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.

My buddy and I have a Chaos Space Marines army and one issue that keeps us talking is whether or not a unit with Marks of Tzeentch would have a 3+ invuln against shooting attacks if it was on a Sky Shield Landing Pad. Our reasoning is that the Sky Shield confers the 4+ invuln to any unit that stands on it and is getting shot and the Mark of Tzeentch states "Models with the Mark of Tzeentch have +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 3+)." So the question is this: Does the save conferred by the Sky Shield stack with the Mark of Tzeentch?

The real question here is: Why wouldn't it?

The first is a specific rule granting a 4++ invulnerability save to every model. The second is a specific rule informing us that any invulnerability saves the model posses is improved by one. From my poorly drawn memory*, neither rule has any restriction that would prevent you from modifying the save granted from the Landing Pad or requiring you to apply the modifier only to invulnerability saves granted by a specific source. Seeing as one is granting you a save and the other is modifying it, without any restriction denying it permission to do so, both rules can be applied without any conflicts forming or other rule breaking.

Therefore it is safe to say you can combine the two.


*Never trust my memory, please confirm for yourself if there are any restrictions.

I asked this recently, Yes, as long as the shield remains up.

Don't be that guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyvash wrote:
I asked this recently yes, as long as the sheild remains up.

On a related note of things that common sense tells us is wrong, drop pods do NOT gain extra movement scattering because they land on a road


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sky shield is not war gear. If two things offer invun saves, such as termie armor and storm shields you take the highest. Similarly if you have items that add to your cover save, they add together. Camp cloaks make 5 plus terrain give a 4 plus save. Nothing in the game adds to invun saves gained from fortifications or they would be worded as such

 Orock wrote:

On a related note of things that common sense tells us is wrong, drop pods do NOT gain extra movement scattering because they land on a road

Oh? I wasn't aware Scattering was Moving along the road. Not that we have any rules for roads.

/Sarcasm

 Orock wrote:
Don't be that guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyvash wrote:
I asked this recently yes, as long as the sheild remains up.

On a related note of things that common sense tells us is wrong, drop pods do NOT gain extra movement scattering because they land on a road


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sky shield is not war gear. If two things offer invun saves, such as termie armor and storm shields you take the highest. Similarly if you have items that add to your cover save, they add together. Camp cloaks make 5 plus terrain give a 4 plus save. Nothing in the game adds to invun saves gained from fortifications or they would be worded as such

But that's exactly what the mark does a as the OP quoted....

The simple answer is that we don't know, because the Mark of Tzeentch doesn't specify when it occurs. This was the source of a very long and heavily disputed thread recently.

Option A) The Mark of Tzeentch is applied when writing the list. CSM with the Mark therefore have a 6++ normally, and a 4++ when standing on the Skyshield. You take the best save available so use the 4++.
Option B) The Mark of Tzeentch is applied when taking a save. You would therefore have no save normally, turning into a 6++ when shot. You would have a 4++ on the Skyshield, which the MoT then improves to a 3++.

Until an official FAQ comes out, either option can be seen as valid.

A cannot ever be valid. That assumes there are different kinds of modifiers which has literally no rules support.

I am with Regeld2 here,

The mark of Tzeentch does not inform us that it can only be applied to an invulnerability save that the model possesses at the beginning of the game. Without any stated restriction, it would be applied to everything that classifies as a 'invulnerability save' throughout the entirety of the game and not just applied at the very beginning. This would include invulnerability saves which are generated via a special rule during the game, such as psychic powers and or terrain that generates an invulnerability save. If I am wrong, please point me to where it states the Mark of Tzeentch can only modify an invulnerability save if the model possessed it from the beginning of the game.

Oh absolutely, I agree with you two. However it managed to spiral into a multi-page thread and there were some very entrenched opinions. It links into the whole 'Warp Talons with Grimoire get a 2++' thing which is a whole other can of worms...

Anyway, I believe that the rules should be played such that the MoT assists the Skyshield to combine into a 3++ save.

Sure - but stating A is valid is simply incorrect.

So after reading you guys' responses I think I have a way to end this. Orock mentioned camo cloaks as a means to disprove this argument but I believe he's given the perfect example to verify it.

Codex: Space Marines Pg 124
Camo Cloak: A model wearing a camo cloak has +1 cover save. If it does not already have a cover save, it gains a 6+ cover save.

Codex: Chaos Space Marines Pg 30
Mark of Tzeentch: Models with the Mark of Tzeentch have +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 3+). If given to a model that does not already have an invulnerable save, this mark confers an invulnerable save of 6+.

Now I've seen plenty of Space Marine Scouts use camo cloaks to give themselves a 3+ cover save in ruins and 5+ Go To Ground out in the open. If you ask me these are both cases of NON ISSUED WARGEAR conferring a save and then the equipped wargear comes into effect. The wording for both pieces is exactly the same, other than the MoT being limited to 3+ invulnerable whereas the Camo Cloak can bestow a 2+ cover save, so I see one of two options happening:

1) Chaos Space Marines are able to use MoT just like a Camo Cloak to give themselves a 3+ invulnerable while on a Skyshield.
OR
2) Camo Cloaks can no longer be used to boost cover saves given by terrain and no MoT + SSLP == 3++.

Since I can't see any Space Marine player willingly giving up their better cover saves for their Scouts (Let's face it people, you're all selfish and you all want to win) Chaos Space Marines with the Mark of Tzeentch will always and forever get that 3+ invulnerable that you can only shoot at.

Lawyered!

CupNBuns wrote:
Since I can't see any Space Marine player willingly giving up their better cover saves for their Scouts (Let's face it people, you're all selfish and you all want to win)

Calm down there guy, that was seriously uncalled for...

And of course something that gives +1 to a save will lower the save by one, it is just the way the game works if you follow the rules on page 2

question but "save" related. It says that when the walls are up, anything on it ha a 4+ inv save.
Would a unit standing next to the edge get to take a 4+ cover save instead as they would be behind a fortification wall?
the reason I ask is because just as with the mk of Tzeentch making a 4+ inv save better, there are ways to make a cover save better. I'm picturing harker in a squad with a las cannon and camo sitting on the edge getting to choose between a 2+ cover save or the 4+ inv save.

It is interesting as to what sort of cover save it would be granted to a model standing obscured behind part of the Landing Pad. Thanks to a nifty little chart found in the cover save section of the rule book, page 20ish I think, we have an answer though it isn't as straight forward as I would like. This answer can be found by referencing a chart designed to inform us what sort of cover save a model would be granted by different types of terrain. The part I find curious is that every number on this chart can be verified by finding the rule in the Terrain section of the book, which goes into detail about the cover save granted by individual terrain pieces, except for the one most important to this question:

This chart informs us that the fortification grants a cover save far more generous then anything else in the book.

Unless I am over-looking something, this information can only be found on this chart alone and not a peep is mentioned anywhere else in the book. While it would make such sense to have this information found within the rules for fortifications, just like the rule for cover saves granted by ruins can be found in the ruin section, it doesn't appear to actually be stated there. I will review this once more just to try and make sure, I forget things easily enough, but I do have some vague memories of being surprised when someone on this site pointed that fact out to me. Just an interesting foot note to keep in mind....

I was actually thinking 4+as its about the same"protection" as what is offered by the ADL. But like I said, I don't know, that's why I asked.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I was actually thinking 4+as its about the same"protection" as what is offered by the ADL. But like I said, I don't know, that's why I asked.

ADL says it gives a cover save

Skyshield says it gives an invul save

Those are not the same at all

Although, the sky shield probably would obscure models, also granting a cover save, which would generally be 5+ and worse then the invulnerable, unless shrouded and stealth come into it.

I could see it giving a cover save if cover is better yeah

Something they could probably fix in a faq. The walls are pretty much the same as the ADL and of the same "material" so it only stands to reason it would give the same cover save of 4+. Likely, they assumed that people would just take the invul save over the cover save without realizing that players would actually put "land troops" on it that could get cover bonuses.

The only list that I have designed, though I have yet to build, which makes use of a fortification took the Sky Shield for a reason. I have never even tried to field this 'sniper nest' list even in test runs on vassal, it is just too cheesy when a rule lawyer can point to three different section to justify why a sniper drone gets a perfect cover save as well as a 50/50 invulnerability save, on-top of triple tapping at infantry weapon ranges with the right attached HQ's. Given that the thing works as an elevated weapon platform, with broken rules on how you go about getting onto the thing, I could even make them immune to Assault simply by having a model standing just behind the 'walls' that do not actually benefit from any of the wall assault rules...

Broken indeed.

 Imperator_Class wrote:
Although, the sky shield probably would obscure models, also granting a cover save, which would generally be 5+ and worse then the invulnerable, unless shrouded and stealth come into it.

I could see it giving a cover save if cover is better yeah

As the Sky Shield is a Fortification, it gives a 3+ cover save (chart on page 18).

 mr_bruno wrote:

 Imperator_Class wrote:
Although, the sky shield probably would obscure models, also granting a cover save, which would generally be 5+ and worse then the invulnerable, unless shrouded and stealth come into it.

I could see it giving a cover save if cover is better yeah

As the Sky Shield is a Fortification, it gives a 3+ cover save (chart on page 18).

It is a Fortification, not fortification. fortifications give a 3+ cover save, Fortification is an FOC slot.

JinxDragon wrote:
...Given that the thing works as an elevated weapon platform, with broken rules on how you go about getting onto the thing, I could even make them immune to Assault simply by having a model standing just behind the 'walls' that do not actually benefit from any of the wall assault rules...

Just so you know the SSLP got FAQ'ed and now it has no access points meaning the only unit types that can make it onto the SSLP after the game starts are Jump, Jet Pack, Flying Monstrous Creatures, and Flyers. So as long as you take up all the space on the pad you have nothing to fear in terms of Assault, your enemy will be forced to shoot and kill many models until they make enough room for something they own to "jump" or Deepstrike up there and then assault you. And even then there's the chance that models may kill themselves with Dangerous Terrain Tests. It is indeed broken.

Riddle me this.

Something like the Mark of Tzeentch, boosts your current invuln save (what ever that may be) by 1.

If you have a Sorc cast something like, oh I don't know, 4+ div spell, do your Tzeentchian models gain from their +1 to their invuln? People are arguing that because it's not a part of their wargear would claim so, people who play Chaos Space Marines think the wording is correct and they would be granted a 3++ due to the MOT

There is no way to convince someone who is unwilling to be convinced. You simply pull your hair out on that one. If your opponent is saying you cannot gain from the Skyshield Landing Pad's invuln + your MOT, find worthier opponents.

CupNBuns,

It was Errata clearly put in place to correct a typo, removing certain information which was never meant to be included in the Sky Shields entry. The Sky Shield never had the sub-type of Building so there would be no reason for it to have Fire Points or Access points, these are only evoked by embarked units. Given that there is a formal profile used for multiple entries, it is likely a template was created which had a default line of 'Access Points & Fire Points: as model' because this line always seems to read that. Someone simply overlooked the template's inclusion of this line and hence the need to remove this reference.

The Sky Shield always used the 'unique terrain' rules outlined within the profile for how a model moves on and off the surface. That is part of the problem when it comes to assaulting, because of how easy it is to make it impossible to charge a unit on the sky-shield. Just by ensuring there is no place on the edge to physically place the charging model, the Sky Shield removes all ability to complete the charge... at least not without having to argue that Wobbly Model Syndrome allows you to levitate a model mid-air. I personally doubt they intended for the rules to compile in such a way but without permissions like those found in the Ruins section, designed to deal with this exact situation, that is how it ha always played out.

 Happyjew wrote:

It is a Fortification, not fortification. fortifications give a 3+ cover save, Fortification is an FOC slot.

The paragraph on pg 18 entitled Types of Cover Saves says "Purpose-built fortifications confer a 3+ cover save".

20 days later to agree with him?

I would no. Unless you can give the mark to the sky shield

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
20 days later to agree with him?

That's within the time limits of this forum.

Also, it's a citation of why the Skyshield provides a 3+ cover save.

JinxDragon wrote:
It is interesting as to what sort of cover save it would be granted to a model standing obscured behind part of the Landing Pad. Thanks to a nifty little chart found in the cover save section of the rule book, page 20ish I think, we have an answer though it isn't as straight forward as I would like. This answer can be found by referencing a chart designed to inform us what sort of cover save a model would be granted by different types of terrain. The part I find curious is that every number on this chart can be verified by finding the rule in the Terrain section of the book, which goes into detail about the cover save granted by individual terrain pieces, except for the one most important to this question:

This chart informs us that the fortification grants a cover save far more generous then anything else in the book.

Unless I am over-looking something, this information can only be found on this chart alone and not a peep is mentioned anywhere else in the book. While it would make such sense to have this information found within the rules for fortifications, just like the rule for cover saves granted by ruins can be found in the ruin section, it doesn't appear to actually be stated there. I will review this once more just to try and make sure, I forget things easily enough, but I do have some vague memories of being surprised when someone on this site pointed that fact out to me. Just an interesting foot note to keep in mind....

I believe this refers to the page about Battlements, which are said to provide "cover" but do not specify which. We then include p18 which gives a 3+ to fortifications and cover battlements.

No the question would be does the Skyshield wall count as battlements?

The Top of the bastion is 3+, Fortress of Redemption is 3+ etc. Only the ADL is defined as "Debris" and not battlements.

[Edit] P18 sry