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.

NightHowler wrote:

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.

If you follow rules as written the strength resolves at 9 without any problems.

RAW: s9
HYWPI: s10

I'm not going by RAI, I'm saying that the difference in wording is significant enough that it can not be definitively stated to be S9. That's all.

But if we were to discuss RAI, I'd say that I think it's pretty clear they intended it to be S10. They didn't just leave out the FAQ, they also changed the wording of the thunderwolf mount to take out any mention of +1. Now it says increase by 1. I think this was intentional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

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.

If you follow rules as written the strength resolves at 9 without any problems.

RAW: s9
HYWPI: s10

It's like you don't read anything that doesn't agree with what you've already said and so you just keep repeating yourself.

Stating something over and over again doesn't make you right. Read what I wrote and address those issues.

Otherwise I'll just start repeating

RAW: S10
HYWPI: S9

Over and over again like you do. Then all discussion will have effectively ended.

There is no mechanism for Increase by 1 if you do not use the modifier rules.

Therefore:

Either Increase by 1 does nothing

Or It uses the modifier rules and is the same as +1 (Note that +1 is not mentioned in the rule, only in the example).

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is no mechanism for Increase by 1 if you do not use the modifier rules.

Therefore:

Either Increase by 1 does nothing

Or It uses the modifier rules and is the same as +1 (Note that +1 is not mentioned in the rule, only in the example).

I've already addressed this, but in case you didn't read that comment, I'll say it again.

I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. I then use the "multiple modifiers" rule which applies to my power fist to double his strength of 5 to 10.

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not going by RAI, I'm saying that the difference in wording is significant enough that it can not be definitively stated to be S9. That's all.

But if we were to discuss RAI, I'd say that I think it's pretty clear they intended it to be S10. They didn't just leave out the FAQ, they also changed the wording of the thunderwolf mount to take out any mention of +1. Now it says increase by 1. I think this was intentional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

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.

If you follow rules as written the strength resolves at 9 without any problems.

RAW: s9
HYWPI: s10

It's like you don't read anything that doesn't agree with what you've already said and so you just keep repeating yourself.

Stating something over and over again doesn't make you right. Read what I wrote and address those issues.

Otherwise I'll just start repeating

RAW: S10
HYWPI: S9

Over and over again like you do. Then all discussion will have effectively ended.

My argument is simply that there is no problem following this rule . . .



And you come up with s 9.
My RAW resolution is easy and simple. No problems.
The burden is on you to show that there is a problem with it.

All of these kinds of modifiers are to the base profile.

IMO it's pretty clear, the intent. TWC have the bonuses included in their profile as a flat one. Just like ALL toughness attributes of Bikers or Mark of Nurgle models is ACTUAL to the statline changes, not "asterisk" changes as we used to call them.

The power fist modifier only applies when the power fist is used, the rest of the time the profile is Strength 5 as shown. There is nothing to indicate the model is strength 4+1. To me, the fact there is a profile there is concrete enough that in no way is Strength 4 a part of the model's consideration as they exist. There is unfortunately to the best of my knowledge no similar wargear which modifies your stats directly (other than bikes, but they are never used with anything that doubles and adds +1 like this). Further evidence toward RAI is from the fact that the old book specified the "for real, this edits the base profile" bit because in that edition it was necessary to make clear it wasn't a modifier. In this edition, less so -- and so such clarification was omitted. To me, RAI is clear (especially since the characteristics section is worded so newbishly in the rulebook...those rules for modified profiles should be under weapons or maybe in the case of toughness, the first to-wound rules, not there).

It strikes me as a really pedantic argument to have anyway. It will still wound pretty much everything in the game on a 2+, and against 99% of vehicles it is hitting rear armor with a strength of either auto-pen or auto-pen on anything but a 1.

I think people are just really grognarding this one, looking for some kind of secret easter egg that clearly isn't there. It's the 3+ invul all over again... "that CAN'T be right!!" Well, the game's changed, man. We got things like Transcendant C'tan and Imperial Knights walking around in pick-up games. Strength 10 Wolf Lord doesn't even register on my list of potential issues when we have things like mass MCs with Iron Arm, the Tranny, and such.

I mean...what other model do you have UNmodify their default profile to apply the rules?

I really think this is just people being sore at a model's awesome statline and, unfortunately unlike in most cases, an ambiguity was found and latched onto.

And you come up with s 9.
My RAW resolution is easy and simple. No problems.
The burden is on you to show that there is a problem with it.

My case in point. What, exactly, overrides that the standard T-wolf profile from being Strength 5? I mean...it says the thing is Strength 5, and it says if a unit has this wargear by default, the change is included in their profile. So it is clear this is intended to modify the base profile.

Like I said before...since when do you have to unmodify your base statline to apply the rules? You say "it's easy and simple" but it isn't -- no new player or player checking his codex is going to do that. He's going to see "Strength 5" on the profile and come to the conclusion of it being Strength 10.

NightHowler wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
There is no mechanism for Increase by 1 if you do not use the modifier rules.

Therefore:

Either Increase by 1 does nothing

Or It uses the modifier rules and is the same as +1 (Note that +1 is not mentioned in the rule, only in the example).

I've already addressed this, but in case you didn't read that comment, I'll say it again.

I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. I then use the "multiple modifiers" rule which applies to my power fist to double his strength of 5 to 10.

Except the thunderwolf mount rules do not give any mechanism to apply the 1.

So that rule alone is not enough to apply an increase, as we do not know how to apply an increase without using the modifier rules in the BRB.

More pedantic stuff. This means you have to argue any bonus in the game that isn't worded with a plus or minus sign.

We don't need rules to define this. There is a number there. It is higher than usual.

I'd argue the whole point is moot anyway, as "increases their characteristics by 1" in the T-wolf rules is not a modifier and it is also expressly not "+1" like attacks which modify strength or buffs which modify toughness. To me, that alone clearly stats the stats themselves are higher at the base, not modified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, the bike increase is considered part of the base statline, and it is worded the same way -- "an increase to their Toughness characteristic by 1."

How can one argue it's not base modification to the profile in the face of that?

 Fenris Frost wrote:
More pedantic stuff. This means you have to argue any bonus in the game that isn't worded with a plus or minus sign.

We don't need rules to define this. There is a number there. It is higher than usual.

I'd argue the whole point is moot anyway, as "increases their characteristics by 1" in the T-wolf rules is not a modifier and it is also expressly not "+1" like attacks which modify strength or buffs which modify toughness. To me, that alone clearly stats the stats themselves are higher at the base, not modified.

Increase by one is longhand for +1. Double is longhand for x2. The rules expressly allow for longhand to be used and are not pedantically limited to x2.

Moreover, "increase" characteristic is not a Thing in the rules. You are making up rules and saying "increase" gives you the power to reset the base profile. No such rule exists. You are not permitted to make up rules and have it count as RAW argument.

It is still a modifier as the base stat is what you are increasing.

It still seems foolish to me. It is clearly shown to be a different thing, by changing the actual characteristic. I don't know why this is even a thing, as you literally have to undermine the change to the characteristic to re-apply the math mid-game, and that is clearly not the intention.

I'm not saying there is some difference between "increase by 1" and "+1". I'm saying the wargear tells you to literally CHANGE the characteristic (which is defined in the book as the number on the statline). They just chose (perhaps poorly) to say they increase by one, to account for the varied profiles that result with TWC for different characters. You can't then, mid-game, unchange that characteristic to change the math. It's the profile at that point, everything that happens to it is a modifiers.

I dunno. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, since other things which are accepted as changing the literal profile use literally identical language. I don't think you can just hand-wave that fact away by saying that it's a modifier. It seems pretty clear to me that this is for the in-game effects of things like Furious Charge, Psychic Powers, etc. I mean, otherwise, you have to force every unit in the game with a benefit to their base profile in this way to use their original number (Toughness Test on Nurgle Biker = Toughness 4, for example).

I agree it's not clear and you can make a case either way but it is apparent to me that, since it is intentionally worded differently from pretty much any other stuff in the game that works as a modifier, that it was clearly and deliberately intended to change the base characteristics of the model, and that clearly this -- like any other thing that modifies the stats prior to the game -- is their base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just think people are way hung up on this one. No one argues their Nurgle Biker Lord isn't really Toughness 6. Why is this any different?

(and yes, I know, the rules specifically state otherwise in the case of toughness, but still...that is later and specific only to instant death, and is to allow for temporary bonuses to affect ID. There doesn't seem to be any debate there otherwise. Why? Because we're used to Toughness 6 and don't care. But a guy with 5-7 Strength 10 attacks?! That must be broken, right?! Next thing you know they will have an Invul save above 4+, or Guardsmen with 3+ armor!!!)

 Fenris Frost wrote:
I just think people are way hung up on this one. No one argues their Nurgle Biker Lord isn't really Toughness 6. Why is this any different?

Because To Wound rolls and Instant Death don't fall under the scope of the rules in question (Multiple Modifiers) while the power fist does.

I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.

I then use the "multiple modifiers" rule which applies to my power fist to double his strength of 5 to 10.


Edited to add that I've decided to use a tactic in this explanation which I learned from col_impact and deathreaper. Ignore what the other person says and just repeat yourself. I see why they do it. It's actually much easier than thinking about what the other person says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Fenrisfrost: I hear you man. And you've written out a very thoughtful and well written explanation of your position. But I'll warn you (because I've been doing the same long, well written, thoughtful posts for a couple of pages now), they just ignore it and repeat the same thing over and over. They won't address the points you make, they'll just say "its a modifier". It becomes tiring.

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.

So if you have this modifier and this non-modifier increase, what rule are you using to pick the order in which they are applied?

When it comes to striking, both of these must be applied to the base characteristic (and this self contained rule doesn't state it applies as some sort of base characterist increase, it calls out what it is).

So there must be an order, correct?

A rule exists for this order of operations, it's called "Sequencing". Are you intending to use a different rule?

I purchase a Bike for an independent Character which begun with a Toughness of 4, then I test against the Model's unmodified Toughness:
What value would I use, the number listed on the profile or that number increased by 1?

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.

The multiple modifier rule does apply.

The Thunderwolf mount rule says increase strength by 1 which is the longhand of +1.

Modifiers expressed longhand are expressly permitted by the rule.

There is no problem applying the rule. It resolves at s9.

You are unable to find a rule that supports the fictional way you are trying to resolve it at s10. You are unable to find a rule which does this . . .



If you could find such a rule, you could claim RAW. But, as is, you can only claim HYWPI since you have to make up rules to resolve at s10.

I really feel for the SW players. They have had the rules support for s10 erode out from under them without a clear FAQ affirming that this is what GW intends. However, RAW is RAW and there is no ambiguity here.

JinxDragon wrote:
I purchase a Bike for an independent Character which begun with a Toughness of 4, then I test against the Model's unmodified Toughness:
What value would I use, the number listed on the profile or that number increased by 1?

If you were testing for instant death, you'd test against 5. Unfortunately, this doesn't tell us much because the instant death rule now says that you test against the toughness after modifiers, and while I would argue that the "increase toughness by 1" isn't a modifier, I would say that the -1 from Enfeeble would be considered a modifier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.

The multiple modifier rule does apply.

The Thunderwolf mount rule says increase strength by 1 which is the longhand of +1.

Modifiers expressed longhand are expressly permitted by the rule.

There is no problem applying the rule. It resolves at s9.

You are unable to find a rule that supports the fictional way you are trying to resolve it at s10. You are unable to find a rule which does 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.

If you could find such a rule, you could claim RAW. But, as is, you can only claim HYWPI since you have to make up rules to resolve at s10.

I really feel for the SW players. They have had the rules support for s10 erode out from under them without a clear FAQ affirming that this is what GW intends. However, RAW is RAW and there is no ambiguity here.

I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.

So if you have this modifier and this non-modifier increase, what rule are you using to pick the order in which they are applied?

When it comes to striking, both of these must be applied to the base characteristic (and this self contained rule doesn't state it applies as some sort of base characterist increase, it calls out what it is).

So there must be an order, correct?

A rule exists for this order of operations, it's called "Sequencing". Are you intending to use a different rule?

I like this question because I think it supports my position.

The change to strength from a thunderwolf happens during list building. The modifiers to Strength happen during the assault phase when you pick which weapon you attack with. So my wolf lord with a thunderwolf mount, frost sword, and power fist would have to choose either a +1 modifer to his Strength of 5 or a x2 modifier to his strength of 5. He can't choose not to be S5, but he can choose between the two modifiers to that Strength.

NightHowler wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
I purchase a Bike for an independent Character which begun with a Toughness of 4, then I test against the Model's unmodified Toughness:
What value would I use, the number listed on the profile or that number increased by 1?

If you were testing for instant death, you'd test against 5. Unfortunately, this doesn't tell us much because the instant death rule now says that you test against the toughness after modifiers, and while I would argue that the "increase toughness by 1" isn't a modifier, I would say that the -1 from Enfeeble would be considered a modifier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.

The multiple modifier rule does apply.

The Thunderwolf mount rule says increase strength by 1 which is the longhand of +1.

Modifiers expressed longhand are expressly permitted by the rule.

There is no problem applying the rule. It resolves at s9.

You are unable to find a rule that supports the fictional way you are trying to resolve it at s10. You are unable to find a rule which does 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.

If you could find such a rule, you could claim RAW. But, as is, you can only claim HYWPI since you have to make up rules to resolve at s10.

I really feel for the SW players. They have had the rules support for s10 erode out from under them without a clear FAQ affirming that this is what GW intends. However, RAW is RAW and there is no ambiguity here.

I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.

Are you saying that increase strength by 1 isn't longhand for +1 to strength? Longhand is expressly permitted in the multiple modifiers rule.

Double is longhand for x2. Increase Strength by 1 is longhand for Strength +1. Move six inches is longhand for move 6".

col_impact wrote:
I really feel for the SW players. They have had the rules support for s10 erode out from under them without a clear FAQ affirming that this is what GW intends. However, RAW is RAW and there is no ambiguity here.

They've also gained Fending on all their attacks (not just on basic CCW Attacks) and easy access to Furious Charge, if extra strength is needed.

Man... I really feel sorry for non-SW players... they don't seem to know how to address opposing points in a debate and instead fall back on repeating themselves or changing the subject.

NightHowler wrote:
Man... I really feel sorry for non-SW players... they don't seem to know how to address opposing points in a debate and instead fall back on repeating themselves or changing the subject.

You are in the position of having to find rules to support resolving at s10. I am not in the position of having to find rules. The rules support s9. If I am repeating myself, it's because you have no RAW argument. And that point will be repeated until you provide rules.

NightHowler wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.

So if you have this modifier and this non-modifier increase, what rule are you using to pick the order in which they are applied?

When it comes to striking, both of these must be applied to the base characteristic (and this self contained rule doesn't state it applies as some sort of base characterist increase, it calls out what it is).

So there must be an order, correct?

A rule exists for this order of operations, it's called "Sequencing". Are you intending to use a different rule?

I like this question because I think it supports my position.

The change to strength from a thunderwolf happens during list building. The modifiers to Strength happen during the assault phase when you pick which weapon you attack with. So my wolf lord with a thunderwolf mount, frost sword, and power fist would have to choose either a +1 modifer to his Strength of 5 or a x2 modifier to his strength of 5. He can't choose not to be S5, but he can choose between the two modifiers to that Strength.

You'll need to prove that the order in which a model gains the bonuses applies.

Rules such as Multiple Modifers and sequencing show that's the order in which a model gains bonuses (list building, then later in combat) actually have no bearing. So what rule are you using to apply an order?

For example furious charge and a powerfist.
You gain Furious Charge before you choose to swing with the Powerfist. That's the order they are gained. Yet the order they are applied is the other way around.

Now I know you're claiming this doesn't use the Multiple Modifiers rule. Fair enough. But what rule are you using to apply the order of your bonuses? Chronological order is consistently not used thought the rules.

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
Man... I really feel sorry for non-SW players... they don't seem to know how to address opposing points in a debate and instead fall back on repeating themselves or changing the subject.

You are in the position of having to find rules to support resolving at s10. I am not in the position of having to find rules. The rules support s9. If I am repeating myself, it's because you have no RAW argument. And that point will be repeated until you provide rules.

I'm not in a position of having to do anything. I've already said many, many times that everyone at my FLGS already plays it as S10. I've also explained that the tournament I'm attending this February plays it as S10.

And on a side note you could take some notes from Grendel 083. No offense, but unlike you, he actually does a pretty good job of finding rules to support his arguments.

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
Man... I really feel sorry for non-SW players... they don't seem to know how to address opposing points in a debate and instead fall back on repeating themselves or changing the subject.

You are in the position of having to find rules to support resolving at s10. I am not in the position of having to find rules. The rules support s9. If I am repeating myself, it's because you have no RAW argument. And that point will be repeated until you provide rules.

I'm not in a position of having to do anything. I've already said many, many times that everyone at my FLGS already plays it as S10. I've also explained that the tournament I'm attending this February plays it as S10.

And on a side note you could take some notes from Grendel 083. No offense, but unlike you, he actually does a pretty good job of finding rules to support his arguments.

Good for you. You will be able to play s10 per a house rule by your FLGS. And that is 100% fine by me.

We aren't debating house rules here, though. We are debating RAW. If you want to participate in a debate about RAW you need to justify what you do with rules.

 grendel083 wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not using the "multiple modifiers" rule to change my wolf lords strength to 5. I'm using the thunderwolf mount rules, which are self contained and fully explained in and of themselves. The multiple modifier rule doesn't apply because the Thunderwolf mount rule doesn't say +1 to strength.

So if you have this modifier and this non-modifier increase, what rule are you using to pick the order in which they are applied?

When it comes to striking, both of these must be applied to the base characteristic (and this self contained rule doesn't state it applies as some sort of base characterist increase, it calls out what it is).

So there must be an order, correct?

A rule exists for this order of operations, it's called "Sequencing". Are you intending to use a different rule?

I like this question because I think it supports my position.

The change to strength from a thunderwolf happens during list building. The modifiers to Strength happen during the assault phase when you pick which weapon you attack with. So my wolf lord with a thunderwolf mount, frost sword, and power fist would have to choose either a +1 modifer to his Strength of 5 or a x2 modifier to his strength of 5. He can't choose not to be S5, but he can choose between the two modifiers to that Strength.

You'll need to prove that the order in which a model gains the bonuses applies.

Rules such as Multiple Modifers and sequencing show that's the order in which a model gains bonuses (list building, then later in combat) actually have no bearing. So what rule are you using to apply an order?

For example furious charge and a powerfist.
You gain Furious Charge before you choose to swing with the Powerfist. That's the order they are gained. Yet the order they are applied is the other way around.

Now I know you're claiming this doesn't use the Multiple Modifiers rule. Fair enough. But what rule are you using to apply the order of your bonuses? Chronological order is consistently not used thought the rules.

I use the order given in the "multiple modifiers" section for any modifiers to strength. I would argue that the bonus from furious charge and the bonus from the powerfist both happen in the assault phase and so they both follow the rules for multiple modifiers. The assault phase happens after deployment. Deployment happens after I've purchased wargear for my wolf lord.

I'm also saying that the change to strength from thunderwolf mount happens when I purchase the thunderwolf mount and that it is a change to his stats, not an additive +1. The wording in the rules for the thunderwolf mount are where I'm getting the difference, and why I'm saying it's not a modifier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
Man... I really feel sorry for non-SW players... they don't seem to know how to address opposing points in a debate and instead fall back on repeating themselves or changing the subject.

You are in the position of having to find rules to support resolving at s10. I am not in the position of having to find rules. The rules support s9. If I am repeating myself, it's because you have no RAW argument. And that point will be repeated until you provide rules.

I'm not in a position of having to do anything. I've already said many, many times that everyone at my FLGS already plays it as S10. I've also explained that the tournament I'm attending this February plays it as S10.

And on a side note you could take some notes from Grendel 083. No offense, but unlike you, he actually does a pretty good job of finding rules to support his arguments.

Good for you. You will be able to play s10 per a house rule by your FLGS. And that is 100% fine by me.

We aren't debating house rules here, though. We are debating RAW. If you want to participate in a debate about RAW you need to justify what you do with rules.

you're not actually debating anything. You're ignoring everything that I say and then repeating yourself. Please just look at the delightful conversation that Grendel083 and I are having for an example of how to listen to the other person in a conversation. It's refreshing and his comments actually provide some challenge to my position

NightHowler wrote:


I use the order given in the "multiple modifiers" section for any modifiers to strength. I would argue that the bonus from furious charge and the bonus from the powerfist both happen in the assault phase and so they both follow the rules for multiple modifiers. The assault phase happens after deployment. Deployment happens after I've purchased wargear for my wolf lord.

I'm also saying that the change to strength from thunderwolf mount happens when I purchase the thunderwolf mount and that it is a change to his stats, not an additive +1. The wording in the rules for the thunderwolf mount are where I'm getting the difference, and why I'm saying it's not a modifier.

This is a procedure that you are making up. It all hinges on things 'you are saying' and not what 'the rules are saying'. You have no rules basis for following this procedure. Feel free to prove otherwise and find rules that back this procedure you have made up.

These are the rules I follow to resolve at s9.

NightHowler wrote:
I use the order given in the "multiple modifiers" section for any modifiers to strength. I would argue that the bonus from furious charge and the bonus from the powerfist both happen in the assault phase and so they both follow the rules for multiple modifiers. The assault phase happens after deployment. Deployment happens after I've purchased wargear for my wolf lord.

Hammerhand cast on a unit with a Thunderhammer? A common appearance in GK armies. The Str bonus from the power isn't in the same phase, possibly also not the same turn.

Would these modifiers then be applied in order rather than using the Multiple Modifiers rule?

 grendel083 wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I use the order given in the "multiple modifiers" section for any modifiers to strength. I would argue that the bonus from furious charge and the bonus from the powerfist both happen in the assault phase and so they both follow the rules for multiple modifiers. The assault phase happens after deployment. Deployment happens after I've purchased wargear for my wolf lord.

Hammerhand cast on a unit with a Thunderhammer? A common appearance in GK armies. The Str bonus from the power isn't in the same phase, possibly also not the same turn.

Would these modifiers then be applied in order rather than using the Multiple Modifiers rule?

These are all examples of modifiers and so follow the multiple modifiers rule.

I'm saying that the change to the characteristics from a thunderwolf mount is not a "modifier" in the sense used in the multiple modifiers rule. I'm saying that the clue to this difference is in the wording. It says that when you upgrade to a thunderwolf mount you increase the strength, toughness, attacks, and wounds characteristics by 1. It does not say that when you purchase a thunderwolf mount you get a +1 to strength in close combat. It does not present a weapon profile with +1S listed. It says that you increase strength, toughness, attacks, and wounds by 1 when you upgrade to a thunderwolf mount (stress added to help with sequencing).

NightHowler wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I use the order given in the "multiple modifiers" section for any modifiers to strength. I would argue that the bonus from furious charge and the bonus from the powerfist both happen in the assault phase and so they both follow the rules for multiple modifiers. The assault phase happens after deployment. Deployment happens after I've purchased wargear for my wolf lord.

Hammerhand cast on a unit with a Thunderhammer? A common appearance in GK armies. The Str bonus from the power isn't in the same phase, possibly also not the same turn.

Would these modifiers then be applied in order rather than using the Multiple Modifiers rule?

These are all examples of modifiers and so follow the multiple modifiers rule.

I'm saying that the change to the characteristics from a thunderwolf mount is not a "modifier" in the sense used in the multiple modifiers rule. I'm saying that the clue to this difference is in the wording. It says that when you upgrade to a thunderwolf mount you increase the strength, toughness, attacks, and wounds characteristics by 1. It does not say that when you purchase a thunderwolf mount you get a +1 to strength in close combat. It does not present a weapon profile with +1S listed. It says that you increase strength, toughness, attacks, and wounds by 1 when you upgrade to a thunderwolf mount (stress added to help with sequencing).

1) If it's not a "modifier" then what is it? Find in the rules where we have some other definition we can apply to it. Otherwise you are making up your own definition here. The rules are not providing you any way to treat it, except as a modifier. We are not permitted to make up our own definitions and then apply them. Doing so is house ruling and not RAW.

2) Increase strength by 1 is longhand for +1 Strength. Longhand is expressly permitted by the Multiple Modifiers rule. Double is longhand for x2. Increase strength by 1 is longhand for +1 Strength. There are no problems with applying the Multiple Modifiers rule.

The strength increase of the TWC mount is also a modifier.

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.)..." Models and Units chapter, Modifiers section).

The Thunderwolf is a piece of wargear that modifies a model’s characteristics positively by adding to it.

An increase is an addition. a decrease is a subtraction. (As per standard English definitions which we must use here because the BRB does not define increase).