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.

RAW: Strength 9.
HIWPI: Strength 10.

How it should be played: Agree with your opponent beforehand.

There are two sides to this debate since the FAQ for S10 w/ PF was removed and it's never going to be solved as this thread and practically every thread made on this (when the FAQ hasn't been in place) has shown us so the best thing you can do OP is simply communicate to your opponent how you will play it in a game and come to an agreement.

col_impact wrote:

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.

Really? That's like saying, "Oh, I'm sorry, saying removed from play is literally the same thing as saying removed as a casualty so my model gets to use it's special rule here."

Unfortunately for you, both arguments are incorrect. The difference in wording is important. And this is not English class so it doesn't matter if it's a synonym, antonym, homonym, or dangling participle.

I'm sorry that you're unable to see the distinction, but being incapable of seeing the distinction does not make you correct.

The fact of the matter is that I'm not even arguing that it's S10. I really don't care since the next tournament I'm playing in calls it as S10 and my FLGS plays it as S10. I'm only arguing that you can't say with such certainty that it's S9. It's ambiguous and I just want to help you see that.

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

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.

Really? That's like saying, "Oh, I'm sorry, saying removed from play is literally the same thing as saying removed as a casualty so my model gets to use it's special rule here."

Unfortunately for you, both arguments are incorrect. The difference in wording is important. And this is not English class so it doesn't matter if it's a synonym, antonym, homonym, or dangling participle.

I'm sorry that you're unable to see the distinction, but being incapable of seeing the distinction does not make you correct.

The fact of the matter is that I'm not even arguing that it's S10. I really don't care since the next tournament I'm playing in calls it as S10 and my FLGS plays it as S10. I'm only arguing that you can't say with such certainty that it's S9. It's ambiguous and I just want to help you see that.

"Remove from play" has different rules defined for it than "remove as a casualty" so your example actually proves my point since you have failed to separately define "increase" characteristics in the rules. You are not permitted to simply invent definitions and apply them unless you openly admit to resorting to a house rule to do so. Since "increase by one" is not separately defined it can be taken as the longhand version of "+1" because indeed that is precisely what it is per English and per logic.

Wait, did they remove the whole "RFP=RFPaaC" thing that they finally clarified in 6th?

@ Col_impact: Dude. Seriously? Do you just kind of skim through my comments and pick out the parts you think you can disprove?

I just finished saying that the rules for thunderwolves and the BRB rules for modifying a characteristic were different, just like "remove from play" and "remove as casualty" are different. Next time just slow down and read each word; it will make it easier to understand what other people are writing. Please.

@ Happyjew: page 13 of the BRB says, "Models that are 'removed from play' by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the game rules are concerned." but I was using the difference to illustrate a point that I thought might make it easier for col_impact to understand what I was saying.

 Happyjew wrote:
Wait, did they remove the whole "RFP=RFPaaC" thing that they finally clarified in 6th?

Not sure if this is what you meant but 'Removed as a Casualty and Completely Destroyed' (BRB, pg 13):

"Models that are 'removed from play' by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the game rules are concerned".

EDIT: Wow. Completely ninja'd on that one.

lol, sorry.

Nah it's fine, early bird gets the worm and all that

Just to be clear, NightHowler, are you saying that a rule that says move 6" is different mechanically than a rule that says move six inches?

col_impact wrote:
Just to be clear, NightHowler, are you saying that a rule that says move 6" is different mechanically than a rule that says move six inches?

Not exactly. I'm saying that there are 2 different rules and that one uses the words increase strength by 1, while another one says +1 to strength, and that this difference in wording is enough to cast doubt on the second applying to the first. I'm saying this because there have been rules in this game where minor differences in the way two rules were worded made an enormous difference in the way that they were played and I believe that this is an example of precisely that.

Strictly out of curiosity, are there any other pieces of wargear besides the thunderwolf mount that use the words "increase strength by 1"? I know that bikes increase toughness, but I'm looking for strength in particular. If there were, it might help clear this up for me personally.

Edited to add: Actually, I think it would be even more revealing if there were no other pieces of wargear with this exact wording.

Edited again to add: To answer your question a little further, I would say that two rules would be played differently and impact the game differently if one said move 6" and another rule said place a model 6 inches from where it was.

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Just to be clear, NightHowler, are you saying that a rule that says move 6" is different mechanically than a rule that says move six inches?

Not exactly. I'm saying that there are 2 different rules and that one uses the words increase strength by 1, while another one says +1 to strength, and that this difference in wording is enough to cast doubt on the second applying to the first. I'm saying this because there have been rules in this game where minor differences in the way two rules were worded made an enormous difference in the way that they were played and I believe that this is an example of precisely that.

Strictly out of curiosity, are there any other pieces of wargear besides the thunderwolf mount that use the words "increase strength by 1"? I know that bikes increase toughness, but I'm looking for strength in particular. If there were, it might help clear this up for me personally.

Edited to add: Actually, I think it would be even more revealing if there were no other pieces of wargear with this exact wording.

Look. It's real simple. If you want to show that there is an issue you have to relate "increase" characteristic to some definably recognizable thing by GW or else its just words that they are using, sometimes shorthand and sometimes longhand.

Increase by 1 is literally longhand for +1. Move six inches is longhand for move 6".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another way of showing the fundamental problem in your argument is that you are unable to find a rule that looks like this . .




You are unable to find a rule that defines "increase" characteristic in that way. You don't get to invent that definition.

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Just to be clear, NightHowler, are you saying that a rule that says move 6" is different mechanically than a rule that says move six inches?

Not exactly. I'm saying that there are 2 different rules and that one uses the words increase strength by 1, while another one says +1 to strength, and that this difference in wording is enough to cast doubt on the second applying to the first. I'm saying this because there have been rules in this game where minor differences in the way two rules were worded made an enormous difference in the way that they were played and I believe that this is an example of precisely that.

Strictly out of curiosity, are there any other pieces of wargear besides the thunderwolf mount that use the words "increase strength by 1"? I know that bikes increase toughness, but I'm looking for strength in particular. If there were, it might help clear this up for me personally.

Edited to add: Actually, I think it would be even more revealing if there were no other pieces of wargear with this exact wording.

Look. It's real simple. If you want to show that there is an issue you have to relate "increase" characteristic to some definably recognizable thing by GW or else its just words that they are using, sometimes shorthand and sometimes longhand.

Increase by 1 is literally longhand for +1. Move six inches is longhand for move 6".

I hear what you're saying, and I understand why you feel there is no difference. I simply disagree that the the difference is irrelevant in this situation for a number of reasons. One reason is that nowhere else is a piece of wargear that words the alteration of the strength characteristic this way. Another reason is that we know in previous editions this was an argument that people had and when the FAQ came out, it was revealed that they were intended to be S10 (I know that this only shows intent and does not have a direct impact on RAW, but it is part of why I think that the difference in wording is important). Finally, I have to add that if it said thunderwolves are +1 strength, I would agree with you completely, but anytime two rules use completely different wording to describe something and in no place in any book do they use the same wording, I believe that we have to question whether they are intended to be interchangeable.

Even if one is simply shorthand for the other. And while I agree that "move six inches" is longhand for "move 6 inches", I believe that a more accurate comparison would be to compare "+1 strength" and "increase strength by 1" with "move six inches" and "place a model 6 inches away from where it started".

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Just to be clear, NightHowler, are you saying that a rule that says move 6" is different mechanically than a rule that says move six inches?

Not exactly. I'm saying that there are 2 different rules and that one uses the words increase strength by 1, while another one says +1 to strength, and that this difference in wording is enough to cast doubt on the second applying to the first. I'm saying this because there have been rules in this game where minor differences in the way two rules were worded made an enormous difference in the way that they were played and I believe that this is an example of precisely that.

Strictly out of curiosity, are there any other pieces of wargear besides the thunderwolf mount that use the words "increase strength by 1"? I know that bikes increase toughness, but I'm looking for strength in particular. If there were, it might help clear this up for me personally.

Edited to add: Actually, I think it would be even more revealing if there were no other pieces of wargear with this exact wording.

Look. It's real simple. If you want to show that there is an issue you have to relate "increase" characteristic to some definably recognizable thing by GW or else its just words that they are using, sometimes shorthand and sometimes longhand.

Increase by 1 is literally longhand for +1. Move six inches is longhand for move 6".

I hear what you're saying, and I understand why you feel there is no difference. I simply disagree that the the difference is irrelevant in this situation for a number of reasons. One reason is that nowhere else is a piece of wargear that words the alteration of the strength characteristic this way. Another reason is that we know in previous editions this was an argument that people had and when the FAQ came out, it was revealed that they were intended to be S10 (I know that this only shows intent and does not have a direct impact on RAW, but it is part of why I think that the difference in wording is important). Finally, I have to add that if it said thunderwolves are +1 strength, I would agree with you completely, but anytime two rules use completely different wording to describe something and in no place in any book do they use the same wording, I believe that we have to question whether they are intended to be interchangeable.

Even if one is simply shorthand for the other. And while I agree that "move six inches" is longhand for "move 6 inches", I believe that a more accurate comparison would be to compare "+1 strength" and "increase strength by 1" with "move six inches" and "place a model 6 inches away from where it started".

You need to provide more rules support than "gut feeling"

col_impact wrote:

Another way of showing the fundamental problem in your argument is that you are unable to find a rule that looks like this . .

Spoiler:

Increasing or Decreasing a Characteristic

A model that has a characteristic increased or decreased has its unmodified base characteristic value reset to the new value without modification.

You are unable to find a rule that defines "increase" characteristic in that way. You don't get to invent that definition.

Actually, I believe that the fact that no other rule defines "increase" in that way supports my position for the reasons I have listed.

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Another way of showing the fundamental problem in your argument is that you are unable to find a rule that looks like this . .

Spoiler:

Increasing or Decreasing a Characteristic

A model that has a characteristic increased or decreased has its unmodified base characteristic value reset to the new value without modification.

You are unable to find a rule that defines "increase" characteristic in that way. You don't get to invent that definition.

Actually, I believe that the fact that no other rule defines "increase" in that way supports my position for the reasons I have listed.

LOL. It needs to be actively defined as such. "Increase" characteristic isn't even a defined thing. You need to support what you say with rules and find rules basis for handling "increase" characteristics in this way,and unless you start doing so your contribution to this thread seems to be nothing more than an obtuse dismissal of the obvious based on pedantics.

Again, feel free to find rules basis for "increase" characteristics being defined as anything. You are not permitted to invent your own definitions unless you want to admit to house ruling. Are you admitting to house ruling?

col_impact wrote:


You need to provide more rules support than "gut feeling"

My argument is in no way based off of my "gut feeling". I never said that, and I don't approve of you trying to belittle my side by saying that I base everything on a gut feeling.

I've explained to you repeatedly that the two rules are worded differently, and there is no argument that they are worded differently because it's clear.

Your argument is that they are "close enough" to be the same because one is "shorthand" for the other.

My argument is that they are "different enough" to be treated differently.

Clearly we will never agree.

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:


You need to provide more rules support than "gut feeling"

My argument is in no way based off of my "gut feeling". I never said that, and I don't approve of you trying to belittle my side by saying that I base everything on a gut feeling.

I've explained to you repeatedly that the two rules are worded differently, and there is no argument that they are worded differently because it's clear.

Your argument is that they are "close enough" to be the same because one is "shorthand" for the other.

My argument is that they are "different enough" to be treated differently.

Clearly we will never agree.

Modify characteristic is a defined thing.

Increase characteristic is not a defined thing.

You are not permitted to invent your own definitions and claim RAW.

You can claim HYWPI.

You have no RAW argument, but really I wish you all the luck with getting to play SW the way you want to. I am not lobbying for playing it s10 or s9. I am only arguing what RAW is.

And if you want to engage in a debate about RAW then you need to support what you say with rules.

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:


You need to provide more rules support than "gut feeling"

My argument is in no way based off of my "gut feeling". I never said that, and I don't approve of you trying to belittle my side by saying that I base everything on a gut feeling.

I've explained to you repeatedly that the two rules are worded differently, and there is no argument that they are worded differently because it's clear.

Your argument is that they are "close enough" to be the same because one is "shorthand" for the other.

My argument is that they are "different enough" to be treated differently.

Clearly we will never agree.

Modify characteristic is a defined thing.

Increase characteristic is not a defined thing.

You are not permitted to invent your own definitions and claim RAW.

You can claim HYWPI.

You have no RAW argument, but really I wish you all the luck with getting to play SW the way you want to. I am not lobbying for playing it s10 or s9. I am only arguing what RAW is.

And if you want to engage in a debate about RAW then you need to support what you say with rules.

So we can't invent a definition for Increase that puts it out of the Modify rules, but you can invent a definition that puts it in with the Modify rules? Because as you said it isn't in the brb then what rules are you using to define it as a modifier? RAW is that modifiers are +, -, x, or set values and Increase is not one of those. As Nighthowler as said you can take a logical leap and lump it in with Modifiers just as easily as you can take a logical leap and have it not be a modifier.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:


You need to provide more rules support than "gut feeling"

My argument is in no way based off of my "gut feeling". I never said that, and I don't approve of you trying to belittle my side by saying that I base everything on a gut feeling.

I've explained to you repeatedly that the two rules are worded differently, and there is no argument that they are worded differently because it's clear.

Your argument is that they are "close enough" to be the same because one is "shorthand" for the other.

My argument is that they are "different enough" to be treated differently.

Clearly we will never agree.

Modify characteristic is a defined thing.

Increase characteristic is not a defined thing.

You are not permitted to invent your own definitions and claim RAW.

You can claim HYWPI.

You have no RAW argument, but really I wish you all the luck with getting to play SW the way you want to. I am not lobbying for playing it s10 or s9. I am only arguing what RAW is.

And if you want to engage in a debate about RAW then you need to support what you say with rules.

So we can't invent a definition for Increase that puts it out of the Modify rules, but you can invent a definition that puts it in with the Modify rules? Because as you said it isn't in the brb then what rules are you using to define it as a modifier? RAW is that modifiers are +, -, x, or set values and Increase is not one of those. As Nighthowler as said you can take a logical leap and lump it in with Modifiers just as easily as you can take a logical leap and have it not be a modifier.

Increase by 1 is longhand for +1. Move six inches is longhand for move 6".

NightHowler, and Kaela_Mensha_Khaine:

Would you consider "double strength" to be a modifier?

If so, what is the difference (besides mathematical function), between "double strength" and "increase strength by 1"?

 Happyjew wrote:
col_impact, and Kaela_Mensha_Khaine:

Would you consider "double strength" to be a modifier?

If so, what is the difference (besides mathematical function), between "double strength" and "increase strength by 1"?

Double strength is a modifier and longhand for S x 2. Increase strength by 1 is a modifier and longhand for S + 1. Double strength is a multiplicative modifier and Increase strength by 1 is an additive modifier.

This is because GW does not reserve "double" or "increase" for separately defined rules usage.

Sorry col_impact, I meant NightHowler. Original post fixed.

 Happyjew wrote:
Sorry col_impact, I meant NightHowler. Original post fixed.

Cool Happyjew, looks like you got them so see the problem with their approach that was treating longhand different than shorthand.

Is there something that "doubles strength" and not x2? If there is i will agree on your longhand/shorthand increase/+1 but if not i fail to see a point.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
Is there something that "doubles strength" and not x2? If there is i will agree on your longhand/shorthand increase/+1 but if not i fail to see a point.

I think more importantly you should read this rule very carefully . . .

 Happyjew wrote:
NightHowler, and Kaela_Mensha_Khaine:

Would you consider "double strength" to be a modifier?

If so, what is the difference (besides mathematical function), between "double strength" and "increase strength by 1"?

Sorry to keep you waiting. I have ample access to the internet at work, but once I get home I have dinner, tuck my son in bed, and tonight I also had to help my wife with her chemistry homework.

To answer your question, I would have to say that "double strength" is a modifier because it is specifically mentioned in the Multiple Modifiers rule.

The difference between "double strength" and "increase strength by 1" (aside from the mathematical function) is that "double strength" is specifically mentioned in the Multiple Modifiers rule, whereas "increase strength by 1" is specifically not mentioned in the wording of that rule. I think it is an important distinction.

I also feel the need to add that I think it's clear to everyone that whether or not a phrase is shorthand for something else is completely irrelevant to this conversation.

NightHowler wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
NightHowler, and Kaela_Mensha_Khaine:

Would you consider "double strength" to be a modifier?

If so, what is the difference (besides mathematical function), between "double strength" and "increase strength by 1"?

Sorry to keep you waiting. I have ample access to the internet at work, but once I get home I have dinner, tuck my son in bed, and tonight I also had to help my wife with her chemistry homework.

To answer your question, I would have to say that "double strength" is a modifier because it is specifically mentioned in the Multiple Modifiers rule.

The difference between "double strength" and "increase strength by 1" (aside from the mathematical function) is that "double strength" is specifically mentioned in the Multiple Modifiers rule, whereas "increase strength by 1" is specifically not mentioned in the wording of that rule. I think it is an important distinction.

I also feel the need to add that I think it's clear to everyone that whether or not a phrase is shorthand for something else is completely irrelevant to this conversation.

What about triple strength? Is that a modifier? Shorthand versus longhand is actually extremely relevant to this conversation.

increasing something is +1, is adding 1.

the -only- way to change a stat in the rulebook is to use the modifier rules.

increasing something by 1, from 4 to 5 is a modifier.

if its not a modifier then increasing by 1 would make 4 to 4. as nothing has been modified.

if the TWC is not modifying the models strength, then the models strength would be unchanged.

blaktoof wrote:
increasing something is +1, is adding 1.

the -only- way to change a stat in the rulebook is to use the modifier rules.

increasing something by 1, from 4 to 5 is a modifier.

if its not a modifier then increasing by 1 would make 4 to 4. as nothing has been modified.

if the TWC is not modifying the models strength, then the models strength would be unchanged.

I've heard the "they mean the same thing" argument before, but it doesn't explain why my point is wrong, it tries to ignore my point.

I freely admit that in English adding 1 is the same as +1 is the same as increase by one is the same as go up by one.

But my point is that we're not arguing about the English language, we're arguing about how GW is using that language to make rules, and when they use two completely different phrases to describe something in two different rules its because they're intended to be used differently. I've even given the example of the old problem with "removed from play" and "removed as a casualty" to support this position.

I've also heard the "if it's not a modifier it can't be modified" argument, which is completely false. There are plenty of rules in this game which are have different versions in different book, or even the same book. Example: a psychic shooting attack isn't a shooting attack but it's a shooting attack. These kinds of differences are some of the biggest problems we face when trying to divine the meaning of these poorly written rules we've been given. Just ask someone on this very board if you have to roll to hit for psychic scream and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Since the thunderwolf mount rules say the new strength is 5, I don't need to go to the big rule book and use the "multiple modifiers rule" to upgrade my wolf lord. Everything I need is right there in the space wolves codex, so there is no ground to stand on with the whole "you have to modify it or it's not modified" argument - I just use the thunderwolf rules as written.

Please keep in mind that I'm not arguing that I can prove it's S10. I'm only saying that you can't prove it's S9, and everyone will have to decide how to play it in each game.

As you are going by RAI (trying to guess what GW "wanted" for these rules), I'd say it actually points in the other direction.

The old Codex used to say that the TW mount increased the "base" characteristic:
Somehow increasing the profile of the model before any of the "in game" modifiers cropped up (also an argument you could still make here).

Problem is, they removed that (IMHO important) word from the rule, suggesting their thoughts were more on a "standard" modifier, rather than a "profile modifier".