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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The TW is S4+1, as you are told that the bonus has already been included. It has already been modified, so you absolutely *can* derive their original, unmodified S and T (and W...) if you are required to do so. You are required to do so when hitting with powerfists, when called to make a S test on unmodified strength, etc.

You cannot honestly say that they are "unmodified" S5; we KNOW they are not as we have been told their profile was modified. We know how it has been modified, exactly, so we can, and therefore MUST, derive the unmodified value if called upon to do so.

Absolute RAW, both TWC and TWM lords are S9 with powerfists.

Show me a thunderwolf profile that says S4+1 and I will agree with you.

Show me the part of the "multiple modifiers" rule that says that, instead of using the profile, we try to calculate what the profile would be before all the included wargear, and then go back and include that wargear as a modifier. If you can do that I will agree with you.

Until you do that, the "profile" being "modified" is S5, and the modifier is x2. From there it's simple math: 5x2=10.

Only the Wolf Lord starts with a profile of S4. So only the Wolf Lord is S9.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The TW is S4+1, as you are told that the bonus has already been included. It has already been modified, so you absolutely *can* derive their original, unmodified S and T (and W...) if you are required to do so. You are required to do so when hitting with powerfists, when called to make a S test on unmodified strength, etc.

You cannot honestly say that they are "unmodified" S5; we KNOW they are not as we have been told their profile was modified. We know how it has been modified, exactly, so we can, and therefore MUST, derive the unmodified value if called upon to do so.

Absolute RAW, both TWC and TWM lords are S9 with powerfists.

And as long as the same "derived" profile can be taken from any Bike Units, having Marine bikers at T4 and Eldar at T3, i agree with your statement.

(Although the SM codex shows "T5" and Eldar codex has a printed "T4")

The wargear stating it has been increased by 1. meaning before wargear (which gives modifiers to stats sometimes) the profile was 4.

so the profile listed, of 5 which includes the +1 is 4+1.

Otherwise how do you get to 5 from an increase of 1 that is included in the 5 already?

Multiple Modifiers page 8
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic...

Characteristic Profiles page 9
Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values for it's characteristics...

The characteristic listed for Thunderwolf Cavalry is WS4, BS4, S5, T5, W2, A4...

It seems fairly cut and dried that we DO NOT try to calculate what the characteristics were before wargear that's included in the profile were added.

It's only wargear that is not already included in a characteristic that is considered a "modifier".

Any accusations that it is otherwise will require rules to be listed.

NightHowler wrote:
Multiple Modifiers
It's only wargear that is not already included in a characteristic that is considered a "modifier".

This is something that you are making up. It's not in the rules. We are not permitted to make up our own rules.



This is the rule that requires me to factor in TWC wargear. RAW is clear, unambiguous, and straightforward.

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
Multiple Modifiers
It's only wargear that is not already included in a characteristic that is considered a "modifier".

This is something that you are making up. It's not in the rules. We are not permitted to make up our own rules.

Spoiler:

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

This is the rule that requires me to factor in TWC wargear. RAW is clear, unambiguous, and straightforward.

I'm really starting to think that you intentionally avoid reading what other people write and just start typing away.

Please read my post. Slowly. I think you'll see why your post looks a little ridiculous if you do.

If it's too long for you, I can summarize: the rule you quoted says that wargear modifies a characteristic. This means that if something is already included in the characteristic, it is part of what's getting modified - not a modifier. Look at it closely and you'll see what I'm saying. Unless there was some head injury you haven't told me about. In which case I would apologize, because serious head injuries are nothing to laugh about.

NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

NightHowler wrote:
Multiple Modifiers
It's only wargear that is not already included in a characteristic that is considered a "modifier".

This is something that you are making up. It's not in the rules. We are not permitted to make up our own rules.

Spoiler:

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

This is the rule that requires me to factor in TWC wargear. RAW is clear, unambiguous, and straightforward.

I'm really starting to think that you intentionally avoid reading what other people write and just start typing away.

Please read my post. Slowly. I think you'll see why your post looks a little ridiculous if you do.

If it's too long for you, I can summarize: the rule you quoted says that wargear modifies a characteristic. This means that if something is already included in the characteristic, it is part of what's getting modified - not a modifier. Look at it closely and you'll see what I'm saying. Unless there was some head injury you haven't told me about. In which case I would apologize, because serious head injuries are nothing to laugh about.

In order to resolve at s10 you are making up distinctions and acting on distinctions that are not in the rules. I am pointing out where you are making up your own distinctions. That is not permitted unless you want to admit to house ruling.
If you follow the rules as they are written then you resolve at s9.

The concept that the profile's Value is "unmodified" would be accurate if it wasn't for this line:
(these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear).

Why would they include instructions telling us that the profile has already been modified if they intended for it to be the 'unmodified value?'

JinxDragon wrote:
The concept that the profile's Value is "unmodified" would be accurate if it wasn't for this line:
(these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear).

Thanks dude. I think I said that earlier, but col_impact never reads what I write. It makes discussing this with him very frustrating.

So clearly, since the wargear is already included in the profile, and the characteristics come from the profile, and the multiple modifiers rule applies to wargear that modifies the characteristic, the characteristic being modified on a thunderwolf cavalry model is a S5, and the modifier is a x2.

Nighthowler,
It is unprofessional for me to say it, but I have to simply wonder:
How does logic twist so much in your head?

You just tried to state that a Rule informing us that the listed profile has already been altered to include the bonuses means that the listed profile is unmodified....

JinxDragon wrote:
Nighthowler,
It is unprofessional for me to say it, but I have to simply wonder:
How does logic twist so much in your head?

You just tried to state that a Rule informing us that the listed profile has already been altered to include the bonuses means that the listed profile is unmodified....

I'm not the one twisting logic.

I'm taking the rules as simple as possible.

The multiple modifiers rule says that some wargear modifies a characteristic.

When I look at the thunderwolf cavalry entry, the characteristic listed is S5.

Its the S9ers who are adding an extra step saying that that's not the REAL characteristic, and then adding extra steps saying that we have to go back and recalculate what that characteristic might have been if there were no thunderwolf mount listed in the wargear, and then start all over again, with the multiple modifiers rule.

The phrase "already included in the profile" tells me that its already part of the profile before we start looking at wargear that might modify it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Multiple Modifiers page 8
If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic...

Characteristic Profiles page 9
Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values for it's characteristics...

The characteristic listed for Thunderwolf Cavalry is WS4, BS4, S5, T5, W2, A4...

It seems fairly cut and dried that we DO NOT try to calculate what the characteristics were before wargear that's included in the profile were added.

It's only wargear that is not already included in a characteristic that is considered a "modifier".

When I look at the thunderwolf cavalry entry, the characteristic listed is S5.

and then I look at the wargear and see that there is a modifier, of +1

So the characteristic is 5, but the unmodified characteristic is 4, since there is an increase

Night - firstly, reported. Head injury jabs about col, really?

Secondly - you are told,clearly, that the statline you see has been modified. It must be - the profile already has the modifier included.

If the modifier is already included, the char must have been modified. This is a farily simple, impossible to argue against in good faith, statement. Please indicate if you disagree.

If it has been modified, then you must follow the multiple modifiers, and multiply first THEN add in the +1. if you do not do this, you have broken a rule.

So, again; do you treat "increase by 1" as equivalent to "add 1" or "+1"? If no, please explain how you then perform the operation on a TWC Lord.

Hopefully you agree they are equivalent, in which case we CAN and MUST derive the unmodified value. We know the unmodified value is 4. We know we multiply, then add. Therefore, again RAW, we get to S9.

If you disagree, cite an actual rule that supports your argument this time, as so far its done the opposte.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Night - firstly, reported. Head injury jabs about col, really?

Secondly - you are told,clearly, that the statline you see has been modified. It must be - the profile already has the modifier included.

If the modifier is already included, the char must have been modified. This is a farily simple, impossible to argue against in good faith, statement. Please indicate if you disagree.

If it has been modified, then you must follow the multiple modifiers, and multiply first THEN add in the +1. if you do not do this, you have broken a rule.

So, again; do you treat "increase by 1" as equivalent to "add 1" or "+1"? If no, please explain how you then perform the operation on a TWC Lord.

Hopefully you agree they are equivalent, in which case we CAN and MUST derive the unmodified value. We know the unmodified value is 4. We know we multiply, then add. Therefore, again RAW, we get to S9.

If you disagree, cite an actual rule that supports your argument this time, as so far its done the opposte.

I have cited rules. I fail to see the S9ers posting any rules that disagree with what I'm saying.

Instead, what the S9ers say is that I have to add an extra step. Go back to a time before the wargear was included in the profile, take it out, calculate a new characteristic, then add it back in using the multiple modifiers rule.

That's not what the rule says to do. It says that the characteristic is found in the profile (not calculated somehow by taking off wargear that was already included). When I look at the profile it says S5.

Hoping and wishing that it was S4 so that TWC wouldn't be so scary to you is not how the game works.

1) so now you are insinuating bias in players, because they disagree with - and have rules proving their assertions - your stance? Another fallacy, please refrain from doing this.

2) You have cited rules. Just none that support your position that a piece of wargear whcih states it has modified the profile somehow hasnt modified the profile

3) you failed to, at all, address my argument, or answer the queries put to you. I will make a negative inference that answering would have further undermined your stance.

So I'll try again: when told the modifier is already included, does that mean a) the profile is unmodified or b) the profile is modified? Answer a) or b) please.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) so now you are insinuating bias in players, because they disagree with - and have rules proving their assertions - your stance? Another fallacy, please refrain from doing this.

2) You have cited rules. Just none that support your position that a piece of wargear whcih states it has modified the profile somehow hasnt modified the profile

3) you failed to, at all, address my argument, or answer the queries put to you. I will make a negative inference that answering would have further undermined your stance.

So I'll try again: when told the modifier is already included, does that mean a) the profile is unmodified or b) the profile is modified? Answer a) or b) please.

1) I'm using words playfully. From now I'll try to talk like a robot to make you happier.

2) I have cited rules and they clearly support my position. The only way that they do not is if you add extra steps.

3) I didn't answer your question because I'm addressing the questions of 3 or 4 people at once. I am truly sorry if this offended you.

4) To answer your question, the wargear that is already included in the profile does not fall under the "multiple modifiers" rule because the "multiple modifiers" rule says that some wargear modifies a characteristic. Where do you get that characteristic? I get it from the profile. The S9ers get it from some new rule they made up that says the real profile is the profile minus any wargear that was already included in the profile.

edited to add: I'm not told that any "modifiers are added". I'm told that the bonuses are already included in their profile.

NightHowler wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Night - firstly, reported. Head injury jabs about col, really?

Secondly - you are told,clearly, that the statline you see has been modified. It must be - the profile already has the modifier included.

If the modifier is already included, the char must have been modified. This is a farily simple, impossible to argue against in good faith, statement. Please indicate if you disagree.

If it has been modified, then you must follow the multiple modifiers, and multiply first THEN add in the +1. if you do not do this, you have broken a rule.

So, again; do you treat "increase by 1" as equivalent to "add 1" or "+1"? If no, please explain how you then perform the operation on a TWC Lord.

Hopefully you agree they are equivalent, in which case we CAN and MUST derive the unmodified value. We know the unmodified value is 4. We know we multiply, then add. Therefore, again RAW, we get to S9.

If you disagree, cite an actual rule that supports your argument this time, as so far its done the opposte.

I have cited rules. I fail to see the S9ers posting any rules that disagree with what I'm saying.

Instead, what the S9ers say is that I have to add an extra step. Go back to a time before the wargear was included in the profile, take it out, calculate a new characteristic, then add it back in using the multiple modifiers rule.

That's not what the rule says to do. It says that the characteristic is found in the profile (not calculated somehow by taking off wargear that was already included). When I look at the profile it says S5.

Hoping and wishing that it was S4 so that TWC wouldn't be so scary to you is not how the game works.

Hoping and wishing you can not follow the normal rules for modifiers to make a unit s10 so you can be more scary is not how the game works.

All of you are repeating the same arguments over and over, of which rules have been cited for and support S4 for Wolf Lord and Thunderwolf Cavalry - but that's irrelevant since most tournaments and most players use HYWPI and allow models on Thunderwolfs being S10 w/ Power Fist and S5 without for Hammer of Wrath purposes.

As I said in my post on page four, agree with your opponent over whether it's going to be played as strictest RAW and S4+1 and S9 w/PF or HYWPI and S5 and S10 w PF. Even if you do play RAW and S9, SW have got lots of options to add Furious Charge to ensure the S10.

This question has been asked before and like those other threads, seriously needs locking before you all start to resort to name-calling.

 Frozocrone wrote:
All of you are repeating the same arguments over and over, of which rules have been cited for and support S4 for Wolf Lord and Thunderwolf Cavalry - but that's irrelevant since most tournaments and most players use HYWPI and allow models on Thunderwolfs being S10 w/ Power Fist and S5 without for Hammer of Wrath purposes.

As I said in my post on page four, agree with your opponent over whether it's going to be played as strictest RAW and S4+1 and S9 w/PF or HYWPI and S5 and S10 w PF. Even if you do play RAW and S9, SW have got lots of options to add Furious Charge to ensure the S10.

This question has been asked before and like those other threads, seriously needs locking before you all start to resort to name-calling.

I like you Frozocrone. You seem like a nice and reasonable fellow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) so now you are insinuating bias in players, because they disagree with - and have rules proving their assertions - your stance? Another fallacy, please refrain from doing this.

2) You have cited rules. Just none that support your position that a piece of wargear whcih states it has modified the profile somehow hasnt modified the profile

3) you failed to, at all, address my argument, or answer the queries put to you. I will make a negative inference that answering would have further undermined your stance.

So I'll try again: when told the modifier is already included, does that mean a) the profile is unmodified or b) the profile is modified? Answer a) or b) please.

Looking back, I see that I didn't actually answer your question the way that you wanted me to. You want me to tell you if I think the profile is modified or not. The answer is that the profile listed in the codex is clearly not modified yet. There is, as yet, no change to the characteristics listed in that profile.

NightHowler wrote:


Looking back, I see that I didn't actually answer your question the way that you wanted me to. You want me to tell you if I think the profile is modified or not. The answer is that the profile listed in the codex is clearly not modified yet. There is, as yet, no change to the characteristics listed in that profile.

This, of course, is incorrect.

"A model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks, and wounds characteristics by 1 (These bonuses are already includedin the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf as a part of their wargear)." SW codex.

 DeathReaper wrote:

NightHowler wrote:


Looking back, I see that I didn't actually answer your question the way that you wanted me to. You want me to tell you if I think the profile is modified or not. The answer is that the profile listed in the codex is clearly not modified yet. There is, as yet, no change to the characteristics listed in that profile.

This, of course, is incorrect.

"A model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks, and wounds characteristics by 1 (These bonuses are already includedin the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf as a part of their wargear)." SW codex.

You're reading the rule and missing the most important part. "a model upgraded to have a thunderwolf mount".

Thunderwolf cavalry aren't upgraded. They come with it. This is an important distinction.

Their profile doesn't change because they already have the wargear included. The rules for "muliple modifiers" says that some wargear modifies a characteristic. The thunderwolf's strength characteristic is already 5. So the wargear included in the profile is not covered by the "multiple modifiers" rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

NightHowler wrote:


Looking back, I see that I didn't actually answer your question the way that you wanted me to. You want me to tell you if I think the profile is modified or not. The answer is that the profile listed in the codex is clearly not modified yet. There is, as yet, no change to the characteristics listed in that profile.

This, of course, is incorrect.

"A model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks, and wounds characteristics by 1 (These bonuses are already includedin the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf as a part of their wargear)." SW codex.

It would have to say this in order to resolve at s10.

"A model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their base Strength, Toughness, Attacks, and wounds characteristics by 1 (These bonuses are already includedin the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf as a part of their wargear)."

We are not permitted to act on those rules as if the base bit was in there. So it resolves at s9.

NightHowler,
(these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear

That line specifically mentions what occurs when the Wargear is already part of the wargear, not when it is purchased as an upgrade.

JinxDragon wrote:
NightHowler,
(these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear

That line specifically mentions what occurs when the Wargear is already part of the wargear, not when it is purchased as an upgrade.

Right. We're reading the exact same rule.

You guys believe that because it says wargear, you have to use the multiple modifiers rule on it.

I'm saying that because it's already included in the profile the multiple modifiers rule doesn't apply to it. This is because the characteristic listed is 5. The multiple modifiers rule says that some wargear modifies a characteristic. The thunderwolf mount listed in the wargear for thunderwolf cavalry doesn't do that since it's already included. The characteristic is 5.

It's not that I don't understand what your saying. It's just that I feel it is inaccurate to change the characteristic to 4 and then add the mount back in. The mount is already added in. It's too late to consider it with the multiple modifiers rule, because the characteristic listed in the profile is 5.

NightHowler wrote:
It's too late to consider it with the multiple modifiers rule, because the characteristic listed in the profile is 5.

You are making this rule up.

This is also the difference between the Wolf Lord and the Cavalry model.

One starts with a characteristic of 4.

The other starts with a characteristic of 5.

NightHowler,
My post was in direct reply to this:
You're reading the rule and missing the most important part. "a model upgraded to have a thunderwolf mount". Thunderwolf cavalry aren't upgraded. They come with it. This is an important distinction.
- NightHowler

If the Rule is only applied when the Unit purchases the Wargear as an upgrade, the section in parathesis makes no sense as it addresses "Standard Wargear" and not purchased upgrades....

JinxDragon wrote:
NightHowler,
My post was in direct reply to this:
You're reading the rule and missing the most important part. "a model upgraded to have a thunderwolf mount". Thunderwolf cavalry aren't upgraded. They come with it. This is an important distinction.
- NightHowler

If the Rule is only applied when the Unit purchases the Wargear as an upgrade, the section in parathesis makes no sense as it addresses "Standard Wargear" and not purchased upgrades....

Then let's look at some examples of standard wargear. The iron priest comes with a thunderhammer. He's listed as S4. A dreadnought comes with a powerfist and he's listed as S6. A Thunderwolf comes with a thunderwolf mount, but strangely, he's listed as S5... This doesn't seem incongruous to you?

Does the iron priest or Dreadnought say the modifier is included?

The difference between the iron priest, the dreadnought, and the thunderwolf cavalry, is that one has his wargear already included in his profile and the first two do not.

I'm saying that this difference is critical in the way that we interpret the multiple modifiers rule.