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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
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).

Thanks for the quote. That helps. It specifically says "adding to it" and specifically uses +1 to describe what a "modifier" is for the purposes of the "multiple modifiers" rule. The thunderwolf mount does not use this language to describe what happens when you upgrade to a thunderwolf mount. Instead, it uses the language "increases the model's toughness by 1". It avoids using +1 and in doing so, sets it apart from the wargear being described in the rule.

Just because two words have the same meaning in the English language does NOT imply that they are necessarily used the same in 40k. I've already provided an example of this above. So please do not try to use the fact that "it's shorthand" to prove your point, because this is not about whether or not the two words mean the same thing. The fact is that there are two different phrases used and it sets them apart.

NightHowler wrote:
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.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. The point being, if you look at similar rules, you'll see the rules don't care the time order in which a unit gains these bonuses.

For example Hammerhand and a Thunderhammer. The Thunderhammer will be applied before the Spell even though it could have been cast last turn. The time order doesn't matter. Last turn, same phase, list building, deployment. It's recalculated from scratch every time it changes.

So if your bonus falls outside of a modifier, you'll have 2 changes to apply to the Str stat (your bonus, and the x2 Str bonus), and you'll need to justify the order in which you're applying these bonuses. The Sequencing rule would cover this (I'm assuming you really don't want to use this one?), or is there an alternative?

 grendel083 wrote:
Yes, I understand what you're saying. The point being, if you look at similar rules, you'll see the rules don't care the time order in which a unit gains these bonuses.

For example Hammerhand and a Thunderhammer. The Thunderhammer will be applied before the Spell even though it could have been cast last turn. The time order doesn't matter. Last turn, same phase, list building, deployment. It's recalculated from scratch every time it changes.

So if your bonus falls outside of a modifier, you'll have 2 changes to apply to the Str stat (your bonus, and the x2 Str bonus), and you'll need to justify the order in which you're applying these bonuses. The Sequencing rule would cover this (I'm assuming you really don't want to use this one?), or is there an alternative?

Right. I only mentioned sequencing because you had asked me when I thought the change to toughness happens.

It's not that I don't want to use the sequencing rule. I'm saying that since the sequencing rule is part of the multiple modifiers rule and that I the change to toughness from the thunderwolf isn't a modifier as defined in that rule (specifically a +1 bonus added to a characteristic), then naturally sequencing wouldn't apply to this change. Like adding a jetpack changes a model when you purchase it allowing you to put it into depstrike reserves during deployment, purchasing a thunderwolf mount changes the model making it T5 rather than saying it's T4+1.

This is the distinction that sets the mount apart from wargear and spells that add to a stat with the +1S bonus.

NightHowler wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
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).

Thanks for the quote. That helps. It specifically says "adding to it" and specifically uses +1 to describe what a "modifier" is for the purposes of the "multiple modifiers" rule. The thunderwolf mount does not use this language to describe what happens when you upgrade to a thunderwolf mount. Instead, it uses the language "increases the model's toughness by 1". It avoids using +1 and in doing so, sets it apart from the wargear being described in the rule.

Just because two words have the same meaning in the English language does NOT imply that they are necessarily used the same in 40k. I've already provided an example of this above. So please do not try to use the fact that "it's shorthand" to prove your point, because this is not about whether or not the two words mean the same thing. The fact is that there are two different phrases used and it sets them apart.

Your argument is breaking down to just an obtuse one. Longhand is expressly permitted by the Multiple Modifiers rule. There is absolutely no problem resolving the Multiple Modifiers rule with modifiers expressed in longhand.

NightHowler wrote:
I'm saying that since the sequencing rule is part of the multiple modifiers rule and that I the change to toughness from the thunderwolf isn't a modifier as defined in that rule (specifically a +1 bonus added to a characteristic), then naturally sequencing wouldn't apply to this change.

I'm referring to the Sequencing rule, it's not tied to multiple modifiers. It's for any situation where you have 2 simultaneous actions that need an order.

It's a seperate rule, it's not part of multiple Modifers. I would give a page number, but I only have the iPad version, so number won't help much.

 grendel083 wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I'm saying that since the sequencing rule is part of the multiple modifiers rule and that I the change to toughness from the thunderwolf isn't a modifier as defined in that rule (specifically a +1 bonus added to a characteristic), then naturally sequencing wouldn't apply to this change.

I'm referring to the Sequencing rule, it's not tied to multiple modifiers. It's for any situation where you have 2 simultaneous actions that need an order.

It's a seperate rule, it's not part of multiple Modifers. I would give a page number, but I only have the iPad version, so number won't help much.

I think my point was overlooked:
A Rule informing us to test against the unmodified value, with 'increase by 1' being a non-modifier, could be testing against a value different then that found on the profile.
The reverse is also true, a Rule granting us permission to test against the modified value would be forced to ignore the 'increase by 1' if it is not a modification.

So, logically, how is it possible to have an "unmodified" Value that is lower then the "modified" value after applying a Rule which increased the value?

NightHowler wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
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).

Thanks for the quote. That helps. It specifically says "adding to it" and specifically uses +1 to describe what a "modifier" is for the purposes of the "multiple modifiers" rule. The thunderwolf mount does not use this language to describe what happens when you upgrade to a thunderwolf mount. Instead, it uses the language "increases the model's toughness by 1". It avoids using +1 and in doing so, sets it apart from the wargear being described in the rule.

Just because two words have the same meaning in the English language does NOT imply that they are necessarily used the same in 40k. I've already provided an example of this above. So please do not try to use the fact that "it's shorthand" to prove your point, because this is not about whether or not the two words mean the same thing. The fact is that there are two different phrases used and it sets them apart.

Except your argument falls short.

+1 and increase by 1 are saying the exact same thing.

JinxDragon - Hammer of Wrath would be a relevant example, has it uses Unmodified Str and it's something Cavalry have?

Col_impact - thanks for supplying the rule.

 grendel083 wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I'm saying that since the sequencing rule is part of the multiple modifiers rule and that I the change to toughness from the thunderwolf isn't a modifier as defined in that rule (specifically a +1 bonus added to a characteristic), then naturally sequencing wouldn't apply to this change.

I'm referring to the Sequencing rule, it's not tied to multiple modifiers. It's for any situation where you have 2 simultaneous actions that need an order.

It's a seperate rule, it's not part of multiple Modifers. I would give a page number, but I only have the iPad version, so number won't help much.

I see what you're saying.

I would say that the bonuses from modifiers are calculated whenever they are used (ie: the assault phase). If anyone can find a rule that says otherwise it may shed some light on this.

We know that the change to the profile from purchasing a thunderwolf mount happens when you purchase the wargear as the rule specifically says that this is when it happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:
JinxDragon - Hammer of Wrath would be a relevant example, has it uses Unmodified Str and it's something Cavalry have?

Col_impact - thanks for supplying the rule.

Actually cavalry do have it. And most people play it as a S5 hammer of wrath since the TWC profile is an unmodified S5.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's funny, because when I started posting in this thread it was just to say that I don't think we can tell from the rules whether it's S10 or S9, but the more we talk about it, the more I'm convinced that it's S10.

NightHowler wrote:
Actually cavalry do have it. And most people play it as a S5 hammer of wrath since the TWC profile is an unmodified S5.

Thats understandable, most people don't look beyond the profile. Doesn't mean it's correct.

It's funny, because when I started posting in this thread it was just to say that I don't think we can tell from the rules whether it's S10 or S9, but the more we talk about it, the more I'm convinced that it's S10.

When I started I was convinced it was S10, now I'm seeing it as S9.

A change to a stat that isn't a modifier, just doesn't fit for me. There isn't enough rules to back this up.

I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule. It isn't a +1 S, it's a change to the profile that happens before the game even begins, when the thunderwolf is purchased.

They used to call it a change to the "base stat", and the old FAQ had to explain that the +1 to strength was a change to the base stat to explain why it was 10. It seems that they dropped the FAQ since changing the wording of the rule to say "increase strength by 1" instead of "a thunderwolf mount gives the user +1 strength" which is what it used to say. Probably the change was to prevent confusion, but it has only made more confusion.

So when Hammer of Wrath says "Unmodified Strength", do you think it should be S4 or S5?

Would it only cover multiple-modifiers or all modifiers?

 grendel083 wrote:
So when Hammer of Wrath says "Unmodified Strength", do you think it should be S4 or S5?

Would it only cover multiple-modifiers or all modifiers?

I think it's S5. The Hammer of Wrath rule says to use the models' unmodified strength. Since the increase in strength isn't a modifier so much as a change to the profile, you would use the new profile of S5.

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule. It isn't a +1 S, it's a change to the profile that happens before the game even begins, when the thunderwolf is purchased.

They used to call it a change to the "base stat", and the old FAQ had to explain that the +1 to strength was a change to the base stat to explain why it was 10. It seems that they dropped the FAQ since changing the wording of the rule to say "increase strength by 1" instead of "a thunderwolf mount gives the user +1 strength" which is what it used to say. Probably the change was to prevent confusion, but it has only made more confusion.

If the rules still said that it was a change to the base stat then it would resolve at s10. However, the rules no longer say that, so it resolves per the rules as s9. Your recourse is house rule or wait for the FAQ.

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule. It isn't a +1 S, it's a change to the profile that happens before the game even begins, when the thunderwolf is purchased.

They used to call it a change to the "base stat", and the old FAQ had to explain that the +1 to strength was a change to the base stat to explain why it was 10. It seems that they dropped the FAQ since changing the wording of the rule to say "increase strength by 1" instead of "a thunderwolf mount gives the user +1 strength" which is what it used to say. Probably the change was to prevent confusion, but it has only made more confusion.

If the rules still said that it was a change to the base stat then it would resolve at s10. However, the rules no longer say that, so it resolves per the rules as s9. Your recourse is house rule or wait for the FAQ.

If you had paid attention you would have seen that I am claiming they did away with the phrase "change to a base stat" because they changed the wording of the rule from +1 to increase by one. Please try to read what is said closely to prevent these kinds of mistakes.

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule.

NightHowler wrote:
Since the increase in strength isn't a modifier so much as a change to the profile.

Bit of a contradiction between two posts.

Can you see why I'm finding your theory difficult to accept? It's a modifier, but not one of "those" modifiers, then it's not a modifier at all?

 grendel083 wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule.

NightHowler wrote:
Since the increase in strength isn't a modifier so much as a change to the profile.

Bit of a contradiction between two posts.

Can you see why I'm finding your theory difficult to accept? It's a modifier, but not one of "those" modifiers, then it's not a modifier at all?

Yes, I certainly see why it's confusing, but I'm not contradicting myself. "I'm not saying it isn't a modifier" means that it isn't one of the "modifiers" listed in that rule, but clearly the word modification means to change something and the thunderwolf mount changes the statline of a character who takes it.

I understand why you would be unconvinced.

It really hangs on whether or not you think a piece of wargear has to say +1 to a stat or double a stat to fall under the multiple modifiers rule. I say it does. colon_impact says it doesn't.

So why would "unmodified" apply to only modifiers listed in Multiple-Modifiers and not all modifications?
As you say, it's been changed or modified.

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule. It isn't a +1 S, it's a change to the profile that happens before the game even begins, when the thunderwolf is purchased.

They used to call it a change to the "base stat", and the old FAQ had to explain that the +1 to strength was a change to the base stat to explain why it was 10. It seems that they dropped the FAQ since changing the wording of the rule to say "increase strength by 1" instead of "a thunderwolf mount gives the user +1 strength" which is what it used to say. Probably the change was to prevent confusion, but it has only made more confusion.

If the rules still said that it was a change to the base stat then it would resolve at s10. However, the rules no longer say that, so it resolves per the rules as s9. Your recourse is house rule or wait for the FAQ.

If you had paid attention you would have seen that I am claiming they did away with the phrase "change to a base stat" because they changed the wording of the rule from +1 to increase by one. Please try to read what is said closely to prevent these kinds of mistakes.

There is no mistake in what I wrote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NightHowler wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule.

NightHowler wrote:
Since the increase in strength isn't a modifier so much as a change to the profile.

Bit of a contradiction between two posts.

Can you see why I'm finding your theory difficult to accept? It's a modifier, but not one of "those" modifiers, then it's not a modifier at all?

Yes, I certainly see why it's confusing, but I'm not contradicting myself. "I'm not saying it isn't a modifier" means that it isn't one of the "modifiers" listed in that rule, but clearly the word modification means to change something and the thunderwolf mount changes the statline of a character who takes it.

I understand why you would be unconvinced.

It really hangs on whether or not you think a piece of wargear has to say +1 to a stat or double a stat to fall under the multiple modifiers rule. I say it does. colon_impact says it doesn't.

The rules support what I am saying. The rules don't support what you are saying.

 grendel083 wrote:
So why would "unmodified" apply to only modifiers listed in Multiple-Modifiers and not all modifications?
As you say, it's been changed or modified.

What I've been trying to say without coming out and saying it, is that the phrase "increase strength by 1" is the new way of saying "+1 to base strength". I've been trying to show that the dropping of the FAQ coincided with a change in the way that the rule was worded because by saying you increase the strength by 1 you say that you are changing the profile, while saying x piece of wargear gives +1 to strength shows that it you are modifying a profile.

Unfortunately we'll have to wait for the FAQ to know for sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule. It isn't a +1 S, it's a change to the profile that happens before the game even begins, when the thunderwolf is purchased.

They used to call it a change to the "base stat", and the old FAQ had to explain that the +1 to strength was a change to the base stat to explain why it was 10. It seems that they dropped the FAQ since changing the wording of the rule to say "increase strength by 1" instead of "a thunderwolf mount gives the user +1 strength" which is what it used to say. Probably the change was to prevent confusion, but it has only made more confusion.

If the rules still said that it was a change to the base stat then it would resolve at s10. However, the rules no longer say that, so it resolves per the rules as s9. Your recourse is house rule or wait for the FAQ.

If you had paid attention you would have seen that I am claiming they did away with the phrase "change to a base stat" because they changed the wording of the rule from +1 to increase by one. Please try to read what is said closely to prevent these kinds of mistakes.

There is no mistake in what I wrote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NightHowler wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
I'm not saying that it isn't a modifier. Only that it isn't one of the "modifiers" as defined in the "multiple modifiers" rule.

NightHowler wrote:
Since the increase in strength isn't a modifier so much as a change to the profile.

Bit of a contradiction between two posts.

Can you see why I'm finding your theory difficult to accept? It's a modifier, but not one of "those" modifiers, then it's not a modifier at all?

Yes, I certainly see why it's confusing, but I'm not contradicting myself. "I'm not saying it isn't a modifier" means that it isn't one of the "modifiers" listed in that rule, but clearly the word modification means to change something and the thunderwolf mount changes the statline of a character who takes it.

I understand why you would be unconvinced.

It really hangs on whether or not you think a piece of wargear has to say +1 to a stat or double a stat to fall under the multiple modifiers rule. I say it does. colon_impact says it doesn't.

The rules support what I am saying. The rules don't support what you are saying.

Good lord man, can you shut it for like 2 seconds and let the mature people in the room discuss this? I've never been this annoyed by anyone on the internet before.

"increase strength by 1" does not say "+1 to base strength". You will have to wait for a FAQ to resolve it as s10 without a house rule. If GW intent was to resolve at s10 then they obviously messed it up, since the rules no longer resolve at s10.

Per RAW, it resolves as s9.

col_impact wrote:
"increase strength by 1" does not say "+1 to base strength". You will have to wait for a FAQ to resolve it as s10 without a house rule. If GW intent was to resolve at s10 then they obviously messed it up, since the rules no longer resolve at s10.

Per RAW, it resolves as s9.

I understand you persistence perfectly now. I also understand why all you do is repeat yourself. You're trolling for a rise.

Have fun with that, but I'll be ignoring you from now on.

It is an interesting theory, but Col_impact is correct:
Without a quote from the Rule book which specifically states that 'increase by 1' changes the unmodified / base value, how do we prove that it has changed the Base Value?

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:
"increase strength by 1" does not say "+1 to base strength". You will have to wait for a FAQ to resolve it as s10 without a house rule. If GW intent was to resolve at s10 then they obviously messed it up, since the rules no longer resolve at s10.

Per RAW, it resolves as s9.

I understand you persistence perfectly now. I also understand why all you do is repeat yourself. You're trolling for a rise.

Have fun with that, but I'll be ignoring you from now on.

Feel free to ignore me. Since "increase strength by 1" does not say "increase base strength by 1", it sums up perfectly the fatal flaw in your argument. You should consider ignoring this thread until you have something substantive to contribute, per YMDC thread rules (ie support what you say with rules)

NightHowler wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
So why would "unmodified" apply to only modifiers listed in Multiple-Modifiers and not all modifications?
As you say, it's been changed or modified.

What I've been trying to say without coming out and saying it, is that the phrase "increase strength by 1" is the new way of saying "+1 to base strength". I've been trying to show that the dropping of the FAQ coincided with a change in the way that the rule was worded because by saying you increase the strength by 1 you say that you are changing the profile, while saying x piece of wargear gives +1 to strength shows that it you are modifying a profile.

I understand what you're saying.

A "modifier" to the profile versus a "change" to the profile. One affected by the rules of modifiers and multiple-modifiers, the other not.

Problem being, one is well defined, the other isn't. If it exists, the only evidence is one phrase slightly different from a standard modifier but meaning the same thing.

The reference to "base-stat" used in previous editions was clear. Why would they change this to a different system, yet neglect to mention or make note of it? Something a little clearer? The whole Basic Princliples section of the rulebook was streamlined in this edition to have less exceptions to the "core" rules (For example, Hammerhand used its own rules for modifiers rather than Multiple Modifiers in previous editions). Yet if you're right that there is a difference, this is such a stealth change that practically no one recognises it as anyting different from the well-established rules.

Writing things out long hand is nothing new, whole weapons have had a longhand profile in the past rather than the standard profile. If you want to convince anyone this is other than simply a long-hand modifier, you'll need more rules support.

JinxDragon wrote:
It is an interesting theory, but Col_impact is correct:
Without a quote from the Rule book which specifically states that 'increase by 1' changes the unmodified / base value, how do we prove that it has changed the Base Value?

I'm saying that there is no more "base value" for anything anymore. It's not in the book. By getting rid of that mechanic, they had to get rid of the old FAQ because the phrase "base value" is no longer being used.

How are they supposed to say that something increases the base value when they don't use the concept of a base value anymore? They say that it increases the characteristic of the profile, and they chose +1 to a value to describe changes which they call "modifiers" and the phrase "increase by 1" to describe changes to the profile.

The wording of modifiers states that some wargear adds to a characteristic (+1, +2, etc). I argue that increasing a stat is different than adding to a stat. In the rules for the thunderwolf mount there is no +1 to anything. There is no adding to a stat. It instructs us to increase the strength by 1. Why would they word it differently? Why not simply say +1 strength, +1 toughness? I argue that it is because the rule for thunderwolf mounts is not designed to be affected by the multiple modifiers rule.

NightHowler wrote:
How are they supposed to say that something increases the base value when they don't use the concept of a base value anymore?

But you're proposing the same thing as base value.
That they haven't gotten rid of it, just removed it's name and all reference to it, and it's still there.

Personally I think they have gotten rid of base value. Completely. There is no system of increasing base values, just go with the one mechanic of modifiers. It certainly makes things easier. They've already removed it from Instant Death, and things like bikes (remember 4(5)?).

What support is there that this is the new incarnation of increasing Base Stats, and not just longhand?

 grendel083 wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
How are they supposed to say that something increases the base value when they don't use the concept of a base value anymore?

But you're proposing the same thing as base value.
That they haven't gotten rid of it, just removed it's name and all reference to it, and it's still there.

Personally I think they have gotten rid of base value. Completely. There is no system of increasing base values, just go with the one mechanic of modifiers. It certainly makes things easier. They've already removed it from Instant Death, and things like bikes (remember 4(5)?).

What support is there that this is the new incarnation of increasing Base Stats, and not just longhand?

Only the difference in wording found in the thunderwolf mount entry.

NightHowler wrote:
Only the difference in wording found in the thunderwolf mount entry.

It's also found in the "Iron Steed" rule for bikes in the rulebook. Same terminology.

I'm all up for exploring new ideas, but I feel more support is needed for this one. A different way of writing things is all there is, no explanation as to what that difference means.

Who knows, an FAQ may change it all.