TDA Wolf Lords with Frost Blades

[TiguriusX]

Marshal Willhelm isnt usually uptight, and frankly hes no different than most fang members when it comes to being a bit Rawr at rules-lawyering.

 

Her probly just missed the devils-advocate thing going on... chill guys.

 

 

I understand that. I get a bit RAWR at general attacks at all SW when they are all offering rules on why the FB doesn't work as a loophole cheat

 

Consider me an over protective SW since I am responsible for spawning the topic that planted the kernel in Decoy's mind

 

My apologies if I took my response too far Marshal Willhelm.

 

*Thanks for reigning in my wulfen rage GM.*

[Marshal Wilhelm]

I hope when the new BT codex comes along you can remove the rod from your backside.

 

Brother Decoy isn't crusading for his rule. This was his original question

What happens when you combine that with a Wolf Claw? I see no rule saying that you can't get a S5 Wolf Claw out of it. I'm pretty sure there's a rule against it SOMEwhere, but for the life of me, I cannot find it for the life of me.

He was starting a discussion on rule interpretation.

 

I am not sure what a rod up my back side has to do with anything? If it is meant as a low-brow insult, you've succeeded.

 

The TW mount started the same way. Some SW are now saying "oh its definitely this way, s5, and people who don't believe it will have to wait for the FAQ".

I can state what I want something to be, just because people want it that way, too.

 

"oh its definitely this way, s4(5), and people who don't believe it will have to wait for the FAQ".

 

When a second question comes out like the first one, and people have said "because we want it to be this way, it is so", and giving the first question in their own favour, with only conclusions and logic (flavoured by wants) used to insert a ruling in their favour that does not exist by RAW, I am quite keen to stop the second question going the way of the first one.

 

Because people so wanted TW mounts to give s5, even though RAW does not support it, I realised that another dose of logic would probably not convince people.

So I got into my argument. If that has offended people, that was not my goal.

 

I apologise sincerely for that.

 

It seems to me though, that if I don't, peoples wants will sweep another 'ruling' in their favour. Then they'll come back to the B&C and say "My club is full of idiots who say I'm a WAAC jerk"

Better to have that discussion here, red blooded if needs be, than to offend people who wont want to play you again in the Real World.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

I have to go because the mains power is about to be turned off (planned maintenance) and I have a yr 12 physics exam.

 

I still love you!

 

I'll be back.

[Grey Mage]

Marshal, the TWM thread was an entirely different one :o.

 

And my group followed my arguments and is going with S5, not S4(5).

[Requiem of the Wolf]

Marshal Willhelm isnt usually uptight, and frankly hes no different than most fang members when it comes to being a bit Rawr at rules-lawyering.

 

Her probly just missed the devils-advocate thing going on... chill guys.

The tone of his writing,and the words he chose were inflammatory and confrontational Grey. I would agree that normally Wilhelm doesn't act like this from what I have seen,but that doesn't excuse it in my opinion. He in various turns accused us of not having integrity,having to bend rules to win, and then comparing us to hyenas.

 

On a side note Wilhelm,the Rules as Written does support it. It also supported the T5 too,but alot of people didn't want to believe that either. They kept getting caught up on the "it doesn't work that way for bikes!!!11!!!" When the rules for bikes say that in an exception to the normal rules ,the increase doesn't count for instant death. The FAQ supports it,the Rules as Written support it. Just because you don't want it to be true,won't change the fact it is.Same with strength,Modification to Base Profile.The Power Weapon doubling Strength happens when you use it,So clearly happens AFTER you get on the Mount.

 

You were jumping into the discussion without even bothering to read the whole discussion,just choosing to pop off with insults and other foolishness.There was no injection of Logic,just beliefs and insults. This is unlike your normal behavior...So It stands out as even more negative then it might otherwise do.

 

So as far as apologizing for being wrong...Well that is about the only logical and reasonable action you have made in the last two posts. I sincerely hope you follow in this vein,rather then continuing with such blatant foolishness.

[Vash113]

It seems to me though, that if I don't, peoples wants will sweep another 'ruling' in their favour. Then they'll come back to the B&C and say "My club is full of idiots who say I'm a WAAC jerk"

Better to have that discussion here, red blooded if needs be, than to offend people who wont want to play you again in the Real World.

 

I don't think "wants" have anything to do with it. My local GW plays by standard Str and T 5. It's pretty clear that Thunderwolf Mounts do not work like bikes, I mean Thunderwolf Cavalry units don't have Str 4(5) so why should Wolf Lords? RAW supports it, bikes are an exception, not the rule. The Fang doesn't show favoritism towards desired results that I've ever seen.

 

As for this discussion, it's quite different, we're noticing a potential loophole and trying to come up with a rock solid counter to it. I don't think anyone actually believes we can get Str 5 Wolf Claws or Str 6 Frost Blades without TWM but playing devils advocate to temper arguments against it for use in opposition to potential rules lawyers.

 

In short we all know you get the benefits from one type of Special CC Weapon at a time, we just want to make sure there's no gap remaining with which a rules lawyer could cause headaches for everyone.

[the jeske]

These models gain one additional attack. All of their attacks, including the bonus attack, use the special weapon's bonuses and penalties.

so does that mean that if your on a jugger or a TWC you dont use the buffed strenght because a special weapon only uses the buffs and penalities it gives ?

Am not saying that one uses 2 FS at the same time. you use one power weapon [with all its rules] , just like the rules say both of them just happen to say +1 str and am still looking for the part in the rule book where it says that str bonuses are not cumulative.

[Grey Mage]

These models gain one additional attack. All of their attacks, including the bonus attack, use the special weapon's bonuses and penalties.

so does that mean that if your on a jugger or a TWC you dont use the buffed strenght because a special weapon only uses the buffs and penalities it gives ?

Am not saying that one uses 2 FS at the same time. you use one power weapon [with all its rules] , just like the rules say both of them just happen to say +1 str and am still looking for the part in the rule book where it says that str bonuses are not cumulative.

It has nothing to do with it being a strength bonus jeske- its the source of the bonus. You can only get the frost blades bonus once- as per the BRB on pg. 42.

 

Juggernauts, TWMs, etc, give a similar bonus to strength... but it comes from wargear. Wargear is no a special close combat weapon, so the rules on pg. 42 dont matter for them.

 

To say it again- you only get a Weapon's *possessive, not plural!* bonus and +1 A for having two of the same type. You do not get the bonuses twice. Mounts, Furious Charge, and other things that change or increase your strength or affect your attacks that are NOT Special Close Combat Weapons work as normal.

[the jeske]

I dont get it , weapons are not wargear ? you do use one weapon and you do use the special weapons [hiting at I , negating save and with +1str] , the other one is not used , it just gives the +1 and the pasive +1str bonus . How can a frost blade stop giving the +1str , if its a pasive aura . in 5th you cant turn special weapons off like one could in 4th ed.

[JMac]

although the lingering danger of failing to completely read the FAQs, my noob question yields a greater discussion. And a very useful one at that.

 

I like the idea of these S5 (S6 on a TWM :D ) wolf claws. *licks his chaps at the idea*

[Decoy]

It's a good thought, JMac, but it's honestly patently absurd. To attempt to do it would be Rules-Lawyering of the highest magnitude, relying almost completely on relatively subjective opinions and definitions of words. It is most definitely not RAI, and only very loosely RAW.

[TiguriusX]

I got sucked into this rule analysis I couldn't help it

:tu:

 

I dont get it , weapons are not wargear ? you do use one weapon and you do use the special weapons [hiting at I , negating save and with +1str] , the other one is not used , it just gives the +1 and the pasive +1str bonus . How can a frost blade stop giving the +1str , if its a pasive aura . in 5th you cant turn special weapons off like one could in 4th ed.

 

There are different rules for different types of wargear

 

The rule that controls bonuses from two different special weapons comes from the special close combat section (p.42).

 

The frost blades "are power weapons" and this puts them in that specific rule set.

 

A TWM on the other hand is not a weapon...it is wargear but not subject to special close combat weapon rules

 

Here is my RAW argument against your passive S+1 bonus

 

SPECIAL CLOSE COMBAT weapons

These include more complex and powerful weapons that enhance the wielder's combat skills and confer bonuses, and sometimes penalties, to the models using them. The most widely used are listed below:

 

***

TWO DIFFERENT SPECIAL WEAPONS

When it is their turn to attack, these models must choose which weapon to use that turn, but they never get the bonus for using two weapons (such is the penalty for wielding too many complex weapons!)

 

***

 

FROST BLADE

Regardless of what they look like, all frost blades and axes are power weapons that add +1 to the user's Strength

 

So RAW the FB can't be a passive type +1 bonus if you have a 2nd SCCW and have elected "not to use" the FB.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

New powers poles are up, exam is over, and here am I. :)

 

It’s a bit lengthy but it says what I want it to. If you are going to read it, it needs to be read as a whole.

 

I did use inflammatory language, which doesn’t help anyone. :D

I did and do accuse people of ruling in their own favour as lacking integrity. If you have done so and don’t like me saying that, that is something you need to deal with. You can’t give yourself the benefit of the doubt and then say people are being horrible when they get annoyed at you for doing so.

Yes I used hyperbole when saying it, which has muddied my point. Anyone who rules in their own favour is stretching the rules, which is cheating, when you boil it down.

 

If you have done that, I’m not going to retract that statement just because you don’t like it.

 

I used strong words full of sarcasm and visual metaphors to get the point across. It hasn’t and has only hurt and offended people. I misjudged my delivery. I got it wrong. The hyenas call was to illustrate that instead of trying to push rules into your favour with a populous consensus, forget about it and don’t be like that.

 

I did say that if you need to bend the rules to win, you should put in that effort into becoming a better player. If you are bending the rules, I still stand by my statement.

 

RAW does not support s5. People will come up with sentiment, feeling and justification for their argument. “It’s like this there, ergo, it must be like that here”.

Show me in B&W, where it says s5.

 

I have no desire for it to be s4(5) or s5. I am saying that if you read the words written, nowhere does it say s5.

 

I can say yes, you are probably right. GW did mean for it to be s5. But that doesn’t matter even a little bit. It doesn’t matter that t5 suggests s5. Implied, meant, should’ve been, common sense, do not count. If your foe says prove it is s5, you can’t. Full stop.

You can appeal to his better side, intellect or love of chocolate and/or beer. But you cannot prove it is s5.

 

My argument is completely logical :geek: . Perhaps it has been camouflaged by “choosing to pop off with insults and other foolishness”. I have attempted to explain my motivation to use such methods, even though they failed and offended.

 

Yes I did mis-interpret Decoys motivation for posting, and I didn’t bother to find the root of that discussion. From post 22, I perceived an attempt to get beardy buff.

In combination with my dismay at the TW-mount consensus (not literal RAW, mind you, and I stick to that) that the Fang seems to have come to, and in light of my ongoing failure to show people that nowhere in B&W is it s5, I used emotive language and tone to stop what I saw and see as a rules transgression (I am not talking about SW motivation here, just that something wrong is going on).

 

My apology is motivated by the disposition of my heart and not by logic. I enjoy the B&C and have a camaraderie and love towards you, even if I am arguing with you or calling your idea/whatever wrong.

 

If you have snot hanging out of your nose or your fly is undone, I will tell you. I sincerely believe that by pure RAW, s5 is snot hanging from your nose. Yes, I said it far too bluntly and insultingly in my previous post. I was wrong.

 

To surmise; I apologise for being derogatory. I apologise for doing that after not going to the root of the discussion.

 

If you are ruling in your favour, though you know you shouldn’t, I do not retract that you are acting without integrity.

If you are only winning because of that ruling in your own favour, I do not retract that you should put in more effort into wargaming than arguing a contentious rules decision.

 

That is where I am.

 

I hope standing by my argument does not dissolve the genuine apology I give. But that is out of my hands. :tu:

 

I am not offended by anyone responding to my post. I missed my mark. Responses come. Such is life. :D

[Requiem of the Wolf]

New powers poles are up, exam is over, and here am I. :)

 

It’s a bit lengthy but it says what I want it to. If you are going to read it, it needs to be read as a whole.

 

I did use inflammatory language, which doesn’t help anyone. :down:

I did and do accuse people of ruling in their own favour as lacking integrity. If you have done so and don’t like me saying that, that is something you need to deal with. You can’t give yourself the benefit of the doubt and then say people are being horrible when they get annoyed at you for doing so.

Yes I used hyperbole when saying it, which has muddied my point. Anyone who rules in their own favour is stretching the rules, which is cheating, when you boil it down.

 

If you have done that, I’m not going to retract that statement just because you don’t like it.

 

I used strong words full of sarcasm and visual metaphors to get the point across. It hasn’t and has only hurt and offended people. I misjudged my delivery. I got it wrong. The hyenas call was to illustrate that instead of trying to push rules into your favour with a populous consensus, forget about it and don’t be like that.

 

I did say that if you need to bend the rules to win, you should put in that effort into becoming a better player. If you are bending the rules, I still stand by my statement.

 

RAW does not support s5. People will come up with sentiment, feeling and justification for their argument. “It’s like this there, ergo, it must be like that here”.

Show me in B&W, where it says s5.

 

I have no desire for it to be s4(5) or s5. I am saying that if you read the words written, nowhere does it say s5.

 

I can say yes, you are probably right. GW did mean for it to be s5. But that doesn’t matter even a little bit. It doesn’t matter that t5 suggests s5. Implied, meant, should’ve been, common sense, do not count. If your foe says prove it is s5, you can’t. Full stop.

You can appeal to his better side, intellect or love of chocolate and/or beer. But you cannot prove it is s5.

 

My argument is completely logical :geek: . Perhaps it has been camouflaged by “choosing to pop off with insults and other foolishness”. I have attempted to explain my motivation to use such methods, even though they failed and offended.

 

Yes I did mis-interpret Decoys motivation for posting, and I didn’t bother to find the root of that discussion. From post 22, I perceived an attempt to get beardy buff.

In combination with my dismay at the TW-mount consensus (not literal RAW, mind you, and I stick to that) that the Fang seems to have come to, and in light of my ongoing failure to show people that nowhere in B&W is it s5, I used emotive language and tone to stop what I saw and see as a rules transgression (I am not talking about SW motivation here, just that something wrong is going on).

 

My apology is motivated by the disposition of my heart and not by logic. I enjoy the B&C and have a camaraderie and love towards you, even if I am arguing with you or calling your idea/whatever wrong.

 

If you have snot hanging out of your nose or your fly is undone, I will tell you. I sincerely believe that by pure RAW, s5 is snot hanging from your nose. Yes, I said it far too bluntly and insultingly in my previous post. I was wrong.

 

To surmise; I apologise for being derogatory. I apologise for doing that after not going to the root of the discussion.

 

If you are ruling in your favour, though you know you shouldn’t, I do not retract that you are acting without integrity.

If you are only winning because of that ruling in your own favour, I do not retract that you should put in more effort into wargaming than arguing a contentious rules decision.

 

That is where I am.

 

I hope standing by my argument does not dissolve the genuine apology I give. But that is out of my hands. ;)

 

I am not offended by anyone responding to my post. I missed my mark. Responses come. Such is life. :sweat:

In Response first,to where it says it in black and white. Allow me to take you step by step through it.Pg 6. Characteristics. Third Paragraph. Certain pieces of wargear or special rules may modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively,by adding to it (+1,+2,etc.) or even multiplying it (X2,X3,etc.) However no modifier may raise any characteristic above 10 or lower it below 0. Saves can at best be modified to 2+.

 

Ok...that tells you clearly that Modifying characteristics happens right? Next...we go to the Space Wolf Codex. Pg 62. Heading Thunderwolf Mount. Only the bravest and most skilled have what it takes to break in one of the legendary Thunderwolves. One who has done rides to war upon a growling,hissing mountain of muscle,hatred and cybernetics eager to slaughter all before it. A character with a Thunderwolf mount has the unit type of cavalry,adds +1 Strength, +1 Toughness and +1 Attack to his profile,and has the rending special rule in close combat with any attack that does not use a special close combat weapon.

 

So here we have in black and white,where it shows the Thunderwolf adding to the profile. Now,I see the part on Pg 7 about multiple modifiers,and I can see how and why you would think that it works the way you believe it does. If it were a question of say...Furious charge and powerfist...Both modifiers being applied at the same time...absolutely the multiple modifier rule would come into effect. In the case of the Thunderwolf, its a modification to the base profile. It is allways there,doesn't change.

 

The bonuses from ThunderWolf Mount is shown to be a modification to the base characteristic. This occurs on page 5 of the 2010 Space Wolf FAQ,as described as a combined Profile. This is further supported by the evidence of the Thunderwolf Cavalry models. Now,I will agree that the FAQ is not as 'hard' a rule as an errata would be,But given that it is stated that the Thunderwolf mount makes it a Combined profile,that to me at least clearly states its becomes the new base.

 

Here is a question...Can you prove it should be S4(5)? Considering that parenthesis has only popped up in relation to the toughness increase to bikes,Page 53,where it clearly says that "Bike riders benefit from the protection offered by their bike,which increases their Toughness characteristic by 1. Note that THIS increase does not affect the model's Toughness for the purposes of instant death (see page 26). It clearly states that THIS increase does not apply. Not that other increases don't apply. The whole parenthesis has come up for only one stat,Toughness,and in ONE situation. Bikes. How does this one situation equate to it applying to every characteristic,when RAW about characteristics both show that the characteristics can be increased,and that when their is an exception,it is clearly stated. You state that there is nothing stated that says it isn't S4(5)..I believe I have just proven your statement wrong.Pg 6 states that characteristics can be modified positively or negatively.

 

Now as to the other discussion about the Wolf Claw and the Frost Blade. The problem comes is that it is not CLEARLY stated anywhere. It should be clearly stated,the wording is screwy and I definitely think it should be changed. I have never stated that using it as suggested was anything other then rules lawyering douchbaggery,reasonable only in response to another's rules lawyering as a preventative measure.

 

Now,in regards to the rest of the discussion. Just because someone is taking part in a discussion,does not automatically mean that they endorse,encourage,recommend or otherwise support the viewpoints of that discussion either for or against.

 

You chose to assume that was the case,and you know what they say about assuming...you make an ass out of U and Ming..Whoever Ming is I am pretty sure he doesn't like being made an ass of either. Now,as far as ruling in your own favor when you know it doesn't work that way..Yes..that's flat out cheating. Being completely convinced that RAW and RAI both support your ruling,and putting that info forward...That's not cheating.

 

Ruling in your favor when the rules support it...doesn't indicate a lack of integrity. Ruling in your favor when your opponent and yourself come to an agreement that favors you doesn't indicate a lack of integrity. When the rules are unclear,and neither you or your opponent can convince the other,That is when the simple expedience of house rules,rolling a die and high roll gets their way and so on come into play. By your example..If I believe one way,in a ruling that favors me,and my opponent believes the opposite,so that the ruling favors him...Automatically at least one of us is acting without integrity. I cannot stress enough how much I disagree with such a blanket statement.

 

Here is another thing for you..I have never used a Wolf Lord with a Powerfist or Thunder hammer while he was mounted on a Thunderwolf. I wouldn't use it fr the simple fact that it would negate his higher initiative and I use my lord to kill troops not vehicles.

 

As for the rest. Apology noted,and as far as I am concerned,accepted.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Ok...that tells you clearly that Modifying characteristics happens right? Next...we go to the Space Wolf Codex. Pg 62. Heading Thunderwolf Mount. Only the bravest and most skilled have what it takes to break in one of the legendary Thunderwolves. One who has done rides to war upon a growling,hissing mountain of muscle,hatred and cybernetics eager to slaughter all before it. A character with a Thunderwolf mount has the unit type of cavalry,adds +1 Strength, +1 Toughness and +1 Attack to his profile,and has the rending special rule in close combat with any attack that does not use a special close combat weapon.

 

So here we have in black and white,where it shows the Thunderwolf adding to the profile. Now,I see the part on Pg 7 about multiple modifiers,and I can see how and why you would think that it works the way you believe it does. If it were a question of say...Furious charge and powerfist...Both modifiers being applied at the same time...absolutely the multiple modifier rule would come into effect. In the case of the Thunderwolf, its a modification to the base profile. It is allways there,doesn't change.

 

The bonuses from ThunderWolf Mount is shown to be a modification to the base characteristic. This occurs on page 5 of the 2010 Space Wolf FAQ,as described as a combined Profile. This is further supported by the evidence of the Thunderwolf Cavalry models. Now,I will agree that the FAQ is not as 'hard' a rule as an errata would be,But given that it is stated that the Thunderwolf mount makes it a Combined profile,that to me at least clearly states its becomes the new base.

 

Here is a question...Can you prove it should be S4(5)? Considering that parenthesis has only popped up in relation to the toughness increase to bikes,Page 53,where it clearly says that "Bike riders benefit from the protection offered by their bike,which increases their Toughness characteristic by 1. Note that THIS increase does not affect the model's Toughness for the purposes of instant death (see page 26). It clearly states that THIS increase does not apply. Not that other increases don't apply. The whole parenthesis has come up for only one stat,Toughness,and in ONE situation. Bikes. How does this one situation equate to it applying to every characteristic,when RAW about characteristics both show that the characteristics can be increased,and that when their is an exception,it is clearly stated. You state that there is nothing stated that says it isn't S4(5)..I believe I have just proven your statement wrong.Pg 6 states that characteristics can be modified positively or negatively.

 

The problem is, in my eyes, we don't have a stat line for a Wolf Lord who can buy an optional TW, and are given two sets of stats for on foot and for mounted.

So besides the t5 as per FAQ (for me FAQ is as good as errata, because the way GW plays the game is the way GW made the rules. However, GW wants to distance themselves from making an authoritative call.... when they are the authority :yes: ) we don't have it saying the same thing for S.

 

This following example may seem like I am being annoying but I will use it anyway. I realise I am using the argument of a bad guy, btw :lol:

In the movie "Thank you for Smoking" the smoking lobby has a spin-merchant who uses verbal-sewage to through people off from suing 'Big tobacco' for cancer caused by cigarettes. Obviously evil, imo.

One thing the lead character said (he is the spin-merchant) to his son was "I don't have to prove I am right to win the argument, all I have to do is prove that what you have said is false" ~ this then leads people to believe if that side is false, then what the smoking lobby says is true, even if the smoking lobby never came out with such a refutable statement like smoking is good for you. But I digress.

 

Can I prove it is s4(5) and not s5? I cannot. Perhaps others can, but I cannot. But I have shown that people saying it is s5 is not supported by GW explicitly saying so. I won't go into conjecture or speculation, rules wise.

 

With something that is a '7.5', I do not have to argue that it is a 7. All I have to do is show that it doesn't explicitly say 8. Which I have.

That was what I was trying to get across in my "be self-deprecating" post. We know it must be, at least, s4(5) because it has to be one of them. We don't know that it is s5.

 

This is the whole crux of my argument.

 

That is why I 'dismiss' extrapolation, intent and 95%-there arguments. They are not bullet proof and require more than just a literal reading of the rules

 

You chose to assume that was the case,and you know what they say about assuming...you make an ass out of U and Ming..Whoever Ming is I am pretty sure he doesn't like being made an ass of either. Now,as far as ruling in your own favor when you know it doesn't work that way..Yes..that's flat out cheating. Being completely convinced that RAW and RAI both support your ruling,and putting that info forward...That's not cheating.

 

Ruling in your favor when the rules support it...doesn't indicate a lack of integrity. Ruling in your favor when your opponent and yourself come to an agreement that favors you doesn't indicate a lack of integrity. When the rules are unclear,and neither you or your opponent can convince the other,That is when the simple expedience of house rules,rolling a die and high roll gets their way and so on come into play.

 

I agree with you 100%

 

By your example..If I believe one way,in a ruling that favors me,and my opponent believes the opposite,so that the ruling favors him...Automatically at least one of us is acting without integrity. I cannot stress enough how much I disagree with such a blanket statement.

 

Ha hah! I never said that! But blanket statements do keep me warm in winter. :tu:

 

If you look at a rule, and it could go to the Wolf, or it could go to the bad guy, you can have issues.

 

If the rule is owned by one or the other players, as in it comes from the SW codex and is owned by the Wolf, unless it is bullet proof, it is up to the Wolf (in this imaginary scenario) to say that I cannot prove this, so I cannot claim it.

 

If the issue is not Codex related, if the person wanting to gain a benefit (get a 4+ cover save) it is up to him to prove that, say, his vehicle is at least 50% obscured.

It isn't up to the guy not claiming the benefit, to prove the benefit is not allowable.

 

I guess it is like in Court, the people with the agenda (the prosecutors) have to prove the case is able to be substantiated. The prosecutors are seeking to claim a benefit (like associating guilt to putting the bad dude away) and unless they can prove they get that benefit, the guy walks free.

 

As for the rest. Apology noted,and as far as I am concerned,accepted.

Excellent, thank you.

[Grimtooth]

Actually, GW shows you exactly what is involved with adding characteristics to a profile. In fact they give you a clear cut example of what the process consists of adding to a profile.

 

Since the TWM entry makes no differentiation between how they add the +T, +STR, and +ATTACK to the combined profile, you treat them all the same way. The FAQ shows you exactly the process how the +T is added to the profile. Because there are no difference in directions on how to apply them in the TWM entry, there is no difference in how they process to apply them to the profile.

[TiguriusX]

If you want to argue TWM there is a thread waiting for you. You are really side-tracking this thread with a TWM rant

 

The short RAW argument is actually in favor of S5. It is based on is p.76 of Codex: Daemons

 

The mounts grant the same bonus to a profile for a true increase. Not a modified () increase.

 

A modified "profile" is different than a modified "characteristic"

[Requiem of the Wolf]

And it states on page 6,that characteristics can be increased positively.The only time that parenthesis comes into play is in regards to instant death,as clearly stated in the bike section. I am fairly sure,no one is saying your Strength characteristic has anything to do with resisting instant death. The bike section shows that the Parenthesis is a EXCEPTION to the rule on page 6,in that THIS modification (not all modifications,not most,not many,but THIS) applies to everything except ONE SPECIFIC SITUATION,and that is Resisting instant death.

 

The fact that people seem to take a exception to a standard rule as the gospel truth for all modifications is beyond me. That would be like saying I get to take my leadership tests for psychic powers at ld 10 even though Deathleaper dropped my leadership to 7,because my Leadership is 7(10). You try pulling that and watch how much the Tyrannid player screams at you for being a jackass,and rightly so.

 

When it says in black and white that the basis for the entire arguement of S5(4) is the T5(4) basis,when the number in parenthesis is based on resisting instant death, How the hell can people get confused on this?

 

And as I said..It doesn't say specifically you can't use the bonuses from the Wolf Claw and Frost blade to benefit both,The parts where it makes it seem like you can are very unclear and poorly worded. It should be clarified to say that you can't,and that much is obvious. But as much as I have tried,I can't find a rule that specifically states you can't,even though I really wish I could. I have gone through every rule I could find to prevent it because I know its a matter of time till that damn cheating Local BA player tries to pull it in a tournament.

[Vash113]

The problem is, in my eyes, we don't have a stat line for a Wolf Lord who can buy an optional TW, and are given two sets of stats for on foot and for mounted.

So besides the t5 as per FAQ (for me FAQ is as good as errata, because the way GW plays the game is the way GW made the rules. However, GW wants to distance themselves from making an authoritative call.... when they are the authority :P ) we don't have it saying the same thing for S.

 

Just stop, this is absolutely absurd. In the most simple terms, the Rulebook tells us that characteristics can be changed. Thunderwolves add to the models profile characteristics. No specifications, limitations or additions are noted at all, what so ever, either in the rulebook or the codex. That is RAW. So tell me, where in the rules could you possibly try to argue that this is not so? To add to that we have the example in the FAQ, which as mentioned, doesn't have to list the Strength and Attack modifications because they work exactly the same way, are not listed separately or noted differently in any manner and there's no argument to suggest that they work differently in any way. We also have Thunderwolf Cavalry, whose base profiles show Str and T 5. We see exactly how Thunderwolf Mounts effect the Characteristics Profile, we even have it in the FAQ and neither the Codex nor the Rulebook tells us any differently.

 

I did use inflammatory language, which doesn’t help anyone. :down:

I did and do accuse people of ruling in their own favour as lacking integrity. If you have done so and don’t like me saying that, that is something you need to deal with. You can’t give yourself the benefit of the doubt and then say people are being horrible when they get annoyed at you for doing so.

Yes I used hyperbole when saying it, which has muddied my point. Anyone who rules in their own favour is stretching the rules, which is cheating, when you boil it down.

 

If you have done that, I’m not going to retract that statement just because you don’t like it.

 

I used strong words full of sarcasm and visual metaphors to get the point across. It hasn’t and has only hurt and offended people. I misjudged my delivery. I got it wrong. The hyenas call was to illustrate that instead of trying to push rules into your favour with a populous consensus, forget about it and don’t be like that.

 

Except the only one trying to force rules his way is well... you. Yet it is you who try to declaim the integrity and honor of the rest of us and try some psycho guilt-trip argument to try and get us to what... back down? Are you kidding? The rule is in no question what so ever and you are the only one who seems to think it is. Instead of trying to accuse us of some kind of selfish-group-consensus-cheating you should ask yourself if you aren't trying to push the issue so much and in such a rude and disrespectful manner for your own self serving ends. I don't know what you have against Space Wolf players but attacking our integrity will accomplish absolutely nothing and if you have to resort to those kinds of tactics, you've already lost. ;)

[Grey Mage]

I dont get it , weapons are not wargear ? you do use one weapon and you do use the special weapons [hiting at I , negating save and with +1str] , the other one is not used , it just gives the +1 and the pasive +1str bonus . How can a frost blade stop giving the +1str , if its a pasive aura . in 5th you cant turn special weapons off like one could in 4th ed.

Close Combat Weapons are a specific type of item, entirely different and seperate from ranged weapons, and general wargear, or sagas. They follow their own rules, as detailed on pg. 42 of the BRB... its not a passive bonus. You have to be using it- ie making attacks with it in CC. You only get the bonus from one of them, the other gives you +1 A, because thats what the rules for special close combat weapons says.

 

And yes, in 5th you can choose to not get the bonus of a special weapon - by using a different one instead.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Except the only one trying to force rules his way is well... you. Yet it is you who try to declaim the integrity and honor of the rest of us and try some psycho guilt-trip argument to try and get us to what... back down? Are you kidding? The rule is in no question what so ever and you are the only one who seems to think it is. Instead of trying to accuse us of some kind of selfish-group-consensus-cheating you should ask yourself if you aren't trying to push the issue so much and in such a rude and disrespectful manner for your own self serving ends. I don't know what you have against Space Wolf players but attacking our integrity will accomplish absolutely nothing and if you have to resort to those kinds of tactics, you've already lost. ;)

 

I am not going to post more after this, in this thread, as I have already derailed it.

 

I have already outlined my arguments and people haven't shown me where it says s5, without having to argue sideways.

Yes, I used hyperbole and sarcasm to grab attention and hearts. I failed on your hearts part.

I have already said I don't have any motivation for s4(5) or s5. I am arguing only for what is written.

I have no self-serving ends in this. What could I hope to achieve? What motivation could I have?

I have admitted I dropped the ball in my addressing you technique. Admitted it more than once.

I don't have anything against the Wolves. I think I have made that clear on my posts here over time.

 

I have got it wrong and apologised. I cannot do more than that.

People still haven't proven s5.

This will have to be my final post on TW-mounts.

Until the FAQ explicitly says so (which it will do so, I am sure) you cant prove it to be s5. Arguing about precedents, etc is not on par with s5.

Anyway, I have not convinced you and you have not convinced me. And it seems neither of us will. So I am dropping it as a conversation with you guys.

Play as you do in your circles and I will in mine. Then we can be reconciled when it gets FAQed <_<

[Requiem of the Wolf]

Except the only one trying to force rules his way is well... you. Yet it is you who try to declaim the integrity and honor of the rest of us and try some psycho guilt-trip argument to try and get us to what... back down? Are you kidding? The rule is in no question what so ever and you are the only one who seems to think it is. Instead of trying to accuse us of some kind of selfish-group-consensus-cheating you should ask yourself if you aren't trying to push the issue so much and in such a rude and disrespectful manner for your own self serving ends. I don't know what you have against Space Wolf players but attacking our integrity will accomplish absolutely nothing and if you have to resort to those kinds of tactics, you've already lost. :woot:

 

I am not going to post more after this, in this thread, as I have already derailed it.

 

I have already outlined my arguments and people haven't shown me where it says s5, without having to argue sideways.

Yes, I used hyperbole and sarcasm to grab attention and hearts. I failed on your hearts part.

I have already said I don't have any motivation for s4(5) or s5. I am arguing only for what is written.

I have no self-serving ends in this. What could I hope to achieve? What motivation could I have?

I have admitted I dropped the ball in my addressing you technique. Admitted it more than once.

I don't have anything against the Wolves. I think I have made that clear on my posts here over time.

 

I have got it wrong and apologised. I cannot do more than that.

People still haven't proven s5.

This will have to be my final post on TW-mounts.

Until the FAQ explicitly says so (which it will do so, I am sure) you cant prove it to be s5. Arguing about precedents, etc is not on par with s5.

Anyway, I have not convinced you and you have not convinced me. And it seems neither of us will. So I am dropping it as a conversation with you guys.

Play as you do in your circles and I will in mine. Then we can be reconciled when it gets FAQed ;)

So either you didn't read what I posted that does prove it works the way I said,or you just ignored it. Either way I am done trying to convince you because you requested black and white,I showed black and white,you still said it didn't work that way.

[Vash113]

Until the FAQ explicitly says so (which it will do so, I am sure) you cant prove it to be s5. Arguing about precedents, etc is not on par with s5.

Anyway, I have not convinced you and you have not convinced me. And it seems neither of us will. So I am dropping it as a conversation with you guys.

Play as you do in your circles and I will in mine. Then we can be reconciled when it gets FAQed :D

 

I'm afraid, as Requiem said, we have proven it and you are the only one who has not accepted what is patently obvious and plain to see. I regularly play at a Games Workshop and every member of the staff and opponent I've played has agreed with the assessment and I've never had anyone try to argue otherwise until you. I am sure the rest of us are in a similar situation, we wouldn't claim something not supported by those we game with. If you are the only one who can't see something, maybe the problem is with you, don't blame us for your own issues.

 

I am sure it won't be FAQued as it is inescapably true and blatantly obvious already. Don't sit there and try to tell us that just because the FAQ gives an example for only the Toughness boost that it is all that is effected, the stat increases are all the same and nowhere does it say one works any differently than another. These arguments are pure nonsense and I'm shocked those you game with would put up with it.

[Grimtooth]

Running around the room with your handS over your ears yelling "NOT STR5!!!" is a great defense. :ph34r: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: