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.

 Charistoph wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
So whine about that in the Space Wolf FAQ?

This question was about Apothecaries.

And what gear they can acquire. I also gave a Codex Marine option as well with the Sword Brother.

Did the question mention anything about Standards, out of curiosity?

OgreChubbs wrote:
It is not order of purchase, you changed the item you where buying. Think of it is way

You walk into a store and order a cake.
Cake owner says you can exchange the plain toppings for sprikles, a picture or candels.
You say I want sprinkles.
Then you say oh I want to turn the cake into a pie.
Owner says ok here is your options for your pie.

You cant keep the options for a different item.

By the logic of how you write the list you could abuse anything. Mass heavy weapons?
Buy a heavy bolter in a squad of 5 then turn him into sergant, then a heavy bolter turn him into a apoth, buy a heavy weapon then turn him into anything.

Invalid comparison. Making a cake has some very defined processes involved, as does a pie. Where is this process defined for unit purchasing?

Your final example is also in poor choice. Sergeants are not upgrades of Marines (currently). Being the Heavy Weapon Guy does not change the model name.

I don't agree with Charistoph on a lot of things, but I do agree with him on this. I can see both sides of the arguement for and against apothecaries. Both sides have very real points. GW could clear up this issue and a lot of similar issues with an explanation on exactly why the answer is no. I find it quite frustrating and perplexing on to why they suddenly changed the yes to a no like they had made some serious game breaking mistake and at the same time not do or mention anything about the mess they made with the drop pods. Seriously, one is a very minor boost that makes apothecaries useful for more than a fnp (at an increased cost) and relatively little effect on the game, and the other completely changes the game essentially. The door for shenanigans was kicked open with the drop pod faqs. It makes me want to tack another 100 points on to drop pods with how severly game altering they can be with this faq.

 NorseSig wrote:
It makes me want to tack another 100 points on to drop pods with how severly game altering they can be with this faq.

Drop Pods really ought to be about 50-55 points base for the value they give, even before this stupid change.

Do you know how many times I have chopped off this poor apothecary's hand? I've decided to go feth it and chopped his entire arm off and gave him a bionic arm that looks like it has a gun built into it. He is Iron Hands now.

 Ghaz wrote:
... ongoing discussion in News & Rumours. FAQ can be found HERE.

Skitarii & Cult Mechanicus FAQs HERE.

Militarum Tempestus Scions, Inquisition, Adepta Sororitas and Officio Assassinorum HERE.

Imperial Knights, Genestealer Cults and Deathwatch HERE.

Daemonkin, Legion of the Damned and Blood Oath FAQs HERE

Codex Space Marines FAQ HERE

Codex Space Wolves FAQ HERE

Space Wolves added.

Thunder Hammer/Thunderwolf Strength question was answered.

S4 + Thunderwolf Mount (S+1) + Thunder Hammer (Sx2) = S10

So... in regards to Helfrost & RA again. They seem to say that whomever's turn it is chooses the order, but that seems to suggest that both are still definitely HAPPENING, regardless of the order. Does this lead to the following matrix of possible outcomes?

#1 - RA Failed, Helfrost Failed - model is removed as a casualty.
#2 - RA Failed, Helfrost Passed - model is removed as a casualty.
#3 - RA Passed, Helfrost Failed - model is removed as a casualty.
#4 - RA Passed, Helfrost Passed - model is not removed as a casualty.

Or is this supposed to be "Helfrost is better on your turn, RA is better on my turn"?

Not quite, since you wouldn't take RP against a failed Hellfrost and failing a RP doesn't necessarily mean being removed as a casualty (see Destroyers).

It's a little confusing. I personally preferred it when it was at the end of the phase and they stood up. Fluffier and easier to keep track off.

Sorry, that was a matrix of outcomes for 1-wound models. Still, that's makes sense, no?

Yeah, but I think it needs further clarification on GW's end onto how to properly resolve it in game. Certainly not easy to decode at a glance.

 Yarium wrote:
So... in regards to Helfrost & RA again. They seem to say that whomever's turn it is chooses the order, but that seems to suggest that both are still definitely HAPPENING, regardless of the order. Does this lead to the following matrix of possible outcomes?

#1 - RA Failed, Helfrost Failed - model is removed as a casualty.
#2 - RA Failed, Helfrost Passed - model is removed as a casualty.
#3 - RA Passed, Helfrost Failed - model is removed as a casualty.
#4 - RA Passed, Helfrost Passed - model is not removed as a casualty.

Or is this supposed to be "Helfrost is better on your turn, RA is better on my turn"?

Yeah, another form of GW contradicting GW again.

 Kriswall wrote:
Thunder Hammer/Thunderwolf Strength question was answered.

S4 + Thunderwolf Mount (S+1) + Thunder Hammer (Sx2) = S10

Actually, what they say is pretty much what I argued for page after page in multiple threads. It is not +1. It is a change to the profile. Although I conceded that the way it was worded left characters who took a mount at S9 by RAW, I always argued that it was likely S10 RAI. This simply verifies that while the rule may have been poorly written, what they always intended was for the "base strength" to become S5, and any x2 modifiers to make it S10.

The argument that a profile strength of S5 should be changed to S4+1 because a Thunderwolf was listed in the wargear never made any sense to me.

 NightHowler wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Thunder Hammer/Thunderwolf Strength question was answered.

S4 + Thunderwolf Mount (S+1) + Thunder Hammer (Sx2) = S10

Actually, what they say is pretty much what I argued for page after page in multiple threads. It is not +1. It is a change to the profile. Although I conceded that the way it was worded left characters who took a mount at S9 by RAW, I always argued that it was likely S10 RAI. This simply verifies that while the rule may have been poorly written, what they always intended was for the "base strength" to become S5, and any x2 modifiers to make it S10.

The argument that a profile strength of S5 should be changed to S4+1 because a Thunderwolf was listed in the wargear never made any sense to me.

Quite simply because that is how the rule was written. If you can see how it would be for an HQ that has it added later on, it would still apply as the profile listed would have that adjustment included and the math completed of S 4+1.

If it is meant to upgrade the base profile before Modifiers, it should explicitly state such.

 Charistoph wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Thunder Hammer/Thunderwolf Strength question was answered.

S4 + Thunderwolf Mount (S+1) + Thunder Hammer (Sx2) = S10

Actually, what they say is pretty much what I argued for page after page in multiple threads. It is not +1. It is a change to the profile. Although I conceded that the way it was worded left characters who took a mount at S9 by RAW, I always argued that it was likely S10 RAI. This simply verifies that while the rule may have been poorly written, what they always intended was for the "base strength" to become S5, and any x2 modifiers to make it S10.

The argument that a profile strength of S5 should be changed to S4+1 because a Thunderwolf was listed in the wargear never made any sense to me.

Quite simply because that is how the rule was written. If you can see how it would be for an HQ that has it added later on, it would still apply as the profile listed would have that adjustment included and the math completed of S 4+1.

If it is meant to upgrade the base profile before Modifiers, it should explicitly state such.

Except that there is a major difference between characters who buy a Thunderwolf and the members of a unit of Thunderwolf Cavalry: the statistics in their profile.

A Wolf Lord is listed in his profile as being S4, RAW he would have to add one to his strength when he buys his mount, but Thunderwolf Cavalry are listed in their profiles as being S5 - they are NEVER listed ANYWHERE as being strength 4. It was the pinnacle of RAW twisting insanity to say that we were required to calculate a new base strength by subtracting out wargear which we could only assume had been added in, and then re-adding it later, after multiplying by 2 for their Powerfist. A suggestion that was without precedent but which many on this site were saying was the only clear way to handle it. GW's FAQ supports the argument that this was not the correct way to handle it and goes even further to say that the intent was that Characters are also considered to be adjusting their profile.

So the take away is two fold:
1) If the profile lists a characteristic value like toughness or strength we are not expected to subtract out what we believe the wargear has added to arrive at a new number and then add it back in when calculating multiple modifiers. You simply take what is listed and modify by what is added to THAT number.
2) GW is terrible at writing rules and taking the RAW approach beyond a reasonable degree will lead to unreasonable conclusions.

 NightHowler wrote:
Except that there is a major difference between characters who buy a Thunderwolf and the members of a unit of Thunderwolf Cavalry: the statistics in their profile.

A Wolf Lord is listed in his profile as being S4, RAW he would have to add one to his strength when he buys his mount, but Thunderwolf Cavalry are listed in their profiles as being S5 - they are NEVER listed ANYWHERE as being strength 4. It was the pinnacle of RAW twisting insanity to say that we were required to calculate a new base strength by subtracting out wargear which we could only assume had been added in, and then re-adding it later, after multiplying by 2 for their Powerfist. A suggestion that was without precedent but which many on this site were saying was the only clear way to handle it. GW's FAQ supports the argument that this was not the correct way to handle it and goes even further to say that the intent was that Characters are also considered to be adjusting their profile.

So the take away is two fold:
1) If the profile lists a characteristic value like toughness or strength we are not expected to subtract out what we believe the wargear has added to arrive at a new number and then add it back in when calculating multiple modifiers. You simply take what is listed and modify by what is added to THAT number.
2) GW is terrible at writing rules and taking the RAW approach beyond a reasonable degree will lead to unreasonable conclusions.

You are correct, except for the simple fact that the Thunderwolf Mount Wargear notes that the profile was an updated profile just like it is for the Bikers. In other words, it is telling you that the Str 5 you see on the unit profile is already noted as being an X+1 number.

They do need to note that it applies to the base characteristic in all cases in order to be considered that without some magic formula to ignore the logic that is actually printed.

 NightHowler wrote:
Except that there is a major difference between characters who buy a Thunderwolf and the members of a unit of Thunderwolf Cavalry: the statistics in their profile.

A Wolf Lord is listed in his profile as being S4, RAW he would have to add one to his strength when he buys his mount, but Thunderwolf Cavalry are listed in their profiles as being S5 - they are NEVER listed ANYWHERE as being strength 4. It was the pinnacle of RAW twisting insanity to say that we were required to calculate a new base strength by subtracting out wargear which we could only assume had been added in, and then re-adding it later, after multiplying by 2 for their Powerfist. A suggestion that was without precedent but which many on this site were saying was the only clear way to handle it. GW's FAQ supports the argument that this was not the correct way to handle it and goes even further to say that the intent was that Characters are also considered to be adjusting their profile.

So the take away is two fold:
1) If the profile lists a characteristic value like toughness or strength we are not expected to subtract out what we believe the wargear has added to arrive at a new number and then add it back in when calculating multiple modifiers. You simply take what is listed and modify by what is added to THAT number.
2) GW is terrible at writing rules and taking the RAW approach beyond a reasonable degree will lead to unreasonable conclusions.

And now the question has to be asked, since they have a Thunderwolf Mount, do we add the bonuses into their base profile?

Seems we should with this New FAQ...

Nighthowler - except the rule for the mount *stated* it was a bonus. So we didnt have to assume there was a +1S coming from anywhere - we knew it for a fact!

Except that, very clearly, GW never intended us to change the profile when applying the multiple modifiers rule (a procedure that is found nowhere in the BRB even though it's the only argument the S9ers could ever come up with). So you take what you're given in the profile (S5) and apply any modifiers you get to THAT number. So the wargear that's already included is just that - already included. Don't un-include it and then add it back in later. We get our stats from the profile and then modify THAT number with any wargear that is not already included.

The only argument that ever made any sense was that characters should be S9 and only because their profile showed a base strength of S4, and since this website is not intended for discussing RAI, I had to concede that characters would be S9 RAW, and it was GWs sloppy rules writing that left them S9.

I'm so relieved they took what they intended and wrote it out clearly.

Excpet that. NOW, they decided they didnt want you to place any relevance on the RULE they wrote.

Ok, I understand that that's how you feel, but that's not what they're doing. They're only telling you how you were supposed to have been playing it.

Thats the difference - the rule plays no part any longer. Otherwise you played it acording to the multi mod rule (and basic maths) which is that 4+1*2 = 9

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Thats the difference - the rule plays no part any longer. Otherwise you played it acording to the multi mod rule (and basic maths) which is that 4+1*2 = 9

Even after the FAQ and you're still not trying to understand. They're telling you that you use the profile - not a recalculated profile based on wargear that was already included. And they're also telling you that if a character takes a mount, it changes their "base" profile - and you use that new base profile and add on additional modifiers to the new profile.

They wanted them to be S10 and did a poor job writting a rule that conveyed that, but they're trying to fix it with an FAQ. Don't fight it. Instead try to understand it.

I'm not fighting it. I'm pointing out your misunderstanding over the argument. AS it was a lot stronger than your claims - given it was exactly following the FACT you haev a modifier to a stat and the FACT you know how to deal with multiple modifiers.

I'm pointing out they wrote a rule - that there is a MODIFIER to the profile - and are now claiming there is no need to follow the rule. That is a change in rule. It isnt a clarification, and should have (like a lot of these) been fixed through errata

The profile is, according to the rule, 4+1. because it tells you that the 5 in the porfile includes the modifier of +1. So without any modifier the profile is 4.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Thats the difference - the rule plays no part any longer. Otherwise you played it acording to the multi mod rule (and basic maths) which is that 4+1*2 = 9

Not to be a stickler (ok that's a lie its pretty much exactly what I'm doing) but the way you wrote that equation out doesn't work (in game or in basic maths) 4+1*2 = 6 by basic maths and the game would see it as 4*2+1 = 9. And I have said this before, but with the RAI and the FAQ GW is trying to say that the 'increase' is not a +1 modifier so doesn't get taken in to the multiple modifiers equation and you are supposed to change the base profile, but yes as RAW there was no way of doing that., Which is why I always argued (and played because no one at my FLGC cared) RAI.

OK, then its 1+4*2. Done.

Except it specifically states, in the rules for the mount, that there is a +1 bonus.

it is, in the rules, a modifier. They just didnt realise - for the SECOND TIME - the effect this has on multiplication.

Same as they havent, in 3 editions, rewritten Shrikes rule so it actually works.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
OK, then its 1+4*2. Done.

Except it specifically states, in the rules for the mount, that there is a +1 bonus.

it is, in the rules, a modifier. They just didnt realise - for the SECOND TIME - the effect this has on multiplication.

Same as they havent, in 3 editions, rewritten Shrikes rule so it actually works.

I can see you have a strong emotional attachment to being right on this, but you're wrong. The FAQ supports that you're wrong, and even explains how you're wrong. But instead of reading it and trying to understand, you're still reading it from the point of view tha GW is wrong, and you're right.

Face it. Base strength is 5, so the equation you're looking for is 5 x 2 = 10 (not 4 + 1 x 2 = 10, and not 4 x 2 + 1 = 9). Stop trying to make it something it's not. If the people who make the rules tell you that it modifies the bass stat, then it modifies the base stat.

Here's a direct quote from the FAQ: This is not a modified profile, but is instead the model's new profile (as demonstrated by the Thunderwolf Cavalry profile).

I'm right, it should have been an errata. The effect of the FAQ is to change the rule

It's been explained enough to you now. They mucked it up. Twice now. Same as they've ballsed up shrike three times.

Ok, whatever, you're right. It's still S10.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'm right, it should have been an errata. The effect of the FAQ is to change the rule

It's been explained enough to you now. They mucked it up. Twice now. Same as they've ballsed up shrike three times.

How have the "mucked it up" twice?

 NightHowler wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
OK, then its 1+4*2. Done.

Except it specifically states, in the rules for the mount, that there is a +1 bonus.

it is, in the rules, a modifier. They just didnt realise - for the SECOND TIME - the effect this has on multiplication.

Same as they havent, in 3 editions, rewritten Shrikes rule so it actually works.

I can see you have a strong emotional attachment to being right on this, but you're wrong. The FAQ supports that you're wrong, and even explains how you're wrong. But instead of reading it and trying to understand, you're still reading it from the point of view tha GW is wrong, and you're right.

Face it. Base strength is 5, so the equation you're looking for is 5 x 2 = 10 (not 4 + 1 x 2 = 10, and not 4 x 2 + 1 = 9). Stop trying to make it something it's not. If the people who make the rules tell you that it modifies the bass stat, then it modifies the base stat.

Here's a direct quote from the FAQ: This is not a modified profile, but is instead the model's new profile (as demonstrated by the Thunderwolf Cavalry profile).

Technically he is right a change is supposed to be made by an errata not a faq, and a lot of these faqs should be erratas. The thing is this could have repercussions elsewhere by starting false precedents. (I can't think of any but you never know) What I mean by this is it brings up questions, "do all mounts directly change the profile or are these an exception? Are there any other things that "modify" the profile directly? If so what?" They just gave an answer with no explanation behind it and now we don't know if this is a precedent or an exception.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
OK, then its 1+4*2. Done.

Except it specifically states, in the rules for the mount, that there is a +1 bonus.

it is, in the rules, a modifier. They just didnt realise - for the SECOND TIME - the effect this has on multiplication.

Same as they havent, in 3 editions, rewritten Shrikes rule so it actually works.

I can see you have a strong emotional attachment to being right on this, but you're wrong. The FAQ supports that you're wrong, and even explains how you're wrong. But instead of reading it and trying to understand, you're still reading it from the point of view tha GW is wrong, and you're right.

Face it. Base strength is 5, so the equation you're looking for is 5 x 2 = 10 (not 4 + 1 x 2 = 10, and not 4 x 2 + 1 = 9). Stop trying to make it something it's not. If the people who make the rules tell you that it modifies the bass stat, then it modifies the base stat.

Here's a direct quote from the FAQ: This is not a modified profile, but is instead the model's new profile (as demonstrated by the Thunderwolf Cavalry profile).

Technically he is right a change is supposed to be made by an errata not a faq, and a lot of these faqs should be erratas. The thing is this could have repercussions elsewhere by starting false precedents. (I can't think of any but you never know) What I mean by this is it brings up questions, "do all mounts directly change the profile or are these an exception? Are there any other things that "modify" the profile directly? If so what?" They just gave an answer with no explanation behind it and now we don't know if this is a precedent or an exception.

I see what you're saying about an errata, but it would only really be needed for characters who purchase a mount. The profile for Thunderwolf Cavalry has always been S5, and so they would only require an FAQ saying "stop trying to recalculate the profile".