Thunderwolf Cav + Power fist = Str 9 or 10?

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

I have a question for you all. Dose a Space Wolf, Thunderwolf rider, armed with a Power fist, hit at str 9 or 10? Is there a difference between a Wolf lord or Iron Priest who has a Thunderwolf mount and a model from the Thunderwolf Cavalry unit. I was reading a article on 3++ about mistakes people make when playing 40k. http://www.3plusplus.net/2014/08/mistake-mondays-7th-seal-edition/ #9 says.

If a model has more than one modifier to its characteristics, apply any doublings/halvings before adding or subtracting any values. So, for example, a Wolf Lord on a Thunderwolf with a Power Fist would be Strength 9 (4 x 2 = 8, 8 + 1 = 9), not Strength 10.


I have to say i agree and think it should also apply to Thunderwolf Cavalry. There are people out there who don't don't see it that way though. Over on Forge The Narrative Kenny has a list that he thinks pumps out 30+ str 10 assault attack. on August 15 they posted a list. https://www.facebook.com/ForgeTheNarrative

If you even care about this, tell me how you see it.

[40kGamer]

In this case it is 10. The +1 S for TWC changes the base Strength of the model to 5 (it is not a +1 modifier like Furious Charge). So it becomes (S5 x 2 = 10) per the formula above.

[DarkLink]

Right. They did away with the 4(5) stuff a few editions ago.

[hyudun]

This is how I read it:

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.)..." (Models & Units)

This establishes that when a piece of Wargear changes a model's characteristics, it is considered a Modifier (capital M).

In the Space Wolves Codex entry, Thunderwolf Mount is listed as Wargear. (Wargear of the Fang -> Special Issue Wargear)

"In addition, a model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks and Wounds characteristics by 1 (these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear)." (Wargear of the Fang -> Special Issue Wargear -> Thunderwolf Mount)

This implies that the "original" (not ever formally defined, but we are forced to infer its existence here) S, T, A, and W characteristic of any unit that comes with a Thunderwolf Mount is 1 less than what's listed in the unit entry & summary pages.

So back to:
"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." (Models & Units)

If it doesn't come with a Thunderwolf Mount standard, then x2 for the fist and + 1 for the Mount = 9 in most, if not all, cases.
If it does come with a Thunderwolf Mount standard, then -1 to get original value, then x2 for the fest and + 1 for the Mount = 9 in most, if not all, cases.

My conclusion: it's Str 9 for any model with a Powerfist and a Thunderwolf Mount.

Side note: I don't think the 4(5) comparison is relevant because the 4(5) rule outright negated modifiers from any special rule in specific contexts, rather than determine the order in which it is applied.

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

This is how I read it:

"Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.)..." (Models & Units)

This establishes that when a piece of Wargear changes a model's characteristics, it is considered a Modifier (capital M).

In the Space Wolves Codex entry, Thunderwolf Mount is listed as Wargear. (Wargear of the Fang -> Special Issue Wargear)

"In addition, a model upgraded to have a Thunderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness, Attacks and Wounds characteristics by 1 (these bonuses are already included in the profiles of models that have a Thunderwolf mount as part of their standard wargear)." (Wargear of the Fang -> Special Issue Wargear -> Thunderwolf Mount)

This implies that the "original" (not ever formally defined, but we are forced to infer its existence here) S, T, A, and W characteristic of any unit that comes with a Thunderwolf Mount is 1 less than what's listed in the unit entry & summary pages.

So back to:
"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." (Models & Units)

If it doesn't come with a Thunderwolf Mount standard, then x2 for the fist and + 1 for the Mount = 9 in most, if not all, cases.
If it does come with a Thunderwolf Mount standard, then -1 to get original value, then x2 for the fest and + 1 for the Mount = 9 in most, if not all, cases.

My conclusion: it's Str 9 for any model with a Powerfist and a Thunderwolf Mount.

Side note: I don't think the 4(5) comparison is relevant because the 4(5) rule outright negated modifiers from any special rule in specific contexts, rather than determine the order in which it is applied.


100% this. Well said. I'm going to share this argument other places.

[Mr Mystery]

In this case it is 10. The +1 S for TWC changes the base Strength of the model to 5 (it is not a +1 modifier like Furious Charge). So it becomes (S5 x 2 = 10) per the formula above.

This.

[hyudun]

In this case it is 10. The +1 S for TWC changes the base Strength of the model to 5 (it is not a +1 modifier like Furious Charge). So it becomes (S5 x 2 = 10) per the formula above.


This.

How is the +1 S from TWM "not a +1 modifier like Furious Charge"?

My argument for it indeed being "a +1 modifier like Furious Charge":

The reason why you calculate Furious Charge post-powerfirst multiplier is because of the combination of these two excerpts:

1. "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.)..." (Models & Units)"
2. "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." (Models & Units)

There is literally nothing else in the Rulebook that explains how to calculate Furious Charge and Powerfists combined; both excerpts also include Wargear, which Thunderwolf Mount is considered as per the Space Wolf Codex, ergo TWM IS like Furious Charge. You cannot treat them differently when determining the order of operations with other modifiers.

I'm curious to hear your counter-argument.

[presto15]

Right. They did away with the 4(5) stuff a few editions ago.

I agree. Str. 10

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

How is the +1 S from TWM "not a +1 modifier like Furious Charge"?

My argument for it indeed being "a +1 modifier like Furious Charge":

The reason why you calculate Furious Charge post-powerfirst multiplier is because of the combination of these two excerpts:

1. "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.)..." (Models & Units)"
2. "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." (Models & Units)

There is literally nothing else in the Rulebook that explains how to calculate Furious Charge and Powerfists combined; both excerpts also include Wargear, which Thunderwolf Mount is considered as per the Space Wolf Codex, ergo TWM IS like Furious Charge. You cannot treat them differently when determining the order of operations with other modifiers.

I'm curious to hear your counter-argument.

I have been looking around for the answers and found a great 5 page thread on Dakkadakka. It's closded now but still a great read.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/609952.page

[Tyrendian]

RAW it's S9 methinks, but at least in the old 'dex (don't have the new one yet...) Thunderwolf Cav units were S5 T5, so with a fist the normal dudes were S10, at which point it seemed exceedingly stupid to then make Wolf Lords weaker because they had to buy the mount after the fact... no idea how much of that still holds true though, so feel free to ignore me :)

[40kGamer]

How is the +1 S from TWM "not a +1 modifier like Furious Charge"?

My argument for it indeed being "a +1 modifier like Furious Charge":

The reason why you calculate Furious Charge post-powerfirst multiplier is because of the combination of these two excerpts:

1. "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.)..." (Models & Units)"
2. "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." (Models & Units)

There is literally nothing else in the Rulebook that explains how to calculate Furious Charge and Powerfists combined; both excerpts also include Wargear, which Thunderwolf Mount is considered as per the Space Wolf Codex, ergo TWM IS like Furious Charge. You cannot treat them differently when determining the order of operations with other modifiers.

I'm curious to hear your counter-argument.

Seriously the whole debate boils down to one thing: What is the models profile? Under Models & Units BRB pg9 (Paper copy) the Characteristic profile is defined as " Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists its characteristics. You can find these profiles in a variety of GW publications, including codexes."

Per the SW Codex the profile for Thunderwolf Cavalry lists them as S5 on their profile so RAW their Strength Characteristic is 5 for all calculations. Power fists and Thunder Hammers are S x 2 so there is no question that base TWC are S10 when using them.

The Lord on the other hand is not so obvious....

Oh GW... how do I love thy ambiguous rules? Let me count the ways... :)

For the Lord's mount, if we refer to the fact that basic TWC, Harald and Canis are all S5 on their profiles then it is apparent that GW intended the TWC to change the actual base characteristics and not be an after the fact add on. A bit ambiguous but not too far of a stretch.

As for the Furious Charge example... it does not change the profile so it is different from TWC as it is a +1 bonus outside of the basic S characteristic.

[daboarder]

Can we vote for just adding the question to a growing list of 7th ed clusterf*cks?

[hyudun]

Seriously the whole debate boils down to one thing: What is the models profile? Under Models & Units BRB pg9 (Paper copy) the Characteristic profile is defined as " Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile that lists its characteristics. You can find these profiles in a variety of GW publications, including codexes."

I disagree - I think the debate boils down to "what is a model's unmodified characteristic?". The passage you quoted does not say that the profile lists it's "original" (made-up term), unmodified Characteristic.

Let me clear up something about "bonuses" and "modifiers" - I see a lot of arguments centered around these things not being the same.

"If the weapon confers a Strength bonus, the Strength of the weapon’s attacks is equal to that of the user after any such modifiers have been applied." (Emphasis mine) (Weapons -> Strength)

This sets the precedent that a "bonus" is a type of "modifier". Now, back to the TWM entry: "these bonuses are already included in the profiles...", which means that the unmodified characteristic is whatever the profile says minus the bonus/modifier. I don't usually like to argue about intent, but I believe the reason GW put "5" in the TWC entry is for ease of use, rather than to say that you start your calculations at 5 when you need to recalculate the strength of a model's attacks. My thesis doesn't hinge on that belief, but I am offering it as an alternative interpretation of what the Profile actually means.

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

I disagree - I think the debate boils down to "what is a model's unmodified characteristic?". The passage you quoted does not say that the profile lists it's "original" (made-up term), unmodified Characteristic.

Let me clear up something about "bonuses" and "modifiers" - I see a lot of arguments centered around these things not being the same.

"If the weapon confers a Strength bonus, the Strength of the weapon’s attacks is equal to that of the user after any such modifiers have been applied." (Emphasis mine) (Weapons -> Strength)

This sets the precedent that a "bonus" is a type of "modifier". Now, back to the TWM entry: "these bonuses are already included in the profiles...", which means that the unmodified characteristic is whatever the profile says minus the bonus/modifier. I don't usually like to argue about intent, but I believe the reason GW put "5" in the TWC entry is for ease of use, rather than to say that you start your calculations at 4 when you need to recalculate the strength of a model's attacks. My thesis doesn't hinge on that belief, but I am offering it as an alternative interpretation of what the Profile actually means.

/agree 100%

[40kGamer]

I disagree - I think the debate boils down to "what is a model's unmodified characteristic?". The passage you quoted does not say that the profile lists it's "original" (made-up term), unmodified Characteristic.

This sets the precedent that a "bonus" is a type of "modifier". Now, back to the TWM entry: "these bonuses are already included in the profiles...", which means that the unmodified characteristic is whatever the profile says minus the bonus/modifier.

Fair enough. There's obviously a good reason that this debate has been running for 4 years+ and still without a single FAQ in sight :)

I believe that the S5 profile is firm as the language regarding the Thunderwolf Strength Bonus is unique.

> Per the Space Wolf Codex it reads: "a model with a Thuderwolf mount increases their Strength, Toughness and Attacks by 1" (emphasis mine)

> The Furious Charge USR reads "adds +1 to his Strength Characteristic". Melee Weapons that modify strength also read as "+1", "+2" and so on

I interpret "increases" and "adds" very differently. Increases is defined as "become or make greater in size" where adds is defined as "put together two or more numbers or amounts to calculate their total value." So to me "increases by 1" means that for all game purposes the models profile permanently changes to base S5.

That being said, while I disagree, I do understand your logic of treating the mount as a bonus that should be excluded prior to the order of operations.

This falls under the long list of ambiguous questions that I go through with my opponent pregame and email to TO's for clarification prior to events.

- - - Updated - - -


Can we vote for just adding the question to a growing list of 7th ed clusterf*cks?

Man that is going to be one long list by the time the dust settles! :p

[daboarder]

Man that is going to be one long list by the time the dust settles! :p

Yeah, its gotten to the point around here where we've thrown our hands in the air and said "F*ck it! We're just going to apply setting/cinematic rules wo some of these things because they are a mess otherwise"

Its god damned ridiculous this edition, and personally I just cant wait till I pick up the new infinity starter set

[40kGamer]

Yeah, its gotten to the point around here where we've thrown our hands in the air and said "F*ck it! We're just going to apply setting/cinematic rules wo some of these things because they are a mess otherwise"

Its god damned ridiculous this edition, and personally I just cant wait till I pick up the new infinity starter set

Infinity is hands down a great game. It takes a lot of terrain and you have to be careful that the "link" rule doesn't spoil people's fun. Actually before the link rule came out I would have argued that infinity was an exceptionally well balanced system. Plus the models are freaking amazing and you only need around 10 to have a decent sized army... What's not to love!

[daboarder]

Infinity is hands down a great game. It takes a lot of terrain and you have to be careful that the "link" rule doesn't spoil people's fun. Actually before the link rule came out I would have argued that infinity was an exceptionally well balanced system. Plus the models are freaking amazing and you only need around 10 to have a decent sized army... What's not to love!
Yeah its thriving at the local Game store, thrusday nights (late night shopping) are infinity nights these days, I'm going to be doing a svalheim inspired "the company" style PanO list

[DarkLink]

I'll just add in that Thunderwolves were previously FAQ'd to be Str 10, for the whole "base characteristic"/(4)5 thing. But they've got more important things to FAQ, I guess... or, something.

[40kGamer]

Yeah its thriving at the local Game store, thrusday nights (late night shopping) are infinity nights these days, I'm going to be doing a svalheim inspired "the company" style PanO list

PanO is a great faction and you have to love the Nisses Lvl2 MSV's... plus I've loved the Jotums since before he was officially released! We're all excited to see which way the 3rd edition rules go and I'm definitely getting the upcoming boxed set.

- - - Updated - - -


I'll just add in that Thunderwolves were previously FAQ'd to be Str 10, for the whole "base characteristic"/(4)5 thing. But they've got more important things to FAQ, I guess... or, something.

I thought I remembered that they addressed it back in 5th/early 6th but I couldn't find it! Maybe they're saving up the FAQ's for a big Christmas reveal so that everyone can get all the answers they want! On another note I got so excited about Infinity that I forgot this was the Thunderwolf thread... attention span of a 5 year old, yessiree! :D

[daboarder]

PanO is a great faction and you have to love the Nisses Lvl2 MSV's... plus I've loved the Jotums since before he was officially released! We're all excited to see which way the 3rd edition rules go and I'm definitely getting the upcoming boxed set.

Yeah Im looking at running a jotumm lt and a pair of Nisses in my army, pushing the svalheim style fairly hard

[hyudun]

I interpret "increases" and "adds" very differently. Increases is defined as "become or make greater in size" where adds is defined as "put together two or more numbers or amounts to calculate their total value." So to me "increases by 1" means that for all game purposes the models profile permanently changes to base S5.

Yeah, I can understand that. In my own words I would describe your position as: "increase" means an intrinsic change to the model's property, whereas "add" creates a temporary value that is used in lieu of the actual characteristic. My issue with this is that there is no formal definition of either, nor a sentence that includes both either as synonyms or as separate processes, so whether they're meant as specific rules syntax, or just interchangeable English synonyms is ambiguous. Basically, GW needs to get more consistent with their rules syntax - they need more people with a programming background or perhaps pull a lawyer off those IP lawsuits.

On the tangent of Infinity - what's the best way to buy into that game? Been hearing a lot of great things - corporate dedication to unified rules interpretation is nice...

[40kGamer]

My issue with this is that there is no formal definition of either, nor a sentence that includes both either as synonyms or as separate processes, so whether they're meant as specific rules syntax, or just interchangeable English synonyms is ambiguous.

After all these years you would think GW would be able to tighten up their use of the English Language. Especially since they're, you know, English! Sometimes I think they like all the drama created by their vague wording. When I feel truly cynical I envision a GW game designer setting as their computer trolling the net and laughing their *** off at all the heated debates that revolve around their rules. :)



Basically, GW needs to get more consistent with their rules syntax - they need more people with a programming background or perhaps pull a lawyer off those IP lawsuits.

This is something the whole community can get behind. Too bad GW doesn't seem to be interested in actually doing it. Look at the rules snafu on the new SW dread hotness Murderfang. Nothing like giving a piece of Wargear that doesn't work with furious charge to a dread. Pure genius! :D



On the tangent of Infinity - what's the best way to buy into that game? Been hearing a lot of great things - corporate dedication to unified rules interpretation is nice...

I would hold on the main rules as 3rd edition is supposed to be coming sometime this year. If you want to check it out before 3rd drops Operation Icestorm is coming out next moth. (It is a self contained Infinity starter with 2 factions along the same idea as Dark Vengeance.) The models are still all metal but me being old school I actually love the models!

The more realistic proportions and super details make the models a painters dream, with a little attention you can really get them to stand out. (Plus as you only need a handful you can spend more time painting each model as well.) I'm really anxious to see what they tighten up with 3rd edition as the rules are already solid. (Although I absolutely hate the linked troop rules that they introduced in an expansion set.) It's definitely worth investigating and if you can catch a demo with some experienced people you can get a real feel for some of the nuances. I highly recommend taking a look! :D

- - - Updated - - -


Yeah Im looking at running a jotumm lt and a pair of Nisses in my army, pushing the svalheim style fairly hard

The Jotums is truly bad ***... Armour 10 is nothing to sneeze at! I ran a Cutter for a long while as I love TO Camo in the game. One of my favorite sneaky tricks is to use the completely hidden rule and make a note as to where he is on the board. Opponents rarely ever make random discover rolls when an area looks clear. The look on your opponent's face when that beast turns up right where they think they are safe is truly priceless!

[John Bower]

My only question being; why oh why would you in 7th edition 'challenges R us' would you want a Power Fist to start with? I specifically avoided any 'unwieldy' weapons on my Pups knowing that any turkey in an enemy unit will shut them down with a challenge rendering the wargear pointless. I'm going to do the same with all my Ultras when I have time and money to do so; buy a box and change all my sarge's PF's or PA's for swords. I don't care with my Orks (since nobz can be a unit) or my Chaos (I wan't the daft so and so's to get killed anyway as Champions seem a bit pointless considering they 'must' challenge), and Krom Dragongaze (I have to have the axe which is lame when he too 'must challenge) won't matter either. But my Marine sargeants tend to be vets for the Ld upgrade which I need to keep in case they get quartered in a turn.

[40kGamer]

My only question being; why oh why would you in 7th edition 'challenges R us' would you want a Power Fist to start with? I specifically avoided any 'unwieldy' weapons on my Pups knowing that any turkey in an enemy unit will shut them down with a challenge rendering the wargear pointless.

I can see hiding a Powerfist or Hammer in the unit but I'm with you on keeping the Lord choppy. The shiny new Relic Axe that is S+2 and AP2 looks to be awesome if you unlock it with the Champions of Fenris Detachment. Plus you get the added bonus of +1WS for all of your Wolf Guard and Thunderwolves! That is just plain nasty!

[hyudun]

My only question being; why oh why would you in 7th edition 'challenges R us' would you want a Power Fist to start with?

You put it on a survivable HQ (Biker Chapter Master w/ Eternal Shield, or Nurgle Biker Lord, or TWM Lord) and use him to hunt down enemy HQ's for that victory point.

Although now that I'm thinking about it, the last several games I played I was better off using something even more specialized (Black Mace Daemon Prince) or massed plasma shooting to kill off my enemy's HQ's. Gonna have to re-think my own use of PF's, especially since there actually aren't that many T4, 2+ units that are susceptible to Instant Death with everyone putting their HQ's on mounts and buying them Eternal Warrior. A +x str, AP2 weapon without unwieldy would probably be better. One of my other points was to have flexibility to hunt vehicles, but on second thought, melta bombs just work so much better for that and are cheaper.

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

It seems this conversation is trending in the direction of Str 9 for for all Thunderwolf riders + Power fist, including the Thunderwolf Calvary. It is the same for the other threads I've started and read. It is by no means unanimous, with the vote at this point being over the two polls i have [12] [14] [5]. Even with the vote being slightly in favor of 10 the written argument seems to favor the 9. There is a group who just can not understand why we would even think it is not 10 but their arguments seem not to stand up to the question.

Dam13n, over on B&C gave me this email address [email protected] , to ask questions to the faq team. Maybe some more of you will ask the question so we can get a real answer?

[40kGamer]

It seems this conversation is trending in the direction of Str 9 for for all Thunderwolf riders + Power fist, including the Thunderwolf Calvary. It is the same for the other threads I've started and read. It is by no means unanimous, with the vote at this point being over the two polls i have [12] [14] [5]. Even with the vote being slightly in favor of 10 the written argument seems to favor the 9. There is a group who just can not understand why we would even think it is not 10 but their arguments seem not to stand up to the question.

And there are those of us who understand the S9 argument but completely disagree with it. :)

While you can argue the S9 for a character based on how you read "increase strength" vs "adds to strength", there is absolutely nothing in the RAW that supports using a different value to calculate the Strength of the melee attacks then the one presented on the Characteristic profile. Hopefully someone will actually answer the email queries or take the time to update the FAQ. With GW you can never guess which way they will rule on anything... Sometimes I think they roll a D6 like they suggest in the rules and let the dice decide!

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

And there are those of us who understand the S9 argument but completely disagree with it. :)

While you can argue the S9 for a character based on how you read "increase strength" vs "adds to strength", there is absolutely nothing in the RAW that supports using a different value to calculate the Strength of the melee attacks then the one presented on the Characteristic profile. Hopefully someone will actually answer the email queries or take the time to update the FAQ. With GW you can never guess which way they will rule on anything... Sometimes I think they roll a D6 like they suggest in the rules and let the dice decide!

Please add you voice to the choir. It might help if people with different opinions ask the same question.

[40kGamer]

Please add you voice to the choir. It might help if people with different opinions ask the same question.

I sent an email and got the standard 'we can't reply to every email response.' Hopefully they will get enough of these that they add it to the FAQ when they update it.

[John Bower]

Looking in several places I'm inclined to fall on the fence but my gut tells me S10 for the reason that his 'profile' becomes S5; it's not +1STR in the normal sense. Defo an FAQ jobby.

[Caitsidhe]

Yeah, its gotten to the point around here where we've thrown our hands in the air and said "F*ck it! We're just going to apply setting/cinematic rules wo some of these things because they are a mess otherwise"

Its god damned ridiculous this edition, and personally I just cant wait till I pick up the new infinity starter set


I'm picking that up and Bolt Action too. I decided yesterday that I'm ebaying everything. I'm getting ready to move to another State and 1) it is a chunk of money I can use for the trip, 2) it is stuff I don't have to move (and there is a lot of it), and 3) I just don't enjoy the game anymore. It has gotten that bad. Tactical wargaming is the hobby, not Games Workshop and the simple fact is there are people buidling better mousetraps (with better pricing no less). Thus, when I get my ebay thing up sometime in the next few days (I have to add everything up, take pictures, calculate a bargain price, etc.) I'll point people toward it. Anyone wanting a metric ton of Chaos, and a decent amount of Guard and other factions, terrain, and bits can probably get a steal.

[DarkLink]

I was just randomly given a drop zone commander starter pack, so...

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

In my OP i talked about Kenny on Forge The Narrative. He had talked about his unit of TWC and had posted a list. Well it seems like he has been Illuminated. Check 21:50 on this pod cast. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l71B2TKMKw ) Pretty much sums up this whole argument. For the counter argument via video check this. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OHNxzkbKT0&list=UUBzUEWxzduyn0PQsOtvY_5w )

Here is Kenny's argument. 10921
Forge The Narrative

Kenny here,
I have relented on my argument for S10vsS9 TWC....after having it presented to me over and over again....i decided to put together this simple graphic. I photographed the rules instead of typing them and built a pretty simple key in photoshop. I believe in my heart that they are meant to be S10 but i can only prove that they are S9. Unless you want to argue that "to increase" is not a "modification" ....which is dumb because obviously is you increase something you have modified it in some way. At least in this context.

[John Bower]

In my OP i talked about Kenny on Forge The Narrative. He had talked about his unit of TWC and had posted a list. Well it seems like he has been Illuminated. Check 21:50 on this pod cast. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l71B2TKMKw ) Pretty much sums up this whole argument. For the counter argument via video check this. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OHNxzkbKT0&list=UUBzUEWxzduyn0PQsOtvY_5w )

Here is Kenny's argument. 10921

This makes me kinda see the point for it being S9 really. As they are 'wargear' so that S5 is not a standard it's a +1 really however you read it. Once they say it's wargear then whether their intent is S9 or S10 at the moment RAW it should be S9 for both IC's and TWC units. Double characteristic then any adds as per WH40k:TR

[Lord Lorne Walkier]

This makes me kinda see the point for it being S9 really. As they are 'wargear' so that S5 is not a standard it's a +1 really however you read it. Once they say it's wargear then whether their intent is S9 or S10 at the moment RAW it should be S9 for both IC's and TWC units. Double characteristic then any adds as per WH40k:TR

You have been Illuminated! Too bad you can't change your Vote....

[Scott Gray]

You have been Illuminated! Too bad you can't change your Vote....

Strength is 10 per the new FAQ, and 5th edition had the same FAQ. I expect it will foolishly be argued again in 8th edition but it is 10.