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.

I'm brand new to the forum although I have been playing since the end of 5th. I started off as a Son of Russ and with the revival of TWC I've been having a good time picking up where I left off on some old Space Wolf projects. I've seen the same rules argument come up repeatedly as to whether or not TWC mounts purchased as wargear provide bonuses or are they actual modifications to the base profile. Fortunately, I always keep old documents since you never know when you may need'em and I've uploaded a snapshot of the specific ruling by GW about modifying the base characteristic. I hope this sheds some new light on the subject and shows that it's already been addressed.

That FAQ isn't valid. Its outdated and has been replaced by the 7ed Codex and 7ed FAQ. It has no bearing on the rules at all.

The reason I posted it was to show the precedent has already been set for the TWC mount to modify the base characteristic, and since nothing has superseded this the modifications are to the base profile, not a bonus as people insist.

You can't set a precedent with rules that don't apply anymore. GW can change their intentions with the rules in between updates (proven by the fact they change rules between updates). Just because it used to be ruled that way doesn't mean that's how its supposed to be ruled now.

InquisitorJesus wrote:
and since nothing has superseded this

But it has been superseded - by the 7th edition Space Wolves Codex and FAQ.

It can very well show intent, but the intent may well have changed over time - we just don't know. Whilst the above may well be enough to convince me, tournament players only (rightly) look at the most recent version of the rules and FAQ's.

The mechanics of the game have changed since that FAQ.
Also the wording of the wargear in question and how it works.

There are no more modifiers to base characteristics. That's all gone.

This FAQ does not apply, because the system has changed, not just because it's no longer in the current FAQ.

InquisitorJesus wrote:
The reason I posted it was to show the precedent has already been set for the TWC mount to modify the base characteristic, and since nothing has superseded this the modifications are to the base profile, not a bonus as people insist.

Even if it was relevant, how is a modifier not a bonus? How does it not fall under multiple modifiers?

InquisitorJesus wrote:
I'm brand new to the forum although I have been playing since the end of 5th. I started off as a Son of Russ and with the revival of TWC I've been having a good time picking up where I left off on some old Space Wolf projects. I've seen the same rules argument come up repeatedly as to whether or not TWC mounts purchased as wargear provide bonuses or are they actual modifications to the base profile. Fortunately, I always keep old documents since you never know when you may need'em and I've uploaded a snapshot of the specific ruling by GW about modifying the base characteristic. I hope this sheds some new light on the subject and shows that it's already been addressed.

let me give you the short version on why TW Mount are s10. the wording on TW said to increase the characteristic by one. in the BRB, modifier is define as addition, subtraction, or multiplication. Many people confused on "increase by one" the same as "addition by one" so therefore they concluded at s9. In math 101, increase by one and addition by one is not the same thing, one is a movement in a real number line and the other is an math operation of combination two numbers together. So you increase the characteristic before any modifier (source BRB) and end up at s10. Many also confuse on wording bonus and modifier. they insisting bonus is a modifier.

the rule is clear. Just many are confused on the different between a math operation and an increase operation. When they assume those two operations are the same then arriving at s9 is normal. Normally and in the real world, increase by one will define as a modifier by any reasonable person however in BRB define what a modifier is that definition didn't include "increase by one". Many are arguing common sense which "increase by one" is a modifier and what the rule said which "increase by one is not a modifier.

... except no one working at GW is a mathematician, and so probably believes that "addition" and "increase" are one and the same.

tyllon wrote:

InquisitorJesus wrote:
I'm brand new to the forum although I have been playing since the end of 5th. I started off as a Son of Russ and with the revival of TWC I've been having a good time picking up where I left off on some old Space Wolf projects. I've seen the same rules argument come up repeatedly as to whether or not TWC mounts purchased as wargear provide bonuses or are they actual modifications to the base profile. Fortunately, I always keep old documents since you never know when you may need'em and I've uploaded a snapshot of the specific ruling by GW about modifying the base characteristic. I hope this sheds some new light on the subject and shows that it's already been addressed.

let me give you the short version on why TW Mount are s10. the wording on TW said to increase the characteristic by one. in the BRB, modifier is define as addition, subtraction, or multiplication. Many people confused on "increase by one" the same as "addition by one" so therefore they concluded at s9. In math 101, increase by one and addition by one is not the same thing, one is a movement in a real number line and the other is an math operation of combination two numbers together. So you increase the characteristic before any modifier (source BRB) and end up at s10. Many also confuse on wording bonus and modifier. they insisting bonus is a modifier.

the rule is clear. Just many are confused on the different between a math operation and an increase operation. When they assume those two operations are the same then arriving at s9 is normal.

"Math 101"? I've never seen "increase" as defined as anything other than the equivalent of using a '+' symbol.

Now, I never studied mathematics past high school, but if your argument hinges on a semantic difference like that, then I'm not buying it. I very much doubt that the designers had their maths textbooks open when they designed the rule.

 Psienesis wrote:
... except no one working at GW is a mathematician, and so probably believes that "addition" and "increase" are one and the same.

they very well might be the case but we only can go by what is printed. As the rule as written. it is very clear tw is at s10. If anyone don't mix the 2 different operations.

Here is the last thread (I could find) on the subject.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/614867.page

 Cheexsta wrote:

tyllon wrote:

InquisitorJesus wrote:
I'm brand new to the forum although I have been playing since the end of 5th. I started off as a Son of Russ and with the revival of TWC I've been having a good time picking up where I left off on some old Space Wolf projects. I've seen the same rules argument come up repeatedly as to whether or not TWC mounts purchased as wargear provide bonuses or are they actual modifications to the base profile. Fortunately, I always keep old documents since you never know when you may need'em and I've uploaded a snapshot of the specific ruling by GW about modifying the base characteristic. I hope this sheds some new light on the subject and shows that it's already been addressed.

let me give you the short version on why TW Mount are s10. the wording on TW said to increase the characteristic by one. in the BRB, modifier is define as addition, subtraction, or multiplication. Many people confused on "increase by one" the same as "addition by one" so therefore they concluded at s9. In math 101, increase by one and addition by one is not the same thing, one is a movement in a real number line and the other is an math operation of combination two numbers together. So you increase the characteristic before any modifier (source BRB) and end up at s10. Many also confuse on wording bonus and modifier. they insisting bonus is a modifier.

the rule is clear. Just many are confused on the different between a math operation and an increase operation. When they assume those two operations are the same then arriving at s9 is normal.

"Math 101"? I've never seen "increase" as defined as anything other than the equivalent of using a '+' symbol.

Now, I never studied mathematics past high school, but if your argument hinges on a semantic difference like that, then I'm not buying it. I very much doubt that the designers had their maths textbooks open when they designed the rule.

In the math world it is not semantic at all and very serious knowledge not to confuse the two. is something very basic but yet very fundamental. Since, increase and addition give out the same result that why you saw a lot of that in high school. I can't say what the designer knows or don't know but if he or she understand math then it will not be semantic. But as it is written is clear that tw is s10.

Do you have a textbook quote that spells out the difference?

anything that changes a stat is a modifier, if you can find rules for changing stats that are not modifiers post them or accept that the TWC as it states from its entry, is indeed a modifier much like bikes for the swiftclaws modify toughness by +1 but it shows their profile toughness as 5, because it already includes the modifier from wargear, the bike.

 Cheexsta wrote:
Do you have a textbook quote that spells out the difference?

of cause i do. but i don't think posting pics of math book will you more than yourself just do a bit research on this topic. I am sure library has a lot of math book on this topic. in this case one is a movement on a real number line and the other one is addition operation. One will fail a math proof course if they mix the two.

tyllon wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:

tyllon wrote:

InquisitorJesus wrote:
I'm brand new to the forum although I have been playing since the end of 5th. I started off as a Son of Russ and with the revival of TWC I've been having a good time picking up where I left off on some old Space Wolf projects. I've seen the same rules argument come up repeatedly as to whether or not TWC mounts purchased as wargear provide bonuses or are they actual modifications to the base profile. Fortunately, I always keep old documents since you never know when you may need'em and I've uploaded a snapshot of the specific ruling by GW about modifying the base characteristic. I hope this sheds some new light on the subject and shows that it's already been addressed.

let me give you the short version on why TW Mount are s10. the wording on TW said to increase the characteristic by one. in the BRB, modifier is define as addition, subtraction, or multiplication. Many people confused on "increase by one" the same as "addition by one" so therefore they concluded at s9. In math 101, increase by one and addition by one is not the same thing, one is a movement in a real number line and the other is an math operation of combination two numbers together. So you increase the characteristic before any modifier (source BRB) and end up at s10. Many also confuse on wording bonus and modifier. they insisting bonus is a modifier.

the rule is clear. Just many are confused on the different between a math operation and an increase operation. When they assume those two operations are the same then arriving at s9 is normal.

"Math 101"? I've never seen "increase" as defined as anything other than the equivalent of using a '+' symbol.

Now, I never studied mathematics past high school, but if your argument hinges on a semantic difference like that, then I'm not buying it. I very much doubt that the designers had their maths textbooks open when they designed the rule.

In the math world it is not semantic at all and very serious knowledge not to confuse the two. is something very basic but yet very fundamental. Since, increase and addition give out the same result that why you saw a lot of that in high school. I can't say what the designer knows or don't know but if he or she understand math then it will not be semantic. But as it is written is clear that tw is s10.

My 5 years of undergrad/masters and my continuing physics PhD says that this makes no sense-outside of some really esoteric mathematical definition that I'm unaware of, which would never be applicable in a widely accessible wargame that is meant to be played by hobbyists, "increase" should be interpreted as +.

blaktoof wrote:
anything that changes a stat is a modifier, if you can find rules for changing stats that are not modifiers post them or accept that the TWC as it states from its entry, is indeed a modifier much like bikes for the swiftclaws modify toughness by +1 but it shows their profile toughness as 5, because it already includes the modifier from wargear, the bike.

In the BRB. a modifier is define, i think page 8 or 9. So the assumption that in error here is that "anything that changes a stat is a modifier" is not correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

skolirvarden wrote:

tyllon wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:

tyllon wrote:

InquisitorJesus wrote:
I'm brand new to the forum although I have been playing since the end of 5th. I started off as a Son of Russ and with the revival of TWC I've been having a good time picking up where I left off on some old Space Wolf projects. I've seen the same rules argument come up repeatedly as to whether or not TWC mounts purchased as wargear provide bonuses or are they actual modifications to the base profile. Fortunately, I always keep old documents since you never know when you may need'em and I've uploaded a snapshot of the specific ruling by GW about modifying the base characteristic. I hope this sheds some new light on the subject and shows that it's already been addressed.

let me give you the short version on why TW Mount are s10. the wording on TW said to increase the characteristic by one. in the BRB, modifier is define as addition, subtraction, or multiplication. Many people confused on "increase by one" the same as "addition by one" so therefore they concluded at s9. In math 101, increase by one and addition by one is not the same thing, one is a movement in a real number line and the other is an math operation of combination two numbers together. So you increase the characteristic before any modifier (source BRB) and end up at s10. Many also confuse on wording bonus and modifier. they insisting bonus is a modifier.

the rule is clear. Just many are confused on the different between a math operation and an increase operation. When they assume those two operations are the same then arriving at s9 is normal.

"Math 101"? I've never seen "increase" as defined as anything other than the equivalent of using a '+' symbol.

Now, I never studied mathematics past high school, but if your argument hinges on a semantic difference like that, then I'm not buying it. I very much doubt that the designers had their maths textbooks open when they designed the rule.

In the math world it is not semantic at all and very serious knowledge not to confuse the two. is something very basic but yet very fundamental. Since, increase and addition give out the same result that why you saw a lot of that in high school. I can't say what the designer knows or don't know but if he or she understand math then it will not be semantic. But as it is written is clear that tw is s10.

My 5 years of undergrad/masters and my continuing physics PhD says that this makes no sense-outside of some really esoteric mathematical definition that I'm unaware of, which would never be applicable in a widely accessible wargame that is meant to be played by hobbyists, "increase" should be interpreted as +.

if i am reading correctly, you understand the different but argue the different should not apply to wargame.

tyllon wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:
Do you have a textbook quote that spells out the difference?

of cause i do. but i don't think posting pics of math book will you more than yourself just do a bit research on this topic. I am sure library has a lot of math book on this topic. in this case one is a movement on a real number line and the other one is addition operation. One will fail a math proof course if they mix the two.

Given that I'm not a mathematician, I wouldn't have the foggiest where to start looking. The last half an hour of googling hasn't shed any light on the subject, either.

My dictionary states that the two are synonymous, so the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

tyllon wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
anything that changes a stat is a modifier, if you can find rules for changing stats that are not modifiers post them or accept that the TWC as it states from its entry, is indeed a modifier much like bikes for the swiftclaws modify toughness by +1 but it shows their profile toughness as 5, because it already includes the modifier from wargear, the bike.

In the BRB. a modifier is define, i think page 8 or 9. So the assumption that in error here is that "anything that changes a stat is a modifier" is not correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

skolirvarden wrote:

tyllon wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:

tyllon wrote:

InquisitorJesus wrote:
I'm brand new to the forum although I have been playing since the end of 5th. I started off as a Son of Russ and with the revival of TWC I've been having a good time picking up where I left off on some old Space Wolf projects. I've seen the same rules argument come up repeatedly as to whether or not TWC mounts purchased as wargear provide bonuses or are they actual modifications to the base profile. Fortunately, I always keep old documents since you never know when you may need'em and I've uploaded a snapshot of the specific ruling by GW about modifying the base characteristic. I hope this sheds some new light on the subject and shows that it's already been addressed.

let me give you the short version on why TW Mount are s10. the wording on TW said to increase the characteristic by one. in the BRB, modifier is define as addition, subtraction, or multiplication. Many people confused on "increase by one" the same as "addition by one" so therefore they concluded at s9. In math 101, increase by one and addition by one is not the same thing, one is a movement in a real number line and the other is an math operation of combination two numbers together. So you increase the characteristic before any modifier (source BRB) and end up at s10. Many also confuse on wording bonus and modifier. they insisting bonus is a modifier.

the rule is clear. Just many are confused on the different between a math operation and an increase operation. When they assume those two operations are the same then arriving at s9 is normal.

"Math 101"? I've never seen "increase" as defined as anything other than the equivalent of using a '+' symbol.

Now, I never studied mathematics past high school, but if your argument hinges on a semantic difference like that, then I'm not buying it. I very much doubt that the designers had their maths textbooks open when they designed the rule.

In the math world it is not semantic at all and very serious knowledge not to confuse the two. is something very basic but yet very fundamental. Since, increase and addition give out the same result that why you saw a lot of that in high school. I can't say what the designer knows or don't know but if he or she understand math then it will not be semantic. But as it is written is clear that tw is s10.

My 5 years of undergrad/masters and my continuing physics PhD says that this makes no sense-outside of some really esoteric mathematical definition that I'm unaware of, which would never be applicable in a widely accessible wargame that is meant to be played by hobbyists, "increase" should be interpreted as +.

if i am reading correctly, you understand the different but argue the different should not apply to wargame.

No, I am not aware of any difference, but I don't claim that my mathematical knowledge is complete-concievably there is some esoteric mathematical field I am unaware of where such a difference exists. But yes, such should not apply to wargaming, because it would have to indeed be very esoteric.

@skolirvardenMade: Like i said if you don't apply the different then yes you will come to the conclusion that is s9. it is not esoteric mathematics is very basic math theory. The different is one is movement on a line. the other one is addition. in this case both give you the same result but in some case they don't .

Cheexsta, I've spent about 45 minutes now searching. Regarding simply "increase" everything I'm finding deals with addition. So if tylion has a source that explains the difference between the two, I would really prefer for him to cite it, or post a picture.

tyllon wrote:
@skolirvardenMade: Like i said if you don't apply the different then yes you will come to the conclusion that is s9. it is not esoteric mathematics is very basic math theory. The different is one is movement on a line. the other one is addition. in this case both give you the same result but in some case they don't .

Then as has been suggested, provide a reference or a mathematical proof. Based on all of the mathematics I have taken (which is a lot) and definitely covers the area you describe, and the fact that my gf is doing her PhD in maths, I'm fairly confident that what you are describing is wrong in this instance, and possibly arises due to a misunderstanding you have as to the correct application of the number line-and, as a result, gives you S10 when S9 is the intended result.

Generally speaking with wargaming, if you can't explain your argument with anything other than "Maths says so, but you don't seem to be buying my interpretation of this particular statement that I'm not willing to back with facts", then no-one is going to play along.

skolirvarden wrote:

tyllon wrote:
@skolirvardenMade: Like i said if you don't apply the different then yes you will come to the conclusion that is s9. it is not esoteric mathematics is very basic math theory. The different is one is movement on a line. the other one is addition. in this case both give you the same result but in some case they don't .

Then as has been suggested, provide a reference or a mathematical proof. Based on all of the mathematics I have taken (which is a lot) and definitely covers the area you describe, and the fact that my gf is doing her PhD in maths, I'm fairly confident that what you are describing is wrong in this instance, and possibly arises due to a misunderstanding you have as to the correct application of the number line-and, as a result, gives you S10 when S9 is the intended result.

Generally speaking with wargaming, if you can't explain your argument with anything other than "Maths says so, but you don't seem to be buying my interpretation of this particular statement that I'm not willing to back with facts", then no-one is going to play along.

now here is where you lost me. i never said math says so. i said "increase by one and addition by one is not the same thing, one is a movement in a real number line and the other is an math operation of combination two numbers together." I listed my different in the first post. fact you mean source to back up on the basic operation? If that what you mean then yes i have not back up with fact.

your argument so far as in increase by one is the same as "+" if there are any different then it should not apply to wargaming. then you put your edu claim as a back up source now adding your gf. like you said is really hard to argue with someone that just say i said so with some claim that no one can vet (this apply here is "this particular statement that I'm not willing to back with facts"). I will say also based on all of the mathematics i have taken (which most likely more than you) I can fairly confident to say what you are saying is wrong. Now, that don't change the basic. In math increase and addition is 2 different operation with different operators.

Addition is combating 2 different operators into a new value. also Addition is not always result in an increase of value. ex: 2+ -1.

Increase is a operation moving from one location to the next location in this case on a real number line.

Like i said if you are confuse the two you should do some research on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


I think Kriswall sum it up. From the link above.

"A modifier is defined using the words adding, subtracting, multiplying and setting.

Increase is defined by Merriam-Webster as "to make greater".

You need to demonstrate that the word increase means to perform addition (it doesn't). You also need to demonstrate that the use of the word bonus indicates modifier status (this doesn't appear to be in the rules).

RaW, we don't appear to have any reason to believe that the base characteristic increase granted by the Thunderwolf Mount upgrade process is a modifier as defined by the BRB. As such, the multiple modifiers section doesn't come into play.

Increase does not equal addition and does not require addition to occur. I could just as easily get a number line showing all real numbers, locate 4 and then slide my finger 1 to the right. I've performed an increase process, but I haven't used addition."

tyllon wrote:

InquisitorJesus wrote:
I'm brand new to the forum although I have been playing since the end of 5th. I started off as a Son of Russ and with the revival of TWC I've been having a good time picking up where I left off on some old Space Wolf projects. I've seen the same rules argument come up repeatedly as to whether or not TWC mounts purchased as wargear provide bonuses or are they actual modifications to the base profile. Fortunately, I always keep old documents since you never know when you may need'em and I've uploaded a snapshot of the specific ruling by GW about modifying the base characteristic. I hope this sheds some new light on the subject and shows that it's already been addressed.

let me give you the short version on why TW Mount are s10. the wording on TW said to increase the characteristic by one. in the BRB, modifier is define as addition, subtraction, or multiplication. Many people confused on "increase by one" the same as "addition by one" so therefore they concluded at s9. In math 101, increase by one and addition by one is not the same thing, one is a movement in a real number line and the other is an math operation of combination two numbers together. So you increase the characteristic before any modifier (source BRB) and end up at s10. Many also confuse on wording bonus and modifier. they insisting bonus is a modifier.

the rule is clear. Just many are confused on the different between a math operation and an increase operation. When they assume those two operations are the same then arriving at s9 is normal. Normally and in the real world, increase by one will define as a modifier by any reasonable person however in BRB define what a modifier is that definition didn't include "increase by one". Many are arguing common sense which "increase by one" is a modifier and what the rule said which "increase by one is not a modifier.

This, in particular the section where you start with "In Math 101...", is essentially a condescending way of saying "Math says so".

Also, while you are correct that you can reach a lower number through the addition of a negative number, the term increase in your definition is essentially a limit of the process of addition, which is to say that you have defined a process ("Increase") whereby you reach other numbers through the addition ("+") of positive numbers only.

As has been said, given that you are the one proposing that the common interpretation is correct, the onus is on you to provide a reference or a mathematical proof which shows that the process of "Increase" should not be interpreted as I have just defined, and indeed follows the interpretation which you posit.

Forming my own proof in support of my point is naturally rather difficult, for two reasons; one, the greatest support would be a proof by contradiction, which is naturally rather suspect in the absence of any substantial argument opposing the view I put forth, and secondly because it relies on the reader of the proof being willing to accept thorough mathematical logic and debate it with more than the words "No, that's wrong". Such a proof would also (as has just occured to me) have to be based on a foundation beginning from proving several mathematical axioms, which will require a great deal of time.

At this point I would suggest that the Moderator overlords begin keeping an eye on this thread-I am likely to get incredibly frustrated should this go much further without actual intellectual input, and start typing things that would (unfortunately) be innapropriate in such a wonderful forum, and reflect poorly on the purpose of this section of the forum, which is the intellectual and well-meaning discussion of rules interpretations, and not.....terms I shouldn't use here.

@ skolirvarden: I think Kriswall made a better arguement already than i do. I will repost his post

"A modifier is defined using the words adding, subtracting, multiplying and setting.

Increase is defined by Merriam-Webster as "to make greater".

You need to demonstrate that the word increase means to perform addition (it doesn't). You also need to demonstrate that the use of the word bonus indicates modifier status (this doesn't appear to be in the rules).

RaW, we don't appear to have any reason to believe that the base characteristic increase granted by the Thunderwolf Mount upgrade process is a modifier as defined by the BRB. As such, the multiple modifiers section doesn't come into play.

Increase does not equal addition and does not require addition to occur. I could just as easily get a number line showing all real numbers, locate 4 and then slide my finger 1 to the right. I've performed an increase process, but I haven't used addition."

Now, to your point. if you think this should not apply to wargaming then your conclusion at s9 is correct. your confusion is base on increase is the same as addition. which by moving on the number line i have not perform addition operation which you said i did.

Yuppers.

The easiest way to increase a number by 1 is through addition. It is by no means the only way to increase a number by 1.

I could...

1. Simply add 1 using mathematical addition.

2. Locate the original number on a number line and move one towards the right and then read the new number.

3. put a number of beans equal to the original number in a bowl, then increase the number of beans in the bowl by putting another bean in and then counting the new number of beans in the bowl.

My point is that addition is one form of increasing numbers, but isn't the only form. The rules specifically require addition.

Again, this isn't about what GW meant to write. It is about what the actually wrote. Modifiers require the increase to be an addition. The TWC doesn't add 1. It increase by 1. Subtle and possibly semantic difference, but real nonetheless.

Also, has been said over and over, but all RaI evidence points towards a Marine on a TW having a base S of 5 and not 4. The main point of reference is that TWC models have base 5 in their profile and not 4 with a +1 for the TW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apologies for the spelling. I'm on a phone.

tyllon wrote:
"A modifier is defined using the words adding, subtracting, multiplying and setting.

This is incorrect.

The actual rule:

And to say that a "bonus" isn't an additive modifier is simply incorrect the way GW uses the word. Unless you think the following aren't referencing modifiers:

There's more, but that should be sufficient.

For "bonus" to not refer to an additive modifier, you'd have to prove that none of those uses refer to modifiers. Your work is cut out for you.

Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.), subtracting from it (–1, –2, etc.), multiplying it (×2, ×3, etc.) or even setting its value (1, 8, etc.).

A modifier is defined using the words adding, subtracting, multiplying and setting.

How is that incorrect?

tyllon wrote:
Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.), subtracting from it (–1, –2, etc.), multiplying it (×2, ×3, etc.) or even setting its value (1, 8, etc.).

A modifier is defined using the words adding, subtracting, multiplying and setting.

How is that incorrect?

Because it's not defined using those words. Because, as shown, +1 doesn't use the word add, but it's a modifier.