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.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
@Ghaz: English definitions don't matter, and they define a 'modifier' as "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)". Now correct me if I'm wrong but I think that would be a pretty specific list of what constitutes as a modifier and I do not see increased on the list.

@blaktoof: the wargear Thunderwolf does not use +1, that is why there is a question about it.

English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.

 Ghaz wrote:

English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.

I've already provided you with the direct quote or have you not been reading on page 8 there is a section titled Modifiers which I have listed off to you verbatim.

Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)

 Ghaz wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
@Ghaz: English definitions don't matter, and they define a 'modifier' as "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)". Now correct me if I'm wrong but I think that would be a pretty specific list of what constitutes as a modifier and I do not see increased on the list.

@blaktoof: the wargear Thunderwolf does not use +1, that is why there is a question about it.

English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.

Show me a rule in the rulebook where it says that increase and add to are interchangeable.

so you believe the toughness increase from bikes modifies the base profile?

it uses the same wording.

blaktoof wrote:
so you believe the toughness increase from bikes modifies the base profile?

it uses the same wording.

yes absolutely that is why str8 weapons don't insta-death bikes

 Aftersong wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.

I've already provided you with the direct quote or have you not been reading on page 8 there is a section titled Modifiers which I have listed off to you verbatim.

Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)

And again, where does that say that IT MUST USE THOSE SPECIFIC TERMS? It doesn't. In order to increase a value, you must add to it. It means the exact same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NightHowler wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
@Ghaz: English definitions don't matter, and they define a 'modifier' as "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)". Now correct me if I'm wrong but I think that would be a pretty specific list of what constitutes as a modifier and I do not see increased on the list.

@blaktoof: the wargear Thunderwolf does not use +1, that is why there is a question about it.

English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.

Show me a rule in the rulebook where it says that increase and add to are interchangeable.

It's the English language. Show me where they're not. Show me where GW says that you ignore the English language and it MUST be those specific terms.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.

I've already provided you with the direct quote or have you not been reading on page 8 there is a section titled Modifiers which I have listed off to you verbatim.

Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)

And again, where does that say that IT MUST USE THOSE SPECIFIC TERMS? It doesn't. In order to increase a value, you must add to it. It means the exact same thing.

Unfortunately, you can't choose to be super pedantic about the wording of a rule when it suits you, and then choose not to when it would help an argument you disagree with. It doesn't say +1, so it is not adding 1 to the S, it is increasing it to 5. In English it is the exact same thing. Ruleswise it is not.

 Aftersong wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so you believe the toughness increase from bikes modifies the base profile?

it uses the same wording.

yes absolutely that is why str8 weapons don't insta-death bikes

actually that is not true.

Any Wound allocated to a model has the Instant Death special rule (see below) if the Strength value of that attack is at least double the Toughness value (after modifiers) of that model.

note how they point out modifiers.

toughness after modifiers.

blaktoof wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so you believe the toughness increase from bikes modifies the base profile?

it uses the same wording.

yes absolutely that is why str8 weapons don't insta-death bikes

actually that is not true.

Any Wound allocated to a model has the Instant Death special rule (see below) if the Strength value of that attack is at least double the Toughness value (after modifiers) of that model.

note how they point out modifiers.

toughness after modifiers.

Note also that they are not talking specifically about bikers

blaktoof wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so you believe the toughness increase from bikes modifies the base profile?

it uses the same wording.

yes absolutely that is why str8 weapons don't insta-death bikes

actually that is not true.

Any Wound allocated to a model has the Instant Death special rule (see below) if the Strength value of that attack is at least double the Toughness value (after modifiers) of that model.

note how they point out modifiers.

toughness after modifiers.

Yep you got me there, however I still stand by the fact that bikes are a base increase and not a modifier. if there were any wargear that provided a multiplier to toughness we could use that as an example however there isn't :(

so there are rules for changing states based on the modifier system in the rulebook.

where are the rules for changing stats that are not done by modifiers?

@ Aftersong, actually, he didn't get you. That line from the book is not specifically talking about bikers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
so there are rules for changing states based on the modifier system in the rulebook.

where are the rules for changing stats that are not done by modifiers?

in the space wolves codex under TWC wargear.

NightHowler wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.

I've already provided you with the direct quote or have you not been reading on page 8 there is a section titled Modifiers which I have listed off to you verbatim.

Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)

And again, where does that say that IT MUST USE THOSE SPECIFIC TERMS? It doesn't. In order to increase a value, you must add to it. It means the exact same thing.

Unfortunately, you can't choose to be super pedantic about the wording of a rule when it suits you, and then choose not to when it would help an argument you disagree with. It doesn't say +1, so it is not adding 1 to the S, it is increasing it to 5. In English it is the exact same thing. Ruleswise it is not.

Yet you're choosing to be super pedantic to suit yourself. You're claiming that unless they use a very specific wording then its not a modifier. That's the definition of being a pedant, yet you've provided nothing to back up that position that any synonym of the words 'add' or 'subtract' or multiply' can be used to indicate a modifier yet you're totally unwilling to back that up with a rules quote. You want to totally ignore the English language and claim GW has it's own unique, specific definition but you constantly refuse to provide said definition.

blaktoof wrote:
so there are rules for changing states based on the modifier system in the rulebook.

where are the rules for changing stats that are not done by modifiers?

This is where we get to use the english language normally, since "increase" isn't defined normal communication methods proceed as normal (because modifier is defined we must use the GW definition) and the characteristic is increased not modified as defined under modifiers.

 Ghaz wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

English definitions DO matter or else the book is a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. Only where GW provides a specific definition of a word or phrase do we ignore the English definition. So once again, please provide an actual rule where they define a 'modifier' as only occurring if they use the specific terms 'adding', 'subtracting', 'multiplying' or 'set value'. If you can't, then you're argument holds no weight because 'increasing' a characteristic is 'adding' to that characteristic.

I've already provided you with the direct quote or have you not been reading on page 8 there is a section titled Modifiers which I have listed off to you verbatim.

Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc), subtracting from it (-1, -2, etc), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc), or even setting it's value (1,8, etc)

And again, where does that say that IT MUST USE THOSE SPECIFIC TERMS? It doesn't. In order to increase a value, you must add to it. It means the exact same thing.

Unfortunately, you can't choose to be super pedantic about the wording of a rule when it suits you, and then choose not to when it would help an argument you disagree with. It doesn't say +1, so it is not adding 1 to the S, it is increasing it to 5. In English it is the exact same thing. Ruleswise it is not.

Yet you're choosing to be super pedantic to suit yourself. You're claiming that unless they use a very specific wording then its not a modifier. That's the definition of being a pedant, yet you've provided nothing to back up that position that any synonym of the words 'add' or 'subtract' or multiply' can be used to indicate a modifier yet you're totally unwilling to back that up with a rules quote. You want to totally ignore the English language and claim GW has it's own unique, specific definition but you constantly refuse to provide said definition.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that we all have to be super pedantic at all times. Implying that you couldn't stop being pedantic when analyzing this rule. Because it doesn't say +1 it's not following the rule for adding to a characteristic.

 Aftersong wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so there are rules for changing states based on the modifier system in the rulebook.

where are the rules for changing stats that are not done by modifiers?

This is where we get to use the english language normally, since "increase" isn't defined normal communication methods proceed as normal (because modifier is defined we must use the GW definition) and the characteristic is increased not modified as defined under modifiers.

You have just dug yourself into a hole. Wargear "increasing" a characteristic isn't defined by the rules. Wargear modifying a characteristic is defined by the rules. We cannot take undefined steps in the rules.

Not so, in this case we have to use english normally, since there isn't a special definition for increase we can use the word as it is commonly used. This is why GW doesn't have to define words like "the" or "measure"

col_impact wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so there are rules for changing states based on the modifier system in the rulebook.

where are the rules for changing stats that are not done by modifiers?

This is where we get to use the english language normally, since "increase" isn't defined normal communication methods proceed as normal (because modifier is defined we must use the GW definition) and the characteristic is increased not modified as defined under modifiers.

You have just dug yourself into a hole. Wargear increasing a characteristic isn't defined by the rules. Wargear modifying a characteristic is defined by the rules. We cannot take undefined steps in the rules.

no holes have been dug. the rules under Thunderwolf Mount in the space wolves wargear section clearly states how the wargear works. It increases S, T, W, and A by 1. There is no +1 anywhere in there, and yet the rule is unambiguous in it's result. We know that after taking this wargear the stats of the wolf lord who takes a Thunderwolf Mount will be S5, T5, W4, and A5.

and when this "increase" which is not a modifier, despite the fact it modifies the characteristic is called out as being a 'bonus' and no where does it state it changes the base characteristic you still feel its not a modifier.

a bonus of course being something more than normal.

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
so there are rules for changing states based on the modifier system in the rulebook.

where are the rules for changing stats that are not done by modifiers?

This is where we get to use the english language normally, since "increase" isn't defined normal communication methods proceed as normal (because modifier is defined we must use the GW definition) and the characteristic is increased not modified as defined under modifiers.

You have just dug yourself into a hole. Wargear increasing a characteristic isn't defined by the rules. Wargear modifying a characteristic is defined by the rules. We cannot take undefined steps in the rules.

no holes have been dug. the rules under Thunderwolf Mount in the space wolves wargear section clearly states how the wargear works. It increases S, T, W, and A by 1. There is no +1 anywhere in there, and yet the rule is unambiguous in it's result. We know that after taking this wargear the stats of the wolf lord who takes a Thunderwolf Mount will be S5, T5, W4, and A5.

Can you point me to the section on "Increasing" Characteristics?

We have defined ways of acting on the statement by applying the rules provided for modifying characteristics. You are suggesting we invent rules here and act on profiles in ways that have not been defined.

no mention of bonuses in the arithmetic formula for modifiers so even if the thunderwolf is a "bonus" with no mention of "bonuses" under modifiers it doesn't matter what you call the thunderwolf mount stat buff so long as you don't incorrectly state that it is a modifier.

RAW is str 10 powerfist thunderwolf riding lords

 Aftersong wrote:
no mention of bonuses in the arithmetic formula for modifiers so even if the thunderwolf is a "bonus" with no mention of "bonuses" under modifiers it doesn't matter what you call the thunderwolf mount stat buff so long as you don't incorrectly state that it is a modifier.

RAW is str 10 powerfist thunderwolf riding lords

You are inventing your own definition here and going down a path you are defining (ie house ruling). "Increasing" characteristics is not defined by rules.

like I said, if a word is not specifically defined (like the way modifier is) then common usage applies. The word "remove" isn't defined in the BRB but we all know what it means when they say remove a model as a casualty. Since "modifier" is defined we have to use the exact narrow definition GW gives us. I am not inventing anything I am going precisely by the rules.

 Aftersong wrote:
like I said, if a word is not specifically defined (like the way modifier is) then common usage applies. The word "remove" isn't defined in the BRB but we all know what it means when they say remove a model as a casualty. Since "modifier" is defined we have to use the exact narrow definition GW gives us. I am not inventing anything I am going precisely by the rules.

You are relying on "increase" as a way you have invented to change a characteristic line when GW provides a defined way to do that.

Like I said, you are suggesting we invent rules here and act on profiles in ways that have not been defined.

col_impact wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
like I said, if a word is not specifically defined (like the way modifier is) then common usage applies. The word "remove" isn't defined in the BRB but we all know what it means when they say remove a model as a casualty. Since "modifier" is defined we have to use the exact narrow definition GW gives us. I am not inventing anything I am going precisely by the rules.

You are relying on "increase" as a way you have invented to change a characteristic line when GW provides a defined way to do that.

Like I said, you are suggesting we invent rules here and act on profiles in ways that have not been defined.

This is part of why discussing ambiguous rules on the internet is so frustrating. We both have reasons for believing what we do and those reasons are often based on the way that we understand many different rules and the way that they interact.

The fact of the matter is that this is not a clear cut case of "it is, or it isn't". The precedent from from the previous edition is that it would be S10. But as you have pointed out, rules change so this does little more than hint at the intention of the authors. In fact, the previous edition even had the same problem - the way that it was initially worded was not clear enough and those people who did not want TWC to be S10 made the exact same arguments that people are making now. It wasn't until the FAQ came out and specifically said, "a character with a thunderwolf mount and a powerfist is S10" that people finally accepted that it was so.

The same problem this time. It is clear to many that it is supposed to be S10. It is also clear to many that it is supposed to be S9. But the truth is that it is not clear.

Fortunately for space wolves players, many tournaments play it as S10. Unfortunately for space wolves players a very very vocal minority on the internet refuse to accept this and try constantly to sway public opinion to believe that it should be S9.

So for now, I'll play it as S10, you play it as S9, and we'll see when the FAQ comes out.

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
like I said, if a word is not specifically defined (like the way modifier is) then common usage applies. The word "remove" isn't defined in the BRB but we all know what it means when they say remove a model as a casualty. Since "modifier" is defined we have to use the exact narrow definition GW gives us. I am not inventing anything I am going precisely by the rules.

You are relying on "increase" as a way you have invented to change a characteristic line when GW provides a defined way to do that.

Like I said, you are suggesting we invent rules here and act on profiles in ways that have not been defined.

This is part of why discussing ambiguous rules on the internet is so frustrating. We both have reasons for believing what we do and those reasons are often based on the way that we understand many different rules and the way that they interact.

The fact of the matter is that this is not a clear cut case of "it is, or it isn't". The precedent from from the previous edition is that it would be S10. But as you have pointed out, rules change so this does little more than hint at the intention of the authors. In fact, the previous edition even had the same problem - the way that it was initially worded was not clear enough and those people who did not want TWC to be S10 made the exact same arguments that people are making now. It wasn't until the FAQ came out and specifically said, "a character with a thunderwolf mount and a powerfist is S10" that people finally accepted that it was so.

The same problem this time. It is clear to many that it is supposed to be S10. It is also clear to many that it is supposed to be S9. But the truth is that it is not clear.

Fortunately for space wolves players, many tournaments play it as S10. Unfortunately for space wolves players a very very vocal minority on the internet refuse to accept this and try constantly to sway public opinion to believe that it should be S9.

So for now, I'll play it as S10, you play it as S9, and we'll see when the FAQ comes out.

It's 100 % ok to resolve it as s10 after a FAQ justifies it and you are welcome to have a big smile of satisfaction about it, but right now, at this present moment in time, the rules only support resolving it at s9. It's also ok for TOs to house rule the way they choose to on this issue (to satisfy public outcry), however that does not change what the rules provide as the solution.

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Aftersong wrote:
like I said, if a word is not specifically defined (like the way modifier is) then common usage applies. The word "remove" isn't defined in the BRB but we all know what it means when they say remove a model as a casualty. Since "modifier" is defined we have to use the exact narrow definition GW gives us. I am not inventing anything I am going precisely by the rules.

You are relying on "increase" as a way you have invented to change a characteristic line when GW provides a defined way to do that.

Like I said, you are suggesting we invent rules here and act on profiles in ways that have not been defined.

This is part of why discussing ambiguous rules on the internet is so frustrating. We both have reasons for believing what we do and those reasons are often based on the way that we understand many different rules and the way that they interact.

The fact of the matter is that this is not a clear cut case of "it is, or it isn't". The precedent from from the previous edition is that it would be S10. But as you have pointed out, rules change so this does little more than hint at the intention of the authors. In fact, the previous edition even had the same problem - the way that it was initially worded was not clear enough and those people who did not want TWC to be S10 made the exact same arguments that people are making now. It wasn't until the FAQ came out and specifically said, "a character with a thunderwolf mount and a powerfist is S10" that people finally accepted that it was so.

The same problem this time. It is clear to many that it is supposed to be S10. It is also clear to many that it is supposed to be S9. But the truth is that it is not clear.

Fortunately for space wolves players, many tournaments play it as S10. Unfortunately for space wolves players a very very vocal minority on the internet refuse to accept this and try constantly to sway public opinion to believe that it should be S9.

So for now, I'll play it as S10, you play it as S9, and we'll see when the FAQ comes out.

It's 100 % ok to resolve it as s10 after a FAQ justifies it and you are welcome to have a big smile of satisfaction about it, but right now, at this present moment in time, the rules only support resolving it at s9.

Actually, most of the tournaments already play it as S10, so I'll go ahead and play it that way.

And when the FAQ comes out then it will be totally ok for you to play it as S9.

It's also ok for TOs to house rule the way they choose to on this issue (to satisfy public outcry), however that does not change what the rules provide as the solution.

col_impact wrote:
It's also ok for TOs to house rule the way they choose to on this issue (to satisfy public outcry), however that does not change what the rules provide as the solution.

The problem is that the rules don't provide a solution. You're saying that it's totally clear to you, and I'm sure it is. But it's also totally clear to me that the rules say it should be S10 and I've explained why, but you disagree. We'll just have to disagree.

To you, I'm wrong.

To me, you're wrong.

Fortunately for me, I can play it the way that I want when I go to tournaments, as well as at my FLGS.

I'm not sure where you play, but hopefully you all agree and play it your way there.

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:
It's also ok for TOs to house rule the way they choose to on this issue (to satisfy public outcry), however that does not change what the rules provide as the solution.

The problem is that the rules don't provide a solution. You're saying that it's totally clear to you, and I'm sure it is. But it's also totally clear to me that the rules say it should be S10 and I've explained why, but you disagree. We'll just have to disagree.

To you, I'm wrong.

To me, you're wrong.

Fortunately for me, I can play it the way that I want when I go to tournaments, as well as at my FLGS.

I'm not sure where you play, but hopefully you all agree and play it your way there.

You are not playing it by the rules. You are inventing rules (unwittingly) and then playing it that way, by ways that have not been defined by GW. All of this is of course okay if its collectively agreed upon, but it is house ruling and not RAW.