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:
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?

The Thunderwolf Mount rule tells us it's a +1 modifier that has already been added to the profile.
So we know the S5 stat has a +1 Str modifier already applied to it.
So what is Str5 without the +1Str?

col_impact wrote:

 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.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
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?

The Thunderwolf Mount rule tells us it's a +1 modifier that has already been added to the profile.
So we know the S5 stat has a +1 Str modifier already applied to it.
So what is Str5 without the +1Str?

But the multiple modifiers rule doesn't tell us to do that. The +1 that a thunderwolf mount gives a wolf lord is relevant because it's added to the profile. It modifies the profile. The +1 that is already included in the cavalry is already in there. There is no longer a +1 modifier because the profile we're given is S5. We're told that the reason the profile is 5 is because of the mount, but there's no +1 modifier to any profile because there was never a profile, printed in ink, that says S4.

 NightHowler wrote:

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.

You are flat out just making stuff up. Show me in the multiple modifiers rule where it mentions "profile."

col_impact wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

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.

You are flat out just making stuff up. Show me in the multiple modifiers rule where it mentions "profile."

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).

I'd be really happy to:
Characteristic Profiles page 10 right across from the multiple modifiers rule
Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics. You can find these profiles in a varite of Games Workshop publications, including codexes.

It never tells us that we have to calculate the characteristic - it tells us that they are given in the profile.

Edited to say thank you. I really enjoy discussing these things with you when you ask questions and engage in conversation.

 NightHowler wrote:
But the multiple modifiers rule doesn't tell us to do that. The +1 that a thunderwolf mount gives a wolf lord is relevant because it's added to the profile. It modifies the profile.

All modifiers modify the profile. That's their whole purpose.

The +1 that is already included in the cavalry is already in there. There is no longer a +1 modifier because the profile we're given is S5. We're told that the reason the profile is 5 is because of the mount, but there's no +1 modifier to any profile because there was never a profile, printed in ink, that says S4.

There is no longer seperate rule for modifiers and changes to base profiles. That's last edition. There is no longer any rule other than modifiers to use. And we're told the profile has been modified.

Does the Thunderwolf Cavalry entry have Thunderwolf Mount listed under their wargear?

Does the Thunderwolf Mount rules lists a +1Str increase?

Does the Thunderwold Mount rules say that this bonus is already included in profile if it's aldreay listed as wargear?

If the answer is yes to all 3, then there's no doubt that the Str5 profile is the result of a +1 modifier being applied.

In previous editions there was a difference between modifiers and changes to base stat lines. No longer in this edition.
In a Previous Codex TWC didn't have the TWM wargear, the profile was never modified. No longer in the current Codex.

Grendel, the rulebook tells us where to find characteristics: we find it in the profile given in the codex.

The rulebook then tells us what to do if more than one thing modifies that characteristic, but the characteristic given in the profile we're talking about is 5.

The rulebook never tells us to consider what the profile might have looked like before the wargear that's already included, it only tells us what to do if something modifies that profile, and the profile in question is S5.

Yes the profile is S5. As a result of a +1 modifier.
That's black and white in the TWM rules.

There are no rules outside of Modifiers that cover modifying a profile.

We know the profile is modified by +1, use another modifier and now we have to use the Muliple Modifiers rule.

If the Modifier from the TWM doesn't use the Modifiers rule, what rule does it use. Please quote the rule.

 NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

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.

You are flat out just making stuff up. Show me in the multiple modifiers rule where it mentions "profile."

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).

I'd be really happy to:
Characteristic Profiles page 10 right across from the multiple modifiers rule
Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics. You can find these profiles in a varite of Games Workshop publications, including codexes.

It never tells us that we have to calculate the characteristic - it tells us that they are given in the profile.

Edited to say thank you. I really enjoy discussing these things with you when you ask questions and engage in conversation.

I will repeat the question. Show me in the Multiple Modifiers rule where it mentions "profile." You are making distinctions which the rule does not. IE You are making stuff up. The rule acts on any modifications, whether included in the profile or not.

Let me walk you through a step by step as it might make this clearer.

Step 1, I purchase a thunderwolf cavalry unit.

Step 2, I upgrade one of them to have a powerfist.

Step 3, since I’m aware of the multiple modifiers rule, I check it to see what I should do. It says that if multiple items of wargear modify the characteristic I multiply first and add second.

Step 4, I look up the strength characteristic for a thunderwolf cavalry model. The rule book tells me that this value is found in their profile so I open my codex and look in the profile. It says the strength is 5.

Step 5, since there is only one piece of wargear that modifies the strength listed in the profile I calculate 5 x 2 = 10. If there are any additional changes that modify this later I will recalculate following the multiple modifiers rule.

 NightHowler wrote:
Let me walk you through a step by step as it might make this clearer.

Step 1, I purchase a thunderwolf cavalry unit.

Step 2, I upgrade one of them to have a powerfist.

Step 3, since I’m aware of the multiple modifiers rule, I check it to see what I should do. It says that if multiple items of wargear modify the characteristic I multiply first and add second.

Step 4, I look up the strength characteristic for a thunderwolf cavalry model. The rule book tells me that this value is found in their profile so I open my codex and look in the profile. It says the strength is 5.

Step 5, since there is only one piece of wargear that modifies the strength listed in the profile I calculate 5 x 2 = 10. If there are any additional changes that modify this later I will recalculate following the multiple modifiers rule.

Then you've failed to read the TWM wargear, and failed to notice the inclusion of a +1 Str modifier.
You failed to include it in your calculation, and thus arrived at an incorrect answer.

If a Model has Str5 and we're told it includes a +1 modifier, what rule allows us to ignore this fact? As you have done above?

 grendel083 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Let me walk you through a step by step as it might make this clearer.

Step 1, I purchase a thunderwolf cavalry unit.

Step 2, I upgrade one of them to have a powerfist.

Step 3, since I’m aware of the multiple modifiers rule, I check it to see what I should do. It says that if multiple items of wargear modify the characteristic I multiply first and add second.

Step 4, I look up the strength characteristic for a thunderwolf cavalry model. The rule book tells me that this value is found in their profile so I open my codex and look in the profile. It says the strength is 5.

Step 5, since there is only one piece of wargear that modifies the strength listed in the profile I calculate 5 x 2 = 10. If there are any additional changes that modify this later I will recalculate following the multiple modifiers rule.

Then you've failed to read the TWM wargear, and failed to notice the inclusion of a +1 Str modifier.
You failed to include it in your calculation, and thus arrived at an incorrect answer.

If a Model has Str5 and we're told it includes a +1 modifier, what rule allows us to ignore this fact? As you have done above?

I haven't failed to read anything. I am intimately familiar with the wording of the thunderwolf mount, the thunderwolf cavalry profile, the wolf lord profile, and every inch of my codex.

It's not included in the calculation because the profile lists the strength as 5, and nowhere am I instructed to use anything but the characteristic found in the profile. You're adding steps into the calculation that we are never instructed to take.

Then you have chosen to ignore that the profile has been modified.
No rule has told you to do that.

We're told its a modifier. To treat it as anything other than a modifier is to not follow the rules.

 grendel083 wrote:
Then you have chosen to ignore that the profile has been modified.
No rule has told you to do that.

I want to make sure that we aren't just misunderstanding each other, so I'm going to write it all down. Correct me if I misunderstand your side of it.

My argument:

1) The multiple modifiers rule is applied whenever wargear modifies a characteristic

2) The characteristic is found in the profile

3) A thunderwolf cavalry models strength characteristic is listed as S5

4) If I upgrade the cavalry model to have a powerfist it's strength of 5 is modified by a x2 modifier


As I understand your argument:

1) The multiple modifiers rule is applied whenever wargear modifies a characteristic

2) The characteristic is not found in the profile but is, rather, calculated from the profile using what we know about the model's wargear

3) A thunderwolf cavalry model's strength characteristic is, therefore, not the strength listed in the profile like the rulebook says it should be, but rather is that number minus bonuses that were included from the wargear

4) If you upgrade that cavalry model to have a powerfist it's strength is therefore ((5 - 1) x 2) + 1 = 9

Is this correct?

Yes, I am with NightHowler. They never give us rules for unmodifying profiles, they never tell us anything about base wargear. There is no "4+1" here.

Few things in the game modify your profile all the time, i.e. from the point of being put in the list. Your strength is always 5, as long as you have the TWM. You are literally born that way. We have rules for modifying the profile. The profile for TWC says 5.

It uses the exact same wording as the toughness benefit for bikes (though they have a later exception to use the modified value for all tests). Still, it's easy to miss, yet no one ever seems to argue that their Nurgle Lords need to take toughness tests on their native T of 4, instead of 6, though.

The debate only even came into being because someone niggled and found this loophole of wording that is clearly not intended to be related. It "modifies" the profile, yes, in the same way that running and falling back and putting a model on the table are all "moving" models, but you don't apply rules pertaining to movement to them. I mean...when your opponent takes his flyer out of the bag, you don't tell him it auto crashes because he didn't move it 18" inches. My last name is "Walker" ... that doesn't mean that entire enemy armies have to hit all my army on front armor in close combat because they are "fighting a walker." Right? Right. There is some degree of common sense that needs to be applied here.

This game is designed to be straightforward (or at least its' component parts are). As I said before...do you really think the most liberal edition in 25 years is gonna draw the line here, in this obtuse obscure way, as opposed to the obvious direct interpretation? Occam has a razor you should take a look it.

The Ork powerklaw example is different, they don't have a permanent +1 to their profile from the minute they are on the table, they literally have a modifier to their actual stats that takes place CONDITIONALLY in the game. They exist in play as Strength 4, and in the game get +1 for Furious Charge and x2 for the Power Klaw.

It's all screwy entirely because they chose language that doesn't differentiate this, but frankly I don't know that I care. 7 Strength 9 attacks isn't exactly NOT going to merc anything that touches it.

The Thunderwolf +1S is not conditional, it does not modify the profile during the game at all. People blame GW for not specifying, but the reason that they didn't specify is because there is no such thing as Strength 4(5) anymore in this system. All modifications to the profile modify the ACTUAL profile in those conditions (so, when attacking with a Power Fist, your character is "Strength 8" not "Strength 4(8)". The rules aren't there because they address a thing that is not even mechanically a part of the game anymore, but people cling to it because SURELY it must be wrong, since they never handed out Strength 10 before like this.

The same thing happened with the Storm Shields -- people cried and cried, scoured the rules for months trying to find reasons you couldn't use them, using desperate loopholes and trickery ("It says 'weapon' but a shield isn't a weapon!").

I don't know. I will give my opponents the choice, but anyone I show that profile to is gonna be like, "Oh. Well it's 5, so they're strength 10" and not think about it any further. And if they are aware of this debate, it won't make much of a difference because Strength 9 is still highly gross and will still eat 99% of the targets you'd hit with Strength 10 without much difficulty. So I'm not worried either way.

 NightHowler wrote:
Is this correct?

Seems correct.

We're told the profile has been modified by +1, so I must take that into account when applying other modifiers.

 grendel083 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Is this correct?

Seems correct.

We're told the profile has been modified by +1, so I must take that into account when applying other modifiers.

Then your religion is simply different than my religion and we'll have to agree to disagree. We can still be friends.

NightHowler's last post with the math puts it into perspective. Look at the convoluted logic path you have to follow to come to the Strength 9 conclusion. Do you really think, in the age of Riptides/Wraithknights/infinite CAD/Lord of War/Daemon Summoning/etc., that this was the intent?

 NightHowler wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Is this correct?

Seems correct.

We're told the profile has been modified by +1, so I must take that into account when applying other modifiers.

Then your religion is simply different than my religion and we'll have to agree to disagree. We can still be friends.

Your religion involves not following the rules.

This is the rule. You follow it. You come up with s9.

col_impact wrote:
Your religion involves not following the rules.

This is the rule. You follow it. You come up with s9.

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.

Colon_impact, I've written out a very nice step by step explaining how I follow the rules to arrive at my conclusion.

You just like to shout louder when someone disagrees with you and ignore their answers when they answer your questions. I'm sorry, but I'm putting you back on ignore, it's really just to frustrating, like talking to a wall. At least Grendel answers questions and responds to points with counterpoints.

Don't worry though, I may take you off of the ignore list again in a month or two.

 NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Your religion involves not following the rules.

This is the rule. You follow it. You come up with s9.

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.

Colon_impact, I've written out a very nice step by step explaining how I follow the rules to arrive at my conclusion.

You just like to shout louder when someone disagrees with you and ignore their answers when they answer your questions. I'm sorry, but I'm putting you back on ignore, it's really just to frustrating, like talking to a wall. At least Grendel answers questions and responds to points with counterpoints.

Don't worry though, I may take you off of the ignore list again in a month or two.

That's fine. Since you ignore adhering to the rule I just showed you, it makes sense for you to put the person who points that out to you on ignore as well. Maybe you could explain to the opponent that you put the Multiple Modifiers rule on ignore.

 NightHowler wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Your religion involves not following the rules.

This is the rule. You follow it. You come up with s9.

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.

Colon_impact, I've written out a very nice step by step explaining how I follow the rules to arrive at my conclusion.

You just like to shout louder when someone disagrees with you and ignore their answers when they answer your questions. I'm sorry, but I'm putting you back on ignore, it's really just to frustrating, like talking to a wall. At least Grendel answers questions and responds to points with counterpoints.

Don't worry though, I may take you off of the ignore list again in a month or two.

I hat to agree with col, but they and Grendel are correct. You're ignoring a rule. You are, entirely, ignoring the rule that states the profile has been modified. As there are two modifiers in play, you must - as in, you cannot choose not to - use the multiple modifiers rule.

This is RAW. You do not have an argument against it.

I'd like to draw attention to the fourth post on page one a.k.a. my post, the one where I already said this thread was going nowhere. This thread has been done already and it got nowhere. The exact same arguments were made there as well, none of this is new.

Now can this thread be locked?

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:
I'd like to draw attention to the fourth post on page one a.k.a. my post, the one where I already said this thread was going nowhere. This thread has been done already and it got nowhere. The exact same arguments were made there as well, none of this is new.

Now can this thread be locked?

This please.

By popular demand

(PM me if for any reason this thread should remain open / is not fully fleshed out by now -- thanks)