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.

Angelic wrote:
There is also an additional portion of the Lasher Tendril rule:

"For example, if a model is in base contact with two Maulerfiends, each of which has two sets of lasher tendrils, he has 4 fewer Attacks."

Attacks and Attacks characteristic are interchangeable with regards to modifiers within the rule for the item itself.

Examples, by definition, aren't rules.
And that still holds true - Attacks (capitalized) is the characteristic. That is the basis of the number of attacks, but not the entirety.

rigeld2 wrote:

Attacks (capitalized) is the characteristic.

"+1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn."

"+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack."

"Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks."

Angelic wrote:
There is also an additional portion of the Lasher Tendril rule:
Attacks and Attacks characteristic are interchangeable with regards to modifiers within the rule for the item itself.

Citation? There's no RAW quote for that interchange-ability. Attacks is a characteristic, the number of attacks you get is dependent on your base Attacks characteristic, PLUS bonus attacks as I quoted.

Also "Attacks" and "attacks" are different. Do you think lashwhips remove hammer of wrath attacks too? It's a bonus attack. Does that mean if a walker charges you and only has "1 Attack" that the HoW hits with no bonuses and he then just chills without using his main powerfist or his second powerfist? I would hope you see that is absurd, but some people really want to read things in their favor (not accusing you specifically).

The main issue is you have not addressed the specific quoted rule with a specific counter quote. We'll all assume its because there isn't one.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

Citation? There's no RAW quote for that interchange-ability.

I quoted it. The rule itself says it modifies Attacks characteristic and then gives an example using Attacks, also within the rule.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
We'll all assume its because there isn't one.

You shouldn't assume.

The for mentioned black Templar with 3 attacks on the charge would be at 1 attack after applying the -2 from dual tendrils. Otherwise what's the point of tendrils at all.

Lungpickle wrote:
The for mentioned black Templar with 3 attacks on the charge would be at 1 attack after applying the -2 from dual tendrils. Otherwise what's the point of tendrils at all.

Consider the following three units, an assault marine with 1 A, a CM with 2CCW and a Jetpack with base 4A a vanguard vet with 2 CCW and 2 base attacks.

An assault marine jump packing into CCW would get:
1 base Attacks characteristic attacks
+1 bonus attacks for dual CCW.
+1 bonus attacks from Hammer of Wrath.
+1 bonus attacks from charging.
= 4 attacks including HoW.

A VanVet would get 2+3=5 and a CM 4+3=7

The Attacks characteristic get reduced by one from a lash whip (note the word characteristic and the capital A).
Against 1 lash whip, the Assault marine is unaffected, the vanguard vet loses an aattack and the CM loses 1. If there are more than 1 lash whip in play, the Vanguard vet is unaffected and the CM can be reduced to 1+3=4.

If you want to say that it reduces little "a" attacks instead of the Attacks characteristic, please quote the relevant portion of the lashwhip rule in full please. The quote I've seen is:
"Each set of lasher tendrils reduces the Attacks characteristics of every model (friend and foe) in base contact with the bearer by 1 (to a minimum of 1) whilst they remain in base contact. The effects of multiple sets are cumulative. "
because that quote explicitly reduces the Attacks characteristic and the BRB says:
"Each engaged model makes a number of attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks"

Bonus attacks are not part of the Attacks characteristic.




Also, is there anything that says it

Firstly to clear up a few things remember that multiplication is done before addition and that is why Smash worked the way it did in 6th. As for "Attacks Characteristic" being distinct from "bonus attacks" look at the actual rules:

"For example, if a model is in base contact with two Maulerfiends, each of which has two sets of lasher tendrils, he has 4 fewer Attacks."

So here we discover that what a lasher tendril modifies ~ Attacks.

"+1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn." 

" +1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand get +1 Attack." 

"Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks."

This shows that those bonuses are the same thing, so we KNOW that lasher tendrils are modifying same thing as these "bonus attacks" and that they are therefore also modifying the "Attacks Characteristic".

So those marines are getting 1 attack RaW.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not an editor or writer, so I have no idea why they made that distinction.

So you have no rules saying that the bonus attacks modify the characteristic rather than (what the actual rules say) the fact that they add to the number of attacks?

Cool story bro. Come back with rules support.

I have rules support, as FlingitNow and Angelic have pointed out, you are ignoring it, don't.

cleaned up my 1st post to include my personal interpretation

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Attacks (capitalized) is the characteristic.

"+1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn."

"+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand get +1 Attack."

"Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks."

"For example, if a model is in base contact with two Maulerfiends, each of which has two sets of lasher tendrils, he has 4 fewer Attacks."

I find it hard to read it otherwise from this. The "Other Bonuses" Mentioned would be Tendrils, Rage, Black Mace etc...

As to reference to 6th Ed. , I used to run with it (Smash) but never got into the semantics of it. This time i've got enough relevant rules quotes above to side quite certainly with Angelic and DR.

6th edition Smash was explained in the FAQ and it was indeed because you divide/multiply before you add/substract Attacks.

Smash is a set value in 7th, so it's after dividing/multiplying and adding/substracting.

Doesn't the BRB make a distinction between base characteristics and characteristics? If you add Attacks, it doesn't stop being a characteristic.

By Raw, on Dakka as far as i've seen, even a "base characteristics" modifier is a "characteristics" modifier... Referring to Thunderwolves mounts discussion.

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Attacks (capitalized) is the characteristic.

"+1 Charge Bonus: Engaged models that charged this turn get +1 Attack this turn."

"+1 Two Weapons: Engaged models with two single-handed weapons (often a Melee weapon and/or pistol in each hand) get +1 Attack."

"Other Bonuses: Models may have other special rules and wargear that confer extra Attacks."

Wow - it's like those rules were already posted and you managed to ignore context!
Oh, that's exactly what happened. The Attacks referred to there is number of Attacks in close combat. That's distinctly different from the Attacks characteristic - as specified in the rule I quoted.

Until you have an actual rule explaining that the distinction the rules make isn't relevant, you don't have an argument. Seriously - the rules say there's a difference between the Attacks characteristic and the bonus Attacks. Cite the rule (actual rule, not an assumption) that they're the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not an editor or writer, so I have no idea why they made that distinction.

So you have no rules saying that the bonus attacks modify the characteristic rather than (what the actual rules say) the fact that they add to the number of attacks?

Cool story bro. Come back with rules support.

I have rules support, as FlingitNow and Angelic have pointed out, you are ignoring it, don't.

I've ignored nothing - don't take my lack of posting because I have a family as ignoring.
The "rules" cited prove nothing and don't address your basic problem that the rules I've cited make a distinction between the Attacks characteristic and bonus Attacks. Until you can address that you literally have no argument. Do Lasher Tendrils remove a Hammer of Wrath attack? Cite supporting rules with your answer.

In addition, Fling is on ignore for insulting and trolling me in the past, so don't bother referencing his posts.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Lasher tendrils rule wrote:Each set of lasher tendrils reduces the Attacks characteristics

They work on bonus attacks, why would they not?

Because that is not what the above quote from the rules say. You are not modifying attacks, you are modifying one part of what is used for calculating total number of attacks, which is the A characteristic.

The rest of your message omitted as it is incorrect.

Edit: Hmm, thought I responded to the latest, wonder why I wasn't shown more until after replying.

rigeld2 wrote:

Wow - it's like those rules were already posted and you managed to ignore context!
Oh, that's exactly what happened. The Attacks referred to there is number of Attacks in close combat. That's distinctly different from the Attacks characteristic - as specified in the rule I quoted.

Until you have an actual rule explaining that the distinction the rules make isn't relevant, you don't have an argument. Seriously - the rules say there's a difference between the Attacks characteristic and the bonus Attacks. Cite the rule (actual rule, not an assumption) that they're the same.

So, now that it's contrary to your position, Attacks (capitalized) is not referencing the characteristic? You've continually said that Attacks characteristic is not the same as attacks. The rule references a distinction between Attacks characteristic and attacks ( small a), not a distinction between Attacks characteristic and Attacks (capital A). So give me a rule that says Attacks characteristic is not the same as Attacks (capitalized). The rules for bonuses clearly state that they are +/- Attack (capitalized). I posted the rule again to tie it to what you specifically said.

I can't believe this evolved into an argument over big A and a little a. Lol add subtract multiply, add two from charging with 2 ccw and charge bonus. They have 1 attack if in base to base contact and two lasher tendrils. Then one attack in the following rounds since you cannot be modified below 1 attack.

My citation is in the rules. Read them again without skimming, or only seeing big A's or little a's.

Angelic, Fling, DR, etc. If a model with 1 Attack base were to be required to make an Attacks characteristic test, and the model has a pistol and CCW, does the model need a 1 or 2 to pass?

Lungpickle wrote:
I can't believe this evolved into an argument over big A and a little a. Lol add subtract multiply, add two from charging with 2 ccw and charge bonus. They have 1 attack if in base to base contact and two lasher tendrils. Then one attack in the following rounds since you cannot be modified below 1 attack.

My citation is in the rules. Read them again without skimming, or only seeing big A's or little a's.

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

As the BRB quote shows, bonus attacks are not part of the characteristics profile, so you can "Lol" what you like. Lasher whip effects modify the characteristic and, as worded, come before the comma in that sentence.

There are no such rules for changing characteristics other than modifiers.

as such attacks and attack characteristic are 100% interchangeable because there are no rules for a different meaning for one or the other within the game.

If anyone disagree with the above, please quote a rule to show otherwise.

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.

they are interchangeable from the RAW.


There are rules for how you handle multiple modifiers.

So you would not take the base attacks and modify them with lasher tendrils then apply any bonuses.

I agree with deathreaper, and others.

a reminder that arguments based on english and grammar are not viable in YMDC.

 Happyjew wrote:
Angelic, Fling, DR, etc. If a model with 1 Attack base were to be required to make an Attacks characteristic test, and the model has a pistol and CCW, does the model need a 1 or 2 to pass?

If such a mythical test existed we'd likely need to see the actual rule calling for it. Leadership tests are made against your leadership characteristic, but everywhere that asks for it states what modifiers to use. Initiative tests are fairly common, but, again may or may not have modifiers. In the case of a toughness test against a DE Reaver, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone that said it needed to be against the riders T3 instead of the bikes T4.... Then again we have a rule telling us that when a model has more than one value for the same characteristic to use the higher one.

But this, like the idea of an Attack characteristic test, is beside the point.

--------------------

I think there are two ways of looking at this. First up is that either the part of the rule that used the word "characteristic" is wrong or the example given with the rule is wrong for not using it. It seems the safest bet is that the example given was intended whereas the rule just didn't capture it correctly.

Or, we need to identify the name of the thing that a characteristic which has been modified becomes. (Characteristic + Modifiers) = ??? Is it still the models "characteristic"? I think so.

 Happyjew wrote:
Angelic, Fling, DR, etc. If a model with 1 Attack base were to be required to make an Attacks characteristic test, and the model has a pistol and CCW, does the model need a 1 or 2 to pass?

if such a mythical test existed the answer would be 1 because you only get the +1 attack bonus from pistol/ccwpn when the model is engaged.

if the model was engaged the answer would be 2.

if the model was engaged and charging when this mythical test happened, the answer would be 3.

unless the test said to use the unmodified attacks characteristic.

 Happyjew wrote:
Angelic, Fling, DR, etc. If a model with 1 Attack base were to be required to make an Attacks characteristic test, and the model has a pistol and CCW, does the model need a 1 or 2 to pass?

Is the model making close combat attacks when he's required to take the test? If so then 2 otherwise of course 1.
Lets not get away from the fact the opposite position requires you to not read "+1 Attack" as +1 Attack...

 Happyjew wrote:
Angelic, Fling, DR, etc. If a model with 1 Attack base were to be required to make an Attacks characteristic test, and the model has a pistol and CCW, does the model need a 1 or 2 to pass?

Is it in close combat?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

I've ignored nothing

It is clear from your posts that you have ignored that you gain +1 Attacks for having 2 ccw's. (Not +1 attacks)

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
I can't believe this evolved into an argument over big A and a little a. Lol add subtract multiply, add two from charging with 2 ccw and charge bonus. They have 1 attack if in base to base contact and two lasher tendrils. Then one attack in the following rounds since you cannot be modified below 1 attack.

My citation is in the rules. Read them again without skimming, or only seeing big A's or little a's.

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

As the BRB quote shows, bonus attacks are not part of the characteristics profile, so you can "Lol" what you like. Lasher whip effects modify the characteristic and, as worded, come before the comma in that sentence.

That quote at best implies that the bonus attacks are not modifiers to the Attacks Characteristic. However when you look at each bonus attack they tell you that they are a +1 modifier to the Attacks Characteristic (written as +1 Attack).

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Wow - it's like those rules were already posted and you managed to ignore context!
Oh, that's exactly what happened. The Attacks referred to there is number of Attacks in close combat. That's distinctly different from the Attacks characteristic - as specified in the rule I quoted.

Until you have an actual rule explaining that the distinction the rules make isn't relevant, you don't have an argument. Seriously - the rules say there's a difference between the Attacks characteristic and the bonus Attacks. Cite the rule (actual rule, not an assumption) that they're the same.

So, now that it's contrary to your position, Attacks (capitalized) is not referencing the characteristic? You've continually said that Attacks characteristic is not the same as attacks.

*sigh*
Seriously, read the entire rules section and not just want you want to pretend it says.

So we see that - for a fact - there's a distinction between what's on the profile and what a bonus attack is. Agreed? ("attacks (A) as indicated on its characteristics profile, plus the following bonus attacks")
We also see that, regardless of capitalization, "the following" are "bonus attacks" and not the characteristic on the profile. Agreed? (same quote as above)

Since we know both of those, which we only know through reading the entire rule and not just portions of it we can see that, regardless of capitalization, bonus attacks are not the characteristic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I've ignored nothing

It is clear from your posts that you have ignored that you gain +1 Attacks for having 2 ccw's. (Not +1 attacks)

Not true. You gain +1 bonus attack which is separate from the Attacks characteristic on your profile. Please cite a rule if you disagree.

In addition, you ignored my question. Please answer it. Heck, anyone in the "everything is an Attack characteristic" please answer it.

Do Lasher Tendrils remove a HoW attack? Please cite rules support for any answer you give. (It's a shame I have to type that last sentence)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
There are no such rules for changing characteristics other than modifiers.

Correct! Fortunately, Number of Attacks isn't a characteristic so... irrelevant?

a reminder that arguments based on english and grammar are not viable in YMDC.

Not true.

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.

attacks=Attacks= attack characteristic. there is no difference. cite a rule showing there is.

blaktoof wrote:

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.

attacks=Attacks= attack characteristic. there is no difference. cite a rule showing there is.

I have. It's in the spoiler above, and repeated a few other times in the thread. Perhaps you've read it?

your post doesn't actually show that the bonus attacks are not modifiers to the attack characteristic.

most likely because there are no actual rules for modifying a characteristic without it being a modifier.

blaktoof wrote:
your post doesn't actually show that the bonus attacks are not modifiers to the attack characteristic.

Really? It doesn't include this?

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

Since I just copy and pasted it, I know for a fact your statement is incorrect.
You make a number of attacks equal to X + Y. X is the number on your profile. Y is not. Y modifies the number of attacks you made, not the number on your profile.

most likely because there are no actual rules for modifying a characteristic without it being a modifier.

Since I'm saying the characteristic is not modified in the rule I quoted, I'm guessing you agree with me?

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.