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.

The thing is.... it's widely noted that Games Workshop can be a bit sloppy and ambiguous on their rules at times. I'm convinced that's where the "beers and pretzels" thing came from - it's a disclaimer from a group of people who are essentially just gamers who just want to have a bit of fun.

Unfortunately, there are those belligerent souls one the internet with nothing better to do than rack up twenty six thousand or so posts by dogmatically arguing obtuse points derived from their own person interpretation of "RAW"..... even though the "Rules as Written" are obviously not definitive (hence the page after page of resulting arguments).

What the adaptive amongst us do, is try to decipher the meaning of the written rule by looking at other examples, and using common sense to try and decipher the true meaning behind these unfortunate ambiguities.

The intent is usually clear to reasonable person, even where off-kilter arguments might bear cursory examination

 karlosovic wrote:
What the adaptive amongst us do, is try to decipher the meaning of the written rule by looking at other examples, and using common sense to try and decipher the true meaning behind these unfortunate ambiguities.

The intent is usually clear to reasonable person, even where off-kilter arguments might bear cursory examination

QFT

nosferatu1001 wrote:

karlosovic wrote:The inclusion of a Thunderwolf mount creates a whole new unit with type "Cavalry" AND provides some rules for setting that unit's base attributes

That's a not a modifier

That's a reset at new value

Ah, so its a set value? Cool, then powerfists strike at S5, as set value modifiers appear at a different point

Again, you fail to read what I wrote.

"Base Attribute" would mean it's a value before modifiers

So S5

THEN you add the modifier of [Sx2] (=10)

I'm sure you know that Powerfists are not S5 on any Space Marine (in fact you go on to claim S9) so I can only reason that you're being deliberately obtuse and argumentative
Is that a breach of one of the rules ?

 karlosovic wrote:
"Base Attribute" would mean it's a value before modifiers

So S5

And again - how is a bonus not a modifier? You keep claiming the TWC str increase is not a modifier but haven't proven it.

 karlosovic wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

karlosovic wrote:The inclusion of a Thunderwolf mount creates a whole new unit with type "Cavalry" AND provides some rules for setting that unit's base attributes

That's a not a modifier

That's a reset at new value

Ah, so its a set value? Cool, then powerfists strike at S5, as set value modifiers appear at a different point

Again, you fail to read what I wrote.

"Base Attribute" would mean it's a value before modifiers

So S5

THEN you add the modifier of [Sx2] (=10)

I'm sure you know that Powerfists are not S5 on any Space Marine (in fact you go on to claim S9) so I can only reason that you're being deliberately obtuse and argumentative
Is that a breach of one of the rules ?

Use the yellow triangle of friendship, and find out. I didnt fail to read what you wrote, I am making an assumption that your statements have something to do with the rules of 40k, and as such that youre talking about the only type of mdiifer left - a set value.

Can you provide a page and para for your assertion of "base attribute"? IT would help your argument immensely to back it up with something.

I also note in your quote mangling that you ignored where your assertion that you had quoted the whole rule was disproven. Can you please comment on how something explicitly defined as a

BONUS

is not a modifier?

Stay polite please.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 karlosovic wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

karlosovic wrote:The inclusion of a Thunderwolf mount creates a whole new unit with type "Cavalry" AND provides some rules for setting that unit's base attributes

That's a not a modifier

That's a reset at new value

Ah, so its a set value? Cool, then powerfists strike at S5, as set value modifiers appear at a different point

Again, you fail to read what I wrote.

"Base Attribute" would mean it's a value before modifiers

So S5

THEN you add the modifier of [Sx2] (=10)

I'm sure you know that Powerfists are not S5 on any Space Marine (in fact you go on to claim S9) so I can only reason that you're being deliberately obtuse and argumentative
Is that a breach of one of the rules ?

Use the yellow triangle of friendship, and find out. I didnt fail to read what you wrote, I am making an assumption that your statements have something to do with the rules of 40k, and as such that youre talking about the only type of mdiifer left - a set value.

Can you provide a page and para for your assertion of "base attribute"? IT would help your argument immensely to back it up with something.

I also note in your quote mangling that you ignored where your assertion that you had quoted the whole rule was disproven. Can you please comment on how something explicitly defined as a

BONUS

is not a modifier?

Are you able to find a page and paragraph stating that the word "bonus" refers to a modifier? Because I can't. I don't have to disprove something if you can't prove it in the first place.

The reality of the situation is that bonus is never defined as meaning a modifier. Bonus has several different meanings and could be construed as a mathematical addition, or it could simply be construed as the addition of something extra. The second meaning creates a situation consistent with every other Thunderwolf mounted model in the codex as well as how Bikes work. Choosing the first meaning creates an inconsitent situation and is therefore much less likely. The second meaning also works with the Rending rule. The first doesn't as you can't mathematically add Rending to something.

Past FAQ and other options in the book present a strong case for it being a permanent base characteristic change, however RAW if a character buys a mount they are only str 9 with a fist.

 reds8n wrote:
Stay polite please.

I'm not being smart... is that aimed at me or him?

The thread in general. Warnings are sent in PMs.

Kris - so you can't end up with 5, as you can't add. You gave 4, with a bonus of 1. What numerical value is that, when you hav stated that you cannot use mathematical addition to find out the result?

 Nem wrote:
Just out of interest, seen BRB on this subject?

''Bike and Jetbike riders benefit from an increase to their Toughness characteristic by 1. If
the Bike or Jetbike is part of the model’s standard wargear, this bonus is already included
on its profile.''

How do we handle other bikes which are not part of the profile? Implication of those words are Bonuses are not always char modifications subject to the modifiers rules... You can indeed have a bonus to the profile.

(Under Bikes and Jetbikes)

Did we all miss this?

If bikes count as T5 base (as we are all assuming so) then why would Wolf Lords on thunder-wolves not be S5 T5 base?

Instant death specifically says double toughness(after modifiers). Thats the only case where I can see toughness dealing with multipliers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Kris - so you can't end up with 5, as you can't add. You gave 4, with a bonus of 1. What numerical value is that, when you hav stated that you cannot use mathematical addition to find out the result?

I've previously given at least one method of increasing 4 by 1 that doesn't involve mathematical addition.

Take a number line showing all real numbers. Locate the number 4. Understand that increase means move right and decrease means move left. Increase your value by moving 1 to the right. Read this number. Oh, look. 5. And I haven't performed mathematical addition.

This is the second time I've had to give this example as a numerical method for increasing real numbers without using addition.

I'd suggest you reread the thread to refresh yourself on responses to previously asked questions.

 karlosovic wrote:
What the adaptive amongst us do, is try to decipher the meaning of the written rule by looking at other examples, and using common sense to try and decipher the true meaning behind these unfortunate ambiguities.

And this is perfectly acceptable, provided that you make it clear in your post that you are describing how you think it should be played rather than what the rules actually say to do, as per the Tenets of YMDC.


Regardless, though, this thread isn't going anywhere constructive at this point. Discuss it with your opponent until such a time as GW decides to start writing FAQs again.