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.

Just thinking on this again this morning. Aren't immobilized vehicles treated as WS0? Therefore, it'd go up to WS1 with this ruling? I really can't get behind that. I am 100% positive that the RAI here is that they do not benefit from the WS increase in this "treats as" situation, regardless of the precise definition.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

You don't understand the problem with your argument. You assume that there is a hidden WS characteristic associated with vehicles in spite of the fact that there is no WS characteristic on a vehicles profile.

Per the rules, WS is not associated with vehicles until a rule comes along and makes it so. The rule that says to treat vehicles as being WS 1 makes it so. It's at that point that you can then have rules that could modify the WS characteristic which now exists.

Your argument is based on faulty assumptions.

My argument follows directly from the rules.

col_impact wrote:
You don't understand the problem with your argument. You assume that there is a hidden WS characteristic associated with vehicles in spite of the fact that there is no WS characteristic on a vehicles profile.

Per the rules, WS is not associated with vehicles until a rule comes along and makes it so. The rule that says to treat vehicles as being WS 1 makes it so. It's at that point that you can then have rules that could modify the WS characteristic which now exists.

Your argument is based on faulty assumptions.

My argument follows directly from the rules.

Where does it say that WS is not associated with Vehicles until a rule comes along and makes it so? Support your assertions, do not just state them blindly and expect people to take your word.

The WS stat exists. It is not usually listed on the profile of a Vehicle, true and not in argument. But, that is also why I stated it is a null value.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You don't understand the problem with your argument. You assume that there is a hidden WS characteristic associated with vehicles in spite of the fact that there is no WS characteristic on a vehicles profile.

Per the rules, WS is not associated with vehicles until a rule comes along and makes it so. The rule that says to treat vehicles as being WS 1 makes it so. It's at that point that you can then have rules that could modify the WS characteristic which now exists.

Your argument is based on faulty assumptions.

My argument follows directly from the rules.

Where does it say that WS is not associated with Vehicles until a rule comes along and makes it so? Support your assertions, do not just state them blindly and expect people to take your word.

The WS stat exists. It is not usually listed on the profile of a Vehicle, true and not in argument. But, that is also why I stated it is a null value.

So per the BRB, vehicle's differ from infantry in that they do not have a WS characteristic. The BRB is very clear that vehicles have different characteristics than infantry and the list of those characteristics does not include WS.

So until the following rule is in effect, there is no WS existing on the vehicle profile . . .



That rule defines the vehicles as being WS 1 (or 0) in the assault phase. Outside of the context of that rule WS is non-existent on the vehicle profile. In the context of the Assault rule, a vehicle has WS created and defined. In order to modify a characteristic, the characteristic must first exist and be defined. The Assault rule modifies the vehicle profile (by creating a WS characteristic temporarily) but does not modify the WS characteristic. There was no WS characteristic on the vehicle profile to modify. So the Assault rule is not a characteristic modifier and is not subject to the multiple modifiers rule.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You don't understand the problem with your argument. You assume that there is a hidden WS characteristic associated with vehicles in spite of the fact that there is no WS characteristic on a vehicles profile.

Per the rules, WS is not associated with vehicles until a rule comes along and makes it so. The rule that says to treat vehicles as being WS 1 makes it so. It's at that point that you can then have rules that could modify the WS characteristic which now exists.

Your argument is based on faulty assumptions.

My argument follows directly from the rules.

Where does it say that WS is not associated with Vehicles until a rule comes along and makes it so? Support your assertions, do not just state them blindly and expect people to take your word.

The WS stat exists. It is not usually listed on the profile of a Vehicle, true and not in argument. But, that is also why I stated it is a null value.

Spoiler:

CHARACTERISTIC PROFILES
Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists the values of its characteristics.[shows example infantry profiles with WS, BS, S, T, W, I, A, Ld, Sv]

Spoiler:

VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS
Vehicles have characteristics that define how powerful they are in a similar way to
Infantry. However, their characteristics are different. Shown here is one example of a
vehicle’s profile: [shows example with BS F S R and HP characteristics]

So per the BRB, vehicle's differ from infantry in that they do not have a WS characteristic. The BRB is very clear that vehicles have different characteristics than infantry and the list of those characteristics does not include WS.

So until the following rule is in effect, there is no WS existing on the vehicle profile . . .

Spoiler:

Fighting the Assault
Hitting vehicles in close combat is very straightforward due to their size. We can safely
assume that any unit that has been able to reach a vehicle has been travelling swiftly
enough to land a blow upon it with relative ease – though care must still be taken to
strike a vital point. Accordingly, all vehicles are treated as being Weapon Skill 1.
The exceptions are Walkers and Chariots, which have varying Weapon Skills, and
Immobilised non-Walker vehicles, which are always treated as having Weapon Skill 0.

That rule defines the vehicles as being WS 1 (or 0) in the assault phase. Outside of the context of that rule WS is non-existent on the vehicle profile. In the context of the Assault rule, a vehicle has WS created and defined. In order to modify a characteristic, the characteristic must first exist and be defined. The Assault rule modifies the vehicle profile (by creating a WS characteristic temporarily) but does not modify the WS characteristic. There was no WS characteristic on the vehicle profile to modify. So the Assault rule is not a characteristic modifier and is not subject to the multiple modifiers rule.

And yet 'Modifiers' says:

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by... even setting its value."

Going by that, setting a characteristic's value is modifying it.

That said I think the argument is moot given what someone posted earlier from the draft FAQ, that "counts as" or "treated as" are before other modifiers.

 Mr. Shine wrote:


And yet 'Modifiers' says:

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by... even setting its value."

Going by that, setting a characteristic's value is modifying it.

That said I think the argument is moot given what someone posted earlier from the draft FAQ, that "counts as" or "treated as" are before other modifiers.

The Fighting the Assault rule does not modify the WS characteristic. Prior to the rule the WS characteristic does not exist. The rule modifies the profile and defines WS as if WS was in the original profile as long as the rule is in effect.

Again, to re-iterate, you cannot modify a characteristic that does not exist. So the Fighting Assault rule does not modify the characteristic, it modifies the profile.

Also, it should be pointed out that the Draft FAQ supports my read (which is the RAW/logical read).

col_impact wrote:
The Fighting the Assault rule does not modify the WS characteristic. Prior to the rule the WS characteristic does not exist. The rule modifies the profile and defines WS as if WS was in the original profile as long as the rule is in effect.

The 'Modifiers' section tells us how modifiers modify characteristics. One of the ways we're told they can do this is by setting a characteristic's value.

Draft FAQ aside, the rule in question sets the Weapon Skill characteristic, thus per 'Modifiers' it is modifying the characteristic.

Again, to re-iterate, you cannot modify a characteristic that does not exist. So the Fighting Assault rule does not modify the characteristic, it modifies the profile.

Support for that? As I've quoted, setting a characteristic's value (without any stated need for said characteristic to have a stated value) qualifies as modifying, per 'Modifiers'.

Also, it should be pointed out that the Draft FAQ supports my read (which is the RAW/logical read).

In what way?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The Fighting the Assault rule does not modify the WS characteristic. Prior to the rule the WS characteristic does not exist. The rule modifies the profile and defines WS as if WS was in the original profile as long as the rule is in effect.

The 'Modifiers' section tells us how modifiers modify characteristics. One of the ways we're told they can do this is by setting a characteristic's value.

Draft FAQ aside, the rule in question sets the Weapon Skill characteristic, thus per 'Modifiers' it is modifying the characteristic.

Again, to re-iterate, you cannot modify a characteristic that does not exist. So the Fighting Assault rule does not modify the characteristic, it modifies the profile.

Support for that? As I've quoted, setting a characteristic's value (without any stated need for said characteristic to have a stated value) qualifies as modifying, per 'Modifiers'.

Also, it should be pointed out that the Draft FAQ supports my read (which is the RAW/logical read).

In what way?

You need to pay attention to the fact that WS is not a characteristic on a vehicle's profile. If you feel otherwise then please feel free to point to a vehicle profile with a WS characteristic. It's the Fighting Assault rule which puts the WS characteristic on the vehicle's profile, but that rule does not modify a pre-existing characteristic on the vehicle's profile.

You also need to pay attention to the logical difference between modifying a profile by adding a WS characteristic and modifying a characteristic. They are very different things and only the latter action is subject to the Multiple Modifiers rule.

col_impact wrote:
You need to pay attention to the fact that WS is not a characteristic on a vehicle's profile. If you feel otherwise then please feel free to point to a vehicle profile with a WS characteristic. It's the Fighting Assault rule which puts the WS characteristic on the vehicle's profile, but that rule does not modify a pre-existing characteristic on the vehicle's profile.

You need to pay attention to where simply setting a characteristic's value qualifies as modifying the characteristic.

Unless you're trying to say that a vehicle's Weapon Skill characteristic is not set by its rules when assaulted.

You also need to pay attention to the logical difference between modifying a profile by adding a WS characteristic and modifying a characteristic. They are very different things and only the latter action is subject to the Multiple Modifiers rule.

The rules often don't deal in logic, so that's not really an applicable argument.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You need to pay attention to the fact that WS is not a characteristic on a vehicle's profile. If you feel otherwise then please feel free to point to a vehicle profile with a WS characteristic. It's the Fighting Assault rule which puts the WS characteristic on the vehicle's profile, but that rule does not modify a pre-existing characteristic on the vehicle's profile.

You need to pay attention to where simply setting a characteristic's value qualifies as modifying the characteristic.

Unless you're trying to say that a vehicle's Weapon Skill characteristic is not set by its rules when assaulted.

You also need to pay attention to the logical difference between modifying a profile by adding a WS characteristic and modifying a characteristic. They are very different things and only the latter action is subject to the Multiple Modifiers rule.

The rules often don't deal in logic, so that's not really an applicable argument.

You have failed to point to the WS characteristic on a vehicle's profile. Therefore, you have to accept that WS does not exist on a vehicle's profile outside of the Fighting an Assault rule which adds that characteristic to the vehicle profile. That rule modifies the vehicle profile to have a WS 1 characteristic but does not modify any pre-existing WS characteristic.

Again, you are failing to distinguish between modifying a profile to have a WS characteristic and modifying a characteristic. Only in the case of the latter does the multiple modifiers rule apply.

To state it yet again, the Fighting an Assault rule does not set the WS characteristic. Rather, the rule adds a WS 1 characteristic to the profile. The profile is modified, not the characteristic. There was no WS characteristic on the vehicle profile to modify.

Simple stuff. You are simply not adhering to the rules as they are written.

If vehicles had a profile that read 'WS -' or something along those lines you would have an argument. That way there would be a characteristic on the vehicle profile for the rule to modify. But vehicles are not artillery and the vehicle profile itself is what is modified.

col_impact wrote:
You have failed to point to the WS characteristic on a vehicle's profile. Therefore, you have to accept that WS does not exist on a vehicle's profile outside of the Fighting an Assault rule which adds that characteristic to the vehicle profile. That rule modifies the vehicle profile to have a WS 1 characteristic but does not modify any pre-existing WS characteristic.

Again, you are failing to distinguish between modifying a profile to have a WS characteristic and modifying a characteristic. Only in the case of the latter does the multiple modifiers rule apply.

You have failed to present any rules-based criteria that restoring the WS characteristic to the Vehicle's profile is not modifying it. Is changing a Vehicle from not having a characteristic in its profile to having it not modifying it? And then when adding it in, does it not change it from a value of "null/void" to "1"?

If there was a definition for "setting a base Characteristic before Modifiers" and Vehicles in Assault used that terminology, you would be correct. However, that does not exist, so any assertion that this is the case is only an assumption that you are making up.

In many ways, this is the same problem existent with the Thunderwolf Cavalry with Thunder Hammers/Power Fists. Yes, GW's Draft FAQ does allow for it, but nothing in the rules there support this, either.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You have failed to point to the WS characteristic on a vehicle's profile. Therefore, you have to accept that WS does not exist on a vehicle's profile outside of the Fighting an Assault rule which adds that characteristic to the vehicle profile. That rule modifies the vehicle profile to have a WS 1 characteristic but does not modify any pre-existing WS characteristic.

Again, you are failing to distinguish between modifying a profile to have a WS characteristic and modifying a characteristic. Only in the case of the latter does the multiple modifiers rule apply.

You have failed to present any rules-based criteria that restoring the WS characteristic to the Vehicle's profile is not modifying it. Is changing a Vehicle from not having a characteristic in its profile to having it not modifying it? And then when adding it in, does it not change it from a value of "null/void" to "1"?

You keep missing the plain fact that vehicle's do not have a WS characteristic on their profile. You cannot modify a non-existent characteristic. The Fighting an Assault rule tells us to treat the vehicle as being WS 1 which means we treat the vehicle as if it was a model with profile reading WS 1. No characteristic on the vehicle profile has been modified. The only thing that has been modified has been the vehicle's profile and only for the context of the rule in question.

My argument is pretty simple and has all the rules on its side.

The vehicle profile lacks a WS characteristic. This defeats your argument that a characteristic is being modified or set.

The vehicle profile does not read 'WS -'. This defeats your argument that a 'null' value is to be considered as implicit.

The Fighting an Assault rule tells us to 'treat the vehicle as being WS 1' (ie to treat it as a model with WS 1 on its profile) so its a modification of the profile and not a modification of characteristic. The vehicle profile has no characteristic to modify.

col_impact wrote:
You keep missing the plain fact that vehicle's do not have a WS characteristic on their profile. You cannot modify a non-existent characteristic.

And you keep insisting that second sentence, which so far as the rules are concerned is not true.

The rules tell us that a model's characteristic can be modified by a rule setting its value. If a rule sets a vehicle's Weapon Skill to 1 then by the rules it has been modified in terms of 'Modifiers' in Models & Units at the very beginning of the rules.

There's no requirement for a model to have a characteristic prior to it having its value set.

Without disproving this per the rules, your argument has zero merit.

col_impact wrote:
You keep missing the plain fact that vehicle's do not have a WS characteristic on their profile. You cannot modify a non-existent characteristic. The Fighting an Assault rule tells us to treat the vehicle as being WS 1 which means we treat the vehicle as if it was a model with profile reading WS 1. No characteristic on the vehicle profile has been modified. The only thing that has been modified has been the vehicle's profile and only for the context of the rule in question.

I have not missed it. There is no defined game mechanic covering the "creation" of a statistic for a profile and considering the next value as the base value. There is no defined game mechanic for defining an out of profile characteristic number as being the base number. You have presented nothing to support this assertion of yours that this rule is indeed setting a base value.

The only thing that does cover this is Modifier rules, to which we then review Multiple Modifiers when we have a set number and an additive number being applied.

All this rule does is present the characteristic for use and then sets it to 1. There is no way in the game of defining it as a base value at this present time without rewriting almost all of the profiles.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You keep missing the plain fact that vehicle's do not have a WS characteristic on their profile. You cannot modify a non-existent characteristic.

And you keep insisting that second sentence, which so far as the rules are concerned is not true.

The rules tell us that a model's characteristic can be modified by a rule setting its value. If a rule sets a vehicle's Weapon Skill to 1 then by the rules it has been modified in terms of 'Modifiers' in Models & Units at the very beginning of the rules.

There's no requirement for a model to have a characteristic prior to it having its value set.

Without disproving this per the rules, your argument has zero merit.

You cannot modify a non-existing entity. The Fighting an Assault rule modifies the profile of the vehicle but not the characteristic. There was no WS characteristic for the rule to modify.

Further, you have failed to show that the Fighting an Assault rule is one that is trying to set or modify a characteristic.

The Fighting an Assault rule does not say 'set the WS to 1' (or to modify the WS characteristic for that matter). The rules says to treat the vehicle as being WS 1 which means to treat the vehicle as a model that has a profile with WS 1 since the vehicle has no such characteristic. Treating the model as being WS 1 does not involve setting the WS to 1 or modifying the WS in any way.

The Draft FAQ clarifies that language such as 'counts as' or 'treated as being' refers to modifications of the original profile.

Case closed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You keep missing the plain fact that vehicle's do not have a WS characteristic on their profile. You cannot modify a non-existent characteristic. The Fighting an Assault rule tells us to treat the vehicle as being WS 1 which means we treat the vehicle as if it was a model with profile reading WS 1. No characteristic on the vehicle profile has been modified. The only thing that has been modified has been the vehicle's profile and only for the context of the rule in question.

I have not missed it. There is no defined game mechanic covering the "creation" of a statistic for a profile and considering the next value as the base value. There is no defined game mechanic for defining an out of profile characteristic number as being the base number. You have presented nothing to support this assertion of yours that this rule is indeed setting a base value.

The only thing that does cover this is Modifier rules, to which we then review Multiple Modifiers when we have a set number and an additive number being applied.

All this rule does is present the characteristic for use and then sets it to 1. There is no way in the game of defining it as a base value at this present time without rewriting almost all of the profiles.

Your logic is bassackwards. There is no slippery slope here at all.

The solution is that you follow the rule and treat the vehicle as being WS 1 (which is a modification of the profile and not the characteristics) and the Multiple Modifiers rule simply does not apply to the Fighting an Assault rule.

Simple.

col_impact wrote:
You cannot modify a non-existing entity. The Fighting an Assault rule modifies the profile of the vehicle but not the characteristic. There was no WS characteristic for the rule to modify.

Quote, please.

col_impact wrote:
Further, you have failed to show that the Fighting an Assault rule is one that is trying to set or modify a characteristic.

It changes something from what it was to what it will be. How is that not modifying?

col_impact wrote:
The Fighting an Assault rule does not say 'set the WS to 1' (or to modify the WS characteristic for that matter). The rules says to treat the vehicle as being WS 1 which means to treat the vehicle as a model that has a profile with WS 1 since the vehicle has no such characteristic. Treating the model as being WS 1 does not involve setting the WS to 1 or modifying the WS in any way.

The Draft FAQ clarifies that language such as 'counts as' or 'treated as being' refers to modifications of the original profile.

No, the FAQ does not, that is an assumption on your part. Care to bring something from the live rulebook?

col_impact wrote:
Your logic is bassackwards. There is no slippery slope here at all.

The solution is that you follow the rule and treat the vehicle as being WS 1 (which is a modification of the profile and not the characteristics) and the Multiple Modifiers rule simply does not apply to the Fighting an Assault rule.

Simple.

So, my logic is backwards because I use something that exists instead of using something that doesn't exist? You want to try running that through a proper logic filter again?

There is nothing that states "treats as x" as base-line establishment. Or at least, nothing that has been properly quoted and established outside of your own mind.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You cannot modify a non-existing entity. The Fighting an Assault rule modifies the profile of the vehicle but not the characteristic. There was no WS characteristic for the rule to modify.

Quote, please.

col_impact wrote:
Further, you have failed to show that the Fighting an Assault rule is one that is trying to set or modify a characteristic.

It changes something from what it was to what it will be. How is that not modifying?

Creating, defining, or adding is not synonymous with modifying. Modifying requires a pre-existing object that you modify. If that object does not exist then you are adding it or defining it or creating it. This is basic English.

If the WS characteristic existed on the vehicle profile then you would have an argument. But it does not, so the Fighting an Assault rule is adding the characteristic to the profile and not modifying the characteristic. There was no characteristic on the profile to modify.

Again this is simple English.

modify means "to make partial or minor changes to (something)"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The Fighting an Assault rule does not say 'set the WS to 1' (or to modify the WS characteristic for that matter). The rules says to treat the vehicle as being WS 1 which means to treat the vehicle as a model that has a profile with WS 1 since the vehicle has no such characteristic. Treating the model as being WS 1 does not involve setting the WS to 1 or modifying the WS in any way.

The Draft FAQ clarifies that language such as 'counts as' or 'treated as being' refers to modifications of the original profile.

No, the FAQ does not, that is an assumption on your part. Care to bring something from the live rulebook?

If you treat your friend Dave (a man) as if he were a woman, does that mean Dave changes his gender? The answer is no.

The language the rule uses does not involve modifying or setting anything. And the Draft FAQ only points out what is logically already in the rules.

No WS characteristic exists on a vehicle profile and the rule only asks us to treat the vehicle as if it were a model with a WS 1 on its profile. The rule does not ask us to modify any characteristic.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Your logic is bassackwards. There is no slippery slope here at all.

The solution is that you follow the rule and treat the vehicle as being WS 1 (which is a modification of the profile and not the characteristics) and the Multiple Modifiers rule simply does not apply to the Fighting an Assault rule.

Simple.

So, my logic is backwards because I use something that exists instead of using something that doesn't exist? You want to try running that through a proper logic filter again?

There is nothing that states "treats as x" as base-line establishment. Or at least, nothing that has been properly quoted and established outside of your own mind.

Your argument is the one with fundamental English comprehension issues. The rule directly asks us to treat the vehicle as a model with a profile with WS 1 since the vehicle profile lacks the WS characteristic. The rule does not ask us to modify anything.

col_impact wrote:
Creating, defining, or adding is not synonymous with modifying. Modifying requires a pre-existing object that you modify. If that object does not exist then you are adding it or defining it or creating it. This is basic English.

If the WS characteristic existed on the vehicle profile then you would have an argument. But it does not, so the Fighting an Assault rule is adding the characteristic to the profile and not modifying the characteristic. There was no characteristic on the profile to modify.

Again this is simple English.

modify means "to make partial or minor changes to (something)"

Again, quote please. The only method I can find in the rulebook for making any changes to a Characteristic is Modifiers. If you are aware of an actual statement that states otherwise, please provide it before providing any other answers.

col_impact wrote:
If you treat your friend Dave (a man) as if he were a woman, does that mean Dave changes his gender? The answer is no.

The language the rule uses does not involve modifying or setting anything. And the Draft FAQ only points out what is logically already in the rules.

No WS characteristic exists on a vehicle profile and the rule only asks us to treat the vehicle as if it were a model with a WS 1 on its profile. The rule does not ask us to modify any characteristic.

If I treat my friend Dave as a woman, he is temporarily taking on the aspects of a woman for the purposes of my treatment. Even more importantly, if "treats as" is temporary, it definitely does not fall under the concept of a baseline treatment, but as a modifier.

So, again, where in the rulebook is it defined as you are asserting?

col_impact wrote:
Your argument is the one with fundamental English comprehension issues. The rule directly asks us to treat the vehicle as a model with a profile with WS 1 since the vehicle profile lacks the WS characteristic. The rule does not ask us to modify anything.

No, my argument, as most of them are, is based on the ruleset that we can apply, not always on the English that we always use. The rule tells us to make a change to the profile of the model in question for the purposes of the interaction. It goes from a null value to an existent one.

If you have a proper argument using a quote from a live document, then provide it. I have asked you in several posts now. Quote up or shut up.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Creating, defining, or adding is not synonymous with modifying. Modifying requires a pre-existing object that you modify. If that object does not exist then you are adding it or defining it or creating it. This is basic English.

If the WS characteristic existed on the vehicle profile then you would have an argument. But it does not, so the Fighting an Assault rule is adding the characteristic to the profile and not modifying the characteristic. There was no characteristic on the profile to modify.

Again this is simple English.

modify means "to make partial or minor changes to (something)"

Again, quote please. The only method I can find in the rulebook for making any changes to a Characteristic is Modifiers. If you are aware of an actual statement that states otherwise, please provide it before providing any other answers.

You have yet to explain how the rule is asking for a modification to the WS characteristic when the vehicle profile has no characteristic to modify.

The Fighting an Assault rule asks us to treat vehicles (which have no WS characteristic) as models that have a WS 1. The rule is not asking for a modification to the characteristic. The rule is asking for a modification to the profile.

You simply have to follow what the rule tells you to do. The rule has nothing to do with the Multiple Modifiers rule since it is not a modifier and the rule is not in any way dependent on Multiple Modifiers rule to function.

The Multiple Modifiers rule simply does not apply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If you treat your friend Dave (a man) as if he were a woman, does that mean Dave changes his gender? The answer is no.

The language the rule uses does not involve modifying or setting anything. And the Draft FAQ only points out what is logically already in the rules.

No WS characteristic exists on a vehicle profile and the rule only asks us to treat the vehicle as if it were a model with a WS 1 on its profile. The rule does not ask us to modify any characteristic.

If I treat my friend Dave as a woman, he is temporarily taking on the aspects of a woman for the purposes of my treatment. Even more importantly, if "treats as" is temporary, it definitely does not fall under the concept of a baseline treatment, but as a modifier.

So, again, where in the rulebook is it defined as you are asserting?

Oh my goodness. You have serious problems with logic. Dave in the scenario above would himself have no change in characteristic or aspect and that is what you are utterly failing to attend to.

No WS characteristic exists on a vehicle profile and the rule only asks us to treat the vehicle as if it were a model with a WS 1 on its profile. The rule does not ask us to modify any characteristic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

No, my argument, as most of them are, is based on the ruleset that we can apply, not always on the English that we always use. The rule tells us to make a change to the profile of the model in question for the purposes of the interaction. It goes from a null value to an existent one.

If you have a proper argument using a quote from a live document, then provide it. I have asked you in several posts now. Quote up or shut up.

I agree that the rules tell us to make a change to the profile (by adding WS 1 on the profile). But as I have stated before the rules do not ask us to make changes to any pre-existing characteristics.

With regards your suggestion that the rules ask us to modify the WS characteristic from a null value to an existent one - it's time for you to quote up or shut up. If there were a WS characteristic that had a null value the vehicle profile would read 'WS -' (as the artillery profile does).

There is no such null value associated with WS on the vehicle profile.

The WS characteristic is completely non-existent on the vehicle profile.

Furthermore you need to recognize that 'modify' and 'create' are not synonymous.






Until you can point to a 'WS -' on a vehicle profile or some section of the BRB which discusses hidden null characteristic values on vehicles, you literally have NO ARGUMENT.


I will just continue to follow what the BRB tells me to do. I will continue to treat a vehicle that is Fighting an Assault as being a model with WS 1 on its profile (and making no modifications to any characteristic in the process).

col_impact wrote:
You have yet to explain how the rule is asking for a modification to the WS characteristic when the vehicle profile has no characteristic to modify.

The Fighting an Assault rule asks us to treat vehicles (which have no WS characteristic) as models that have a WS 1. The rule is not asking for a modification to the characteristic. The rule is asking for a modification to the profile.

You simply have to follow what the rule tells you to do. The rule has nothing to do with the Multiple Modifiers rule since it is not a modifier and the rule is not in any way dependent on Multiple Modifiers rule to function.

The Multiple Modifiers rule simply does not apply.

So... no quote, as is common with you. Just assertions on how you think the game should be played.

I have explained, but you do not listen, again as is common with you. There is no mechanic defining a method for establishing a baseline characteristic after the fact. Only Multiple Modifiers provides anything close to it.

col_impact wrote:
Oh my goodness. You have serious problems with logic. Dave in the scenario above would himself have no change in characteristic or aspect and that is what you are utterly failing to attend to.

No WS characteristic exists on a vehicle profile and the rule only asks us to treat the vehicle as if it were a model with a WS 1 on its profile. The rule does not ask us to modify any characteristic.

No, I have no problem with logic, and you do not listen to what is said to you, so you completely ignored the point. When a Vehicle is treated as Weapon Skill 1, it is a temporary basis for the interactions in question. When Dave is being treated as a woman, he is for the purposes of that treatment. It doesn't change Dave's DNA nor what reproductive equipment he was born with. Same with the Vehicle, when the interaction is done, the Vehicle still does not have a Weapon Skill. The profile is modified twice, once to activate the Characteristic on the profile, and second by applying a value to that Characteristic.

And since there is no defined mechanism for making a Characteristic baseline after a change, I have no choice but to use the Multiple Modifiers standards when something like this happens.

So again, provide a quote otherwise or be dismissed.

col_impact wrote:
I agree that the rules tell us to make a change to the profile (by adding WS 1 on the profile). But as I have stated before the rules do not ask us to make changes to any pre-existing characteristics.

With regards your suggestion that the rules ask us to modify the WS characteristic from a null value to an existent one - it's time for you to quote up or shut up. If there were a WS characteristic that had a null value the vehicle profile would read 'WS -' (as the artillery profile does).

There is no such null value associated with WS on the vehicle profile.

The WS characteristic is completely non-existent on the vehicle profile.

Furthermore you need to recognize that 'modify' and 'create' are not synonymous.

Spoiler:

create means 'to bring (something) into existence'

Spoiler:

modify means 'to make partial or minor changes to (something)'

Until you can point to a 'WS -' on a vehicle profile or some section of the BRB which discusses hidden null characteristic values on vehicles, you literally have NO ARGUMENT.


I will just continue to follow what the BRB tells me to do. I will continue to treat a vehicle that is Fighting an Assault as being a model with WS 1 on its profile (and making no modifications to any characteristic in the process).

But the BRB doesn't tell you that creating a Characteristic on a profile, temporarily is not to be considered a modification. If you want to focus on "partial or minor", keep in mind that this system covers going from a 1 to a 10 with one step.

Your quotes do not support your assertion. Try again.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You have yet to explain how the rule is asking for a modification to the WS characteristic when the vehicle profile has no characteristic to modify.

The Fighting an Assault rule asks us to treat vehicles (which have no WS characteristic) as models that have a WS 1. The rule is not asking for a modification to the characteristic. The rule is asking for a modification to the profile.

You simply have to follow what the rule tells you to do. The rule has nothing to do with the Multiple Modifiers rule since it is not a modifier and the rule is not in any way dependent on Multiple Modifiers rule to function.

The Multiple Modifiers rule simply does not apply.

So... no quote, as is common with you. Just assertions on how you think the game should be played.

I have explained, but you do not listen, again as is common with you. There is no mechanic defining a method for establishing a baseline characteristic after the fact. Only Multiple Modifiers provides anything close to it.

I am the only one in this thread who has been providing quotes. And I am the only one who has been adhering to the English meaning of modify which is not synonymous with create.

Vehicles lack any WS characteristic. Per English, you cannot modify something that does not exist.



The rule asks us to treat the vehicle as a model with WS 1 which is a modification of the profile.

No characteristics are being modified (and you have failed to present a viable argument that shows how the WS characteristic is being modified) so the Multiple Modifiers rule does not apply and we simply follow the rules provided and treat the vehicle as a model with WS 1 on its profile.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
The profile is modified twice, once to activate the Characteristic on the profile, and second by applying a value to that Characteristic.

This is a wild interpretation on your part. Do you have a quote for this or any support at all for this (using English semantics or logic)?

How do you go from "all vehicles are treated as being Weapon Skill 1" to "The profile is modified twice, once to activate the Characteristic on the profile, and second by applying a value to that Characteristic"?

This nonsensical jump in your argument is laughable. And what's even funnier it is premised on there being a hidden WS characteristic on the vehicle profile which you say is being activated!!!

As stated before, you would have an argument if the vehicle profile said 'WS -'

But you are stubbornly refusing to admit that there is no WS characteristic on a vehicle's profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

But the BRB doesn't tell you that creating a Characteristic on a profile, temporarily is not to be considered a modification. If you want to focus on "partial or minor", keep in mind that this system covers going from a 1 to a 10 with one step.

Your quotes do not support your assertion. Try again.

You are the one who has to try again.

The Fighting an Assault rule makes no mention of modification and you have failed to connect the rule to modification.

Moreover, you have made up your own definition of modify which is in no way supported by the BRB or any dictionary. You need to provide support from the BRB that creating a characteristic on a profile is modifying the characteristic, not me. You are the one speaking non-sensical English. Feel free to prove me wrong with any dictionary.

col_impact wrote:
I am the only one in this thread who has been providing quotes.

Well this is awkward...

 Mr. Shine wrote:
...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."

 Mr. Shine wrote:
And yet 'Modifiers' says:

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by... even setting its value."

As usual though you choose to simply ignore quotes provided by those you disagree with and claim they've not supported their argument.

Good thing I pointed out the argument is moot with the draft FAQ in my first reply though.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I am the only one in this thread who has been providing quotes.

Well this is awkward...

 Mr. Shine wrote:
...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."

 Mr. Shine wrote:
And yet 'Modifiers' says:

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by... even setting its value."

As usual though you choose to simply ignore quotes provided by those you disagree with and claim they've not supported their argument.

Good thing I pointed out the argument is moot with the draft FAQ in my first reply though.

The FAQ merely points out what is obvious to people who apply the rules correctly and pay attention to the meaning of words like 'modify'.

Good thing the FAQ exists to help people like you understand clearly written rules.

The Fighting an Assault rule in question does not modify the WS characteristic. The WS characteristic does not exist on a vehicle's profile and so cannot be modified. You cannot modify something that does not exist. Feel free to find any dictionary that would allow you to modify something that does not exist. 'Modify' is not synonymous with 'create'. The only thing that is being modified is the profile so the Multiple Modifiers rule which deals with characteristics simply does not apply.

The Fighting an Assault rule instructs us to treat the vehicle as being WS 1 and so we treat the vehicle as a model that has WS 1 on its profile. No characteristic is modified. Only the profile is modified. This is EXACTLY how the FAQ handles it.

Simple.

Good thing we have an FAQ to help you fathom this rule interaction.

col_impact wrote:

 Mr. Shine wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I am the only one in this thread who has been providing quotes.

Well this is awkward...

 Mr. Shine wrote:
...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."

 Mr. Shine wrote:
And yet 'Modifiers' says:

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by... even setting its value."

As usual though you choose to simply ignore quotes provided by those you disagree with and claim they've not supported their argument.

Good thing I pointed out the argument is moot with the draft FAQ in my first reply though.

The FAQ merely points out what is obvious to people who apply the rules correctly and pay attention to the meaning of words like 'modify'.

Good thing the FAQ exists to help people like you understand clearly written rules.

It really really doesn't.

pm713 wrote:

It really really doesn't.

Answer 2 questions.

Do vehicles have a WS characteristic on their profile?

What does modify mean?

col_impact wrote:

pm713 wrote:

It really really doesn't.

Answer 2 questions.

Do vehicles have a WS characteristic on their profile?

What does modify mean?

Yes.

To change.

Neither of these things makes what I said wrong. If the rules were clear there wouldn't be any faq.

pm713 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

pm713 wrote:

It really really doesn't.

Answer 2 questions.

Do vehicles have a WS characteristic on their profile?

What does modify mean?

Yes.

To change.

Neither of these things makes what I said wrong. If the rules were clear there wouldn't be any faq.

The answer to the first is no. WS is not a characteristic on a vehicle's profile. If you feel otherwise, please quote the relevant section in the BRB.

The answer to the second is "to change (something)". Something must exist and be a thing in order to be able to modify it. Modify is not synonymous with create.

FAQs exist to settle debates. The debates are often between one side that is applying the rule correctly and another side that is intentionally being obtuse in its application of the rule in order to generate advantage.

col_impact wrote:

pm713 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

pm713 wrote:

It really really doesn't.

Answer 2 questions.

Do vehicles have a WS characteristic on their profile?

What does modify mean?

Yes.

To change.

Neither of these things makes what I said wrong. If the rules were clear there wouldn't be any faq.

The answer to the first is no. WS is not a characteristic on a vehicle's profile. If you feel otherwise, please quote the relevant section in the BRB.

The answer to the second is "to change (something)". Something must exist and be a thing in order to be able to modify it. Modify is not synonymous with create.

The answer to the first is yes. Tell me where in the BRB it says a walker is not a vehicle.

pm713 wrote:

The answer to the first is yes. Tell me where in the BRB it says a walker is not a vehicle.

Walkers are a special type of vehicle that have a WS characteristic (and other characteristics). This thread is not talking about the case of walkers and you knew that.

Your answer is an example of an obtuse answer.

Or do I really need to point out the patently obvious that this thread has been dealing with non-walker vehicles?

Here is the relevant section of the BRB.





As stated before, FAQs exist to settle debates. The debates are often between one side that is applying the rule correctly and another side that is intentionally being obtuse in its application of the rule in order to generate advantage.

So if someone simply quits being obtuse and reads the rules and follows English semantics the rules interaction in this case is actually easy to sort out.

Simple.

col_impact wrote:

pm713 wrote:

The answer to the first is yes. Tell me where in the BRB it says a walker is not a vehicle.

Walkers are a special unit of vehicles that have a WS characteristic. This thread is not talking about the case of walkers and you knew that.

Your answer is an example of an obtuse answer.

Here is the relevant section of the BRB.

Spoiler:

VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS
Vehicles have characteristics that define how powerful they are in a similar way to
Infantry. However, their characteristics are different. Shown here is one example of a
vehicle’s profile:

Ballistic Skill (BS)
Vehicles have a Ballistic Skill value just like other unit types and it represents the
accuracy of the crew as they blast away at their enemy with the vehicle’s weapons.

Armour Value (AV)
The Armour Value (sometimes just referred to as Armour) of a vehicle tells you how hard
it is to damage. Vehicles have separate Armour Values to represent the protection on their
front (F), sides (S) and rear (R). Armour Values typically range from 10 to 14, depending
on which side of the vehicle is being attacked, with the lightest armour usually on the
rear, to represent vulnerable fuel tanks, engine compartments, etc.

Hull Points (HP)
Every vehicle has a number of Hull Points, indicating how much damage it can take
before it is destroyed. This will normally be shown in the vehicle’s characteristics profile.

As stated before, FAQs exist to settle debates. The debates are often between one side that is applying the rule correctly and another side that is intentionally being obtuse in its application of the rule in order to generate advantage.

So if someone simply quits being obtuse and reads the rules and follows English semantics the rules interaction in this case is actually easy to sort out.

Simple.

The thread was resolved page 1.

You asked me a question and I answered it. I was not being obtuse I simply gave what I considered to be the answer.

Sometimes the debate occurs because several people read a rule and come to different conclusions that they consider obvious hence an faq to show which is correct.