part of the equation explaining how to Modify Characteristics. However, as they are far more wide spread then that, there has to be something which allows them to function both in and out of situations modifying Characteristics. The book doesn't tell us exactly what this something is, but the constant use of 'counts as' throughout widely different sub-sets of Rules informs us that it has to be a universally applicable across all these Rules. Without each section containing instructions informing us how to count another Unit's Type as X, or how to Count a Characteristic as X for that matter, it has to be a fundamental concept on which the 'count as' was based.

The second problem I have is the Frequently Asked Questions and how they have ruled constantly that 'Count as' Trumps 'Set to.' There has to be some sort of reason behind why the Authors are constantly penning this conclusion, more so when other conflicts of similar nature are often left as 'let the player whom's turn it is decide.' Now the Authors have not out right stated what that underlining reasoning is, that would be far to easy, but because it is producing such similar answers to a wide range of Questions there has to be some something behind it all. If I have overlooked something in this conclusion, by all means inform me of a page which states how we resolve count as instructions that explains this something.

For right now, both 'somethings' are easily explained with the concept that any instructions to 'count X as Y' means to ignore X completely and to treat it as if it was Y.

When they are saying "Nemesis halberd strikes at +2 Initiative." I assume they are actually trying to say ""Nemesis halberd has +2 Initiative when attacking", however, it's cooler to say that he "strikes at +2"...

So RAI - It is a +2 modifier of the characteristic...

RAW - I don't think the sentence is clear enough to say either that it is supposed to modify the initiative or the initiative round, so unless anyone can give any better proof than the section on page 2 about charasterisic modifiers... impossible to make a conclusion.

Common sense is to follow page 2 instructions...

I remember the days when the 5th edition FAQ explicitly used grey knight halberd's as an example of something whip coils works against. *sigh* That said in 6th edition the set modifier wins out by default, so I suspect such verbiage is rather unnecessary.