Z00Z Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 But it is clear because of the ones who have TWC in their standard stat line. So TWC have a BASIC characteristic of S5. Nothing to add. So they have that doubled. But a Lord being given a TWC has a 4 in their basic characteristic - which is then added to when he goes on the TWC. Are people REALLY trying to argue that the basic TWC has S5 - but the lord doesn't? That a basic TWC has S10 with a powerfist - but the lord has S9. I think you missing the point slightly. If you read the entry in special issue wargear "thunderwolf mount" it states, "where its part of the standard issue wargear" (read TWM and not Lord/IP" the statline has already been changed to +1. Where its not.....add 1. a power armor is S4. with mount its 4+1. (see....additive due to special issue wargear "TWM"). Then BRB states, where multiple wargears affect model stats. apply multiplicative then additives. I could see this argument playing out in both FLGS and tourneys. Having clarification in this regard is a good thing? no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hear da Lamentation Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 OK I see what you mean. But as someone said - this hasnt changed since 6th - and it was S10 in 6th. But yes, clarification would be good. Although it is a given what that will be IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frater Cornelius Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Well, you could argue that TWM characters (like Harald) and TWC have S5 in their profile. Thus a 2x weapon will always be S10 on them. Why should it be different on an IP or WL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerian Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Isnt the Armor you talk about not in CoF and need a seperate entry? That's right, supplements get separate Errata/FAQ documents, so the Armor of whatshisname would be dealt with separately, in addition to the few other questions that we've had related to the Champions of Fenris book, like Independent Characters joining Void Claws, and the Thunderstrike Formation arriving in the 1st turn, etc. So, no expectation that this would be mentioned in the Space Wolves codex Errata/FAQ document, but it they could have released a document for CoF, too (or months ago, for that matter). Well, you could argue that TWM characters (like Harald) and TWC have S5 in their profile. Thus a 2x weapon will always be S10 on them. Why should it be different on an IP or WL. That very clearly shows the designers' intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Drunk Guardian Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Posted this in another place: I don't even understand why it is an issue... It clearly says in the wargear entry for Thunderwolf Mounts that the characteristics for the attributes are increased. The first page in the entire rulebook that actually contains any rules (pg 8 - Models & Units) has a section on wargear modifiers stating certain pieces of wargear modify a model's characteristics. Fast forward (page 40 - Weapons) and it states that if a WEAPON confers a strength bonus, the strength of a weapon's attacks is equal to that of the user after any such modifiers have been applied. The thunderwolf mount is not a weapon, it is wargear that modifies the profile and characteristics of a model. Weapons on the other hand only add bonuses to characteristics when they are being used. That's why if you take a power fist and a claw you can't combine the bonuses of the two weapons, they aren't modifying the model's profile, they are adding bonuses to it only when in use. It doesn't make any sense to argue that the fist equipped thunderwolf hits at S9. It would make sense if the thunderwolf mount wargear conferred Furious Charge on the model instead of +1S, but it does not. The mount is not a weapon, so you wouldn't choose between using the fist or the mount when making attacks. The wargear entry, which specifically says "increases ... characteristics" as well as rulebook Page 8 and page 40 make it plain as day. No FAQ required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creamywynch Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 It is strength 8 all the time now, as I read it, not only on the charge. +1 strength to the claws applies all the time. Furious charge is still a useless rule for him though :) Am I right on this? No, as Murderfang's claws have been changed to giving +1S, instead of a flat S7. Therefore when charging he gets +1 from the claws and +1 for FC to his profile S6 for S8. Without the charge, it's only the claws boosting his strength, so 6+1, S7. Ah many thanks. I get it now :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wispy Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Didn't Harald already have 4 wounds?? The back reference page listed his wounds as 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wispy Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Well, you could argue that TWM characters (like Harald) and TWC have S5 in their profile. Thus a 2x weapon will always be S10 on them. Why should it be different on an IP or WL. Yeah. Arguing against it for the Iron Priest means you're saying that Harald and TWC's profiles are unmodified, meaning extra bump in their characteristics is in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z00Z Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Brothers, i'm not disagreeing with anyone here that it is in fact S10. I'm in total agreement. I'm explaining the argument told to me and how others may argue the point. They saying that Harald and TWC are S4+1 = S5 due to the mount (wargear). Theres no dispute in that, and the profile reflects that as the mount is standard wargear and not special wargear. IP or any other unit having the option of special wargear TWM will be profile+1 also = S5. Their argument is that the addition due to wargear, either standard or special should be added post multiplication of the PF as stated in the BRB. I disagree with this argument completely and agree with everyone that it is S5x2 for the PF. I've already run across this once and I see that it is a argument discussed on other forums too. To limit these arguments, it would be good to have it FAQ by GW, in fact thats what FAQ is for in its true essence "Frequently Asked Questions". I merely raised it as it already has been raised to me, in cases like this that the rule or interpretation is in question by two players, you roll-off on it. I dont think we should, it should be S5 X 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tylerw Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 More evidence that GW is somewhere between lazy and incompetent - on page one, under "Amendments" - "Note that this is an older codex, written for a previous edition of the rules..."Ah hell, I just realized, this was their Easter Egg announcing 8th edition rules. I don't want to buy a new rulebook this soon! Edit 1 Aww, better yet, it's just that they haven't updated the link that I found, not that they screwed up the FAQ, I guess? Edit 2 Lol both are titled version 1 for 7th. Good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerian Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 More evidence that GW is somewhere between lazy and incompetent - on page one, under "Amendments" - "Note that this is an older codex, written for a previous edition of the rules..." Ah hell, I just realized, this was their Easter Egg announcing 8th edition rules. I don't want to buy a new rulebook this soon! Edit 1 Aww, better yet, it's just that they haven't updated the link that I found, not that they screwed up the FAQ, I guess? Edit 2 Lol both are titled version 1 for 7th. Good times. And the stamp on the bottom of the document says, "last updated August 2014" which we know isn't the case. Fairly sloppy all the way around, considering that they've had months to polish a one page document that doesn't do much at all. Oh well, V Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.