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.

Even then the Strength description shows that you just take the models strength from it's profile then use it to determine the strength of the weapon.

 Krargan wrote:
Even then the Strength description shows that you just take the models strength from it's profile then use it to determine the strength of the weapon.

Re-read the rules I posted.

My point still stands. It's two different profiles, you just use the user strength to determine the strength of the weapon profile.

Yes, and the user strength has been modified. We know this for a fact.

Prove why this can be ignored. Page and graph will do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, and the user strength has been modified. We know this for a fact.

Prove why this can be ignored. Page and graph will do.

no, we do not,

you keep saying it, but its not true

the profile clearly states the models str value is 5,

not 4+1.

it has a str value of 5, written in stone, look at the unit entry page, there it is.

having a bonus already included in your profile is not a characteristic modification, otherwise having a "str of 6" already included in your profile would mean you have a set modifier and can never go over str 6.

 easysauce wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, and the user strength has been modified. We know this for a fact.

Prove why this can be ignored. Page and graph will do.

no, we do not,

you keep saying it, but its not true

the profile clearly states the models str value is 5,

not 4+1.

it has a str value of 5, written in stone, look at the unit entry page, there it is.

having a bonus already included in your profile is not a characteristic modification, otherwise having a "str of 6" already included in your profile would mean you have a set modifier and can never go over str 6.

The wargear would have to state that it resets the base value or changes the unmodified characteristic for it to work the way you want.

Otherwise we apply this rule and the rules don't give us any choice about it.



Hopefully an FAQ will come along to give you what you need. But as is GW dropped the ball and the rules don't get to S 10.

 easysauce wrote:
the profile clearly states the models str value is 5,

not 4+1.

it has a str value of 5, written in stone, look at the unit entry page, there it is.

having a bonus already included in your profile is not a characteristic modification, otherwise having a "str of 6" already included in your profile would mean you have a set modifier and can never go over str 6.

Look at the rules in question for the Thunderwolf mount:

In addition, a model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks and Wounds characteristics by 1 (these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear).

The profile has a bonus included, so it is indeed 4+1 and not 5.

 Krargan wrote:
My point still stands. It's two different profiles, you just use the user strength to determine the strength of the weapon profile.

Sadly the rules quoted prove you wrong.

This thread should be locked. There is clearly a group that believes firmly that it is S9 for both Wolf Lords and TWC, a group that believes that it is S9 for Wolf Lords and S10 for TWC, and a group that believes that it is S10 for both groups.

No agreement can be found when the rules are so poorly written and all sides are so firmly convinced that they are correct.

 NightHowler wrote:
This thread should be locked. There is clearly a group that believes firmly that it is S9 for both Wolf Lords and TWC, a group that believes that it is S9 for Wolf Lords and S10 for TWC, and a group that believes that it is S10 for both groups.

No agreement can be found when the rules are so poorly written and all sides are so firmly convinced that they are correct.

This.

Why was this thread opened again? Agree with your opponent before the game if it's S9 or S10.

Communication is king. Communication is life.

 Frozocrone wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
This thread should be locked. There is clearly a group that believes firmly that it is S9 for both Wolf Lords and TWC, a group that believes that it is S9 for Wolf Lords and S10 for TWC, and a group that believes that it is S10 for both groups.

No agreement can be found when the rules are so poorly written and all sides are so firmly convinced that they are correct.

This.

Why was this thread opened again? Agree with your opponent before the game if it's S9 or S10.

Communication is king. Communication is life.

This thread only sorts out what the RAW is. That is important to some play groups but not all play groups. Krargan brought up some ideas that were worth looking at. Even if they didn't bear fruit for a RAW argument, I am sure the rumbling HYWPI crowd got something there.

 Frozocrone wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
This thread should be locked. There is clearly a group that believes firmly that it is S9 for both Wolf Lords and TWC, a group that believes that it is S9 for Wolf Lords and S10 for TWC, and a group that believes that it is S10 for both groups.

No agreement can be found when the rules are so poorly written and all sides are so firmly convinced that they are correct.

This.

Why was this thread opened again? Agree with your opponent before the game if it's S9 or S10.

Communication is king. Communication is life.

Why close the thread? Some one will just make a new one. If you don't want to be bothered with it just don't click it open.

I don't really think there is much of an argument outside of Strength 10 envy and the usual "the game didn't have strength 10 in [whatever edition] so this must be wrong!" attitude that always prevails everything in this game.

Modifiers are things that change your strength in the game, things that permanently directly modify it are during the list-building phase, totally different. The profile for a normal T-wolf is Strength 5...I don't see why applying the logic to the point of de-engineering the base stat of the T-wolf Cav's Strength to 4+1 instead of the 5 it says is so high on everyone's priority list.

I'll say the same I say about multiple relics on characters -- the game has Imperial Knights, infinite detachments, formations with huge army-changing bonuses for no extra points, characters like Belakor, units like Wraithknights and Riptides, super heavies and Strength D are a part of normal gameplay...and you guys think these little subtle nuanced quirks that you have latched onto are actually intended to be the more restrictive of the two possibilities?

The Jervis rule -- "Always say yes" -- would do this particular lot some good.

Although non-existent in RaW, i also believe in some form of Pre-game modifications to Profile =/= Multiple Modifiers rule in-game.

But i'll put this one back on the "FAQ" shelf for now...

 Fenris Frost wrote:
Modifiers are things that change your strength in the game, things that permanently directly modify it are during the list-building phase, totally different.

You can of course quote the rule that explains this difference?

Fenris Frost wrote:

Modifiers are things that change your strength in the game, things that permanently directly modify it are during the list-building phase, totally different.

Page and graph. As per the tenets.

Also, dont insinuate bias in others. This isnt a "I dont want more S10..." its "these are theactual rules, do with that knowledge as you want".

 Fenris Frost wrote:
I don't really think there is much of an argument outside of Strength 10 envy and the usual "the game didn't have strength 10 in [whatever edition] so this must be wrong!" attitude that always prevails everything in this game.

Modifiers are things that change your strength in the game, things that permanently directly modify it are during the list-building phase, totally different. The profile for a normal T-wolf is Strength 5...I don't see why applying the logic to the point of de-engineering the base stat of the T-wolf Cav's Strength to 4+1 instead of the 5 it says is so high on everyone's priority list.

Do you feel the same way about the IC TWC riders like the Wolf Lord or Priest? Their profile says 4...

This is why this thread should be locked.

There can be no consensus.

Both sides believe that they are right. I'll admit it. I believe that I am right, and I know that the S9ers believe that they are right.

The problem with a poorly written rule is that it is often possible to interpret that rule more than one way. Why do you think that there are so many denominations of the major religions? Because even a holy book can be interpreted different ways. And even though I'm reading the same rule book as the S9ers, we worship in two completely different denominations.

To me it's clear that S5 x 2 = 10. To the S9ers it equals 9. We simply don't agree.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

to people who think the TWC with a x2 strength = S 10

in the future for some codex lets pretend a new psychic power comes out that strips a model of all of its wargear for the remainder of the game.

what would a TWC strength be after such a hypothetical power was used?

4 or 5?

Unless it specifically said that it also changed their profile, it would be 5.

Their S in the profile is 5, so unless this hypothetical spell specifically stated that it changed their profile, their S would still be 5.

Look, I know I've said it 30 or 40 times in the 10 pages of this thread, but just so there's no confusion, I'll say it again -

The multiple modifiers rule is talking about things that modify the profile. We're never given a profile of 4. We're given a profile of 5. Any modifiers will modify the profile so they'll modify a 5. Any changes that may have happened before we're given the profile are irrelevant. No where in the rules does it say that we do anything but modify a profile and the strength in the profile is 5.

With wolf lords I believe that the intention was for them to also be S10, but unfortunately, I have come to a place where I have to admit that RAW it is actually 9 for a wolf lord. I still play it as 10 because I believe that is RAI and I make sure that I agree with my opponent about this before any games. But for TWC I don't have to make any such admission because their profile was never 4, it was, is, and always has been 5.

I think that GW rules writers, too ignorant of the extent we go to to try and prognosticate the meaning of their rules to realize that this is their fault, would be shocked that anyone would try to play it as S9.

But this is the world we live in and the rules we've been given for our game. So we argue about it.

 NightHowler wrote:
The multiple modifiers rule is talking about things that modify the profile. We're never given a profile of 4. We're given a profile of 5.

Yet the TWM rules (which the TWC are listed as having) are clear that these are modifiers, and this modifier has already been included in the profile.
The Profile has been modified. And there's only one rule that covers that.

I agree with the religion analogy, but it's more like Religion Vs. Science.
One is back by belief, the other facts.

 grendel083 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
The multiple modifiers rule is talking about things that modify the profile. We're never given a profile of 4. We're given a profile of 5.

Yet the TWM rules (which the TWC are listed as having) are clear that these are modifiers, and this modifier has already been included in the profile.
The Profile has been modified. And there's only one rule that covers that.

Yes, I keep hearing this argument. But the multiple modifiers rule makes no mention of taking into account wargear that is already included in the profile. If you can find anywhere where it says that we must also take into account items already included in the profile I would have no ground to stand on and I would have to agree with you.

But the profile is S5 and the multiple modifiers rule only applies to things that modify the profile. The profile is 5. It's not 4+1. It's 5. For a wolf lord the scenario is different, the profile strength is 4, and although I'm certain that RAI the thunderwolf mount was supposed to be a change to the base profile, it doesn't say that so I have to house rule it to be 10 when I play with a wolf lord. No such problem exists with the cavalry models because the change is already included in the profile and the multiple modifiers rule only applies to things that change that profile.

Edited to add that everyone believes their religion is fact. Even atheists and scientists. Scientists once believed that if man traveled faster than the speed of sound they would die and they warned people that "science" was right and they should never try to go that fast. Evidence is great, but "truth" is something I would leave out of an argument about poorly written rules.

for me the following are the issues:

the profile says its strength 5, however it is listed as having wargear TWM which states in the wargear that the strength of the model is increased by 1, and that this bonus is already included in the profile for TWC.

this means that the wargear is saying it has modified the profile, we know this because it has increased the value by 1 as a bonus, this is a modification.

the only rules for how stats can change are the rules for modifiers, as this is not called out as being something other than a modifier, it is indeed a modifier.

the rules for modifiers never allow for different types of "modifiers" or times when things are modifiers or not modifiers, there is the base stat and there is the modified stat. there is no other thing.

as such the profile may list 5, but the unmodified profile is 4. the profile listed is modified by the wargear the model already has, just like the space wolf bikers which are T5 in their profile, because it includes the modifier for the bike,

multiple modifiers do not care when when the stat was modified, or how it was modified, and by what it was modified, it just cares that there are multiple sources of modifiers to a stat.

as such TWC are str 4 unmodified, their profile includes the modified 1 increase to strength as called out by the wargear they come stock with, and any further modifiers require the use of multiple modifiers rule, as there are no other rules for how to determine the models strength otherwise.

 NightHowler wrote:
Yes, I keep hearing this argument. But the multiple modifiers rule makes no mention of taking into account wargear that is already included in the profile.

There's simply one rule. No other way to handle it. No indication that timing or source matter.

If you can find a rule that lets you handle modifiers other than the modifiers rule, then great. But until then it's a modifier, and should be treated as such.

 grendel083 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Yes, I keep hearing this argument. But the multiple modifiers rule makes no mention of taking into account wargear that is already included in the profile.

There's simply one rule. No other way to handle it. No indication that timing or source matter.

If you can find a rule that lets you handle modifiers other than the modifiers rule, then great. But until then it's a modifier, and should be treated as such.

It's not about timing. It's not about modifiers other than modifiers. Its about the profile and the profile is S5. The rule tells us that some wargear modifies a profile. When was the profile S4? Can you tell me when that was? When was the +1 added? I'll tell you, it's already included. We're told that it's already included. So the profile we're given is then modified by x2 of the powerfist. That's the only modifier to the profile because the thunderwolf mount is already included in that profile. The only modifier is the x2.

I know you don't see it this way, but your science is a lot more like my religion than you'd like to admit. Maybe you're more of a scientologist?

 NightHowler wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Yes, I keep hearing this argument. But the multiple modifiers rule makes no mention of taking into account wargear that is already included in the profile.

There's simply one rule. No other way to handle it. No indication that timing or source matter.

If you can find a rule that lets you handle modifiers other than the modifiers rule, then great. But until then it's a modifier, and should be treated as such.

It's not about timing. It's not about modifiers other than modifiers. Its about the profile and the profile is S5. The rule tells us that some wargear modifies a profile. When was the profile S4? Can you tell me when that was? When was the +1 added? I'll tell you, it's already included. We're told that it's already included. So the profile we're given is then modified by x2 of the powerfist. That's the only modifier to the profile because the thunderwolf mount is already included in that profile. The only modifier is the x2.

I know you don't see it this way, but your science is a lot more like my religion than you'd like to admit. Maybe you're more of a scientologist?

The latest codex dropped the concept of changing the base value. Without that concept there is no way per RAW to resolve at s10. If we use the rules we are given we come up with s9.

col_impact wrote:
The latest codex dropped the concept of changing the base value. Without that concept there is no way per RAW to resolve at s10. If we use the rules we are given we come up with s9.

Mmmhmm. Thanks. I'll consider that when I'm playing it RAW S10.

The issue is the profile states 5, but the wargear they come stock with states they are 4 increased by 1.

or 4+1.

If you are claiming their base profile is 5, you might as well claim they are strength 6 on a TWM because TWM increases strength by 1, and if their base unmodified strength is 5 because profile says so, then its now 6.

however RAW the wargear tells us the bonus is already in the profile.

so yes their profile says 5.

but their unmodified strength is 4.

their wargear gives them a bonus which is an increase of 1, giving them 4+1 or a profile of 5.

as you have no option to not buy TWC without TWM the profile shows the modified strength, which is 5. from 4+1.

much like the space wolves bikes which show a T of 5, which is not their unmodified toughness, but the toughness of 4+1 with the increae of 1 to toughness from the bike, which is a non optional piece of wargear that modifies their toughness, already included.

that the modifier from wargear they have to take is already included in their profile, which is called out in the wargear itself, does not mean the profile is an umodified value.

so your RAW s10 TWC are as RAW as ork Nobz have S10 on the charge from furious charge and powerklaws, which is not RAW at all of course.

 NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The latest codex dropped the concept of changing the base value. Without that concept there is no way per RAW to resolve at s10. If we use the rules we are given we come up with s9.

Mmmhmm. Thanks. I'll consider that when I'm playing it RAW S10.

There is no way I can prevent you from deluding yourself or from being obtuse. I can only point it out to yourself and others that you are deluding yourself.

blaktoof wrote:
The issue is the profile states 5, but the wargear they come stock with states they are 4 increased by 1.

or 4+1.

If you are claiming their base profile is 5, you might as well claim they are strength 6 on a TWM because TWM increases strength by 1, and if their base unmodified strength is 5 because profile says so, then its now 6.

however RAW the wargear tells us the bonus is already in the profile.

so yes their profile says 5.

but their unmodified strength is 4.

their wargear gives them a bonus which is an increase of 1, giving them 4+1 or a profile of 5.

as you have no option to not buy TWC without TWM the profile shows the modified strength, which is 5. from 4+1.

so your RAW s10 TWC are as RAW as ork Nobz have S10 on the charge from furious charge and powerklaws, which is not RAW at all of course.

Blaktoof, I hear what you're saying and I understand your argument, but I disagree. There is no unmodified profile of S4 because the thunderwolf mount is already included before they even print the profile in the codex. The multiple modifiers rule never says that we have to consider what went into a profile. It only says that we have to consider things that modify the profile. If it's already included it's not modifying it. You can say that we know it was added in, but that is irrelevant because the rule only talks about things that modify the profile and the profile was never 4. It's printed in the codex as 5. They thunderwolf mount in the wargear, but the profile has already been printed as S5.