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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except the Characteristic is modified, because that is how modifiers work.

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively..." (Models and Units chapter, Modifiers section).

By definition, modifiers modify characteristics.

No. By definition if a characteristic was changed, a modifier did so.

What you said, and what does not follow, is that every number change is a modifier and therefore modifies a characteristic.
If something that is *not* a characteristic is changed, it wasn't done so using the modifier rules.

 Grey Templar wrote:
According to PEMDAS, which GW appears to follow.

You would do addition first and then subtraction.

So yes, they would add up their attacks to 3 and then you would reduce those.

But IIRC 2 sets of lasher tendrils don't stack.

First off, the math teacher in me feels obligated to mention that pemdas does not say you do all the addition and then do all the subtraction. You actually do both operations at the same time reading from left to right. The same is also true of multiplication and division being done simultaneously. There are actually just 4 steps in the order of operations.

On topic, now I feel bad for starting most of this argument. I use maulerfiends all the time, but to me since the rule specifically states the characteristic it does not include the bonuses for weapons and charging. Part of my reasoning comes from why they included the word characteristic at all. I suspect if they just wanted it to affect the attacks with modifiers included then the rule would have simply said "reduce the number of attacks" instead. Similarly, when I'm told to take a strength test, I do not count the bonuses to my strength conferred from weapons.

Some people also asked what would be the point under the ruling as I interpreted it. As I read it, the rule really only affects the captains and commanders who have a higher base attack characteristic. It's not useless, but it's not really worth 10 points this way either.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except the Characteristic is modified, because that is how modifiers work.

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively..." (Models and Units chapter, Modifiers section).

By definition, modifiers modify characteristics.

No. By definition if a characteristic was changed, a modifier did so.

What you said, and what does not follow, is that every number change is a modifier and therefore modifies a characteristic.
If something that is *not* a characteristic is changed, it wasn't done so using the modifier rules.

Well it is a good thing that Attacks is a characteristic, and it was changed in this case.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except the Characteristic is modified, because that is how modifiers work.

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively..." (Models and Units chapter, Modifiers section).

By definition, modifiers modify characteristics.

No. By definition if a characteristic was changed, a modifier did so.

What you said, and what does not follow, is that every number change is a modifier and therefore modifies a characteristic.
If something that is *not* a characteristic is changed, it wasn't done so using the modifier rules.

Well it is a good thing that Attacks is a characteristic, and it was changed in this case.

Except it wasn't. As I've proven. Using actual, quoted rules.

Your turn.

It actually is, As I have proven Using actual, quoted rules.

you have not proven anything as your rules quotes do not say what you think they say.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It actually is, As I have proven Using actual, quoted rules.

you have not proven anything as your rules quotes do not say what you think they say.

Please, elaborate. In addition, answer the question I've posed twice so far. Also - which rules again? What argument have you made that I haven't addressed?

How does the following not make a distinction between bonus attacks and the Attacks characteristic profile?

Each engaged model makes a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks:

The underlined is the Attacks characteristic.
The italics are a distinctly separate thing, called "bonus attacks" that are used to determine the "Number of attacks" (heading of the rule in question).

Explain where my statement is incorrect.

addition and subtraction happen at the same time.

anything that changes the attacks of the attack characteristic to a final value of an attack characteristic be it an addition, bonus, magical fairy love dust, +1 bonus for bringing beer, -2 for bringing crappy beer, is a modifier. As there is no other way to change a characteristic to any other value for any other purpose without using a modifier.

there are clear rules for how to apply modifiers, addition or subtraction happens at the same time.

so B is the only correct answer.

Except for 'A' which is the actual answer.

Hammer of Wrath, dual CCW, etc do NOT modify the Attacks characteristic, they are bonus attacks. Even if I had 10 attacks on my profile, I still get a hammer of wrath if I have the rule for it. The lashwhip rule explicitly modifies the Attacks characteristics, not the number of attacks.

The "example" text is fluff, not a rule. Otherwise under the shooting section people could say:

For example, if the firing model is a Space Marine with a Ballistic Skill of 4, a roll of 3 or more would score a hit.

So by your view, does a Space Marine always hits on a 3, regardless of modifiers? It's a set value. It says so right in the example text.

Also, for any who want lash whips to eliminates all attacks and not just the base Attacks characteristic, what happen to hammer of wrath attacks?

HoW has nothing to do with a models attack characteristic.

dual CCW does modify the models attack characterstic, as does charging, etc.

anything which is changing the values of the models attacks is modifying the characteristic.

there are no rules for "bonuses" or "penalties" which are not modifiers, if there are please cite how you apply them.

or did the game designers take the time to write the modifiers section, the multiple modifiers, then make up a separate magical way to change characteristics called "bonuses" and put no rules in the game for how they work,


or bonuses = modifiers as they are adding/subtracting ie modifier.

rigeld2 615444 7213294 null wrote:

How does the following not make a distinction between bonus attacks and the Attacks characteristic profile?

Each engaged model makes a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks:

How does it not? Well it's like if it said "Each engaged model strikes at a strength (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus any bonus from its weapon" would that sentence suddenly make the strength modifiers on weapons not modifiers? No it is just explaining that the number of attacks you make (which by definition is your attacks characteristic) is what is on your profile plus bonuses. Those bonuses are defined as modifiers (they each state +1 Attack).

The underlined is the Attacks characteristic.
The italics are a distinctly separate thing, called "bonus attacks" that are used to determine the "Number of attacks" (heading of the rule in question).

No the total number of attacks it makes is the attacks characteristic see the attacks characteristic definition. This total is made from the value on your profile plus the modifiers listed as that statement tells us.

Explain where my statement is incorrect.

As above plus it is dependent on "+1 Attack" /= "+1 Attack" which is such as MASSIVE flaw I'm shocked to see you're still claiming it.

blaktoof wrote:
HoW has nothing to do with a models attack characteristic.

dual CCW does modify the models attack characterstic, as does charging, etc.

anything which is changing the values of the models attacks is modifying the characteristic.

there are no rules for "bonuses" or "penalties" which are not modifiers, if there are please cite how you apply them.

or did the game designers take the time to write the modifiers section, the multiple modifiers, then make up a separate magical way to change characteristics called "bonuses" and put no rules in the game for how they work,


or bonuses = modifiers as they are adding/subtracting ie modifier.

I'm still not convinced by this. I think that when a modifier is supposed to affect the characteristic permanently it will say so as it does for giving a model a bike. In the bike case, the new vale would be used for toughness tests etc. Other modifiers like a frost sword give the model +1 strength but do not affect the characteristic and would not help the model taking a strength test. This is a case where it specifies affecting the characteristic on the model's profile and there definitely is a difference between giving a model a bike and giving a model a frost sword even though both are modifiers.

I'm still not convinced by this. I think that when a modifier is supposed to affect the characteristic permanently it will say so as it does for giving a model a bike. In the bike case, the new vale would be used for toughness tests etc. Other modifiers like a frost sword give the model +1 strength but do not affect the characteristic and would not help the model taking a strength test. This is a case where it specifies affecting the characteristic on the model's profile and there definitely is a difference between giving a model a bike and giving a model a frost sword even though both are modifiers.

However the strength modifier is still a modifier. Say you had an item that "reduced a model's strength characteristic by 3 to a minimum of 1". If you had a S3 model he would be S1, if you gave him a Frost Sword he'd still be S1, if you enfeeble him he'd still be S1, if you gave him a power maul he'd be S2.

That is how modifiers work. This is covered in multiple modifiers. This is how the lasher tendrils work too.

blaktoof wrote:
HoW has nothing to do with a models attack characteristic.

But it's demonstrably a bonus attack, just like dual CCW.

dual CCW does modify the models attack characterstic, as does charging, etc.

The rules I've cited disagree.

rigeld2 wrote:
How does the following not make a distinction between bonus attacks and the Attacks characteristic profile?

Each engaged model makes a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks:

The underlined is the Attacks characteristic.
The italics are a distinctly separate thing, called "bonus attacks" that are used to determine the "Number of attacks" (heading of the rule in question).

Explain where my statement is incorrect.

Rigeld, we know for one that Hammer of Wrath is a completely different attack, at a different I step, and un-related to the A characteristic.

Secondly, if you must really abide by your above argument, that the "bonus attacks" are completely independent to the Attacks characteristic profile, then following this rule:
"Additionally, when it makes its close combat attacks, it can choose instead to make a single Smash Attack."
Why would you suddenly ignore these "bonus attacks"? The above only talks about Attacks and close combat attacks, why is the "bonus attacks" of +1 +1 suddenly ignored?

Thirdly, the rule you quoted:


Where do the Tendrils Add/Remove Attacks? We know that "as indicated on its characteristics profile" is a set value, so the Tendrils are "Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks" But in this case, the "extra Attacks" are bonus Attacks of -1.

If you disagree with this third statement, then please explain to me which rules you are using to provide the enemy models with the number of attacks they are using?
Are you somehow modifying the value contained in "as indicated on its characteristics profile" in the Rule above? If so, which rule allows you to do so? It would have to specifically state that you are modifying the Profile of the model (Permanently? Should i cross out the "A" value and write a new one in my book every game?).

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
How does the following not make a distinction between bonus attacks and the Attacks characteristic profile?

Each engaged model makes a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks:

The underlined is the Attacks characteristic.
The italics are a distinctly separate thing, called "bonus attacks" that are used to determine the "Number of attacks" (heading of the rule in question).

Explain where my statement is incorrect.

Rigeld, we know for one that Hammer of Wrath is a completely different attack, at a different I step, and un-related to the A characteristic.

I'll concede that the capitalization of attacks is irrelevant (referencing a prior post).
It must be, or HoW is absolutely related to the Attacks characteristic.

Secondly, if you must really abide by your above argument, that the "bonus attacks" are completely independent to the Attacks characteristic profile, then following this rule:
"Additionally, when it makes its close combat attacks, it can choose instead to make a single Smash Attack."
Why would you suddenly ignore these "bonus attacks"? The above only talks about Attacks and close combat attacks, why is the "bonus attacks" of +1 +1 suddenly ignored?

Because making multiple Smash attacks does not follow the Smash rule that tells you to make a single Smash attack.
It's literally right there in the rule you quoted.

Thirdly, the rule you quoted:

Spoiler:

Number of Attacks

Each engaged model makes a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks:

• +1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn. Models in units that made a disordered charge do not get this bonus.
• +1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack. Models with more than two weapons gain no additional benefit; you only get one extra Attack, even if you have four arms and a sword in each.
• Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks.

Where do the Tendrils Add/Remove Attacks? We know that "as indicated on its characteristics profile" is a set value, so the Tendrils are "Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks" But in this case, the "extra Attacks" are bonus Attacks of -1.

False. The Profile is not a set value - it's the number you start with. It's then modified by the Lasher Tendrils, as I've demonstrated.

If you disagree with this third statement, then please explain to me which rules you are using to provide the enemy models with the number of attacks they are using?

The Lasher Tendrils rules that specify they modify the characteristic of course. As I've said.

Are you somehow modifying the value contained in "as indicated on its characteristics profile" in the Rule above? If so, which rule allows you to do so? It would have to specifically state that you are modifying the Profile of the model (Permanently? Should i cross out the "A" value and write a new one in my book every game?).

Yes, I'm modifying the number on the characteristic profile as the Lasher Tendrils rule requires. It's not permanent as the Lasher Tendrils rule specifies while the model is in base contact.

It sets a bad precedent to say they are not characteristic modifiers. We then have no rules on how to apply them or in what order to apply them. Charge bonuses and CCW bonuses get added in then multiplied or added then divided, which ever is most advantageous. You would then deny the only rules support preventing such.

We do not have rules saying that such bonus attacks do not modify the characteristic. We ONLY have rules saying that they are separate from the model's "characteristic profile". In and of itself, it is an obvious statement that is not persuasive in prohibiting the bonuses from modifying the characteristic. We are given rules that say wargear, etc., modify characteristics. This means that we would need explicit statements to the contrary elsewhere. If lasher tendrils said "characteristic profile" then I would agree it doesn't do anything with a "1".

I think we can all agree that if the lasherwhips hadn't specifically said it modified the "Attacks characteristic" there would more of a RAW argument to be made. But it does say "characteristic" and we have explicit RAW stating HoW/2CCWs/etc are "bonus attacks" not modifiers to the Attacks characteristic. The affirmative position is based on english parsing and example (not RULE) text.

If I had lashwhips I'd want them to work too, but the RAW doesn't support it. I want my TFC to move and fire too, but its still a heavy(4) so RAW it can't, even if artillery in general can move and fire now and mine is modelled as a big bike.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
we have explicit RAW stating HoW/2CCWs/etc are "bonus attacks" not modifiers to the Attacks characteristic.

Absolutely not correct. We do not have explicit language that they are not modifiers to a characteristic. At most (though many disagree) you have implicit statements.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
But it does say "characteristic" and we have explicit RAW stating HoW/2CCWs/etc are "bonus attacks" not modifiers to the Attacks characteristic. The affirmative position is based on english parsing and example (not RULE) text.

"bonus attacks" are modifiers to the Attacks characteristic.

Why do you think they are not?

"+1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn. Models in units that made a disordered charge do not get this bonus." (The Assault Phase chapter, Number of attacks section).

The charge bonus gives a modifier.

Why would you not apply that modifier to the Attacks Characteristic?

 DeathReaper wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
But it does say "characteristic" and we have explicit RAW stating HoW/2CCWs/etc are "bonus attacks" not modifiers to the Attacks characteristic. The affirmative position is based on english parsing and example (not RULE) text.

"bonus attacks" are modifiers to the Attacks characteristic.

Why do you think they are not?

"+1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn. Models in units that made a disordered charge do not get this bonus." (The Assault Phase chapter, Number of attacks section).

The charge bonus gives a modifier.

Why would you not apply that modifier to the Attacks Characteristic?

Because they don't say they modify the characteristic.

If you are saying extra weapons modify my characteristic profile, that would mean my profile is changed, so if I have a CCW and pistol then my A characteristic goes up to 2, then I have 2 attacks even if I swing a different weapon - like a T hammer.

Where does it state that all modifiers to the number of attacks modifies the models base Attacks characteristic? Because we've quoted RAW where it says otherwise already. I'll even give you another example from the BRB:

If a Walker is armed with two or more Melee weapons, it gains +1 bonus Attack for each additional weapon after the first. Unlike other models, this is not limited to a single bonus Attack, so a Walker with three Melee weapons would have 2 bonus Attacks.

Bonus attacks. Not "bonus to its Attacks characteristic". Lash whips says "attacks characteristic" dual CCW/HoW/etc do not.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:


Because they don't say they modify the characteristic.

Incorrect.

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively..." (Models and Units chapter, Modifiers section)

Wargear modifies the characteristic.

If you are saying extra weapons modify my characteristic profile, that would mean my profile is changed, so if I have a CCW and pistol then my A characteristic goes up to 2, then I have 2 attacks even if I swing a different weapon - like a T hammer.

Wargear does modify the characteristic, but only when you are using that wargear...

So it will have no effect on your Thammer example.

Where does it state that all modifiers to the number of attacks modifies the models base Attacks characteristic? Because we've quoted RAW where it says otherwise already. I'll even give you another example from the BRB:

If a Walker is armed with two or more Melee weapons, it gains +1 bonus Attack for each additional weapon after the first. Unlike other models, this is not limited to a single bonus Attack, so a Walker with three Melee weapons would have 2 bonus Attacks.

Bonus attacks. Not "bonus to its Attacks characteristic". Lash whips says "attacks characteristic" dual CCW/HoW/etc do not.

Where does it say that? in the quote I provided about modifiers.

A modifier is the only way to alter a characteristic. As such all modifiers modify the characteristic.

Bonus attacks are modifiers, and as such modify the characteristic.

If they do not then you do not get to roll any dice for those bonus attacks because "To determine whether hits are scored, roll a D6 for each Attack a model gets to make and compare the WS of the attacking model to the WS of the target unit." (The Assault Phase chapter, Roll to hit section).

Note this says "roll a D6 for each Attack a model gets to make" bonus attacks have to modify the characteristic or you would never roll any dice for them to see if they hit.

Luckily Bonus attacks for charging and two weapons each add +1 Attack, and as such modify the characteristic.

 DeathReaper wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:


Because they don't say they modify the characteristic.

Incorrect.

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively..." (Models and Units chapter, Modifiers section)

Wargear modifies the characteristic.

We get that you want the lash whips to remove attacks.
We get that you want to believe that attacks and Attacks characteristic are the same thing.
We get that you want to equate "some" with "every" when it comes to modifiers.

"Certain" pieces are not all pieces. All cats are animals but not all animals are cats.
Lash whips says "Attacks characteristic". HoW/dualCCW don't.

Let's set that aside for a minute though. Let' also set aside that fact that charging for +1 bonus attack is not wargear for the moment.
Here's my questions to you:
1) What characteristic on a unit's profile does a lasgun modify? Which of STAIWLdSv does it modify?
2) How about a hand weapon (on a model without a pistol)? Which of STAIWLdSv does it modify?


If those pieces of gear don't modify base characteristics, why do you insist HoW and other rules (dual ccw, etc ) do when they never use the word "characteristic"? Only lash whips says they modify the characteristic.

 DeathReaper wrote:
As such all modifiers modify the characteristic.

So what characteristic does Stealth and Shrouded modify?

What about the Grimoire of True Names?

Or how about the Acrobatic special rule (from Codex Eldar)?

 Happyjew wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
As such all modifiers modify the characteristic.

So what characteristic does Stealth and Shrouded modify?

What about the Grimoire of True Names?

Or how about the Acrobatic special rule (from Codex Eldar)?

Please do not take what I said out of context.

I was talking about modifiers to one of the 9 characteristics.

Stealth modifies cover saves which is not a characteristic.

Not familiar with the Grimoire of True Names or the Acrobatic special rule, so I can not comment on them, but it is probably the same as above, I was talking about modifiers to one of the 9 characteristics (The Attacks Characteristic to be exact), not modifiers in general.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
We get that you want the lash whips to remove attacks.

Actually I neither play with or against them, so I don't really care either way. I do want to get the rules correct though if I ever do encounter one.

P.S. Please do not assign bias where there is none, it weakens your argument.

We get that you want to believe that attacks and Attacks characteristic are the same thing.

Attacks come from the Attacks characteristic in CC, so yes they are the same as far as the RAW goes, not sure what you are getting at here.

P.S. Please do not assign bias where there is none, it weakens your argument.

We get that you want to equate "some" with "every" when it comes to modifiers.

Some wargear increases characteristics, some wargear does not increase characteristics.

For example a force Axe increases the Str characteristic of the model using it by +2 when he uses it to strike blows in CC.

However Searchlights do not modify any characteristics.

Some modify characteristics, like having two weapons or launching an assault, and some do not, like searchlights...

P.S. do not take my posts out of context. If you do not ignore the context you would see that I was specifically talking about modifiers to one of the 9 characteristics (The Attacks Characteristic to be exact), not modifiers in general.

"Certain" pieces are not all pieces. All cats are animals but not all animals are cats.

And all wargear does not modify characteristics, as I pointed out above.

Lash whips says "Attacks characteristic". HoW/dualCCW don't.

Irrelevant, Attacks is the Attacks Characteristic...

"Attacks (A)
This shows the number of times a model attacks during close combat. Most warriors and creatures have an Attacks characteristic of 1, so they will normally make one attack each in close combat, although some elite troops, monsters or heroes may be able to strike several times and have Attacks 2, Attacks 3 or more." (Models and Units chapter, Attacks section).

The Attacks Characteristic is linked with how many attacks a model can make in CC...

Let's set that aside for a minute though. Let' also set aside that fact that charging for +1 bonus attack is not wargear for the moment.
Here's my questions to you:
1) What characteristic on a unit's profile does a lasgun modify? Which of STAIWLdSv does it modify?

A lasgun does not modify a characteristic, it is a shooting weapon and has its own profile. See above about how not all wargear modifies characteristic.

2) How about a hand weapon (on a model without a pistol)? Which of STAIWLdSv does it modify?

A single CCW will not modify any characteristics, two CCW's though will modify the Attacks Characteristic by +1. See above about how not all wargear modifies characteristic.

If those pieces of gear don't modify base characteristics, why do you insist HoW and other rules (dual ccw, etc ) do when they never use the word "characteristic"? Only lash whips says they modify the characteristic.

Why would something that does not give a +1 to a stat modify a characteristic?

I never said Hammer of Wrath modified a Characteristic.

Something that gives +1 Str or +1 Toughness, or +1 Attacks demonstrably do modify the characteristic though.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I'm still not convinced by this. I think that when a modifier is supposed to affect the characteristic permanently it will say so as it does for giving a model a bike. In the bike case, the new vale would be used for toughness tests etc. Other modifiers like a frost sword give the model +1 strength but do not affect the characteristic and would not help the model taking a strength test. This is a case where it specifies affecting the characteristic on the model's profile and there definitely is a difference between giving a model a bike and giving a model a frost sword even though both are modifiers.

However the strength modifier is still a modifier. Say you had an item that "reduced a model's strength characteristic by 3 to a minimum of 1". If you had a S3 model he would be S1, if you gave him a Frost Sword he'd still be S1, if you enfeeble him he'd still be S1, if you gave him a power maul he'd be S2.

That is how modifiers work. This is covered in multiple modifiers. This is how the lasher tendrils work too.

See, I would disagree with that assessment too. If a spell specified that it reduced his strength characteristic and not just his strength, I think his profile strength value would become 1 and then the weapon would bring him up to 2 for determining to wound rolls etc. Similarly, if he was brought to strength 1 and had furious charge instead of a weapon I believe he'd end up at 2.

I think some modifiers affect the actual characteristic of a model, like a bike, while most do not, like a frost sword.

I'm not arguing that these objects aren't modifiers, I just believe there is a difference between the strength or attacks characteristic shown on a character's profile and the strength or number of attacks he strikes at while in combat.

 lessthanjeff wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I'm still not convinced by this. I think that when a modifier is supposed to affect the characteristic permanently it will say so as it does for giving a model a bike. In the bike case, the new vale would be used for toughness tests etc. Other modifiers like a frost sword give the model +1 strength but do not affect the characteristic and would not help the model taking a strength test. This is a case where it specifies affecting the characteristic on the model's profile and there definitely is a difference between giving a model a bike and giving a model a frost sword even though both are modifiers.

However the strength modifier is still a modifier. Say you had an item that "reduced a model's strength characteristic by 3 to a minimum of 1". If you had a S3 model he would be S1, if you gave him a Frost Sword he'd still be S1, if you enfeeble him he'd still be S1, if you gave him a power maul he'd be S2.

That is how modifiers work. This is covered in multiple modifiers. This is how the lasher tendrils work too.

See, I would disagree with that assessment too. If a spell specified that it reduced his strength characteristic and not just his strength, I think his profile strength value would become 1 and then the weapon would bring him up to 2 for determining to wound rolls etc. Similarly, if he was brought to strength 1 and had furious charge instead of a weapon I believe he'd end up at 2.

I think some modifiers affect the actual characteristic of a model, like a bike, while most do not, like a frost sword.

I'm not arguing that these objects aren't modifiers, I just believe there is a difference between the strength or attacks characteristic shown on a character's profile and the strength or number of attacks he strikes at while in combat.

Excellent point on Furious Charge lessthanjeff. If a spell reduced me to S1, I'd still swing at (1)+1FC=2 for a Strength 2 attack if I have the Furious charge rule, even though both are modifiers.

EDIT: Actually scratch that, Furious charge modifies the Characteristic:

+1 to its Strength characteristic

so it fails for the same reason lash whips does.

but if I had a power maul or axes, those are resolved at S+2 or S+1, they do not modify the S characteristic. So they occur "outside" the parenthesis.

The Pro Lash whip argument is that lashwhips modify the number outside of the parenthesis. I believe this is false as it specifically states it reduces the "Attacks characteristic".

Number of Attacks
Each engaged model makes a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks

The wording in the attacks section specifically phrases it as if you get:
(Attacks Characteristic) attacks, plus bonus attacks. Specifically enumerated examples of bonus attacks are "+1 for charging and +1 for dual CCW.

The wording in the quote above does NOT support the pro lash whip position. The similar quote form the walker assault section supports this wording further:

If a Walker is armed with two or more Melee weapons, it gains +1 bonus Attack for each additional weapon after the first. Unlike other models, this is not limited to a single bonus Attack, so a Walker with three Melee weapons would have 2 bonus Attacks.

Again they are specifically stated to be bonus attacks, not bonuses to the attacks CHARACTERISTIC.

Lash whips can reduce the attack characteristic all it wants, the foe still gets the minimum of 1 from the modified Attacks Characteristic, a bonus attack for charging if they charged and another bonus attack if they have 2 CCW.

We get that you want to believe that attacks and Attacks characteristic are the same thing. 

Oh dear did you really type that? Absolutely by definition Attacks is referring to the attacks characteristic. How you can claim different is frankly laughable. What next? Strength is different to the strength characteristic? +1 is not adding 1?

You have just destroyed your own argument.

 FlingitNow wrote:

We get that you want to believe that attacks and Attacks characteristic are the same thing. 

Oh dear did you really type that? Absolutely by definition Attacks is referring to the attacks characteristic. How you can claim different is frankly laughable. What next? Strength is different to the strength characteristic? +1 is not adding 1?

You have just destroyed your own argument.

I would disagree with those being the same thing as well and I think it is an important distinction. For example, I see the strength characteristic as the value I would use if I was told to make an unmodified roll or check of a characteristic and I would separate that from the strength my model actually attacks at with bonuses from a weapon or something else.

 lessthanjeff wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

We get that you want to believe that attacks and Attacks characteristic are the same thing. 

Oh dear did you really type that? Absolutely by definition Attacks is referring to the attacks characteristic. How you can claim different is frankly laughable. What next? Strength is different to the strength characteristic? +1 is not adding 1?

You have just destroyed your own argument.

I would disagree with those being the same thing as well and I think it is an important distinction. For example, I see the strength characteristic as the value I would use if I was told to make an unmodified roll or check of a characteristic and I would separate that from the strength my model actually attacks at with bonuses from a weapon or something else.

+1 Attack adds to the characteristic because a +1 Attack is a modifier, and modifiers, in this situation, add to the characteristic.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

Again they are specifically stated to be bonus attacks, not bonuses to the attacks CHARACTERISTIC.

Bonus Attacks add to the characteristic in the same was a power axe adds to the characteristic when using that weapon.

Therefore your assessment is incorrect.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

 lessthanjeff wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I'm still not convinced by this. I think that when a modifier is supposed to affect the characteristic permanently it will say so as it does for giving a model a bike. In the bike case, the new vale would be used for toughness tests etc. Other modifiers like a frost sword give the model +1 strength but do not affect the characteristic and would not help the model taking a strength test. This is a case where it specifies affecting the characteristic on the model's profile and there definitely is a difference between giving a model a bike and giving a model a frost sword even though both are modifiers.

However the strength modifier is still a modifier. Say you had an item that "reduced a model's strength characteristic by 3 to a minimum of 1". If you had a S3 model he would be S1, if you gave him a Frost Sword he'd still be S1, if you enfeeble him he'd still be S1, if you gave him a power maul he'd be S2.

That is how modifiers work. This is covered in multiple modifiers. This is how the lasher tendrils work too.

See, I would disagree with that assessment too. If a spell specified that it reduced his strength characteristic and not just his strength, I think his profile strength value would become 1 and then the weapon would bring him up to 2 for determining to wound rolls etc. Similarly, if he was brought to strength 1 and had furious charge instead of a weapon I believe he'd end up at 2.

I think some modifiers affect the actual characteristic of a model, like a bike, while most do not, like a frost sword.

I'm not arguing that these objects aren't modifiers, I just believe there is a difference between the strength or attacks characteristic shown on a character's profile and the strength or number of attacks he strikes at while in combat.

Excellent point on Furious Charge lessthanjeff. If a spell reduced me to S1, I'd still swing at (1)+1FC=2 for a Strength 2 attack if I have the Furious charge rule, even though both are modifiers.

No some modifiers are permanent like a bike some are conditional like a weapon. Permanent modifiers are always active, conditional modifiers are only active at certain times. You do not apply multiple modifiers in the order they become active but instead in the PEDMAS order as described under multiple modifiers. Those two different types of modifier are still both modifiers so are treated the same and both follow the rules for multiple modifiers.

EDIT: Actually scratch that, Furious charge modifies the Characteristic:

+1 to its Strength characteristic

so it fails for the same reason lash whips does.

but if I had a power maul or axes, those are resolved at S+2 or S+1, they do not modify the S characteristic. So they occur "outside" the parenthesis.

The Pro Lash whip argument is that lashwhips modify the number outside of the parenthesis. I believe this is false as it specifically states it reduces the "Attacks characteristic".

There are not 2 of each characteristic (those inside and outside the patentheses) there is only a base stat and modifiers. Unless you have a rule stating there are 2 types of modifier and they are each treated separately for multiple modifiers? Because no such rule exists. The "bonus attacks" that you desperately want to be different from attack modifiers are not because they each tell you that they are "+1 Attack" and what is "+1 Attack"? Oh yes it is a modifier to the Attacks characteristic.

Number of Attacks
Each engaged model makes a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks

The wording in the attacks section specifically phrases it as if you get:
(Attacks Characteristic) attacks, plus bonus attacks. Specifically enumerated examples of bonus attacks are "+1 for charging and +1 for dual CCW.

It actually completely supports our position that your attacks (numver of attacks you make in combat) is your characteristic plus modifiers. It then goes on to tell each bonus is a modifier.

The wording in the quote above does NOT support the pro lash whip position. The similar quote form the walker assault section supports this wording further:

If a Walker is armed with two or more Melee weapons, it gains +1 bonus Attack for each additional weapon after the first. Unlike other models, this is not limited to a single bonus Attack, so a Walker with three Melee weapons would have 2 bonus Attacks.

Again they are specifically stated to be bonus attacks, not bonuses to the attacks CHARACTERISTIC.

Bonus attack is a modifier to the attacks characteristic RaW as proven many times now.

Lash whips can reduce the attack characteristic all it wants, the foe still gets the minimum of 1 from the modified Attacks Characteristic, a bonus attack for charging if they charged and another bonus attack if they have 2 CCW.

RaW this is absolutely 100% false. Please don't post things you know to be false like this statement it greatly weakens your argument.