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.

pm713 wrote:

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.

Your answer to the question is flat out wrong then and you should re-read the BRB since you have not mastered the information therein. Vehicles do not have a WS characteristic unless they are a special type of vehicle.

Anyone who understands what 'modify' means knows that you cannot modify something that does not exist. A characteristic must exist in order for it be able to be modified.

col_impact wrote:

pm713 wrote:

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.

Your answer to the question is flat out wrong then and you should re-read the BRB since you have not mastered the information therein. Vehicles do not have a WS characteristic unless they are a special type of vehicle.

Anyone who understands what 'modify' means knows that you cannot modify something that does not exist. A characteristic must exist in order for it be able to be modified.

Question "Do vehicles have a WS characteristic on their profile?"

Are Walkers vehicles? Yes. therefore vehicles can have a WS characteristic. There you go. Simple as.

pm713 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

pm713 wrote:

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.

Your answer to the question is flat out wrong then and you should re-read the BRB since you have not mastered the information therein. Vehicles do not have a WS characteristic unless they are a special type of vehicle.

Anyone who understands what 'modify' means knows that you cannot modify something that does not exist. A characteristic must exist in order for it be able to be modified.

Question "Do vehicles have a WS characteristic on their profile?"

Are Walkers vehicles? Yes. therefore vehicles can have a WS characteristic. There you go. Simple as.

Has this thread been talking about the case of Walkers?

col_impact wrote:

pm713 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

pm713 wrote:

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.

Your answer to the question is flat out wrong then and you should re-read the BRB since you have not mastered the information therein. Vehicles do not have a WS characteristic unless they are a special type of vehicle.

Anyone who understands what 'modify' means knows that you cannot modify something that does not exist. A characteristic must exist in order for it be able to be modified.

Question "Do vehicles have a WS characteristic on their profile?"

Are Walkers vehicles? Yes. therefore vehicles can have a WS characteristic. There you go. Simple as.

Has this thread been talking about the case of Walkers?

What did you ask about?

pm713 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

pm713 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

pm713 wrote:

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.

Your answer to the question is flat out wrong then and you should re-read the BRB since you have not mastered the information therein. Vehicles do not have a WS characteristic unless they are a special type of vehicle.

Anyone who understands what 'modify' means knows that you cannot modify something that does not exist. A characteristic must exist in order for it be able to be modified.

Question "Do vehicles have a WS characteristic on their profile?"

Are Walkers vehicles? Yes. therefore vehicles can have a WS characteristic. There you go. Simple as.

Has this thread been talking about the case of Walkers?

What did you ask about?

Like I said you are being obtuse. And your behavior is only underscoring that FAQs exist to silence out the intentionally obtuse side of the debate that willfully goes against the rules to gain advantage.

col_impact wrote:

pm713 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

pm713 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

pm713 wrote:

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.

Your answer to the question is flat out wrong then and you should re-read the BRB since you have not mastered the information therein. Vehicles do not have a WS characteristic unless they are a special type of vehicle.

Anyone who understands what 'modify' means knows that you cannot modify something that does not exist. A characteristic must exist in order for it be able to be modified.

Question "Do vehicles have a WS characteristic on their profile?"

Are Walkers vehicles? Yes. therefore vehicles can have a WS characteristic. There you go. Simple as.

Has this thread been talking about the case of Walkers?

What did you ask about?

Like I said you are being obtuse. And your behaviour is only underscoring that FAQs exist to silence out the intentionally obtuse side of the debate that willfully goes against the rules to gain advantage.

I'm not. You might be.

You asked a question. I answered it. You had a tantrum.

That still isn't true.

Sigh.

To clarify then for you, this thread is discussing non-walker vehicles and I was asking you about non-special case vehicles.

hillarious. good entertainment here.

anyway
they are treated as ws1 in close combat(unless walkers ofc).
since they(non walker vehicles) do NOT have a value for ws they can not benefit from the +1.

should it be in b2b with an enemy model that is capable of hitting it(in the assault phase), it gets "treated as" ws1 for that phase.
likewise you cannot claim a (non walker, to be somewhat precise) vehicle to have ws1 if it is immobilized "because of the +1".

also this affects only attackers with ws 2. even if you got blinded or whatyouhave and are reduced to ws1, you still hit on 4s.
i think thats been said before(tau?), but there you go.

col_impact wrote:
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.

You have provided no actual quote to support how the creation of a Characteristic on a profile is state or handled, which is the question being asked. Repeating the same quote over and over again that is presenting the question does not constitute as properly providing quotes.

You talk about adhering to English, yet you repeatedly ignore the English of others.

col_impact wrote:
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.

Already answered, if you bothered to actually pay attention to the English I used, I thought it was rather simple.

To repeat:
The Rule creates/activates the WS stat for the profile.
This Rule does not have access to the mechanic to create a stat with a base profile, because it doesn't exist.
This Rule then sets the value to 1, just like a set value modifier does in Multiple Modifiers, since that is the only mechanic given in the game I can use.

If you know of where the game mechanic is to create a stat with a base profile number, or when a rule establishes itself as the base profile number, then please quit beating around the bush and present it.

col_impact wrote:
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.

Do not twist my words again. I have not refused to admit that there is no WS characteristic on a Vehicle's profile. If you can provide me actually refusing it, quote it. If I refused to admit it, why would I state "once to activate the Characteristic on the profile"? The Characteristic exists in the game, and it can potentially exist for any model. In this case, I was using "activate" as making the Characteristic available to the profile in question. It's not an uncommon useage in some circles, especially in programming where a value may have to be deactivated so it is not used improperly.

But hey, at least I'm not talking about an unwritten mechanic as if it was law.

col_impact wrote:
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.

Any time a Characteristic is changed a rule, it is a modifier, yes or no?

In the case of the rulebook, the only answer is "yes". The rulebook often takes avenues we do not always use in English, so relying wholly on that is pointless and counter to the stipulations of this board.

You refuse to provide any other method provided in the rulebook for a Characteristic to be instituted in to a profile after the fact, and keep in mind, not applying to a model and then applying it to a model IS changing it.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
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.

You have provided no actual quote to support how the creation of a Characteristic on a profile is state or handled, which is the question being asked. Repeating the same quote over and over again that is presenting the question does not constitute as properly providing quotes.

You talk about adhering to English, yet you repeatedly ignore the English of others.

col_impact wrote:
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.

Already answered, if you bothered to actually pay attention to the English I used, I thought it was rather simple.

To repeat:
The Rule creates/activates the WS stat for the profile.
This Rule does not have access to the mechanic to create a stat with a base profile, because it doesn't exist.
This Rule then sets the value to 1, just like a set value modifier does in Multiple Modifiers, since that is the only mechanic given in the game I can use.

If you know of where the game mechanic is to create a stat with a base profile number, or when a rule establishes itself as the base profile number, then please quit beating around the bush and present it.

The Fighting an Assault rule does not ask us to modify any characteristic. You are reading into the rule. The rule asks us to the "treat the vehicle as being WS 1". So all the stuff I have marked in red in your quote above is made up gibberish on your part - some wild procedure you have made up that has absolutely no basis in the rules.

The Fighting an Assault rule modifies the profile being used. The rule asks us to treat the vehicle as being WS 1 - as a model that has WS 1 on its profile. No characteristic is modified.

My argument has always been to obey the rule and I have freely quoted the rule. If you simply obey the logic of the rule you wind up with my result, which is also the Draft FAQ result. Treat the model as being WS 1.


The burden is on you to show how the Fighting an Assault rule necessarily entails a modification of the WS characteristic. You won't be able to. The WS characteristic does not exist on the vehicle profile. The rule makes no mention of modification. Your wild procedure of creating, activating, and then setting the characteristic to 1 has nothing to do with a rule that merely says "treat the vehicle as being WS 1". The Fighting an Assault rule works just fine with no changes whatsoever made to any characteristic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
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.

Any time a Characteristic is changed a rule, it is a modifier, yes or no?

In the case of the rulebook, the only answer is "yes". The rulebook often takes avenues we do not always use in English, so relying wholly on that is pointless and counter to the stipulations of this board.

You refuse to provide any other method provided in the rulebook for a Characteristic to be instituted in to a profile after the fact, and keep in mind, not applying to a model and then applying it to a model IS changing it.

No WS characteristic was changed. How could it be? There is no WS characteristic on the vehicle profile to change.

In the case of the rulebook, the only answer is "no" unless you can find a base vehicle profile that has 'WS -' on it.