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.

Is it possible to get WS2 waveserpents with the transports now benefitting from their aspect host thingy. This is because vehicles are naturally ws1 and the +1 from the aspect host?

Well, they can access the rule, yes.

But getting to benefit, is a different story. It could be considered that the WS 1 that they get when being attacked could be classified as a set value modifier, which means that it has precedence over the additive modifier that the detachment rule provides.

Why would you want that anyways? It would provide extremely little benefit.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Why would you want that anyways? It would provide extremely little benefit.

It would make Tau hit on 4's instead of 3's (EMP grenades, Smash attacks from Riptides), as well as any unit that failed a Fear Test (might come up in a multiple combat situation) or Blind test. Plus Eldar have Psychic Powers that can lower a target's WS. Dropping from 3's to 4's to hit can make a big difference.

 GoonBandito wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
Why would you want that anyways? It would provide extremely little benefit.

It would make Tau hit on 4's instead of 3's (EMP grenades, Smash attacks from Riptides), as well as any unit that failed a Fear Test (might come up in a multiple combat situation) or Blind test. Plus Eldar have Psychic Powers that can lower a target's WS. Dropping from 3's to 4's to hit can make a big difference.

I suppose if your aspect shrine is assault focused, might as well. Still, just doesn't seem like it would come up very often at all.

I believe we discussed this before during whether or not Wave Serpents got +1BS. The consensus was that no, while vehicles count as having WS1 when attacking them, this is not a profile they have or gain. As such, there's nothing to give +1 to. It was a cool idea though.

 Yarium wrote:
I believe we discussed this before during whether or not Wave Serpents got +1BS. The consensus was that no, while vehicles count as having WS1 when attacking them, this is not a profile they have or gain. As such, there's nothing to give +1 to. It was a cool idea though.

I partially disagree. They definitely do not have this stat in their profile, no argument. However, to say they do not gain this stat would seem to suggest that they do not have this stat applied to their profile, even on the temporary basis it is applied in this case.

Q: Do Wave Serpents taken as Dedicated Transports get +1 Ballistic Skill for being part of the Aspect Host or Dire Avenger Shrine Formations?
A: Yes.

This should work if you pick +1WS Bonus with an Aspect Host, but I doubt there are many situations where its a good idea.

As Charistoph said in his first reply, vehicles are treated as being Weapon Skill 1, which is a set value modifier to their otherwise non-existent Weapon Skill.

As such, per '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."

There is this part from the FAQ which I feel is relevant:

Q: When a model uses a rule with a wording similar to ‘count [characteristic] as’ or ‘use the [characteristic] of model X’, do we read the characteristic as if it were in the affected model’s original profile before we apply modifiers?
A: Yes.

The wording from the rulebook is "treated as" WS1, which could be close enough to the above for it to work.

Personally, I won't be playing it that way (as an Eldar player), as I don't think it's the intention. It also wouldn't affect Fear or Blind (WS1 vs WS2 is still 4+).

 Charistoph wrote:
I partially disagree. They definitely do not have this stat in their profile, no argument. However, to say they do not gain this stat would seem to suggest that they do not have this stat applied to their profile, even on the temporary basis it is applied in this case.

I'd have to check this tonight when I have the book in front of me again, but my gut tells me that the rule is worded in such a way as to have something for attackers to roll to hit against. In other words, that it's more like "treat them as attacking a WS1 target" rather than "the vehicle gains WS1 for the duration of the attack". My belief is that this is to represent the vehicle having a chance at dodging an attack by a quick "jink" of sorts, and that improving such a stat isn't what GW intended.

Of course, if WS2 Wave Serpents can be a thing, I think the game would be better for it. I love the idea of an Aspect pilot whose spent centuries training to dodge away from close combat attacks by people with the close combat ability of a child.

I hadn't considered the nature of a vehicles WS1. Interesting!

"Accordingly, all vehicles are treated as being Weapon Skill 1."

Since non-walkers do not have a weapon skill stat, this provides a value to use when needed. If a wave serpent is treated as having WS 1 and gets a +1 WS bonus, I arrive at WS 2. I don't see any language that leads me to a different conclusion.

 Stephanius wrote:
Since non-walkers do not have a weapon skill stat, this provides a value to use when needed. If a wave serpent is treated as having WS 1 and gets a +1 WS bonus, I arrive at WS 2. I don't see any language that leads me to a different conclusion.

Unless you consider "... vehicles are treated as being Weapon Skill 1." as a set value (Multiple Modifiers, pg. 8)

It really is a good thing that:

A) WS2 matters for almost no situation
B) No one will chose +1WS for an Aspect host because +1BS is better for the units that can be in the host, since no one take CC Aspects

 Galef wrote:
It really is a good thing that:

A) WS2 matters for almost no situation
B) No one will chose +1WS for an Aspect host because +1BS is better for the units that can be in the host, since no one take CC Aspects

Yup, this is a definite argument for the sake of argument. I'm positive that, if asked, GW would say "no, they're still hit as if they were WS1", but until then, WS2 it is! HAHAHAHAHA! (mad with power)

 Galef wrote:
It really is a good thing that:

A) WS2 matters for almost no situation
B) No one will chose +1WS for an Aspect host because +1BS is better for the units that can be in the host, since no one take CC Aspects

Ummm...I do. Occasionally. 2 squads of Striking Scorpions and 1 squad of Howling Banshees.

 Happyjew wrote:
Ummm...I do. Occasionally. 2 squads of Striking Scorpions and 1 squad of Howling Banshees.

I've used a squads of Scorpions, Banshees and Shining Spears.

If you say that you are setting the WS of a vehicle to 1 are you treating the vehicle as being WS1?

col_impact wrote:
If you say that you are setting the WS of a vehicle to 1 are you treating the vehicle as being WS1?

How can it be otherwise, at least temporarily?

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If you say that you are setting the WS of a vehicle to 1 are you treating the vehicle as being WS1?

How can it be otherwise, at least temporarily?

The multiple modifiers rule looks for special rules or wargear that actually modify a characteristic. If vehicles are treated as being WS 1 then there isn't a characteristic being modified by special rule or wargear.

In other words are we dealing with the situation involved in the 'if statement' below of the Multiple Modifiers rule?



The vehicle rule defines the WS as being 1 but does not modify any pre-existing WS characteristic of the vehicle. So the Multiple Modifiers rule does not technically apply here. In fact the Multiple Modifiers rule can only apply after the vehicle rule tells us to treat the vehicle as being WS 1. In the absence of the vehicle rule that establishes the WS as being 1, there is no WS characteristic defined and no characteristic that could be modified.

col_impact wrote:
The multiple modifiers rule looks for special rules or wargear that actually modify a characteristic. If vehicles are treated as being WS 1 then there isn't a characteristic being modified by special rule or wargear.

In other words are we dealing with the situation involved in the 'if statement' below of the Multiple Modifiers rule?

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).

The vehicle rule defines the WS as being 1 but does not modify any pre-existing WS characteristic of the vehicle. So the Multiple Modifiers rule does not technically apply here. In fact the Multiple Modifiers rule can only apply after the vehicle rule tells us to treat the vehicle as being WS 1. In the absence of the vehicle rule that establishes the WS as being 1, there is no WS characteristic defined and no characteristic that could be modified.

Do not misrepresent what you quoted. Special Rules are not exclusively stated as being the cause of a modifier. The portion you quoted in red just states "a combination of rules or wargear". It is a rule which temporarily grants a Vehicle a value in a Characteristic it normally does not have. For all intents and purposes, before that point, the Vehicle has a WS of zero, just like its Attacks and Leadership. Zero in this case representing a state of null.

But as is the case, it does change it from being a null characteristic to a quantifiable characteristic. If that doesn't qualify as modifying it, what does? Can you demonstrate a definition of "modify" provided by the game to be something other than making a change to improve or lessen?

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The multiple modifiers rule looks for special rules or wargear that actually modify a characteristic. If vehicles are treated as being WS 1 then there isn't a characteristic being modified by special rule or wargear.

In other words are we dealing with the situation involved in the 'if statement' below of the Multiple Modifiers rule?

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).

The vehicle rule defines the WS as being 1 but does not modify any pre-existing WS characteristic of the vehicle. So the Multiple Modifiers rule does not technically apply here. In fact the Multiple Modifiers rule can only apply after the vehicle rule tells us to treat the vehicle as being WS 1. In the absence of the vehicle rule that establishes the WS as being 1, there is no WS characteristic defined and no characteristic that could be modified.

Do not misrepresent what you quoted. Special Rules are not exclusively stated as being the cause of a modifier. The portion you quoted in red just states "a combination of rules or wargear". It is a rule which temporarily grants a Vehicle a value in a Characteristic it normally does not have. For all intents and purposes, before that point, the Vehicle has a WS of zero, just like its Attacks and Leadership. Zero in this case representing a state of null.

But as is the case, it does change it from being a null characteristic to a quantifiable characteristic. If that doesn't qualify as modifying it, what does? Can you demonstrate a definition of "modify" provided by the game to be something other than making a change to improve or lessen?

You can't modify something that is not defined or non-existent. So the rule to treat the vehicle as being WS 1 is not a modifier but a definer. If not for that rule, WS on vehicles is undefined and non-existent.

Defining a thing that did not exist before is not modifying that thing - it is creating that thing out of nothing. So the vehicle rule that tells us to treat the vehicle as being WS 1 is not a modifier and not subject to the Multiple Modifiers rule.

Feel free to look up the definition of 'modify'.

col_impact wrote:
You can't modify something that is not defined or non-existent. So the rule to treat the vehicle as being WS 1 is not a modifier but a definer. If not for that rule, WS on vehicles is undefined and non-existent.

Defining a thing that did not exist before is not modifying that thing - it is creating that thing out of nothing. So the vehicle rule that tells us to treat the vehicle as being WS 1 is not a modifier and not subject to the Multiple Modifiers rule.

Feel free to look up the definition of 'modify'.

Can you demonstrate that effectively? Yes, I have looked up the definition, in several places. So, if a rule gives an Artillery Gun WS 1, it would not qualify as a modifier?

I disagree that it is creating it when it changes it from a null value to an existent value. It is not stating that it is creating it in this case at all. That is simply your own assumption.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You can't modify something that is not defined or non-existent. So the rule to treat the vehicle as being WS 1 is not a modifier but a definer. If not for that rule, WS on vehicles is undefined and non-existent.

Defining a thing that did not exist before is not modifying that thing - it is creating that thing out of nothing. So the vehicle rule that tells us to treat the vehicle as being WS 1 is not a modifier and not subject to the Multiple Modifiers rule.

Feel free to look up the definition of 'modify'.

Can you demonstrate that effectively? Yes, I have looked up the definition, in several places. So, if a rule gives an Artillery Gun WS 1, it would not qualify as a modifier?

I disagree that it is creating it when it changes it from a null value to an existent value. It is not stating that it is creating it in this case at all. That is simply your own assumption.

So you can point to a vehicle profile that says 'WS null' on it? When I look at a vehicle profile, WS is not on it at all.

The rule that tells us to treat the vehicle as WS 1 defines the WS of the vehicle. That rule does not modify a pre-existing characteristic. That rule defines the characteristic out of nothing.

Null is not a word associated with characteristics anywhere in the BRB. You are making that up.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Galef wrote:
It really is a good thing that:

A) WS2 matters for almost no situation
B) No one will chose +1WS for an Aspect host because +1BS is better for the units that can be in the host, since no one take CC Aspects

Ummm...I do. Occasionally. 2 squads of Striking Scorpions and 1 squad of Howling Banshees.

I do as well, but more importantly, I don't get wave serpents for any of my close combat squads so it has never mattered.

col_impact wrote:
So you can point to a vehicle profile that says 'WS null' on it? When I look at a vehicle profile, WS is not on it at all.

The rule that tells us to treat the vehicle as WS 1 defines the WS of the vehicle. That rule does not modify a pre-existing characteristic. That rule defines the characteristic out of nothing.

Null is not a word associated with characteristics anywhere in the BRB. You are making that up.

I am not making it up. Look up the word and then start worrying about it.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
So you can point to a vehicle profile that says 'WS null' on it? When I look at a vehicle profile, WS is not on it at all.

The rule that tells us to treat the vehicle as WS 1 defines the WS of the vehicle. That rule does not modify a pre-existing characteristic. That rule defines the characteristic out of nothing.

Null is not a word associated with characteristics anywhere in the BRB. You are making that up.

I am not making it up. Look up the word and then start worrying about it.

So you can point to a vehicle profile and show a WS characteristic with a 'null' value assigned? Page reference please.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Galef wrote:
It really is a good thing that:

A) WS2 matters for almost no situation
B) No one will chose +1WS for an Aspect host because +1BS is better for the units that can be in the host, since no one take CC Aspects

Ummm...I do. Occasionally. 2 squads of Striking Scorpions and 1 squad of Howling Banshees.

This. Because if you ever run an Avatar in a Craftworld Warhost then some assault aspects really benefit too. Plus Banshees autorunning the 6 for a monstrous 15" a turn on foot. Mmmmh.

col_impact wrote:
So you can point to a vehicle profile and show a WS characteristic with a 'null' value assigned? Page reference please.

So, you didn't look up the word.