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 think there's some confusion as to what people are arguing.

Some are arguing intent and how it should be played on the table, while others are arguing what is strictly written in the rules.

So try and be clear which of the two you're arguing: RaW or RaI.

For characters the rule is written as a Str increase. It's most definitley wriiten as a modifier.

However I don't believe this is how it should be played (especially given how they FAQ'd it previously, after realising it was written as a modifier).

In an actual game I'd consider it a change to the vase characteristic.

Lightning Wolf Lord wrote:
A character with a thunderwolf mount will have the base stat of strength 5 as this will always apply to the character, the powerfist double the strength of the character in CC.
Therefore the strength would be strength 10 in CC and strength 5 out of combat.

Care to cite something to support your argument?

I thought this old argument was solved back in 6th edition lol?

Looks to me they mean it to apply the changes to the profile, making it S5 the base characteristic.
They should have just left the brackets system in.

 Nem wrote:
Looks to me they mean it to apply the changes to the profile, making it S5 the base characteristic.
They should have just left the brackets system in.

Which wouldn't have helped, as that still results in s9

It is almost certainly a cock up, but that's GW ...

 JonST wrote:
I thought this old argument was solved back in 6th edition lol?

They fixed it with an FAQ.
They didn't incorperate that FAQ into the current rules nor have they released another FAQ.

As it stands it's back to being a modifier, but I'd recommend talking to your group about house-ruling.

Base characteristic and attack characteristic are different stats, and as such, are handled separately.

If Lysander gets a -1S effect, he is now s3, but his hammer still hits at s10, not nine. Similarly, if a Marine gets HH (+2S), his boltgun is still S4. These are cases of set values.

Almost always, melee weapons hit with an S that is a function of model's S. This could be Sx2, S+1, whatever. This game isn't intended to be dynamic. There are two ways this can be handled:
1) Calculate model S, feed that into the weapon function to get weapon S.
2) Take the model's base S, feed that into the weapon function, while simultaneously merging in the modifiers to the model S function.

The first is almost certainly correct because:
1) It was an old FAQ, not Eratta, that mentioned it, meaning it was clarifying what they saw as RAW, not updating the rules.
2) There is nothing in the rulebook that allows using the *unmodified* model strength for the weapon S function
3) There is nothing in the rulebook that allows the merging of two characteristic a calculation functions. Modifiers modify the characteristic they are assigned to, not others.
4) Model Strength is a relevant stat in its own right.
5) Logically, F(G(X)) requires that G(X) be calculated, then fed into F(). FG(X) can be determined, and is often useful, but matches, exactly, what you'd otherwise get (FG(X) = F(G(X))).
6) It's much simpler. If we decide to stack the modifiers of all source characteristics into one equation, things don't seem so complicated here, but they can get quite complex quite quickly ( how long before the first circular reference?)

At first glance, they both look like they're modifying the same characteristic. However, one modifies model S, and the other modifies weapon S. Weapon S may often be a function of model S, but they are distinct stats. Otherwise Hammer hands would make Boltguns devastating.

Not only is it clear that it was intended to be separate, they are also separate per RAW (reread weapon S). Furthermore, conflating the functions can choke the game, possibly breaking it in places.

RAW, RAI, and best idea are all model S 5, therefore weapon S 10.

Your entire post completely ignores the multiple modifiers section of the rules and as such can (and should) be ignored.

Have a nice day.

Not at all. If I have s4t4 and +1 T and my attacks are x2, I hit at s8, not s9. That really shouldn't be debatable.

Multiple modifiers handles multiple modifiers on the *same stat*.

Also, your flippancy makes me want to be less than civil, but I'll resist that urge.

Bharring wrote:
Not at all. If I have s4t4 and +1 T and my attacks are x2, I hit at s8, not s9. That really shouldn't be debatable.

Multiple modifiers handles multiple modifiers on the *same stat*.

Correct.

You have a bonus to S. You have something else that multiples S. How are these not multiple modifiers?

Bharring wrote:
1) It was an old FAQ, not Eratta, that mentioned it, meaning it was clarifying what they saw as RAW, not updating the rules.

There are many examples of FAQ's (again not errata) outright changing rules. The 6th Ed Heldrake is a prime example. It allowed a model to completley ignore the Arc of Fire rule. This was no clarification.
Tyranid's have also had several rule changes through FAQ's over the years.

2) There is nothing in the rulebook that allows using the *unmodified* model strength for the weapon S function

There's also nothing in the rulebook allowing the modification of a base stat without considering it a modifier. There's nothing so suggest the rules for Modifiers or Multiple Modifiers should not be used.

Bharring wrote:
Not at all. If I have s4t4 and +1 T and my attacks are x2, I hit at s8, not s9. That really shouldn't be debatable.

Multiple modifiers handles multiple modifiers on the *same stat*.

Also, your flippancy makes me want to be less than civil, but I'll resist that urge.

No one IS debating that. This is also nothing close to the current situation.

You have +1S and 2xS. This is a multiple modifier. Why are you claiming otherwise? The actual rules are stupendously clear on this.

Your post, while long, contained no relevant rules

China has a baby. +1 population. P = p+1.
India has a baby. +1 population. P = p+1.

Chinese population is [old]+1, not [old]+1+1.

Just because you use the same variable name for two different characteristics (model S, weapon S) doesnt make them the same characteristic.

I suppose on the FAQ vs Erratta, I was being overly generous to GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The +1T example was to provide a baseline showing that we all agree that modifiers to different stats aren't combined under 'multiple modifiers'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I'm not arguing the is/isn't a modifier in this. The core disagreement must be:
1) What is a stat
2) or How to apply F(G(x)) where F and G are different stats.

Bharring wrote:
Chinese population is [old]+1, not [old]+1+1.

Just because you use the same variable name for two different characteristics (model S, weapon S) doesnt make them the same characteristic.

No one is trying to apply the modifier twice.
Also the weapon uses the models Str.

Models Str is 4, Wolf is +1Str, Fist is Model Str x2

So accoring to the multiple modifier rules it is (4x2)+1 = 9

The argument being that the Str modifier doesn't follow the rules for Modifiers to give (4+1)x2 = 10

'A Str modifier' can be a *model* str modifier or a *weapon* str modifier. Those are two different characteristics. I'm not talking about applying the same modifier twice, I was just showing that using the same name for two different modifiers might be confusing, but doesn't make them stack.

The Wolf makes the *model str* (old S) +1
The fist does *not* modify model S. If my Captain with a Relic Blade makes a S test, he does so as S4, despite having a s+2 weapon. This is where we disagree. The fist modifies the weapon S used in the attack, not the model S. As different characteristics, they are calculated separately. Look at the Furious Charge on a fixed-S weapon discussion.

What are you trying to say? That modifiers to strength from special rules are calculated before modifiers to strength from weapon attacks?

Bharring wrote:
'A Str modifier' can be a *model* str modifier or a *weapon* str modifier. Those are two different characteristics. I'm not talking about applying the same modifier twice, I was just showing that using the same name for two different modifiers might be confusing, but doesn't make them stack.

The Wolf makes the *model str* (old S) +1
The fist does *not* modify model S. If my Captain with a Relic Blade makes a S test, he does so as S4, despite having a s+2 weapon. This is where we disagree. The fist modifies the weapon S used in the attack, not the model S. As different characteristics, they are calculated separately. Look at the Furious Charge on a fixed-S weapon discussion.

The Furios charge on fixed Str fails for two reasons.

1). User Str isn't used. So any modifiers to it are are irrelevent.
2). If you consider the Str of the weapon to be a set value modifer, then any + modifers are again irrelevent.

This doesn't mean they are calculated seperately, simply not relevent.

If the weapon uses the users Str characteristic, then they are not calculated seperatley.
That would make any Ork nob with a Power Klaw Str10 on the charge (or any other model with Str4 base, a powerfist and Furious Charge for that matetr).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zimko wrote:
What are you trying to say? That modifiers to strength from special rules are calculated before modifiers to strength from weapon attacks?

Apparently so.
Ork Nobs have been Str10 for years and no one knew about it!!
(that or he's mistaken)

Bharring wrote:
'A Str modifier' can be a *model* str modifier or a *weapon* str modifier. Those are two different characteristics. I'm not talking about applying the same modifier twice, I was just showing that using the same name for two different modifiers might be confusing, but doesn't make them stack.

The Wolf makes the *model str* (old S) +1
The fist does *not* modify model S. If my Captain with a Relic Blade makes a S test, he does so as S4, despite having a s+2 weapon. This is where we disagree. The fist modifies the weapon S used in the attack, not the model S. As different characteristics, they are calculated separately. Look at the Furious Charge on a fixed-S weapon discussion.

Weapon S is S: user x 2.

You have another modifier to the models S of +
The two together apply to the same characteristic. This cannot be debated.

As you gave two modifiers you MUST use the multiple modifiers rule.

If you disagree please cite done actual rules. Page and para, as per the tenets of this forum

Bharring wrote:
China has a baby. +1 population. P = p+1.
India has a baby. +1 population. P = p+1.

Chinese population is [old]+1, not [old]+1+1.

How is that relevant at *all*?

Just because you use the same variable name for two different characteristics (model S, weapon S) doesnt make them the same characteristic.

Correct. The weapon's S is not the same as the model's S.
WeSt=MoStx2+1 because of multiple modifiers. It's in the rules clear as day.

And I'm not arguing the is/isn't a modifier in this. The core disagreement must be:
1) What is a stat
2) or How to apply F(G(x)) where F and G are different stats.

No, what you're arguing is that the bonus is applied once and never again considered thereafter, which is not at all what the rules actually say.

Apparently this is a settled question, and I'm wrong.

I'll look later to see if its clear whether its the what-is-a - stat thing, or the f(g(x)) thing, but either way, the game breaks without some willful ignorance now.

Lots of ugly implications.

Sorry I derailed the thread. Back to the is/isn't a modifier debate, I suppose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(What I was trying to say was that trying to be both functional and procedural at all times with respect to calculations simply doesn't work. Substantial handwavium is required - and apparently used - to make it work.)

I would see the modifier arguement if they didnt specifically say that for characters on mounts its already included in their profile.

Otherwise it is a weird situation where characters that start with it are str 10 as well as the unit itself, but characters that dont are str 9.

what part of "these bonus are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear" doesn't clarify the intent that it is a modification to the base characteristic, rather than a modifier to be applied later?

I'm honestly curious because it seems like the argument here is to prove that GW can't write clean rules - which we already know, rather than what was intended (specific example cited).

And I obviously missed the post above, who was making my suggested point.

The inclusion of that line about it being included actually makes it so all TC are S:9 while using a powerfist by my reading.

Nope, because you multiply their base characteristic and the base characteristic in their profile is 5. As has been stated the thunder wolf modifies the base characteristic to a new number. There is clear precedent that the thunderwolf changes the base characteristic of a character with it as well as the previous FAQ clarifying it as such. Now we just need to wait until another one comes out I guess, but RAW right now is that characters that get it as a upgrade are str 9, and models that come with it are str 10.

The book also states that those models have a bonus included....

TLDR

The exact wording of the Thunderwolf Mount says

increases their strength, toughness, attacks and wounds Characteristic by 1

The wording of "Characteristic" means it changes the profile permanently.

This is different to a weapon that modifies a characteristic is some instances.
e.g. Model is armed with a Wolf Claw and a Powerfist
In a given combat, he chooses to attack with the Wolf Claw, so the [Sx2] is not applied.
Similarly if he was hit with a Hellfrost weapon he'd have to take a strength test.... but you don't test at the Powerfists [sx2].... but if riding a Thunderwolf he would test at S5 because the Thunderwolf Mount increases the base characteristic

And then read the very next bit beyond what you quoted where it's specifically called a bonus...

 karlosovic wrote:
TLDR

The exact wording of the Thunderwolf Mount says

increases their strength, toughness, attacks and wounds Characteristic by 1

The wording of "Characteristic" means it changes the profile permanently.

This is different to a weapon that modifies a characteristic is some instances.
e.g. Model is armed with a Wolf Claw and a Powerfist
In a given combat, he chooses to attack with the Wolf Claw, so the [Sx2] is not applied.
Similarly if he was hit with a Hellfrost weapon he'd have to take a strength test.... but you don't test at the Powerfists [sx2].... but if riding a Thunderwolf he would test at S5 because the Thunderwolf Mount increases the base characteristic

Then don't post, as you have a) been rude by not actually reading hwt others have posted but b) have also ignored the actual full rule, which was already pointed out

It's a bonus

Nope

Great way to debate =P

I'd say intent was clearly Char stat becoming 5 and not "a bonus" so that it has the same stats as standard Thunderwolves. But until an FAQ, strict RaW will be S9 due to "bonus"....