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.

col_impact wrote:

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.

Ok.

To the people claiming that "increase" is not a modifier.

Please explain what it is and how to apply it using the rules as listed in the rulebook.

Not that it matters anymore, but:
from the Sept '13 FAQ:
Q: Is the +1 Strength from a Thunderwolf Mount a modification to
the base characteristic? (p62)
A: Yes.

 Happyjew wrote:
To the people claiming that "increase" is not a modifier.

Please explain what it is and how to apply it using the rules as listed in the rulebook.

I will try, but I would also like for the people who claim that it is a modifier also explain why GW ruled that it was S10 in the last edition.

Certainly many of the rules have changed since the last edition, but the definition of "modifier" hasn't changed. If it was supposed to be a modifier, then why did they make an FAQ to clarify that a TWC with a power fist was S10 in the last edition?


Here's my reasoning for believing that it is S10: I believe that the Thunderwolf mount is unique among most other pieces of wargear. Almost all other pieces of wargear which have a modifier to strength are weapons, and absolutely all of them either double strength or have a +1, +2, +3, etc in their description. In the last edition, the thunderwolf mount was also different than bikes in that while a bike was T4(5), a thunderwolf mount was explained to change the base stat to T5. In the new edition all bikes now follow this precedent and characters who take a bike have their base toughness changed to 5. This shows me that the adjustment to toughness, strength, wounds, and attacks for the thunderwolf mount, just like last edition, and just like bikes do now, is a change of the base stat. I think GW did not feel it was necessary to write all of this out and so in their traditional sloppy style they did not. But I think that we have enough to go on to see that the thunderwolf mount is different. First of all it does not say +1 to strength, it uses the same word for strength that it uses for toughness - increase by 1. I'm not inventing rules here, I'm simply saying that rules for changing their strength to 5 are codex specific and do not say +1 so do not follow the big rule book rule on "modifying" stats.

There's the gist of my position.

Can one of the S9 advocates please write out a brief description of why they believe GW would rule that it was S10 last edition and then make it S9 this edition - not by stating that it was so, but by the convoluted method of not including a FAQ stating that it was? I understand that since the FAQ was erased with the new codex many believe that this makes it S9, but my question is why would they say its S10 last edition and change it to S9, not with a rule specifically stating it is so, but rather by failing to include wording specifically stating that it was S10.

 Happyjew wrote:
To the people claiming that "increase" is not a modifier.

Please explain what it is and how to apply it using the rules as listed in the rulebook.

For bonus points, include a description of the Attacks characteristics vs the number of attacks made:
Assuming all hits, how many "to wound" rolls does a A4 Chapter master with Hammer of Wrath and two close combat weapons get? If that number greater than his attack characteristic? If so, how.

Be sure to include things like hammer of wrath, mandiblasters and lash whips, as well as verbiage from things like furious charge for RAW completeness...
e.g. If I reduce your Attacks characteristic to A1 for 1 attack, does that means you get your jump pack's hammer of wrath and nothing else as a few Daemon guys say, or the 1 base attack plus 1 for hammer of wrath at i10 and 1 from having a pair of close combat weapons, like paired lightening claws, that everyone else says?


Getting back to TWC as RAW, a model with a profile printed as S5 in the codex hits at S10 with a PF while a S4 profile who gets the same +1 modifier off an option that makes the other guys profile S5 by default strikes at S9 with the same fist. It helps to realize that RAW doesn't have to make sense fluffwise to be correct RAW. If you need fluff, assume he's less instinctive with the +1 modifier and so hits at a slightly uncorrected angle vs the guys who've been using it day in and out all the time.

I found a picture that sums up this entire thread.

NightHowler wrote:


Can one of the S9 advocates please write out a brief description of why they believe GW would rule that it was S10 last edition and then make it S9 this edition - not by stating that it was so, but by the convoluted method of not including a FAQ stating that it was? I understand that since the FAQ was erased with the new codex many believe that this makes it S9, but my question is why would they say its S10 last edition and change it to S9, not with a rule specifically stating it is so, but rather by failing to include wording specifically stating that it was S10.

The rules as written resolve it at s9. If they wanted some other result than s9 they would have to provide some overrule to the contrary (e.g. FAQ) or special line in the codex. We have to accept that they want s9 and not s10 until we have actual rules that support s10. It's really just that simple.

The problem with that picture is that if I circled the line that says, "if a model with Strength 4 has both '+1 Strenghth' and 'double Strength' in the top box and then circled the line that says "Thunderwolf mount increases their strength" in the bottom box, I'd have an argument for S10.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


Can one of the S9 advocates please write out a brief description of why they believe GW would rule that it was S10 last edition and then make it S9 this edition - not by stating that it was so, but by the convoluted method of not including a FAQ stating that it was? I understand that since the FAQ was erased with the new codex many believe that this makes it S9, but my question is why would they say its S10 last edition and change it to S9, not with a rule specifically stating it is so, but rather by failing to include wording specifically stating that it was S10.

The rules as written resolve it at s9. If they wanted some other result than s9 they would have to provide some overrule to the contrary (e.g. FAQ) or special line in the codex. We have to accept that they want s9 and not s10 until we have actual rules that support s10. It's really just that simple.

This avoids my question. I asked why they would change it to S9 the way that they did, not whether or not you think they changed it to S9.

Nighthowler, that argument is already represented in the picture by the legend identifying the yellow circles as "modify vs increase". Which is what that line boils down to. the difference on those words.

so increasing things is not modifying them.

got it.

when you increase the models strength, the value has not been modified so therefore the bonus included in the profile from that piece of wargear is not modifycing the actual value of the characteristic in any way.

that is one interpretation, yes.

some people believe that because a different word is used, it does not count as a modifier.

Some people believe that if you increase something, you have modified it.

Hence - the picture summing up the entire thread.

Bojazz, just so I'm clear, are you saying that the picture supports the S10 argument?

And not only does it use "increase" instead of "modify", but it avoids using "+1 to strength" saying instead "increase by 1".

I'm saying the picture does not support any argument. It displays the problem that is causing both interpretations. It highlights the key words that both sides are using and their relation in the different rules sections. It sums up what everyone is saying. How people interpret it depends on the individual.

I see.

I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.

NightHowler wrote:
I see.

I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.

There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"

The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I see.

I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.

There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"

The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.

Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.

I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I see.

I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.

There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"

The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.

Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.

I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.

Arguments that are supported by rules win out over arguments that are not supported by rules, insofar as we are determining RAW.

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I see.

I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.

There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"

The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.

Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.

I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.

Arguments that are supported by rules win out over arguments that are not supported by rules, insofar as we are determining RAW.

And what rules do you have that an increase is a modifier? Page and paragraph please.

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I see.

I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.

There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"

The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.

Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.

I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.

Arguments that are supported by rules win out over arguments that are not supported by rules, insofar as we are determining RAW.

Either you're having trouble reading my comments or you're choosing to ignore them. Which ever it is, it makes it difficult to have a true discussion... I'll go to the trouble of writing a well thought out argument and you'll reply "Rules say its not S10". Then I go to all the trouble of trying to find a better way of explaining it to you and you reply "Rules say its not S10".

You can see how this might be frustrating for me.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I see.

I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.

There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"

The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.

Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.

I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.

Arguments that are supported by rules win out over arguments that are not supported by rules, insofar as we are determining RAW.

And what rules do you have that an increase is a modifier? Page and paragraph please.

"Increase" characteristic isn't something separately defined. "Increase by 1" falls under "any additions" in the Multiple Modifiers rule.

col_impact wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I see.

I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.

There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"

The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.

Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.

I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.

Arguments that are supported by rules win out over arguments that are not supported by rules, insofar as we are determining RAW.

And what rules do you have that an increase is a modifier? Page and paragraph please.

"Increase" characteristic isn't something separately defined. "Increase by 1" falls under "any additions" in the Multiple Modifiers rule.

Saying it is so does not make it so. Please provide a page number for the rule you're using to decide that "increase by 1" falls under "any additions".

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I see.

I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.

There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"

The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.

Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.

I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.

Arguments that are supported by rules win out over arguments that are not supported by rules, insofar as we are determining RAW.

And what rules do you have that an increase is a modifier? Page and paragraph please.

"Increase" characteristic isn't something separately defined. "Increase by 1" falls under "any additions" in the Multiple Modifiers rule.

Saying it is so does not make it so. Please provide a page number for the rule you're using to decide that "increase by 1" falls under "any additions".

There is absolutely no problem applying this rule.




You need to supply a page number for "increase" characteristic being separately defined. Otherwise, we only have modify characteristics as the defined by GW way of resolving. You are not allowed to invent up your own way of changing characteristics. The burden is on you to show that "increase" characteristics is a defined Thing by GW.

col_impact wrote:


There is absolutely no problem applying this rule.

Spoiler:

Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).

You need to supply a page number for "increase" characteristic being separately defined. Otherwise, we only have modify characteristics as the defined by GW way of resolving. You are not allowed to invent up your own way of changing characteristics. The burden is on you to show that "increase" characteristics is a defined Thing by GW.

Wow. See? That is the exact same rule that I would use to prove you wrong. There are no additions or subtractions listed under the Thunderwolf Mount wargear section in the Space Wolves codex.

Where is your god now col_impact?

col_impact wrote:

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I see.

I also feel that there is no clear answer to the question until an FAQ comes out, even though I lean much more heavily to the S10 side of the argument for the reasons I've laid out above.

There is a clear answer. "Increase" characteristic is not a separately defined Thing in the rules so we are not permitted to act differently than treating Thunderwolf Mount as Wargear that Modifies Characteristics. Because of that there is no problem applying the Multiple Modifiers rule and interpreting the increase by 1 as "any additions"

The s10 argument needs rules to support its position. Maybe a FAQ will come along to support them or TOs can be swayed to their cause without an actual RAW argument, but the rules as they are in their present incarnation have no love for the s10 argument.

Let me help you out a little bit here. Your assumption that "increase" needs to be defined in the Big Rule Book before my codex can use it in one of it's codex specific rules is misguided. Your assumption that a thunderwolf mount modifies a characteristic even though it does not use the word modify or the phrase "+1 to Strength" does have some merit but not the concrete absolute "I am da law!" certainty that you seem to believe it does. Therefore your assertion that there is no problem in applying the "multiple modifiers" rule is lacking.

I have supported my position but I at least am willing to cede that neither side of this argument has a clear answer. You've avoided answering my question even though I've answered Happyjew's. Unfortunately, not every rule can be adjudicated - sometimes there is enough missing that it becomes anyone's guess. Hopefully an FAQ comes out soon.

Arguments that are supported by rules win out over arguments that are not supported by rules, insofar as we are determining RAW.

And what rules do you have that an increase is a modifier? Page and paragraph please.

"Increase" characteristic isn't something separately defined. "Increase by 1" falls under "any additions" in the Multiple Modifiers rule.

Well that would be conclusive if thunderwolf mounts gave a +1, but since it is being increased by 1 and is not a modifier so does not follow Multiple Modifiers. So again rule that says Increase by 1 is the same as +1.

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:


There is absolutely no problem applying this rule.

Spoiler:

Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).

You need to supply a page number for "increase" characteristic being separately defined. Otherwise, we only have modify characteristics as the defined by GW way of resolving. You are not allowed to invent up your own way of changing characteristics. The burden is on you to show that "increase" characteristics is a defined Thing by GW.

Wow. See? That is the exact same rule that I would use to prove you wrong. There are no additions or subtractions listed under the Thunderwolf Mount wargear section in the Space Wolves codex.

Where is your god now col_impact?

Except that you don't have an argument, only smoke and mirrors. Modify Characteristics is defined. "Increase" Characteristics is a fiction you have made up. "Increase by 1" counts as "any additions." Feel free to prove me otherwise. Everything I am saying is defined by the rules.

What happens if you increase "4" by 1?

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:


There is absolutely no problem applying this rule.

Spoiler:

Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).

You need to supply a page number for "increase" characteristic being separately defined. Otherwise, we only have modify characteristics as the defined by GW way of resolving. You are not allowed to invent up your own way of changing characteristics. The burden is on you to show that "increase" characteristics is a defined Thing by GW.

Wow. See? That is the exact same rule that I would use to prove you wrong. There are no additions or subtractions listed under the Thunderwolf Mount wargear section in the Space Wolves codex.

Where is your god now col_impact?

Except that you don't have an argument, only smoke and mirrors. Modify Characteristics is defined. "Increase" Characteristics is a fiction you have made up. Feel free to prove me otherwise. Everything I am saying is defined by the rules.

The proof is in the necessity for precision. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread the word "pedantic". I really liked it because we do have to be pedantic with these sloppy rules we've been given - we have to use the words EXACTLY as they are given to us. I'm making no assumptions and taking the rules exactly as they are worded - "modify" and "+1 to strength" are used in the rule you quoted, the rule you claim applies to my thunderwolf. But when I look up the thunderwolf mount I can't find the word modify anywhere... and I don't see +1 to Strength anywhere... instead, the thunderwolf rules say increase by 1.

For me these two rules are different enough to be considered different in how they are applied to the game mechanics.

For you they're not.

You see, it's not smoke and mirrors. I'm not making up definitions. I'm being very precise with the rules. I would dare say, even more precise than you are.

Edited to add that everything we both say is defined by the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
What happens if you increase "4" by 1?

In the real world? or in 40k?

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:


There is absolutely no problem applying this rule.

Spoiler:

Multiple Modifiers
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply
any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values.
For example, if a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and ‘double Strength’, its
final Strength is 9 (4×2=8, 8+1=9). If a model with Strength 4 has both ‘+1 Strength’ and
‘Strength 8’, its final Strength is 8 (ignore +1 Strength and set it at 8).

You need to supply a page number for "increase" characteristic being separately defined. Otherwise, we only have modify characteristics as the defined by GW way of resolving. You are not allowed to invent up your own way of changing characteristics. The burden is on you to show that "increase" characteristics is a defined Thing by GW.

Wow. See? That is the exact same rule that I would use to prove you wrong. There are no additions or subtractions listed under the Thunderwolf Mount wargear section in the Space Wolves codex.

Where is your god now col_impact?

Except that you don't have an argument, only smoke and mirrors. Modify Characteristics is defined. "Increase" Characteristics is a fiction you have made up. Feel free to prove me otherwise. Everything I am saying is defined by the rules.

The proof is in the necessity for precision. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread the word "pedantic". I really liked it because we do have to be pedantic with these sloppy rules we've been given - we have to use the words EXACTLY as they are given to us. I'm making no assumptions and taking the rules exactly as they are worded - "modify" and "+1 to strength" are used in the rule you quoted, the rule you claim applies to my thunderwolf. But when I look up the thunderwolf mount I can't find the word modify anywhere... and I don't see +1 to Strength anywhere... instead, the thunderwolf rules say increase by 1.

For me these two rules are different enough to be considered different in how they are applied to the game mechanics.

For you they're not.

You see, it's not smoke and mirrors. I'm not making up definitions. I'm being very precise with the rules. I would dare say, even more precise than you are.

Since "Increase" Characteristics is not a separately defined Thing we are free to link "increase by one" and "+1" as synonymous.

"increase by 1" is synonymous with "increment by 1" which is synonymous with "+1". In fact, +1 is mathematical notation for "increase by 1."

Of course, all you have to do is show where "increase" characteristics is a separately defined Thing in the rules and you can win this argument. So feel free to do so.

col_impact wrote:


Since "Increase" Characteristics is not a separately defined Thing we are free to link "increase by one" and "+1" as synonymous.

"increase by 1" is synonymous with "increment by 1" which is synonymous with "+1". In fact, +1 is mathematical notation for "increase by 1."

Of course, all you have to do is show where "increase" characteristics is a separately defined Thing in the rules and you can win this argument. So feel free to do so.

And this is the point were we disagree.

When the game says remove as a casualty, I can't assume that it's the same as removed from play. The reason we cant is that there are two separate rules at work here. This is where the need for pedantics comes from. The same is true for the rule for modifying a characteristic and the rule for thunderwolves. +1 Strength is not the same as Increase Strength by 1 for this very reason.

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Since "Increase" Characteristics is not a separately defined Thing we are free to link "increase by one" and "+1" as synonymous.

"increase by 1" is synonymous with "increment by 1" which is synonymous with "+1". In fact, +1 is mathematical notation for "increase by 1."

Of course, all you have to do is show where "increase" characteristics is a separately defined Thing in the rules and you can win this argument. So feel free to do so.

And this is the point were we disagree.

When the game says remove as a casualty, I can't assume that it's the same as removed from play. The reason we cant is that there are two separate rules at work here. This is where the need for pedantics comes from. The same is true for the rule for modifying a characteristic and the rule for thunderwolves. +1 Strength is not the same as Increase Strength by 1 for this very reason.

Sorry. Writing "increase strength by 1" is literally just the longhand version of "+1 strength". And, since "increase" characteristics is not a separately defined thing in the rules, we are free to use English and logical rules to simply affirm those as semantically and logically synonymous.

You have no argument.