Hello all,

Following on from a discussion regarding the merits of Tzeentch Warp Talons and allied assistance from Daemons:

'Daemon' confers a 5+ Invulnerable save.
The Mark of Tzeentch increases an Invulnerable save by +1 to a maximum of 3+.
The Grimoire of True Names can be applied to a friendly Daemon and increases any Invulnerable Save by +2.

Applying the Grimoire 'first' creates a 3++, and thus the Mark of Tzeentch fails to activate and offers no further benefit.
Can the Mark of Tzeentch be used 'first' to raise an Invulnerable save to 4++, and subsequently apply the Grimoire to achieve a 2++ Invulnerable save?

For reference:
- There is no possible way to achieve better than a 3++ Invulnerable save using the Chaos Marine Codex alone. Similarly there are no ways to achieve this by using Fortifications or Psychic Powers from the Rulebook. The 'no better than a 3++' clause therefore appears redundant unless it is specifically to avoid cross-Codex combinations.
- The Mark of Tzeentch is a 'passive' effect that is always active. The Grimoire is a one-turn buff that then builds over this. It could therefore be considered a 4+ Invul save by default, Grimoired to a 2+.

The root question is probably, "Is the limit of a 3++ purely affecting how good the Mark can be, or does it introduce a 'hard limit' on Invulnerable Saves regardless of where individual improvements may be coming from?"


EDIT: Added a poll. Get voting, guys.

I'm curious to hear the consensus on this one but one other detail that may matter is that the Mark of Tzeentch is a static, always-on improvement to a daemon's save just like normal wargear where as the Grimoire has to be activated.

I don't play CSM nor Daemons; however, based on that I would say the Mark is in place initially (granting a 4++ save) and then the Grimoire would increase it to 2++ once it's activated.

With this thinking it turns into a question of whether or not the Mark causes a capped save regardless of how the save is improved or is the cap solely specific to the Mark and is another aspect of a poorly written GW rule.

I'm not a Chaos player myself but play against them regularly and my take on it would be:

1) Your MoT models have paid for the +1 Invuln at the list building stage and start the game with it (4+ Invuln)
2) In game, the Grimoire is cast/opened on the same unit adding +2 to their invuln for a 2++.

I'm not pitching this from a strict RAW point of view as I don't know the specific wording but reversing the above to disallow the 2+ seems a bit off to me.

I said I'd be here, so I need to stay true to my word, right? I am inclined to believe that the 2+ Invulnerable Save is possible because while Invulnerable Saves improved by the Mark of Tzeentch are indeed limited to 3++, there is no current guidance on introducing other methods (Grimoire).

I *believe* that we are able to say that the total 2+ save can be modified past Mark of Tzeentch's 3++ maximum because Mark of Tzeentch would not be the mechanic pushing it past 3++. It would be the grimoire. The MoTz could follow all rules before you apply the Grimoire effect.

Mozzamanx- would it be worth noting in the first post that Forwarning is used before the Movement Phase, and the Grimoire is used in the Movement Phase?

edit for spelling: I can't spell your name, bro. I fail.

 wildboar wrote:
I'm not a Chaos player myself but play against them regularly and my take on it would be:

1) Your MoT models have paid for the +1 Invuln at the list building stage and start the game with it (4+ Invuln)

That isnt how MoT works for Daemons; it is rerolled failed saves of a 1.

You cast 4++ invulnerable save, then use grimoire to increase to a 2+. The Tz rule then kicks in, rerolling that save.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 wildboar wrote:
I'm not a Chaos player myself but play against them regularly and my take on it would be:

1) Your MoT models have paid for the +1 Invuln at the list building stage and start the game with it (4+ Invuln)

That isnt how MoT works for Daemons; it is rerolled failed saves of a 1.

You cast 4++ invulnerable save, then use grimoire to increase to a 2+. The Tz rule then kicks in, rerolling that save.

Apologies for not being clearer in my post. The previous discussion was in regards to a unit of allied CSM Warp Talons (they have the Daemon special rule) that start with a 5+ invuln. The MoT buffs it to a 4+ then add the Grimoire etc etc which then led to this discussion. I knew what I was referencing even though I clearly decided not to share with you all..

Based on that what are thoughts?

@nosferatu: We are specifically dealing with the Mark of Tzeentch here, as seen on Marine-Daemons like Warp Talons, Obliterators, Mutilators and Possessed.
Daemon of Tzeentch has no relevance in this debate.

@Brometheus: I'm not sure why Forewarning is relevant here, I assume you're talking about the 2++ rerollable that Daemons can achieve? I have no issues with that debate because Forewarning is at the start of the phase, whereas the Grimoire is at 'any point' and so in my eye, has explicit permission to build on the 4++ left by Forewarning.

Hm.. I think I am in la-la land somewhere else. It's nothing new. Where am I? Forget Forwarning.

So I guess what I need to clarify is that I am focusing on:

-Warp Talon (5+ Invul)
-MoTz (3+ Invul)
-Grimoire (2+ Invul)

Edit after me being silly (I blame the coffee at 2:20pm): I think the 2+ is possible.

I'm taking a Logic class. You can imagine how I'm doing. Hint: Poorly. How embarassing.

Extremely tangential to the poll (apologies), but if the 3+ maximum does not apply to this, then what exactly is it for? I don't have the CSM Codex, so what units start with a 3+ invulnerable save and then can take MoTz?

Is what was quoted in the OP the extent of the wording? "The Mark of Tzeentch increases an Invulnerable save by +1 to a maximum of 3+."?

Yep, that's what was quoted and it is correct

Specifically here, I don't think you can argue that the MoT is not used to obtain the 2++.

If you don't have MoT, they have a 3++. If you do, it'd be 2++ .... except that you can't use MoT to improve a invuln beyond 3++. Talons have a 5++. That is improved at two different times. MoT can't improve a invuln beyond 3++.


At the moment Grimoire occurs then, you have this : 5 - 2 -1 = 2.

MoT doesn't confer a 4+. It improves a native save by 1. You aren't using the Grimoire to improve a 4+ - you're improving a 5+, and you have a second modifier which is always on.


So, IMO:
it is not: 5 -1 =4, then 4-2=2.

It is 5-1-2 = 2, and that is not allowed by MoT rules.

Well call me a noob, but I never noticed that Mark of Tzeentch max 3++ in the CSM Codex. But the way it's worded, the Mark of Tzeentch improves the invul save of the model by +1 to a maximum of 3++, this implies to me that the Mark of Tzeentch can never improve it beyond a 3++, but that doesn't not exclude something else from increasing it further to a 2++. Or a Chaos Altar in Apocalypse could do it too.

Consider a unit of Nurgle Obliterators on a Skyshield or being Forewarned. They get a 4++ to shooting/all attacks, and if they were Grimoired, wouldn't they get a 2++? Why should they get it and not ones with the Mark of Tzeentch?

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
There's no rule I've ever read saying Invulnerable Saves cannot be better than a 3++. So if you have a CSM model with the Daemon USR and Mark of Tzeentch, and they get Grimoired successfully, then they'd have a 2++. Would be great for Heldrakes, Obliterators, and maybe make Warp Talons worth using. Oh, that would be awesome for a big unit of Possessed too! Just thought of that.

The limit is specifically mentioned under the rules for the Mark of Tzeentch in the Chaos Codex, page 30.
"Models with the Mark of Tzeentch have +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 3+)."

The Tz mark states you cannot improve a save past a 3++

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The Tz mark states you cannot improve a save past a 3++

To be clear, the Tz mark says it cannot improve a save past 3++.

Yes, the key word being 'it' cannot improve a save. Not that model's save cannot be improved beyond 3++ by something else.

So you have a 5++, plus grimoire, plus Tz. You have no permission to chosoe the order, and one results in a cap being applied - so you choose the one the results ina cap

There is also the order of operations, MoT is considered wargear while (i don't play deamons) but the true names of Grimoire is more like a blessing- happens in game. We also see that in the CSM codex the max invulnerable save that can be achieved independently of allied codex's is 3+ (SoC + MoT)

You can never get better than a 3++.

Well we currently have a 13/12 divide so there is obviously something in this debate!

The models themselves are bringing the 4++ to the table before the game starts.

If as has been quoted the MoT states it cannot be used to improve an invuln beyond 3++ then an in-game effect that improves such a save to 2++ breaks no rule as I see it.

The model cannot gain a 2++ without using the MoT.
The order doesn't matter, it had been used, the model has a 2++ so the rule has been broken.

 wildboar wrote:
The models themselves are bringing the 4++ to the table before the game starts.

If as has been quoted the MoT states it cannot be used to improve an invuln beyond 3++ then an in-game effect that improves such a save to 2++ breaks no rule as I see it.

Actually it is a modifier in effect.If somethign removes the 5++ daemon save, you would still have a 6++. So no, it isnt "before the game starts" - it is, like all modifiers, evaluated as it is needed

Given one modifier has a limit (Tz), and one doesnt, you dont have permission to bypass the limit by usig OoO

Ok fair point. I guess it comes back to the wording of the MoT rule. As has previously been mentioned if the exact wording states that the MoT itself cannot be used to improve a models invuln save beyond 3++. It doesn't disallow improvements to be made from another source, purely that the MoT cannot do so.

Right and in the OP scenario, the 2++ isn't possible without MoT in the scenario. Therefore MoT is being used to achieve a 2++ and breaking a rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 wildboar wrote:
The models themselves are bringing the 4++ to the table before the game starts.

If as has been quoted the MoT states it cannot be used to improve an invuln beyond 3++ then an in-game effect that improves such a save to 2++ breaks no rule as I see it.

Actually it is a modifier in effect.If somethign removes the 5++ daemon save, you would still have a 6++. So no, it isnt "before the game starts" - it is, like all modifiers, evaluated as it is needed

Given one modifier has a limit (Tz), and one doesnt, you dont have permission to bypass the limit by usig OoO

Ok, hadn't thought of the Daemon save being eliminated, does the MoT state that no model with this mark may have an invuln of better than 3++ or that the MoT itself cannot be used to improve an invuln beyond 3++?

Not a narky question, merely inquisitive as I don't know the precise wording.

*Edit*

Ok, I see the logic now, regardless it is still in use to grant a 2++ so the wording is irrelevant. I'd voted that the 2++ is possible so the poll is slightly askew now but hey ho.

The MoT does not improve their saves to a 4++. It improves their saves by 1, to a limit of 3++, At no point does it stop improving by +1 and start giving them a flat save of 4++. When the grimoire is active, now you have a unit with a 5++ whose save is improved by 1 by the MoT and by 2 by the grimoire. Yes the MoT is a constant effect, but that doesn't mean that it sets the invuln to a constant. There is no order of operations here. Both abilities do what they do. The MoT is just always doing it. This means in order to get to the 2++, the MoT is still giving +1 to the invuln save, which it can only do up to a 3++. Therefore, the invuln save is 3++.

The idea that the MoT improves the save to a 4++ and then the grimoire improves it to a 2++ does not follow the rules as written and is an oversimplification of the way it works. Both the grimoire and the MoT are required to achieve the 2++, and since the MoT explicitly forbids its effect from resulting in a 2++, the MoT has no effect when the Grimoire is activated.

 Lotus wrote:
The MoT does not improve their saves to a 4++. It improves their saves by 1, to a limit of 3++, At no point does it stop improving by +1 and start giving them a flat save of 4++. When the grimoire is active, now you have a unit with a 5++ whose save is improved by 1 by the MoT and by 2 by the grimoire. Yes the MoT is a constant effect, but that doesn't mean that it sets the invuln to a constant. There is no order of operations here. Both abilities do what they do. The MoT is just always doing it. This means in order to get to the 2++, the MoT is still giving +1 to the invuln save, which it can only do up to a 3++. Therefore, the invuln save is 3++.

The idea that the MoT improves the save to a 4++ and then the grimoire improves it to a 2++ does not follow the rules as written and is an oversimplification of the way it works. Both the grimoire and the MoT are required to achieve the 2++, and since the MoT explicitly forbids its effect from resulting in a 2++, the MoT has no effect when the Grimoire is activated.

I believe Lotus has it. At no point does the unit as posited by the OP ever have a base save of 4++; it has a save of 5++ +1 which is an important distinction. It's save can be modified by +2 by one ability and +1 by another. Normally they'd work together, but the latter ability has an additional restriction that prevents it from granting a save past 3++, so in this specific instance that is the best you can do.

 Lotus wrote:
The MoT does not improve their saves to a 4++. It improves their saves by 1, to a limit of 3++, At no point does it stop improving by +1 and start giving them a flat save of 4++. When the grimoire is active, now you have a unit with a 5++ whose save is improved by 1 by the MoT and by 2 by the grimoire. Yes the MoT is a constant effect, but that doesn't mean that it sets the invuln to a constant. There is no order of operations here. Both abilities do what they do. The MoT is just always doing it. This means in order to get to the 2++, the MoT is still giving +1 to the invuln save, which it can only do up to a 3++. Therefore, the invuln save is 3++.

The idea that the MoT improves the save to a 4++ and then the grimoire improves it to a 2++ does not follow the rules as written and is an oversimplification of the way it works. Both the grimoire and the MoT are required to achieve the 2++, and since the MoT explicitly forbids its effect from resulting in a 2++, the MoT has no effect when the Grimoire is activated.

Where in the rules does it state when effects are evaluated? Not debating but your post is the first that made me realize my own assumption that a constant effect like MoT is indeed constant and not only in effect and evaluated when it's needed. So really it turns into trying to figure out when, infact a Special rule is calculated. If it's evaluated at the time the rule is added to the model, then the MoT would not hit the 3++ limit. If the rule is evaluated only when needed the the MoT restriction might be hit but depends on how 2 effects that happen at the same time is handled. Some people say the controlling player sets the order while others say that there can't be an order.

So if there is a place in the rules that a) states that modifiers are calculated only when a test is to be made and b) what to do when 2 effects are triggered at the same time - that is what we need to figure out (and would address a number of threads on this board).

If A is true then how do multiple triggers applied? My opinion is that the controlling player decides since this is how different wounds works (I.e. "Take the glancing hit saves first then penetrating") as well as testing for reserves (e.g. For when you have multiple reserve tests triggered). If so, the the controlling player could choose the MoT before the grimoire's evaluation and it's a 2++.

So ultimately, this falls under the question of how are modifiers applied and/or who sets the order of simultaneously triggered events? (The latter is being debated in the FNP thread as well)

I voted no. I don't believe the effects are actually applied in any sort of order they both just 'happen'. And the MoT can't be included if it including it would result in a greater then 3++ save.

Agreed with the above.

The Mark was used to improve the invulnerable save.
The save is now better than 3+
The rule for the Mark has been broken.

Well, what if a player Forewarned his Tzeentch Possessed or Obliterators (or put them on a Skyshield for that matter), and then used the Grimoire on them to make it +2 to a 2++? In that instance, the Mark of Tzeentch is NOT being used to increase the invulnerable save better than 3++.

What say you to this? Or is Tzeentch just somehow screwed into never getting a 2++, even though any other Marked Possessed or Oblits would benefit in this manner to a 2++?

In this case it would be ok; its how Daemons do it all the time.

If you forewarn you get a 4++ save, AND another 4++ save from MoT+Daemon.; one gets bumped to 2++, the other to 3++

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In this case it would be ok; its how Daemons do it all the time.

If you forewarn you get a 4++ save, AND another 4++ save from MoT+Daemon.; one gets bumped to 2++, the other to 3++

See but this breaks the argument since even though you can get a 2++ without the MoT, the MoT is still applied to the unit and thus would require a person to be selective in how modifiers are applied. For the argument to be consistent, the unit marked with the MoT could never get better than a 3++. So if you Grimoire, forewarn and MoT a unit from CSM you either will get max save (breaking MoT per some people) o just a 3++.

I am still of the camp that the 3++ restriction is only tested when the mark is applied and he Grimoire would allow it to go to a 2++.

Now, thinking of the wording without the Grimoire, do the marks stack similarly to DE pain tokens? So if an IC with MOT joins a unit that also has MoT, would that grant +2 to the invulnerable or is it specific to the unit? At this pint I'm just trying to figure out how the 3++ limit could ever be hit in the first place.

If you had a way to improve a invulnerable save to a 2++ without counting the MoT that would be fine. The MoT just can't be used help the model get better then a 3++.

The MoT bonus is in effect until the save gets pushed beyond 3++.

If all modifiers including MoT would result in a 3++, MoT would still be in effect, and the model would have a 3++ save.

If all modifiers, including the MoT would result in a 2++ save, MoT would not be in effect, and the save would be determined by the other modifies. If this means that the other modifiers still result in a 2++, then that is fine (ex: grimoire on a skyshield).

 Unholyllama wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In this case it would be ok; its how Daemons do it all the time.

If you forewarn you get a 4++ save, AND another 4++ save from MoT+Daemon.; one gets bumped to 2++, the other to 3++

See but this breaks the argument since even though you can get a 2++ without the MoT, the MoT is still applied to the unit and thus would require a person to be selective in how modifiers are applied. For the argument to be consistent, the unit marked with the MoT could never get better than a 3++. So if you Grimoire, forewarn and MoT a unit from CSM you either will get max save (breaking MoT per some people) o just a 3++.

I am still of the camp that the 3++ restriction is only tested when the mark is applied and he Grimoire would allow it to go to a 2++.

Now, thinking of the wording without the Grimoire, do the marks stack similarly to DE pain tokens? So if an IC with MOT joins a unit that also has MoT, would that grant +2 to the invulnerable or is it specific to the unit? At this pint I'm just trying to figure out how the 3++ limit could ever be hit in the first place.

The mark is applied consistently, any time you evaluate their save. Thats how modifiers work. As pointed out, if you remove their save (somehow!) then they end up with a 6++; under your interpretation they would have nothing.

The MoT in the forewarn example isnt used at all.

the order, does not matter in the case of applying MoT and GOTN

both are being used to improve the ++ saves, MoT has a stipulation specifically forbidding it being used to get a ++ better then 3++,

you cannot get a 2++ without using both, order does not matter at all, simply that you are using both, and one cannot be used to grant a 3++, and weather you are adding the +1 from MoT before or after, it most certainly IS being used to achieve that 2++,

to argue otherwise is to say you dont need that extra +1 to your ++ save to achieve a 2++, which does not work mathematically, and does not work RAW.

With the mot no save improvment will alter it past 3++ as the mot is being used to get the save to a point where 2++ is possible. A lord with no mot and a 4++ can get to 2++ with it though.

 Bausk wrote:
With the mot no save improvment will alter it past 3++ as the mot is being used to get the save to a point where 2++ is possible. A lord with no mot and a 4++ can get to 2++ with it though.

A lord is not a legal target for the grimoire.

Well the way I'd look at it is that the Mark is a constant state and so always activates before the Grimoire, so I think 2++ is fine.

Ah only thngs with the daemon usr I gather? Yeah sadly unless you can get something to 4++ without the MoT then I don't see a 2++ happening.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Well the way I'd look at it is that the Mark is a constant state and so always activates before the Grimoire, so I think 2++ is fine.

You're still using the MoT to achieve better than 3++, so you're breaking a rule.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Well the way I'd look at it is that the Mark is a constant state and so always activates before the Grimoire, so I think 2++ is fine.

You're still using the MoT to achieve better than 3++, so you're breaking a rule.

exaclty,

when the two rules are applied does not matter,

the fact is, you have to apply both rules before you roll your save, to get a 2++ save, and one of those rules stipulates it cannot be used to get better then a 3++,

order does not matter, you use both, and are bound by both the benefits and restrictions of both

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 wildboar wrote:
I'm not a Chaos player myself but play against them regularly and my take on it would be:

1) Your MoT models have paid for the +1 Invuln at the list building stage and start the game with it (4+ Invuln)

That isnt how MoT works for Daemons; it is rerolled failed saves of a 1.

You cast 4++ invulnerable save, then use grimoire to increase to a 2+. The Tz rule then kicks in, rerolling that save.

wow, that is beyond stupid

Mozzamanx wrote:

For reference:
The 'no better than a 3++' clause therefore appears redundant unless it is specifically to avoid cross-Codex combinations.

Note that the CSM codex has tons of useless redundant things in it.
Axe of Blind Furry giving rage, yet is only available to models with Rage.
Warpsmiths repair on a 5+ but mechandrites give +1 to repair and Warpsmiths come stock with mechandrites hence warpsmiths repair on 4+ ALWAYS.

Check your FAQ, it can now be given to a DP.

actually this seems quite straight forward.

while I can see where people are comming from with the 3++ 'restriction' within the mark text you are fundamentally inccorect in your interpretations of it.

the mark is applied as a squad/character upgrade, it is at this point that any existing invul save cannot be pushed behond a 3++. at the start of the game this is still true and it is true thougout the game, this save is a constant. so for example, a model with a 4++ invul pays for the MoT, this buffs his standard save to a 3++.

the 3++ is based on the marks abbility to buff behond a 3++, this means the MARK cannot take you past a 3++ but it doesnt say that it PREVENTS any additional modifyers.

in this instance your 3++ could recive a +1 from an external source as it isnt the mark that is making it go to a 2+ it is the grimoure, similarly the grimoure doesnt care if the mark is there or not, it is simply a buff tool.

What about non-modifiers?
Say a model with a MoT (and no other inv save) has the power Forewarning cast on him. This isn't a save that was there when the mark was purchased, so would it boost the new save to a 3++?

The only way I can see the Mark working is if it's re-evaluated every time the Invulnerable save is changed. As I see it, the Mark has been used, and the save is 2++ (in the Grimoire example) so the Mark rule has been broken.

I'm collecting a Thousand a Sons force, and use this Mark a lot, this interpretation is very much to my detriment, but it's how I see it.

just to clarify/add to this, the 3++ restriction is for the mark and the mark alone, it doesn't imply nor state it is a restriction on the models abillity to have a save better than a 3++ only that the mark itself cannot grant a 2++

it isnt the mark providing the buff, it is the grimoure

 nutty_nutter wrote:
actually this seems quite straight forward.

while I can see where people are comming from with the 3++ 'restriction' within the mark text you are fundamentally inccorect in your interpretations of it.

the mark is applied as a squad/character upgrade, it is at this point that any existing invul save cannot be pushed behond a 3++. at the start of the game this is still true and it is true thougout the game, this save is a constant. so for example, a model with a 4++ invul pays for the MoT, this buffs his standard save to a 3++.

the 3++ is based on the marks abbility to buff behond a 3++, this means the MARK cannot take you past a 3++ but it doesnt say that it PREVENTS any additional modifyers.

in this instance your 3++ could recive a +1 from an external source as it isnt the mark that is making it go to a 2+ it is the grimoure, similarly the grimoure doesnt care if the mark is there or not, it is simply a buff tool.

Nothing you stated was based in rules.

+1 to your inv is a modifier. Nothing states that that is a "fixed" modifier you dont ever look at again; it is, and will always be, a modifier. As I pointed out, and you pointedly ignored, removing the daemon save would set the save back to a 6++, as you when determinig "what save do I have" notice you no longer have a 5++ to modify to a 4++, but a 6++ as you have no other save.

You have nothing, anywhere, that says you do not evaluate the modifier every time you are called upon to do so, and the multiple modifiers rule certainly indicates that you DO reevaluate it as needed.

Given the above, you have no possible way to get to a 2++; either you evaluate the MoT first, and stop at 3++ because your save isnt allowed to got any further, or do it second and you cannot apply it.

 Orock wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 wildboar wrote:
I'm not a Chaos player myself but play against them regularly and my take on it would be:

1) Your MoT models have paid for the +1 Invuln at the list building stage and start the game with it (4+ Invuln)

That isnt how MoT works for Daemons; it is rerolled failed saves of a 1.

You cast 4++ invulnerable save, then use grimoire to increase to a 2+. The Tz rule then kicks in, rerolling that save.

wow, that is beyond stupid

I'm actually a fan of it, but then again I play Daemons

In a game I can generally get two FMCs with a rerollable 2+ save of some sort, cover or invulnerable.

I had always read the GoTN rule as a modifier to the roll, which would mean that if your save was 4++, that's still what you had, but rolls of 2 or higher had 2 added giving the same effect as a 2++. This would allow the MoT to work. But after reading the Codex last night, I realized that the GoTN modifies the save itself. I think I'd cast my vote with the crowd that says MoT cannot be used with the GoTN to get a 2++.

But it's still contributing.
Without the mark (in this example) the save couldn't be a 2++
So the save, mark and Grimoire are all responsible for the 2++
So it could easily be said that the Mark is improving a save to 2++ which violates it's own rule.

The largest issue with this thread is that the BRB talks about HOW modifiers are applied (page 2) but not WHEN they are applied.

This leaves it to interpretation. If they are applied at the time the effect is equipped, then 2++ makes sense. If they are applied when tested only, then the 3++ makes sense.

It needs FAQed

There are other stacking modifiers in the game if they come from different sources.... why not this?

Stealth/shrouded for example

"Models with the Mark of Tzeentch have +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 3+)"

Seems to me, given the stacking modifiers elsewhere in the game, the Mark is intended to improve the save up to 3++. Grimoire is a different modifier.

Stealth and Shrouded do not have a clause stating they only apply up to a certain limit. However, I am going to use that as an argument in terms of Cover Saves, and then transfer it to Invuls to prove a point.

The Mark of Tzeentch is the 'Stealth' of Invulnerable Saves. It provides +1, or a 6++ in the absence of any saves. The Grimoire is 'Shrouded' in the same way.
If a Stealthy model sits in 5+ Cover, he now gains a 4+ because this is incredibly straightforward. If he also had Shrouded, then it would be a combination of 5+, +1, and +2 for a total of 2+. See the paralels here?

I am aware that it does not, but *if* Stealth had a clause stating it added +1 to a maximum of 3+, then I think the final save goes without saying. You'd be stuck at a 3+ because the only way to exceed it, is by using Stealth. Which in this case is expressly forbidden from benefitting past a 3+ (In my hypothetical situation).

People here are seeing a 5++ from Daemon and +1 from the Mark of Tzeentch, and assuming it to be identical to a 4++. It is not. If one of those elements is removed (Vindicare Shield Breaker for one) the save is not a true 4++.

I stand by my limit of a 3++ maximum.

It's a simple concept.

MoT states that it can only improve an invulnerable save to 3++.

So your Warp Talons start the game with a 3++ save, and have it forever.

If you, in turn 3, decide to cast the grimoire on them and give them a 2++, that does not conflict with the MoT. The MoT has already done its job and given the Talons their 3++ save. It is never stated nor implied anywhere that the MoT's benefit FLUCTUATES throughout the match based upon other influences to your ++sv. The grimoire is an entirely separate game mechanic, and it can alter the Talon's invulnerable save to whatever the feth it wants. That isn't going to make the MoT magically go "Oh, I guess I'd better make myself worse in order to maintain that 3++ cap!"

Yeah these 2++ reroll save rules are begging for a nerf-bat to the face.

Are not totals checked to make sure we are not going over an imposed limit before we apply that total? I mean I can't have my stealth, shrouded bike turbo boost and give the bike a 1+ cover save because after each item is added we check to make sure the cover save has stayed a 2+ or worse. If it is better then 2+ we have to reset to 2+.

It would work the same here, regardless of the order once MoT is added to the equation the best you can get is 3+. After each item is added we check to make sure the save is no better then 3+.

Its a whole different debate if a model with a MoT can choose not to include it if several other factors could improve its save to 2+ with out using the MoT.

Ok I'm just to edit the whole thing now...

How do you interpret a unit of Tzeentch Havocs under the effects of Forewarning?
The Mark confers +1 to a max 3++, or a 6++ in the absence of a save.
Forewarning confers a 4++.


By your argument, they would only have a 4++ because the Mark is applied before the game starts, once and forever, and is not a modifier. You cannot turn it into a modifier for a 3++ when it suits you and then treat it as permanent for the Grimoire.

You can not START the game with Forewarning cast on a unit, but you DO start the game with MoT on a unit. So yes, the unit has a flat, always-present ++ of 6++. Now that 6++ can be increased or lowered by other mechanics, such as forewarning or a skyshield. So yes, it would be lowered to 4++ as per forewarning's rules.

I don't see the contradiction here.

What about the CSM boon table?

There is a boon that is +1 armor save if I am not mistaken. Does that affect your Invuln save or not

Say you have power armor and a sigil of corruption. 3+/4++
you get this boon, are you 2+/3++ or 2+/4++

then what happens if you have MoT?

Armor saves and invulnerable saves exist independently of one another.

The contradiction is that a very common tactic for the Mark of Tzeentch is to put them on a Skyshield or bless them with Forewarning for a tasty 4++ Invul. Most players would then say the Mark builds this up to a 3++ because it adds a +1 modifier.
If you don't play this way or have never considered it, then fair play to you and your argument is at least consistent. Unfortunately this is not covered in the official FAQs.

Just as an aside, current vote is 52:48% and I don't think there's been more than a 45/55 split the entire time this thread has existed, so I'm very glad to see how contentious this topic is.

Mozzamanx wrote:


Just as an aside, current vote is 52:48% and I don't think there's been more than a 45/55 split the entire time this thread has existed, so I'm very glad to see how contentious this topic is.

I agree - ironically this would be extremely easy to clear up in an FAQ by just saying if the MoT's restriction is applied when the unit is deployed or any time a save has to be made and then to expand it to all modifiers on stats. The fact that it's about a 50/50 split in the poll - until it gets FAQ'ed, it turns into a discussion or roll off at the beginning of the game and move on.

Mozzamanx wrote:
The contradiction is that a very common tactic for the Mark of Tzeentch is to put them on a Skyshield or bless them with Forewarning for a tasty 4++ Invul.

That's how the rule works. 0++ -> MoT =6++ -> Skyshield= 4++

Most players would then say the Mark builds this up to a 3++ because it adds a +1 modifier.

Most players don't know how to read then. It is literally impossible to apply the MoT buff AFTER the Skyshield/Forewarning buff because units START the game with MoT, meaning its affect is already applied. They do not START the game with forewarning or on a skyshield.

Heading you off at the pass, I am aware that you technically can "start" the game with a unit already deployed on a skyshield. However, you place the unit there during the deployment phase, so it doesn't get its 4++ until the deployment phase. The MoT's +1 to an invulnerable save follows the exact same mechanic as a bike giving a model +1 strength or a palaquin of nurgle giving more wounds. The buff is there before any phases in the game even start.

Which doesn't matter. It's a modifier to all invul saves. Forewarning/Skyshield aren't modifiers so the 4++ from either will get modified by MoT to be a 3++.

Sure, if you want to be obtuse and pretend that the order in which the buffs are bestowed does't matter.

Point out to me where the rule states that the MoT is organic and fluctuates throughout the match depending on any modifiers to your ++. Using your argument, a player could use the MoT to negate the Grimoire backfiring by applying the MoT buff AFTER the Grimoire reduces the units invulnerable save. Using your argument, I could cast Grimoire on my MoT cultists, and if it backfires and reduces their ++ by 2, I can say "aha! Well since the Grimoire failed, NOW I'll apply their MoT buff so that they have a 6++."

No. The Mark of Tzeentch is applied BEFORE the Grimoire of True Names, at the very start of the game. So if a unit with a 6++ was grimoire'd and it backfired, the MoT would be overruled and the target would have no ++ for that turn. SIMILARLY, because a unit STARTS the game with the MoT, you can not apply its effect AFTER you get the 4++ from a Skyshield. You start with the 6++, move on to the skyshield or cast forewarning, and get a 4++.

The whole restriction on the MoTz is due to the awful reward of the gods table... c'mon guys read the full codex, one of the million results improves your Invul sv, if you have sigil+ MoT you are sitting at 3++ if you get that rewards you'd go to 2++ but the MoT forbids this from happening. I'd allow and I've played the 2++ trick on talons/oblies + daemons it is one of the few synergies between codexe, and truly i doubt I'll ever played again, my talons only got 2++ 1 turn and 5++ the remaining 4.

Besides, even the champion of the talons can get to 2++ Without the MoT, if he gets the reward from the gods, it gets to 4++ plus GOTN 2++, so if the stars align and my warp talon champion of Tz gets that reward + GOTN he can't have a 2++ due to MoTz? that doesn't sound right.

Is there actual support for MoT being resolved before the game starts?

It's a rule. It just IS, at all times during the game.

Rules of units aren't evaluated at the start of the game and then left as-is. By this logic, stealth gives +1 cover save to... nothing.

Its simple. MoT improves an invulnerable save by 1.

It isn't permanent, it isn't resolved once, its just a rule the unit has.

The save is 5+1. The save is not 4.

Edit: i'm split if a unit with MoT can have its save improved to 2 by other means. I don't think the rule says "may not benefit from an invulnerable better than 3..." it states, "MoT can not be used to improve" -

This would mean that 5+2+1 is not allowed, as the +1 from MoT is needed to get to 2+. However, a MoT unit with forewarning and grimoire (4++, +2 (G) +1 (MoT)) = 2, because MoT isn't needed....

Again, i'm split on that. not sure. But i'm still convinced you can't do 5+2+1.

 Lord Yayula wrote:
The whole restriction on the MoTz is due to the awful reward of the gods table... c'mon guys read the full codex, one of the million results improves your Invul sv, if you have sigil+ MoT you are sitting at 3++ if you get that rewards you'd go to 2++ but the MoT forbids this from happening. I'd allow and I've played the 2++ trick on talons/oblies it is one of the few synergies between codexes.

Besides, even the champion of the talons can get to 2++ Without the MoT, if he gets the reward from the gods, it gets to 4++ + GOTN 2++, so if the stars align and my warptalon of Tz gets that reward + GOTN he can't have a 2++ due to MoTz? that doesn't sound right.

I have the Codex and I assure you, none of the Rewards have anything to do with Invulnerable saves. Mechanoid (35) improves Armour, not Invulnerables. Cosmic Fate (42) allows rerolls, again only of Armour.

Mozzamanx wrote:

 Lord Yayula wrote:
The whole restriction on the MoTz is due to the awful reward of the gods table... c'mon guys read the full codex, one of the million results improves your Invul sv, if you have sigil+ MoT you are sitting at 3++ if you get that rewards you'd go to 2++ but the MoT forbids this from happening. I'd allow and I've played the 2++ trick on talons/oblies it is one of the few synergies between codexes.

Besides, even the champion of the talons can get to 2++ Without the MoT, if he gets the reward from the gods, it gets to 4++ + GOTN 2++, so if the stars align and my warptalon of Tz gets that reward + GOTN he can't have a 2++ due to MoTz? that doesn't sound right.

I have the Codex and I assure you, none of the Rewards have anything to do with Invulnerable saves. Mechanoid (35) improves Armour, not Invulnerables. Cosmic Fate (42) allows rerolls, again only of Armour.

True, I was thinking on the Fantasy one, which does indeed reduce your sv by 1++

I'm surprised there is such a debate over what should be a straightforward logical application of the rules based on the order of invulnerable save modifiers, which is entirely relevant.

So your model with the Daemon USR starts off with their base 5++. You can then take the MoT as an upgrade; the associated modifier to invulnerable saves is a permanent effect that applies from the start of the game. The MoT automatically and instantly improves your current base invulnerable save by +1 (to a maximum of 3++), so your Daemon model now gets a 4++. No problem.

You can then apply the effects of the Grimoire, which can be done at any point of the bearers Movement phase and therefore after the effects of the MoT modifier. This gives a further +2 bonus to your invulnerable save, resulting in a 2++ and no conflict with the restrictions of the MoT modifier. No problem.

In the case of Forewarning, this is a blessing, manifested at the start of your Psyker's Movement phase. OK, so this means your model now has a 4++ which takes the place of your base 5++ Daemon save. Your MoT then of course immediately gives you a +1 to this, which improves your current invulnerable save (4++) to a 3++. No problem. You can then choose to apply the effects of the Grimoire to this if you wish, after Forewarning has been resolved, to again give you a 2++. No problem.

The key points are that the Daemon save and effects of Forewarning give absolute invulnerable save values, which can then be improved by MoT and/or the Grimoire in the relevant order. Using the Grimoire to further improve an invulnerable save in no way breaks the rules of the MoT or negates its effect as the associated modifier has already been applied.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
..... You can then choose to apply the effects of the Grimoire to this if you wish, after Forewarning has been resolved, to again give you a 2++. No problem.

The key points are that the Daemon save and effects of Forewarning give absolute invulnerable save values, which can then be improved by MoT and/or the Grimoire in the relevant order. Using the Grimoire to further improve an invulnerable save in no way breaks the rules of the MoT or negates its effect as the associated modifier has already been applied.

The rules for Multiple Modifiers do not say to apply them in an order chosen by the player, they say to apply:
- Multipliers
- Additions and Subtractions
- Set modifiers

At no point does it say you are allowed to apply the +1 from Tzeentch and then the +2 from the Grimoire, it says to add the additions/subtractions at once. In this case it would be a 5+, +2 and +1, of which one of those additions expressly forbids going past a 3++.


(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Sure, if you want to be obtuse and pretend that the order in which the buffs are bestowed does't matter.

I'm not pretending - they absolutely don't.

Point out to me where the rule states that the MoT is organic and fluctuates throughout the match depending on any modifiers to your ++. Using your argument, a player could use the MoT to negate the Grimoire backfiring by applying the MoT buff AFTER the Grimoire reduces the units invulnerable save. Using your argument, I could cast Grimoire on my MoT cultists, and if it backfires and reduces their ++ by 2, I can say "aha! Well since the Grimoire failed, NOW I'll apply their MoT buff so that they have a 6++."

Does MoT give you a set invul or does it modify your invul?
a) Cultists can't be targeted by the Grimoire, but let's pretend they could.
Cultists have no invul, MoT makes it a 6++.
Grimoire fails and throws a -1 modifier on that invul save.
0+1-1=0 therefore there's no invul save. It's like it's the actual rules or something.

No. The Mark of Tzeentch is applied BEFORE the Grimoire of True Names, at the very start of the game. So if a unit with a 6++ was grimoire'd and it backfired, the MoT would be overruled and the target would have no ++ for that turn. SIMILARLY, because a unit STARTS the game with the MoT, you can not apply its effect AFTER you get the 4++ from a Skyshield. You start with the 6++, move on to the skyshield or cast forewarning, and get a 4++.

Nothing in this paragraph is a a rule.

Mozzamanx wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
..... You can then choose to apply the effects of the Grimoire to this if you wish, after Forewarning has been resolved, to again give you a 2++. No problem.

The key points are that the Daemon save and effects of Forewarning give absolute invulnerable save values, which can then be improved by MoT and/or the Grimoire in the relevant order. Using the Grimoire to further improve an invulnerable save in no way breaks the rules of the MoT or negates its effect as the associated modifier has already been applied.

The rules for Multiple Modifiers do not say to apply them in an order chosen by the player, they say to apply:
- Multipliers
- Additions and Subtractions
- Set modifiers

At no point does it say you are allowed to apply the +1 from Tzeentch and then the +2 from the Grimoire, it says to add the additions/subtractions at once. In this case it would be a 5+, +2 and +1, of which one of those additions expressly forbids going past a 3++.


(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

The rules also do not state WHEN modifiers are applied - if they are applied at the point of the test or if they are applied when the effect is granted. So both points of view could be correct.

Mozzamanx wrote:
(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

No, Forewarning is not a set modifier. At all. It does not replace your existing invul save (which is what a set modifier would do).

rigeld2 wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

No, Forewarning is not a set modifier. At all. It does not replace your existing invul save (which is what a set modifier would do).

How is "Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit as a 4+ invulnerable save" NOT a set modifier?

Mozzamanx wrote:
The rules for Multiple Modifiers do not say to apply them in an order chosen by the player, they say to apply:
- Multipliers
- Additions and Subtractions
- Set modifiers

At no point does it say you are allowed to apply the +1 from Tzeentch and then the +2 from the Grimoire, it says to add the additions/subtractions at once. In this case it would be a 5+, +2 and +1, of which one of those additions expressly forbids going past a 3++.

It doesn't actually say apply the additions/subtractions at once, but following the Multiple Modifiers rules, if the +1 from MoT on it's own doesn't break the 3++ limit the +2 from the Grimoire will stack to give 2++.

Mozzamanx wrote:
(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

By this logic you couldn't improve a Daemon invulnerable save at all as the 5++ from the USR would be a set value arising from rules or wargear.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

By this logic you couldn't improve a Daemon invulnerable save at all as the 5++ from the USR would be a set value arising from rules or wargear.

Taking that logic to the extreme, all invulnerable saves would be set modifiers since you can't have an invulnerable save without wargear or special rule. So the rules for invulnerable saves contradict the profile stat modification rules found on page 2 of the BRB. Then again, invulnerable saves are part of a model's profile so the degree in which the modifier rules are able to apply may or may not debatable as well.

 Unholyllama wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

No, Forewarning is not a set modifier. At all. It does not replace your existing invul save (which is what a set modifier would do).

How is "Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit as a 4+ invulnerable save" NOT a set modifier?

Because it's giving you an invulnerable save. So you have 2 (as a Demon) - a 5++ and a 4++.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unholyllama wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

No, Forewarning is not a set modifier. At all. It does not replace your existing invul save (which is what a set modifier would do).

How is "Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit has a 4+ invulnerable save" NOT a set modifier?

Because it's giving you an invulnerable save. So you have 2 (as a Demon) - a 5++ and a 4++.

Yet the example of a set modifier on page 2 of the BRB shows the example of getting +1 S and a S8....resulting in just the S8 since it's a set modifier. So wouldn't daemon USR and Forewarning yield 2 set modifiers if, in fact, invulnerable saves are a profile characteristic to modify?

No. Nothing in the Demon rule or Forewarning says that it's a set modifier, so it's not.

rigeld2 wrote:
No. Nothing in the Demon rule or Forewarning says that it's a set modifier, so it's not.

So your interpretation of the two is the same as having multiple cover or armor saves - best one wins. Works for me.

Though now I'm wondering where an example of a set modifier could be found in any of the rules/codices.

Mostly weapons or wargear (such as lash whips).

 Unholyllama wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No. Nothing in the Demon rule or Forewarning says that it's a set modifier, so it's not.

So your interpretation of the two is the same as having multiple cover or armor saves - best one wins. Works for me.

Though now I'm wondering where an example of a set modifier could be found in any of the rules/codices.

Psyocculum - you count as being BS10. Since the rules only allow for a single BS, it's a set modifier.
There's allowance for more than one save.

Its a 2++ without those stupid re-rolls, go for it.

Edit: Just realized this could apply to Possessed.

*rubs hands manically*

Again: for those claiming MoT fixes a save value before the game, any rules for that?

It is a modifier, so according to t=page 2 you woul ddetrmine the value of the save each time you need to use it. Same as a model captain with a powerfist isnt S8, they can be S9 due to furious charge. Easy example - Gift of Chaos giving a +1S boon with a powerfist lord doesnt give a S10 lord, but a S9 lord, despite the gift being present from deployment. This is because you always follow the modifiers rule.

Here you have no permission to apply the MoT when it takes saves below a 3++, and given every time we have a limit we apply same modifiers (+2, +1) at the same time, to the limit, to avoid breaking a rule, you cannot get better than a3++

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Here you have no permission to apply the MoT when it takes saves below a 3++, and given every time we have a limit we apply same modifiers (+2, +1) at the same time, to the limit, to avoid breaking a rule, you cannot get better than a3++

In this case however the MoT doesn't take saves below 3++, the Grimoire does. So a 2++ is possible.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Here you have no permission to apply the MoT when it takes saves below a 3++, and given every time we have a limit we apply same modifiers (+2, +1) at the same time, to the limit, to avoid breaking a rule, you cannot get better than a3++

In this case however the MoT doesn't take saves below 3++, the Grimoire does. So a 2++ is possible.

I have to ask, is MoT being used in any part of the calculation for bringing the save to 2++?
In other words, can you get a 2++ without MoT?

Ok lets look at the debate like this. If the 3++ limit is only at the time of the MoT's use, then what does the limit actually limit? As far as I can tell there is no way to get above the 3++ with normal CSM upgrades. As such wouldn't the 3++ limit be pointless if it didn't apply to other way of increasing invul saves like the Grimoire?

 Nilok wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Here you have no permission to apply the MoT when it takes saves below a 3++, and given every time we have a limit we apply same modifiers (+2, +1) at the same time, to the limit, to avoid breaking a rule, you cannot get better than a3++

In this case however the MoT doesn't take saves below 3++, the Grimoire does. So a 2++ is possible.

I have to ask, is MoT being used in any part of the calculation for bringing the save to 2++?
In other words, can you get a 2++ without MoT?

No, the MoT brings it to 4++. Then the Grimoire brings it to 2++.
In other words, can you get better than a 3++ using just the MoT?

Or the grimoire takes it to a 3++, and Mark can't take it lower. Why are you applying Mark first, when that has no rules support? Are you using the idea that Mark is "first" because you buy it at list building? Because that also has no rules support, and breaks multiple modifiers rules

One way breaks rules, the other doesn't. 3++ is the best you're getting

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or the grimoire takes it to a 3++, and Mark can't take it lower. Why are you applying Mark first, when that has no rules support? Are you using the idea that Mark is "first" because you buy it at list building? Because that also has no rules support, and breaks multiple modifiers rules

One way breaks rules, the other doesn't. 3++ is the best you're getting

Because the MoT improves your invulnerable save and then the Grimoire provides a bonus. No rules are broken and you get a 2++.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or the grimoire takes it to a 3++, and Mark can't take it lower. Why are you applying Mark first, when that has no rules support? Are you using the idea that Mark is "first" because you buy it at list building? Because that also has no rules support, and breaks multiple modifiers rules

One way breaks rules, the other doesn't. 3++ is the best you're getting

Because the MoT improves your invulnerable save and then the Grimoire provides a bonus. No rules are broken and you get a 2++.

They are both modifiers. Find a rule supporting your assertion that
A) The order of modifiers matters
B) You get to pick the order.

As it is you have 5+1+2=2 which breaks the MoT rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or the grimoire takes it to a 3++, and Mark can't take it lower. Why are you applying Mark first, when that has no rules support? Are you using the idea that Mark is "first" because you buy it at list building? Because that also has no rules support, and breaks multiple modifiers rules

One way breaks rules, the other doesn't. 3++ is the best you're getting

Because the MoT improves your invulnerable save and then the Grimoire provides a bonus. No rules are broken and you get a 2++.

They are both modifiers. Find a rule supporting your assertion that
A) The order of modifiers matters
B) You get to pick the order.

As it is you have 5+1+2=2 which breaks the MoT rule.

You don't get to pick the order. The rules are that the Grimoire is used in the Movement phase whereas the MoT is already active. Therefore the order is relevant. In addition the multiple modifiers rules are specifically relevant to the 9 model characteristic values, of which invulnerable save is not one. Otherwise things like the Daemon USR and Forewarning would overwrite any modifiers giving you a flat 5++ or 4++.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or the grimoire takes it to a 3++, and Mark can't take it lower. Why are you applying Mark first, when that has no rules support? Are you using the idea that Mark is "first" because you buy it at list building? Because that also has no rules support, and breaks multiple modifiers rules

One way breaks rules, the other doesn't. 3++ is the best you're getting

Because the MoT improves your invulnerable save and then the Grimoire provides a bonus. No rules are broken and you get a 2++.

They are both modifiers. Find a rule supporting your assertion that
A) The order of modifiers matters
B) You get to pick the order.

As it is you have 5+1+2=2 which breaks the MoT rule.

You don't get to pick the order. The rules are that the Grimoire is used in the Movement phase whereas the MoT is already active. Therefore the order is relevant. In addition the multiple modifiers rules are specifically relevant to the 9 model characteristic values, of which invulnerable save is not one. Otherwise things like the Daemon USR and Forewarning would overwrite any modifiers giving you a flat 5++ or 4++.

\
So then when would the 3++ invul limit of MoT take effect?

It doesn't. The MoT takes you to 4++.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
You don't get to pick the order. The rules are that the Grimoire is used in the Movement phase whereas the MoT is already active. Therefore the order is relevant. In addition the multiple modifiers rules are specifically relevant to the 9 model characteristic values, of which invulnerable save is not one. Otherwise things like the Daemon USR and Forewarning would overwrite any modifiers giving you a flat 5++ or 4++.

You're treating the MoT as a different kind of modifier. Please cite the allowance. Multiple Modifiers doesn't care about order - they're all applied when relevant. So when you're making your save its 5-1-2=2 which breaks a rule.
Invul saves are the same as armor saves with one exception. Therefore they're a characteristic. You are allowed to have multiple armor and invul saves, so no - the Demon and Forewarning rules would not set your invul.
Please, if you disagree on invul saves being characteristics, cite allowance to modify them. Make sure it includes that saves are modified lower when a bonus is applied.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
It doesn't. The MoT takes you to 4++.

Then will will the limit ever matter? There is nothing you can do during list building to get a 2++ invul save. What is the point of writing that rule if the limit only applies when you purchase MoT

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
You don't get to pick the order. The rules are that the Grimoire is used in the Movement phase whereas the MoT is already active. Therefore the order is relevant. In addition the multiple modifiers rules are specifically relevant to the 9 model characteristic values, of which invulnerable save is not one. Otherwise things like the Daemon USR and Forewarning would overwrite any modifiers giving you a flat 5++ or 4++.

You're treating the MoT as a different kind of modifier. Please cite the allowance. Multiple Modifiers doesn't care about order - they're all applied when relevant. So when you're making your save its 5-1-2=2 which breaks a rule.
Invul saves are the same as armor saves with one exception. Therefore they're a characteristic. You are allowed to have multiple armor and invul saves, so no - the Demon and Forewarning rules would not set your invul.
Please, if you disagree on invul saves being characteristics, cite allowance to modify them. Make sure it includes that saves are modified lower when a bonus is applied.

Invulnerable saves are not the same as armour saves. P2 of the BRB lists the 9 characteristics, as do the characteristic profiles for a model. You will find an armour save characteristic here, but not an invulnerable save. The multiple modifiers rules apply to these characteristics, which is why Daemon and Forewarning would not set your invulnerable save.

Invulnerable saves arise purely from rules or wargear; the multiple modifier rules don't apply as they are not a characteristic, and so yes, the MoT is a different kind of modifier in that sense.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Invulnerable saves are not the same as armour saves. P2 of the BRB lists the 9 characteristics, as do the characteristic profiles for a model. You will find an armour save characteristic here, but not an invulnerable save. The multiple modifiers rules apply to these characteristics, which is why Daemon and Forewarning would not set your invulnerable save.

p17 wrote:Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound- the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect.

There is only one cited difference between an invul and armor save. You're asserting more than one. Please cite rules supporting that.
You haven't cited rules allowing modifiers to apply at all - please do so.

Invulnerable saves arise purely from rules or wargear; the multiple modifier rules don't apply as they are not a characteristic, and so yes, the MoT is a different kind of modifier in that sense.

Please cite actual rules support citing a different kind of modifier. Right now you're just making things up.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Invulnerable saves are not the same as armour saves. P2 of the BRB lists the 9 characteristics, as do the characteristic profiles for a model. You will find an armour save characteristic here, but not an invulnerable save. The multiple modifiers rules apply to these characteristics, which is why Daemon and Forewarning would not set your invulnerable save.

p17 wrote:Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound- the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect.

There is only one cited difference between an invul and armor save. You're asserting more than one. Please cite rules supporting that.
You haven't cited rules allowing modifiers to apply at all - please do so.

Invulnerable saves arise purely from rules or wargear; the multiple modifier rules don't apply as they are not a characteristic, and so yes, the MoT is a different kind of modifier in that sense.

Please cite actual rules support citing a different kind of modifier. Right now you're just making things up.

The only thing I'm asserting is that invulnerable saves are not armour saves.
Invulnerable saves are not a characteristic (p2 & 3).
The rules allowing modifiers to be applied to Invulnerable saves are detailed in the specific rules giving the modifier e.g MoT & the Grimoire.
The multiple modifiers rule can only logically apply to characteristics due to the set value priority.
If you think an invulnerable save is a characteristic please cite the rule.

I personally voted no as IMO the MOT is needed combined with the Grimoire to get the 2++ save.

I don't play Daemons or Tzeentch though so I could be wrong.

So how is it ran at tournaments. Ones that matter anyway. If they allow this crap great for them. Personally, I think anyone running a 2++ with rerolls is a power gaming munchkin, and abusing the spirit of the game. But since I don't play in tournaments, I can just refuse the game.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

The only thing I'm asserting is that invulnerable saves are not armour saves.
Invulnerable saves are not a characteristic (p2 & 3).
The rules allowing modifiers to be applied to Invulnerable saves are detailed in the specific rules giving the modifier e.g MoT & the Grimoire.
The multiple modifiers rule can only logically apply to characteristics due to the set value priority.
If you think an invulnerable save is a characteristic please cite the rule.

The specific rules for the MoT say to give it a +1 to its invul. What's 5+1? The only guidance we have that lower is better is for Armor saves, according to you and therefore does not apply.
The Demon USR is not a set modifier.
I've cited actual rules - see the quote with the page number? Perhaps you could do the courtesy of doing the same?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

The only thing I'm asserting is that invulnerable saves are not armour saves.
Invulnerable saves are not a characteristic (p2 & 3).
The rules allowing modifiers to be applied to Invulnerable saves are detailed in the specific rules giving the modifier e.g MoT & the Grimoire.
The multiple modifiers rule can only logically apply to characteristics due to the set value priority.
If you think an invulnerable save is a characteristic please cite the rule.

The specific rules for the MoT say to give it a +1 to its invul. What's 5+1? The only guidance we have that lower is better is for Armor saves, according to you and therefore does not apply.
The Demon USR is not a set modifier.
I've cited actual rules - see the quote with the page number? Perhaps you could do the courtesy of doing the same?

The MoT gives a +1 to your invulnerable save (CSM codex p30). This means if you have the Daemon USR you now get a 4++.
I'm not sure why you are still referring to armour saves.
I never described the Daemon USR as a set modifier. Try reading again. It is a set value (5++, p35, BRB) which can then be modified.
I can't actually see any page numbers in your post. Sorry.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

The only thing I'm asserting is that invulnerable saves are not armour saves.
Invulnerable saves are not a characteristic (p2 & 3).
The rules allowing modifiers to be applied to Invulnerable saves are detailed in the specific rules giving the modifier e.g MoT & the Grimoire.
The multiple modifiers rule can only logically apply to characteristics due to the set value priority.
If you think an invulnerable save is a characteristic please cite the rule.

The specific rules for the MoT say to give it a +1 to its invul. What's 5+1? The only guidance we have that lower is better is for Armor saves, according to you and therefore does not apply.
The Demon USR is not a set modifier.
I've cited actual rules - see the quote with the page number? Perhaps you could do the courtesy of doing the same?

The MoT gives a +1 to your invulnerable save (CSM codex p30). This means if you have the Daemon USR you now get a 4++.

Citation required. Normally, 5+1 is 6, not 4. Why are you going backwards? The only allowance to count down instead of up is on page 2 under Armor Saves - you've asserted that isn't relevant for invul saves and therefore cannot be used to support your argument.

I can't actually see any page numbers in your post. Sorry.

Really? You see no page numbers in this post? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/560960.page#6222226
Let me say it again for you.

p17 wrote:Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound- the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect.

Did you see it that time? It's those words in bold before the sentence that proves your stance incorrect.

 Orock wrote:
So how is it ran at tournaments. Ones that matter anyway. If they allow this crap great for them. Personally, I think anyone running a 2++ with rerolls is a power gaming munchkin, and abusing the spirit of the game. But since I don't play in tournaments, I can just refuse the game.

I asked my TO about this last night and the couple of times that he's had to rule it was based on a tournament he went to in which they allowed a 2++ on a unit with MoT.



The issue here is that there is no explicit rule that says when modifiers from wargear are applied and triggered to a model. There is an order of operations expressed but there is no rule in the BRB or any FAQ that could be used as a precedence in determining if the MoT restriction is always on or only when the MoT is initially equipped. Likewise there is no rule to to say modifiers are applied at the time of a test or applied to the model profile at the time when the effect is given.

One group applies modifiers and restrictions when the effects (from powers or wargear) are applied to the model. The other group applies all of such when the value is tested. There is no explicit ruling so either case could be correct until it gets FAQed.



Furthermore - a FAQ needs to also clarify if an Invulnerable Save counts as a characteristic test like an Armor Save or not since the whole "it's not listed on page 2" is turning into a trolling argument.

Because of the wording of MoT and that they are both additive modifiers (ie +x instead of *x) the best the model could have is a 3++

Both the modifiers have to happen at the same time and since the limit of the MoT will be applied at that same time the models will not get better than 3++. (This will also apply to possessed with MoT, Mutilators+oblits)

in otherwords:

your save is 5++[(+2 from grimoire)+(+1 from MoT but can never be better than 3++)]

has the same result as

your save is 5++[(+1 from MoT but can never be better than 3++)+(+2 from grimoire)]

since they are both additive modifiers, and one of the comes with the rule that you can not go beyond 3++ then your save becomes 3++

blaktoof wrote:

Both the modifiers have to happen at the same time and since the limit of the MoT will be applied at that same time the models will not get better than 3++. (This will also apply to possessed with MoT, Mutilators+oblits)

That's just it - nowhere in the book does it say when modifiers are applied. You are interpreting that modifiers are applied at the point when the stat is tested against. There is nothing in the BRB or FAQ to confirm or refute this interpretation. Likewise there is nothing to confirm or refute that modifiers are applied when granted not when tested. So we're at an impasse.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

The only thing I'm asserting is that invulnerable saves are not armour saves.
Invulnerable saves are not a characteristic (p2 & 3).
The rules allowing modifiers to be applied to Invulnerable saves are detailed in the specific rules giving the modifier e.g MoT & the Grimoire.
The multiple modifiers rule can only logically apply to characteristics due to the set value priority.
If you think an invulnerable save is a characteristic please cite the rule.

The specific rules for the MoT say to give it a +1 to its invul. What's 5+1? The only guidance we have that lower is better is for Armor saves, according to you and therefore does not apply.
The Demon USR is not a set modifier.
I've cited actual rules - see the quote with the page number? Perhaps you could do the courtesy of doing the same?

The MoT gives a +1 to your invulnerable save (CSM codex p30). This means if you have the Daemon USR you now get a 4++.

Citation required. Normally, 5+1 is 6, not 4. Why are you going backwards? The only allowance to count down instead of up is on page 2 under Armor Saves - you've asserted that isn't relevant for invul saves and therefore cannot be used to support your argument.

I can't actually see any page numbers in your post. Sorry.

Really? You see no page numbers in this post? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/560960.page#6222226
Let me say it again for you.

p17 wrote:Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound- the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect.

Did you see it that time? It's those words in bold before the sentence that proves your stance incorrect.

I'm not sure why you're now saying a model with the Daemon USR and the MoT has a 6++. That's just bizarre
How do modifiers not apply to invulnerable saves?.
Thanks for citing a reference this time however my stance all along is that invulnerable saves are different to armour saves, which is exactly what your reference is saying.

 Unholyllama wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Both the modifiers have to happen at the same time and since the limit of the MoT will be applied at that same time the models will not get better than 3++. (This will also apply to possessed with MoT, Mutilators+oblits)

That's just it - nowhere in the book does it say when modifiers are applied. You are interpreting that modifiers are applied at the point when the stat is tested against. There is nothing in the BRB or FAQ to confirm or refute this interpretation. Likewise there is nothing to confirm or refute that modifiers are applied when granted not when tested. So we're at an impasse.

Special rules are checked when they're used - why would modifiers be any different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
I'm not sure why you're now saying a model with the Daemon USR and the MoT has a 6++. That's just bizarre

I'm using your argument. Your assertion is that you cannot use the Armor save rules when discussing invul saves.

How do modifiers not apply to invulnerable saves?.

Because - according to you - they aren't characteristics.

Thanks for citing a reference this time however my stance all along is that invulnerable saves are different to armour saves, which is exactly what your reference is saying.

I cited it both times actually. And my reference specifies the one area they're different, meaning that they're the same in all other ways. You're pretending they're different in more than that one way. Please cite some support for your stance.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unholyllama wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Both the modifiers have to happen at the same time and since the limit of the MoT will be applied at that same time the models will not get better than 3++. (This will also apply to possessed with MoT, Mutilators+oblits)

That's just it - nowhere in the book does it say when modifiers are applied. You are interpreting that modifiers are applied at the point when the stat is tested against. There is nothing in the BRB or FAQ to confirm or refute this interpretation. Likewise there is nothing to confirm or refute that modifiers are applied when granted not when tested. So we're at an impasse.

Special rules are checked when they're used - why would modifiers be any different?

Why would Invulnerable saves be different than armor saves? That's one of the arguments you made a few posts back yet it's contradictory here since by your previous argument modifiers do not apply to anything that isn't a characteristic listed on page 2.

Also - do you have a page number saying when special rules are "checked" and what "checked" means? People are interpreting such as when the model gains the special rule since "uses" is contextual since the special rules for a force weapon are different than the special rules that just grant something like Split Fire.

Does it even matter?

Interpret it thusly : At all times, a daemon unit with MoT has a (5+1)++ save. If it is Grimoire'd, it is now (5+1+2)

I don't think there's support for ever stating that a daemon + MoT has a 'natural' 4++.

If, at some point, there was a way to remove marks mid-game, this would result in a unit with MoT retaining a 4++ if it lost the MoT rule (because it was already applied).

That's obviously not right.

The invulnerable remains, always, a 5+1 save. You can do whatever you want at any other point, the thing you are further modifying is a 5+1 save, not a 4++ save.

That results in a 5+1+2, which break's MoT's rule.

 Unholyllama wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unholyllama wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Both the modifiers have to happen at the same time and since the limit of the MoT will be applied at that same time the models will not get better than 3++. (This will also apply to possessed with MoT, Mutilators+oblits)

That's just it - nowhere in the book does it say when modifiers are applied. You are interpreting that modifiers are applied at the point when the stat is tested against. There is nothing in the BRB or FAQ to confirm or refute this interpretation. Likewise there is nothing to confirm or refute that modifiers are applied when granted not when tested. So we're at an impasse.

Special rules are checked when they're used - why would modifiers be any different?

Why would Invulnerable saves be different than armor saves? That's one of the arguments you made a few posts back yet it's contradictory here since by your previous argument modifiers do not apply to anything that isn't a characteristic listed on page 2.

You're misreading my point - invul saves aren't different from armor saves (except one specific case).

Also - do you have a page number saying when special rules are "checked" and what "checked" means? People are interpreting such as when the model gains the special rule since "uses" is contextual since the special rules for a force weapon are different than the special rules that just grant something like Split Fire.

For example, the Blood Angels FNP ability with the 6" range (can't remember the name) is checked at each init step to see if you're in range to use it. Termagants check for range to mommy when they charge (for Adrenal Glands) and when they wound (for Toxin Sacs).

rigeld2 wrote:

For example, the Blood Angels FNP ability with the 6" range (can't remember the name) is checked at each init step to see if you're in range to use it. Termagants check for range to mommy when they charge (for Adrenal Glands) and when they wound (for Toxin Sacs).

Those are both cases in which they explicitly mention a trigger and when the trigger is fired to examine the scenario. Things like the MoT aren't explicit so leaves things to interpretation. Even information based on a normal characteristic test (i.e. toughness tests) don't say "when a test is made, apply modifiers and then roll less than or equal to the result". It's this lack of a default explicit description is where this debate comes from. That and the fact that all of this would be a moot discussion if it wasn't for the MoT's restriction making the timing relevant.

Unholyllama wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

For example, the Blood Angels FNP ability with the 6" range (can't remember the name) is checked at each init step to see if you're in range to use it. Termagants check for range to mommy when they charge (for Adrenal Glands) and when they wound (for Toxin Sacs).

Those are both cases in which they explicitly mention a trigger and when the trigger is fired to examine the scenario. Things like the MoT aren't explicit so leaves things to interpretation. Even information based on a normal characteristic test (i.e. toughness tests) don't say "when a test is made, apply modifiers and then roll less than or equal to the result". It's this lack of a default explicit description is where this debate comes from. That and the fact that all of this would be a moot discussion if it wasn't for the MoT's restriction making the timing relevant.

Gwyidion wrote:Does it even matter?

Interpret it thusly : At all times, a daemon unit with MoT has a (5+1)++ save. If it is Grimoire'd, it is now (5+1+2)

I don't think there's support for ever stating that a daemon + MoT has a 'natural' 4++.

If, at some point, there was a way to remove marks mid-game, this would result in a unit with MoT retaining a 4++ if it lost the MoT rule (because it was already applied).

That's obviously not right.

The invulnerable remains, always, a 5+1 save. You can do whatever you want at any other point, the thing you are further modifying is a 5+1 save, not a 4++ save.

That results in a 5+1+2, which break's MoT's rule.

As presented, the timing argument isn't relevant. At all.

Perhaps some questions can be used to focus the debate. These are questions for both sides.

When is the effect from MoT applied?
When is the restriction for MoT applied?
When can the restriction end?

One last question I had that wasn't answed:
Is MoT being used in the calculation to bring the invul save to 2++?

 Nilok wrote:
When is the effect from MoT applied?

Always.

When is the restriction for MoT applied?

Always.

When can the restriction end?

Never.

Is MoT being used in the calculation to bring the invul save to 2++?

Yes. Meaning it's breaking a rule.

Another question, seeing I am away from my library and I tend to play Slaanesh so this rule is not 100% cemented in my fleshy head-organ: Does the Mark of Tzeentch give you the option to not use it?

To answer Nilko, and this is my own personal opinion:

1) Effectively Always, assuming no choice is given. While I believe you apply the modifiers only when you are calculating what the invulnerability save it really is irrelevant as the result is always the same. If you add it at the very moment of list creation then it will be included into all calculations when you reference that save. If you only include it when you reference the save, then it still is included into all those calculations anyway. Effectively it doesn't matter when you apply the modifications, only that they are being applied.

2) The restriction is added any time the special rule is in effect. There is nothing in the Mark of Tzeentch rules, that I remember, giving exceptions to this restriction so it simply can not be circumvented due to situation in which it is being applied. This means it doesn't matter if you have the philosophy that the modifications are added at list building, or during the game, as the restriction would also have to be in effect during this point.

3) The only way for this restriction to end would be to remove or deny access to the special rule entirely, which means you would lose the bonus as well.

4) Assuming no permission granted to opt-out of the rule, then it is included in the 2++ save even if you don't need it to reach 2++. However I would be more then willing to accept a 'house rule' that a 2++ can be used if that value is achieved without including the mark of Tzeentch. While I can see where might may have meant to be a tactical choice, a permanent +1 in exchange for not being able to drop below 3++, I don't feel entirely comfortable holding an opponent to that interpretation of the rules. Besides, 2++ without the mark is often very difficult to acquire so unless they built the list with that in mind, it is unlikely they will achieve it.

not the option no, but once again, it does not prevent your models from having better than a 3++ save, it just cannot contribute to making the save better than 3++

I play mono tzeentch daemons so the way in know to get a 2++ is either using grimoire on fateweaver or using it on a normal daemon unit or MC and rolling warp surge (+1 to all daemons invulnerables on the board) on the warp storm, plus the grimoire can only be used on units with the daemon USR so if used on Csm what units can it be used on? Obits, warp talons, forge/mauler fiend, defiler, possessed. But short answer is yes you will get +1 from MOT the +2 from grimoire making it a 2++ aslong as the models in the unit have daemon rule though daemons of tzeentch with it is better as they re-roll ones on all saves

 necronspurs2012 wrote:
But short answer is yes you will get +1 from MOT the +2 from grimoire making it a 2++ aslong as the models in the unit have daemon rule though daemons of tzeentch with it is better as they re-roll ones on all saves

We are not arguing whether there are enough modifiers to create a 2++, we arguing because we don't know how to apply one of those modifiers and how to interpret the 'to a maximum of 3++' clause.

Ok having re-read the orriginal question, the thread, re-read the relavent sections mentioned in the BRB and reviewing hte posted rules for the deamons and MoT from codex Deamons/ CSM.

I have come to the conclusion that it should still be possible to reach a 2+ invulnerable save and I shall outline why I believe this to be so.

For the example we will take a standard Deamon.

This model has a 5+ invulnerable save from stock.

The model purchases a Mark of Tzeentch among other upgrades available to it.

This means that it's invulnerable save is considered to be a 4+.

the game begins, at some point during the game this model becomes the target of the Grimoure and recieves a +2 to its invulnerable save.

now, this is where the bone of contention rises.

the mark of Tzeentch is a part of the overall sum of the 2+ invulnerable save, which people are saying that since it becomes a part of the equasion, it cannot therefore be applied.

now this makes a measure of sense based on the written wording, however, as has been pointed out by many, without a proper measure of how modifyers are applied there isnt strictly a deffinitive of IF the restriction on the mark itself (which is only restricting its own +1 on making it go above 3+) applies.

my gut reaction is that there is an inherant application of modifyers based on time of recieving and that you do not 'check' at time of need, you have a state of being that is tested against, just like a chracteristic test, you don't 'check' to see wht the value is, the value is the same from start to finish unless a modifyer happens to change its state.

so some page references.

invulnerable saves are mentioned on p17 and 26, p26 is not relavent to this iscussion.

p19 covers maximum saves (note it does actually specify that a 2+ invulnerable is possible)

p2/3 covers modifyers to characteristics, now an invulnerable save isn't listed as a basic characteristic, it is completely seperate and as such isn't contained within the same mechanisms as characteristics and their modifyers, since in the end it is a save of a description and has modifyers, to which the only other save that is not a characteristic with modifyers is a cover save, it can be assumed that they are cumulative overall, and as such should work the same way as a cover save, in that cover + rue + rule (as an example, stealth + shroud)

in this instance you have a 5+ (base) + 1 ( MoT) then +2(grimoure)

the state changes after the mark is applied since the mark would come first in the calculation logically as it is always present.

So your argument is that since we don't know which comes first, the active player chooses to have MoT first. However, what if it is the opponent's turn. Is this like multiple effects happening at the same time and the active player chooses the order?

Can on the opponent's turn, they choose to have MoT happen last so your save becomes 3++?

How is it different from you choosing the order?

 nutty_nutter wrote:
the state changes after the mark is applied since the mark would come first in the calculation logically as it is always present.

What is the rule for then? Now I'm not saying that GW wouldn't write a completely useless rule, but for some reason they chose to add "to a maximum of 3+" to the MoTz.

To those arguing that the RAW is that a 2+ is possible using MoTz, do you believe this to be RAI as well? I'm just curious (since YMDC is mostly about RAW anyways), and the poll really is too close to call.

Because neither of the benefits discussed in this situation are set modifiers, characteristic modifiers don't really apply at all. These are both additive modifiers.

You have an error in interpreting a Daemon with MoT as having a 4++. This model has a 5++ which is improved by 1. These are very different things, and this state is continuous. It always has a 5+1 save.

If rules are evaluated at list building, stealth is useless. A model has no endogenous cover save, so stealth would confer a 6+ cover save to models with stealth at all times. That's not how stealth works. The model has stealth, and every cover save they ever benefit from is improved by 1.

A Daemon with MoT has MoT permanently. It isn't "resolved" and forgotten about forever at list building. The model possesses the rule and just carries it around on the table.

5+1+2 --> 2++ breaks MoT's rule. It doesn't work.

 Nilok wrote:
So your argument is that since we don't know which comes first, the active player chooses to have MoT first. However, what if it is the opponent's turn. Is this like multiple effects happening at the same time and the active player chooses the order?

Can on the opponent's turn, they choose to have MoT happen last so your save becomes 3++?

How is it different from you choosing the order?

no I'm saying that there is an order of effect and we do know in what order.

the problem stems from in introduction of a third element.

the mathematic equations are the best answer to working out how it all works; the vast majority that are saying no are working on the basis that an invulnerable save works the same way as a characteristic. Characteristic modifies follow an 'Associativity' paradigm as is set down by the way the BRB tells you to work them out, they all happen simultaneously and in a specific order, this is why a furious charging power fist is resolved at (Sx2) +1 and not (S+1) x 2

however since an invulnerable save is not a characteristic, as shown in the BRB, it must inherently be different, as there is only one other save that works outside of characteristics being cover we must use the two and draw out parallels.

so if we say:

daemon have a 5+ (a) and MoT grants a +1 (b) also grimoure grants a +2 (c)

deamon exists at the start of the game making 'a' part of the equation

MoT exists at the stat of the game making 'b' part of the equation

grimoure does not exist at the start of the game meaning 'c' is not a part of the equation at the start

so the invulnerable save is 'a+b'

later the grimoure is added making it a+b+c

now because there are no defined 'operations' within the context of the rules, the sum is worked out left to right making the sum: (a+b) + c

if a additional modifier were introduced, it would be ((a+b)+c) + d and so on.

You're making a mistake in stating the MoT exists at the start of the game.


MoT exists always.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
So your argument is that since we don't know which comes first, the active player chooses to have MoT first. However, what if it is the opponent's turn. Is this like multiple effects happening at the same time and the active player chooses the order?

Can on the opponent's turn, they choose to have MoT happen last so your save becomes 3++?

How is it different from you choosing the order?

no I'm saying that there is an order of effect and we do know in what order.

the problem stems from in introduction of a third element.

the mathematic equations are the best answer to working out how it all works; the vast majority that are saying no are working on the basis that an invulnerable save works the same way as a characteristic. Characteristic modifies follow an 'Associativity' paradigm as is set down by the way the BRB tells you to work them out, they all happen simultaneously and in a specific order, this is why a furious charging power fist is resolved at (Sx2) +1 and not (S+1) x 2

however since an invulnerable save is not a characteristic, as shown in the BRB, it must inherently be different, as there is only one other save that works outside of characteristics being cover we must use the two and draw out parallels.

so if we say:

daemon have a 5+ (a) and MoT grants a +1 (b) also grimoure grants a +2 (c)

deamon exists at the start of the game making 'a' part of the equation

MoT exists at the stat of the game making 'b' part of the equation

grimoure does not exist at the start of the game meaning 'c' is not a part of the equation at the start

so the invulnerable save is 'a+b'

later the grimoure is added making it a+b+c

now because there are no defined 'operations' within the context of the rules, the sum is worked out left to right making the sum: (a+b) + c

if a additional modifier were introduced, it would be ((a+b)+c) + d and so on.

I understand the using math to help, but why are you not using the order of operation?
Since we, according to you, do not have any information on invulnerable save modifiers, should we not use the order of operations in lack of any rules.

I also see you are adding parentheses to the equation, but I would like to know why. There is nothing stating that you are to include any part of the equation first, save for the base 5++. Why are you not simply adding the three variables together instead of adding a new part of the function that is not specified or mentioned?


Internet hiccup double post removed

again, ORDER DOES NOT MATTER

whatever order you use the two rules in, you are, in fact, undeniably, using BOTH rules, to improve the ++ save to 2++

one of the rules you have used, specifically restricts it being used to get better then a 3++

order does not matter, its just a long line of non RAW justification for why you want to get a 2++, using the help of a rule that specifically says "you cant use it to get better then 3++"

no matter what order you use them in, you have in fact used both rules, and must abide by the restriction in MOT, that is 100% RAW

making long arguements that "if I add one, THEN add two, its ok, cause im not adding two then one, hence I get to completly IGNORE the 3++ restriction from the +1 part" is fallacious, and not RAW at all

Nutty - again, you have NO RULES to state you evaluate the modiifer once at the start of the game.


Yet again you ignore that, if the daemon loses its save (who knows, the Inq codex could do that) it would revert to having a 6++. Not a 4++

rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
I'm not sure why you're now saying a model with the Daemon USR and the MoT has a 6++. That's just bizarre

I'm using your argument. Your assertion is that you cannot use the Armor save rules when discussing invul saves.

I have never made the argument that a model with the Daemon USR and the MoT has a 6++ as it is clearly not the case. You also seem to be obsessed with armour saves when the debate is actually about invulnerable saves.

rigeld2 wrote:

How do modifiers not apply to invulnerable saves?.

Because - according to you - they aren't characteristics.

It's not according to me - it's a matter of fact. Read p2 in the BRB again to remind yourself of the 9 characterstics in 40k. You'll notice that invulnerable saves aren't one of them, neither are cover saves for that matter. This doesn't mean however that an invulnerable save can't be modified. My actual point (which you appear to have completely missed) was in regard to the application of multiple modifiers rules (also p2) which specifically refer to dealing with "a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic".

rigeld2 wrote:

Thanks for citing a reference this time however my stance all along is that invulnerable saves are different to armour saves, which is exactly what your reference is saying.

I cited it both times actually. And my reference specifies the one area they're different, meaning that they're the same in all other ways. You're pretending they're different in more than that one way. Please cite some support for your stance.

Again with the armour saves. If an invulnerable save is different (which it is - see p17, BRB) then it is different. That is my point. It doesn't even say they are the same in all other ways - you've just made that part up.

Tonberry, what is 4+1?
What is 4+1 when dealing with Armour saves?
What is 4+1 when dealing with Invulnerable saves?

It's the same result. This doesn't mean Armour and Invulnerable saves are the same thing though.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
It's the same result. This doesn't mean Armour and Invulnerable saves are the same thing though.

Save are modified in the same way, if they are not, then they would be modified just like in math.

So we rest a two choices:
Are invulnerable save modifiers handled like armor save, which has the rules for modifying saves to go down 1 with +1 (4++ (+1) = 3++), or are they handed like other characteristics with math (4+1 = 5)?

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
I'm not sure why you're now saying a model with the Daemon USR and the MoT has a 6++. That's just bizarre

I'm using your argument. Your assertion is that you cannot use the Armor save rules when discussing invul saves.

I have never made the argument that a model with the Daemon USR and the MoT has a 6++ as it is clearly not the case. You also seem to be obsessed with armour saves when the debate is actually about invulnerable saves.

Is this a correct statement according to you: The rules around Armor Saves (on page 2 and 3) have nothing to do with, and cannot be applied to, invul saves.
Please clarify.

It's not according to me - it's a matter of fact. Read p2 in the BRB again to remind yourself of the 9 characterstics in 40k. You'll notice that invulnerable saves aren't one of them, neither are cover saves for that matter. This doesn't mean however that an invulnerable save can't be modified. My actual point (which you appear to have completely missed) was in regard to the application of multiple modifiers rules (also p2) which specifically refer to dealing with "a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic".

WRT the underlnied: Please cite permission to modify them. I've asked multiple times now.

Again with the armour saves. If an invulnerable save is different (which it is - see p17, BRB) then it is different. That is my point. It doesn't even say they are the same in all other ways - you've just made that part up.

It says they are different in one way. There is no other rule saying they're different. Therefore they're the same in all other ways.

"Models with the MoT add +1 to their invulnerable save to a maximum of 3+"

The rule that gives you any modifier to your invulnerable save requires that your save is limited to a 3+ save from any source if you have MoT. The way it is written, RAW, if you even were given a save from some other power that gave you a 2+ invulnerable save flat out, by having mark of tzeenetch it would now be a 3+ save.

if at anytime a model with a MoT has to make a save, because it has MoT it cannot be improved beyond 3+ due to the rule for MoT specifically stating that the model has a maximum of a 3+ invulnerable.

It doesnt matter when or how you add the modifiers or if one is all the time or not, the fact the model has "MoT" which has rules to it, one of them is the models invulnerable save is maximum +3.


if you have MoT your max invulnerable save is 3+. RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:

Is this a correct statement according to you: The rules around Armor Saves (on page 2 and 3) have nothing to do with, and cannot be applied to, invul saves.
Please clarify.

I can't see invulnerable saves mentioned anywhere on p2 & 3. If you can, please do point it out.

rigeld2 wrote:

It's not according to me - it's a matter of fact. Read p2 in the BRB again to remind yourself of the 9 characterstics in 40k. You'll notice that invulnerable saves aren't one of them, neither are cover saves for that matter. This doesn't mean however that an invulnerable save can't be modified. My actual point (which you appear to have completely missed) was in regard to the application of multiple modifiers rules (also p2) which specifically refer to dealing with "a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic".

WRT the underlnied: Please cite permission to modify them. I've asked multiple times now.

And I've answered multiple times now. To indulge you, how about the CSM Codex p30 - MoT.

rigeld2 wrote:

Again with the armour saves. If an invulnerable save is different (which it is - see p17, BRB) then it is different. That is my point. It doesn't even say they are the same in all other ways - you've just made that part up.

It says they are different in one way. There is no other rule saying they're different. Therefore they're the same in all other ways.

Is there even a point to this statement? There is a difference, therefore they are not the same thing.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Is this a correct statement according to you: The rules around Armor Saves (on page 2 and 3) have nothing to do with, and cannot be applied to, invul saves.
Please clarify.

I can't see invulnerable saves mentioned anywhere on p2 & 3. If you can, please do point it out.

You didn't answer my question. Please do so.

And I've answered multiple times now. To indulge you, how about the CSM Codex p30 - MoT.

That rule doesn't tell you how to modify a save though - so using normal math it'd be a 5+1=6.

Is there even a point to this statement? There is a difference, therefore they are not the same thing.

They're the same thing except for one difference. Is that difference that invuls are not a characteristic?

JinxDragon wrote:
Another question, seeing I am away from my library and I tend to play Slaanesh so this rule is not 100% cemented in my fleshy head-organ: Does the Mark of Tzeentch give you the option to not use it?

To answer [Nilok], and this is my own personal opinion:

1) Effectively Always, assuming no choice is given. While I believe you apply the modifiers only when you are calculating what the invulnerability save it really is irrelevant as the result is always the same. If you add it at the very moment of list creation then it will be included into all calculations when you reference that save. If you only include it when you reference the save, then it still is included into all those calculations anyway. Effectively it doesn't matter when you apply the modifications, only that they are being applied.

2) The restriction is added any time the special rule is in effect. There is nothing in the Mark of Tzeentch rules, that I remember, giving exceptions to this restriction so it simply can not be circumvented due to situation in which it is being applied. This means it doesn't matter if you have the philosophy that the modifications are added at list building, or during the game, as the restriction would also have to be in effect during this point.

3) The only way for this restriction to end would be to remove or deny access to the special rule entirely, which means you would lose the bonus as well.

4) Assuming no permission granted to opt-out of the rule, then it is included in the 2++ save even if you don't need it to reach 2++. However I would be more then willing to accept a 'house rule' that a 2++ can be used if that value is achieved without including the mark of Tzeentch. While I can see where might may have meant to be a tactical choice, a permanent +1 in exchange for not being able to drop below 3++, I don't feel entirely comfortable holding an opponent to that interpretation of the rules. Besides, 2++ without the mark is often very difficult to acquire so unless they built the list with that in mind, it is unlikely they will achieve it.

Thank you, this answers a lot. Unless there is a key piece we are missing from your analisis, this probably the best examination of the Mark of Tzeentch we currently have.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Is this a correct statement according to you: The rules around Armor Saves (on page 2 and 3) have nothing to do with, and cannot be applied to, invul saves.
Please clarify.

I can't see invulnerable saves mentioned anywhere on p2 & 3. If you can, please do point it out.

You didn't answer my question. Please do so.

Which specific rules are you referring to exactly? We've already covered the multiple modifiers one.

rigeld2 wrote:

And I've answered multiple times now. To indulge you, how about the CSM Codex p30 - MoT.

That rule doesn't tell you how to modify a save though - so using normal math it'd be a 5+1=6.

It's pretty clear to most people. If you're struggling there's an example in italics to help you. I'll give you a clue though - the answer isn't 6 as you have proposed several times already.

rigeld2 wrote:

Is there even a point to this statement? There is a difference, therefore they are not the same thing.

They're the same thing except for one difference. Is that difference that invuls are not a characteristic?

So therefore they are not the same thing. One difference is that invuls are not a characteristic.

This is starting to get out of hand, currently we are arguing if an invulnerable save follows the rules of modifying saves.

There may be a need to explore this in another thread, however, without a common basis of rules, there is no discussion.

Can we please get back on topic.

The grimoire improves the invulnerable save for a model with the Daemon rule. It's not dependent on any other factor nor does it say that it does not stack.

The MoT improves the invulnerable save by 1, to a maximum of 3+.

If you think about it, why would the MoT ever decrease someone's Invulnerable save? I mean, why would it go away just because someone used an artefact?

TOnberry - the point Rigeld is making is that you have made a lot of assumptions, without any basis in rules.

The rules for modifying armour saves allows you to go from 5++ to 4++ by adding 1; yet your claim is you cannot use the rules for modifying armour saves, as they are not a characteristic. Meaning adding 1 to a 5++ makes it a 6++

The point Rigeld is correctly making i that the rules for invulnerable saves only specifies they are different in one, and only one, way. Meaning they MUST be the same in ALL other ways. Meaning they MUST be a characteristics.

This is the bind you are in: You are claiming you dont have to follow the modifier rules, as it isnt a characteristic. Except the rules state the opposite. And even if we follow your unsupported assertion, it ends up that you follow normal maths - that 5++ +1 goes to a 6++ - as you have no permission to use the special rules for armour saves any longer.

So, which is it? Are they a characteristic - as the rules cover, by stating the only ways that they are different, and being a characteristic is NOT one of them - and therefore the modifier rules apply, or are they not, in which case +1 makes the save *worse*.

You have no choice in the matter - either you make Inv saves worse, not better, or you follow the actual rules, and the 3++ limit applies.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
TOnberry - the point Rigeld is making is that you have made a lot of assumptions, without any basis in rules.

The rules for modifying armour saves allows you to go from 5++ to 4++ by adding 1; yet your claim is you cannot use the rules for modifying armour saves, as they are not a characteristic. Meaning adding 1 to a 5++ makes it a 6++

The point Rigeld is correctly making i that the rules for invulnerable saves only specifies they are different in one, and only one, way. Meaning they MUST be the same in ALL other ways. Meaning they MUST be a characteristics.

This is the bind you are in: You are claiming you dont have to follow the modifier rules, as it isnt a characteristic. Except the rules state the opposite. And even if we follow your unsupported assertion, it ends up that you follow normal maths - that 5++ +1 goes to a 6++ - as you have no permission to use the special rules for armour saves any longer.

So, which is it? Are they a characteristic - as the rules cover, by stating the only ways that they are different, and being a characteristic is NOT one of them - and therefore the modifier rules apply, or are they not, in which case +1 makes the save *worse*.

You have no choice in the matter - either you make Inv saves worse, not better, or you follow the actual rules, and the 3++ limit applies.

Nosferatu - Rigeld isn't really making any relevant points to be honest.

I'm not talking about armour saves, I was discussing invulnerable saves re the OP. I'm not claiming that invulnerable saves are modified by different methods to armour saves - if you improve a 5++ by 1 it's 4++. This is not only common sense but it's illustrated in the MoT rules. Pedantically asserting that it's 6++ is nonsense.

Where does it state that armour saves and invulnerable saves are the same in all ways apart from that in p17? And on p2, invulnerable saves are not listed as a characteristic, therefore they are not. Would you class cover saves as a characteristic following the same logic?

I am in no bind whatsoever - I'm not claiming that invulnerable saves don't follow the same maths as armour saves at all. I'm claiming they are different things, are not characteristics, and that the multiple modifiers rules on p2 written for characteristics cannot safely be applied. This is relevant with regard to the order of different modifiers, not just additions and subtractions.

You're making unsupported assumptions that invulnerable saves are characteristics when they are clearly not listed as such. Why aren't they in a character profile if they are characteristics? Also could you please cite a reference for the specific rules for modifying armour saves?

My choice is to follow the rules; making inv saves better and a 2++ possible. An FAQ would clarify the issue but at the moment I don't see any problem with this.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
TOnberry - the point Rigeld is making is that you have made a lot of assumptions, without any basis in rules.

The rules for modifying armour saves allows you to go from 5++ to 4++ by adding 1; yet your claim is you cannot use the rules for modifying armour saves, as they are not a characteristic. Meaning adding 1 to a 5++ makes it a 6++

The point Rigeld is correctly making i that the rules for invulnerable saves only specifies they are different in one, and only one, way. Meaning they MUST be the same in ALL other ways. Meaning they MUST be a characteristics.

This is the bind you are in: You are claiming you dont have to follow the modifier rules, as it isnt a characteristic. Except the rules state the opposite. And even if we follow your unsupported assertion, it ends up that you follow normal maths - that 5++ +1 goes to a 6++ - as you have no permission to use the special rules for armour saves any longer.

So, which is it? Are they a characteristic - as the rules cover, by stating the only ways that they are different, and being a characteristic is NOT one of them - and therefore the modifier rules apply, or are they not, in which case +1 makes the save *worse*.

You have no choice in the matter - either you make Inv saves worse, not better, or you follow the actual rules, and the 3++ limit applies.

Nosferatu - Rigeld isn't really making any relevant points to be honest.

I'm not talking about armour saves, I was discussing invulnerable saves re the OP. I'm not claiming that invulnerable saves are modified by different methods to armour saves - if you improve a 5++ by 1 it's 4++. This is not only common sense but it's illustrated in the MoT rules. Pedantically asserting that it's 6++ is nonsense.

Where does it state that armour saves and invulnerable saves are the same in all ways apart from that in p17? And on p2, invulnerable saves are not listed as a characteristic, therefore they are not. Would you class cover saves as a characteristic following the same logic?

I am in no bind whatsoever - I'm not claiming that invulnerable saves don't follow the same maths as armour saves at all. I'm claiming they are different things, are not characteristics, and that the multiple modifiers rules on p2 written for characteristics cannot safely be applied. This is relevant with regard to the order of different modifiers, not just additions and subtractions.

You're making unsupported assumptions that invulnerable saves are characteristics when they are clearly not listed as such. Why aren't they in a character profile if they are characteristics? Also could you please cite a reference for the specific rules for modifying armour saves?

My choice is to follow the rules; making inv saves better and a 2++ possible. An FAQ would clarify the issue but at the moment I don't see any problem with this.

What you still arent getting is that common sense has nothing to do with the issue.

IF Invulnerable saves arent characteristics you HAVE TO follow math while applying modifiers. This means a 5++ save becomes 6++ if +1.
The ONLY permission to subtract the 1 is if you handle Invulnerable saves the same way as armor saves (except for the one difference pointed out in the BRB). If you dont count INV saves as Characteristics you dont have that permission

Additionally if you count invulnerable saves as characteristics you have to follow the max 3++ rule of MoT always.

Rigeld is making a really good point here ... only that you are not getting what he wants to show you.

Ok well I'm not sure where you were taught maths but if you improve a 5++ by 1 it's a 4++. As I've pointed out several times already there's even an example on the MoT rule.

I'm not counting invulnerable saves as characteristics as they are not listed as such and nothing in the BRB states they should be.

Can you point out the specific rules detailing how to calculate the results of modifiers to armour saves?

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Ok well I'm not sure where you were taught maths but if you improve a 5++ by 1 it's a 4++. As I've pointed out several times already there's even an example on the MoT rule.

Okay first off stop snarky comments like "im not sure where you were taught maths". Its not helpful at all

Secondly the only situation where you have permission to substract (like you did here) is when dealing with the armour save characteristics. Since you insist inv saves are different you dont have permission to do that.

Cite permission to modify in the way you did when not dealing with an armorsave.

Apologies, that was perhaps uncalled for. However, 5-1 is clearly 4 and the permission to calculate like this for inv saves is given in the individual rules e.g. the MoT where there is an example of doing exactly this.

Inv saves are different entities to armour saves (and not characteristics according to The BRB) but for the purpose of individual modifier calculations basic mathematical functions are also used.

Can you point out the specific rules detailing how to calculate the results of modifiers to armour saves?

 Nilok wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
So your argument is that since we don't know which comes first, the active player chooses to have MoT first. However, what if it is the opponent's turn. Is this like multiple effects happening at the same time and the active player chooses the order?

Can on the opponent's turn, they choose to have MoT happen last so your save becomes 3++?

How is it different from you choosing the order?

no I'm saying that there is an order of effect and we do know in what order.

the problem stems from in introduction of a third element.

the mathematic equations are the best answer to working out how it all works; the vast majority that are saying no are working on the basis that an invulnerable save works the same way as a characteristic. Characteristic modifies follow an 'Associativity' paradigm as is set down by the way the BRB tells you to work them out, they all happen simultaneously and in a specific order, this is why a furious charging power fist is resolved at (Sx2) +1 and not (S+1) x 2

however since an invulnerable save is not a characteristic, as shown in the BRB, it must inherently be different, as there is only one other save that works outside of characteristics being cover we must use the two and draw out parallels.

so if we say:

daemon have a 5+ (a) and MoT grants a +1 (b) also grimoure grants a +2 (c)

deamon exists at the start of the game making 'a' part of the equation

MoT exists at the stat of the game making 'b' part of the equation

grimoure does not exist at the start of the game meaning 'c' is not a part of the equation at the start

so the invulnerable save is 'a+b'

later the grimoure is added making it a+b+c

now because there are no defined 'operations' within the context of the rules, the sum is worked out left to right making the sum: (a+b) + c

if a additional modifier were introduced, it would be ((a+b)+c) + d and so on.

I understand the using math to help, but why are you not using the order of operation?
Since we, according to you, do not have any information on invulnerable save modifiers, should we not use the order of operations in lack of any rules.

I also see you are adding parentheses to the equation, but I would like to know why. There is nothing stating that you are to include any part of the equation first, save for the base 5++. Why are you not simply adding the three variables together instead of adding a new part of the function that is not specified or mentioned?


Internet hiccup double post removed

because an invulnerable save is not listed as a characteristic and as such should be treated diffrently, as the only other save that is not a characteristic is a cover save we should treat it as such.

the presumtion to use a the order of operations is just that, I'm more inclined to revert to base mathmatics and utilise a similar approach to cover saves that are cumulative in order of reciving them (e.g. a ruin grants 5+, I get stealth granting a +1, I also benafit from shroud and add a further +2, resulting in a mathmatical formula of (5+1) + 2)

I am open to being incorrect on the summation but on the basis the BRB is not very helpful in the matter and it is clearly noted as not being a characteristic I'm inclined to say it should folow base maths and act like cover


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwyidion wrote:
You're making a mistake in stating the MoT exists at the start of the game.


MoT exists always.

no it does not, it exists at the start of the game, as nothing exists before the game begins other than the 'list' your deamon spawns and recieves a +1 modifyer to its invulnerable, this modifys its 'active' invulnerable save, it later recieves an additional modifyer later which is then added to the active save bufing it in this instance tempoarlly by +2, the +1 is permanent in terms of active modifyers, the +2 is activational.

in terms of rules to cite how they work, the relavent rules have been layed out by both others in the post and a previous post I made to reference the page numbers, please refer to those to prevent clogging the discussion more than needed covering ground previously covered.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

no it does not, it exists at the start of the game, as nothing exists before the game begins other than the 'list' your deamon spawns and recieves a +1 modifyer to its invulnerable, this modifys its 'active' invulnerable save, it later recieves an additional modifyer later which is then added to the active save bufing it in this instance tempoarlly by +2, the +1 is permanent in terms of active modifyers, the +2 is activational.

in terms of rules to cite how they work, the relavent rules have been layed out by both others in the post and a previous post I made to reference the page numbers, please refer to those to prevent clogging the discussion more than needed covering ground previously covered.

I agree with the above; I'm also glad to see the thread back on topic. The MoT gives you a continuously active 4++ from the start of the game, the grimoire can then optionally buff this with a temporary +2 bonus to give you the 2++. The MoT modifier was already active and thus no rules are broken.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Apologies, that was perhaps uncalled for. However, 5-1 is clearly 4 and the permission to calculate like this for inv saves is given in the individual rules e.g. the MoT where there is an example of doing exactly this.

See, improving is not subtraction for normal equations.

Inv saves are different entities to armour saves (and not characteristics according to The BRB) but for the purpose of individual modifier calculations basic mathematical functions are also used.

And basic math says that improving a number makes it bigger.

Can you point out the specific rules detailing how to calculate the results of modifiers to armour saves?

Sure - page 2 it says that unlike any other characteristic, lower is better (and therefore improving gets lower). Perhaps you'd like to actually cite rules showing the same for invulnerable saves?

1) total assumption on your part there. As pointed out, losing the daemon rule means you have a 6++, it is by no means "permanent"
2) ton the only permission to subtract instead of add is given in the armour save rules, that you say canno apply. The rules for inv saves state they are the same as armour saves except....., meaning it must be the same in terms of being a characteristic. Therefore he modifier rules apply, and the limits apply

You're advocating breaking the limit, and cannot provide a rule allowing so.

Finally, snarky comments like "back on track" show you haven't understood the point made. Read the tenets, and note you have to back up your assumptions with rules. Armour and invulnerable saves are linked, as we've shown. Your assertion is that they aren't. That assertion is wrong.

I voted 3++, and here's why:

We're not given any rules to tell us in what order to apply save modifiers. Lacking these rules, we must instead try to apply the modifiers as we are told without breaking any rules. The MoT rule states that it may not increase a save beyond 3++. Therefore, the only way to apply both modifiers without breaking the MoT rule is to limit the bonus to 3++.

The only way it is possible to reason for a 2++ is to apply MoT first, but the 2++ breaks the MoT rule if we were to apply the modifiers in the opposite order or simultaneously. Again, since we are not given rules to tell us which order to use, the only way we can be sure that we are not breaking any rules is to apply the 3++ limit from MoT.

I'm pretty sure that 3++ reroll 1 was the intent of the codex authors. But has since been mangled by jerkhole powergamers to mean "I win."

dadakkaest wrote:
I'm pretty sure that 3++ reroll 1 was the intent of the codex authors. But has since been mangled by jerkhole powergamers to mean "I win."

Man, we get it. You hate 2++ rerollable. You've commented multiple times in multiple threads about how much you hate it, even when it's totally off topic. Like right here.

They're talking about MoT from the CSM codex which adds +1 to the invuln. Rerolls aren't even in the equation or discussion. Get off your soap box and stop trolling and derailing threads.

Something I think needs to be clarified, with MoT, you do not get a base 4++ save. You have 5++ with a constant +1, like stealth for cover saves.

I do find it odd that some people are claiming it is a 4++ that gets +2, insteads of a 5++ that gets a +1 and +2.

I originally thought that a 2+ invulnerable save could be reached through MoT and put my vote down as a yes. My reasoning was that the MoT was active before the game and the 3+ limit would be reached by SoC + MoT and that the rule was just a reminder for wargear. But MoT is not wargear and is classified as a special rule, as Shrouded or Stealth for cover saves would be. Meaning that no matter what, 3+ is the maximum that can be achieved with MoT or MoT is disregarded if 2+ invulnerable save can be reached in other ways.

A mark of Chaos is not special gear btw. It comes under its own 'Marks of Chaos' section in the Chaos Wargear list. 'Special issue wargear', is still wargear.

I voted for the 2++. You've paid a shed loads of points for this item to give you a boost. You should get it. The MoT is applied to a model with a 5++, "Models with the MoT have +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 3+)." So the model now has a 4++. The way I interpret that is the model at the list writing stage cannot be given wargear/items that will bump the models invulnerable save beyond a 3++. I mean, you're not buying wargear mid-game are you? The Grimoire is a one off item used in game that bumps an invulnerable save by +2. The Grimoire goes over the 3++, not the MoT. I'd be happy to let my opponent do this.

Sounds like it's all gone a bit too anal to me. Ofc people using the items are going to want the 2++ and their opponents will not. That's what it feels like reading all of this.

All the people complaining about the order the items are applied; are you going to want to see your opponents army lists and say things like "I'm sorry mate, you've written your HQ here as MoT first and then SoC, so he doesn't have a 3++, he has a 6++ and a 4++"?

I am reminded of a discussion about Orks, in which the order in which upgrades were applied mattered to make it 'legal' or not.

GW FAQ'ed:

Q. If a Boyz mob exchange sluggas and choppas with shootas, can a
Nob take a power klaw or a big choppa? (p100)
A. You may upgrade the Nob to have a big choppa or power
klaw before you choose to upgrade the mob to have shootas, in
which case the Nob is not affected by the mob’s weapon swap
(as he no longer has a choppa to swap), does not receive a
shoota and keeps his slugga and power klaw/big choppa
instead.

I don't think claiming that order doesn't matter is right. Things that are chosen/happen during list-building must happen before things that happen during gameturns. MoT's requierments were satisfied during listbuilding, do you have to keep validating them? Does the Nob above break the rules during the game itself because he didn't exchange his choppa for a shoota?

Is the SoC a modifier or another source for an invul save?
I'm not sure what the acronym is referencing.

And you're differentiating between a modifier gained at list writing time vs one gained during the game. Please explain why using actual rules.

Insinuating bias isn't polite - I have no dog in this fight.

sorry i meant special rule, MoT is a special rule. I just edited it. But if you go to the index for the characters and their profiles the marks are shown under special rules.

Sigil of Corruption is a modifier (4++).

I'm not differentiating between two modifiers, I'm just saying about when they are done, which seems to be the gripe. If you add it all one way, it breaks MoT's rule, you then do it in the order the model acquires the modifiers, then it doesn't break the rule. The MoT caps its own contribution, if it was intended otherwise then why wasn't it written as; "A model with the MoT can never have better than a 3++"? As I also said in my post, this is just the way that I interpret it and why I voted for what I did.

I wasn't insinuating bias either, I just said that's what it felt like reading all of this.

Sigil is NOT a modifier. It grants something in the first place.

You have NO PERMISSION to reorder how you like. You have a 5++ (+1 +2) save, and are told the MoT doesnt get to take your save below 3++, meaning it MUST cap at 3++.

...First off, calm yourself.

I am not reordering anything the way I like. If you read what I said, I used the same way you have.

Is this thread not about interpretations of rules?

You can't say that it MUST cap at 3++ in your example as the MoT hasn't given the model a 2++, the Grimoire has, as a temporary buff.

I think the salient point for me is that the wording for the MoT says that the MoT in particular cannot be the modifier that pushes a save past 3++. It is one coherent sentence. The no save past 3++ is not an independant clause which thus imposes an independant restriction. It is a dependant clause tied to the MoT restriction. Thus, order of application matters. If the MoT is applied first, no rules are violated (5++ becomes 4++, check MoT restriction, it is valid, add grimoire to become 2++). If the MoT is applied second, it has no effect because the restriction triggers (5++ becomes 3++, MoT tries to improve but can't because of the MoT can't improve past 3++ restriction). Thus, based on the order of operations whoevers turn it is would choose the order effects are applied.

The rule states it explicitly. You cannot gain a 2+ invunerable by using the +1 from MoT.



Never, ever, no how, no way.


You can still obtain a 2+ invun, just not by using the +1 from MoT.

 Reptile wrote:
You can't say that it MUST cap at 3++ in your example as the MoT hasn't given the model a 2++, the Grimoire has, as a temporary buff.

Why are you differentiating between the Grimoire and the MoT modifiers?
The MoT modifier is involved in getting a 2++. This is explicitly denied in the rules for the MoT. Why are you breaking a rule?

 Reptile wrote:
...First off, calm yourself.

I am not reordering anything the way I like. If you read what I said, I used the same way you have.

Is this thread not about interpretations of rules?

You can't say that it MUST cap at 3++ in your example as the MoT hasn't given the model a 2++, the Grimoire has, as a temporary buff.

Dose MoT say your base save becomes one better, or just +1 to your save?

The difference is that one would set for the game, the invulnerable to 4++, while the other would be a 5++ with a constant +1 to your invulnerable. If it was the first instance, then I can see your point, if a model has a 3++ base and MoT was applied it would not take effect. If the second is true, MoT is constantly saying you have a +1 to your invulnerable save like stealth to cover.

If MoT is just +1 to your invulnerable, you have to constantly ask, 'Is the Mark of Tzeentch currently helping improve my save to 2++ right now?'. If it is, it would be violating its own rule.

If you use Grimoire while behind a Skyshield giving you a 4++ save, you would have 4++, +2, +1. MoT would deactivate since it would be contributing to the invulnerable save past 3++, but you would still end with a 2++ thanks to the shield and the Grimoire.

This question was constantly ignored through out the thread so i ask it again.

Assuming the MoT is a set modifier that is granted at list building stage what exactly is the restriction there for?

Theres not a single model that could gain a 2++ at list building stage using a MoT in the codex.

 Mywik wrote:
Theres not a single model that could gain a 2++ at list building stage using a MoT in the codex.

I don't think that's a valid point - GW has written rules that obviously don't work as written before.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
Theres not a single model that could gain a 2++ at list building stage using a MoT in the codex.

I don't think that's a valid point - GW has written rules that obviously don't work as written before.

I normally assume that rules are there for a reason.

But you are right it would be more a RAI argument than RAW. Conceded.

I am not breaking a rule, insinuating that I am isn't polite.

Until GW clear it up, players should agree before the game or have a roll off, if interpretations/opinions differ.

You can say that it is involved and results in a breach all you like, it itself has not increased the save past 3++. It's simply a bonus, a one off.

 Reptile wrote:
I am not breaking a rule, insinuating that I am isn't polite.

Until GW clear it up, players should agree before the game or have a roll off, if interpretations/opinions differ.

You can say that it is involved and results in a breach all you like, it itself has not increased the save past 3++. It's simply a bonus, a one off.

If you add in the bonus from MoT, the save is 2++ which breaks the rule on MoT. That's not insinuation - that's fact.
You're attempting to say that the modifiers are different for some reason. I'm simply asking you to back that up with rules support instead of just saying they're different.
It shouldn't be that hard - you wouldn't make an assertion unless you had rules support, right?

Googled Grimoire of the nameless, found a photo of the rule in the hardback "-all Daemon models (excluding the bearer of the grimoire of true names) in the unit have a +2 bonus to their invulnerable save until the start of your next movement phase."

It isn't giving you a plus 2 inul, it's giving you a bonus to your existing invul.

Correct. And?

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct. And?

His argument is that the save is not technically being modified by the Grimoire in RAW. Your save is 5++ from Demon, 4++ from the MoT. When you roll the dice, you add +2 to each dice rolled from the Griomoire. So the save is technically a 4++ and not breaking the MoT restriction because the Grimoire is a bonus to the roll, not the save.

Thank you, someone understands what I am saying.

No, it's a bonus to the save. It even says that in the rule he quoted:

"have a +2 bonus to their invulnerable save" not "save roll".

I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong, just how I read the ruling. Gotn places a bonus on an existing save of 4++ which has already accounted for the MoT.

In a forum about discussing rules you sure are black and white about something that isn't in black and white. If it was then this topic wouldn't be here and we wouldn't need an answer from GW. You are going on how YOU read them and are being rude about it in the process.

 Reptile wrote:
I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong, just how I read the ruling. Gotn places a bonus on an existing save of 4++ which has already accounted for the MoT.

No - the existing save is not a 4++. It's a 5-1++. You add a bonus of 2 to that and get 5-1-2=2++ which breaks a rule.
Also - is your argument that the save roll is modified or that the save is modified? It looks like you're arguing both (which are mutually exclusive).
I saw that because you said - and I'll quote -

Reptile wrote:Thank you, someone understands what I am saying.

When another user said

PanzerLeader wrote:His argument is that the save is not technically being modified by the Grimoire in RAW. Your save is 5++ from Demon, 4++ from the MoT. When you roll the dice, you add +2 to each dice rolled from the Griomoire. So the save is technically a 4++ and not breaking the MoT restriction because the Grimoire is a bonus to the roll, not the save.

And now you're saying that the GoTN modifies the 4++ (which isn't a roll, it's the save).

In a forum about discussing rules you sure are black and white about something that isn't in black and white. If it was then this topic wouldn't be here and we wouldn't need an answer from GW. You are going on how YOU read them and are being rude about it in the process.

It actually is in black and white - your refusal to accept it doesn't mean it's not clear.
You have a 5++ invul.
You add 2 modifiers to it (a 1 bonus and a 2 bonus) to get a 2++.
One of those modifiers has a restriction that you're ignoring and have cited no rules support for doing so.

I'm not being rude, I'm asking you to support your viewpoint with rules.

Sorry, misread that last part then by PanzerLeader, was rushing out the door to get my pizza. It was nice btw.

Nonetheless.... You see it how you want to see it.

It says 5-1=4. Daemon rule and MoT applied. A bonus of +2 to invulnerable saves. 4-2=2.

5-1=4, Bonus time! 4-2=2.

 Reptile wrote:
Sorry, misread that last part then by PanzerLeader, was rushing out the door to get my pizza. It was nice btw.

Nonetheless.... You see it how you want to see it.

It says 5-1=4. Daemon rule and MoT applied. A bonus of +2 to invulnerable saves. 4-2=2.

5-1=4, Bonus time! 4-2=2.

Why is it base 4++?
I would like you to please respond to my post about this

 Nilok wrote:

 Reptile wrote:
...First off, calm yourself.

I am not reordering anything the way I like. If you read what I said, I used the same way you have.

Is this thread not about interpretations of rules?

You can't say that it MUST cap at 3++ in your example as the MoT hasn't given the model a 2++, the Grimoire has, as a temporary buff.

Dose MoT say your base save becomes one better, or just +1 to your save?

The difference is that one would set for the game, the invulnerable to 4++, while the other would be a 5++ with a constant +1 to your invulnerable. If it was the first instance, then I can see your point, if a model has a 3++ base and MoT was applied it would not take effect. If the second is true, MoT is constantly saying you have a +1 to your invulnerable save like stealth to cover.

If MoT is just +1 to your invulnerable, you have to constantly ask, 'Is the Mark of Tzeentch currently helping improve my save to 2++ right now?'. If it is, it would be violating its own rule.

If you use Grimoire while behind a Skyshield giving you a 4++ save, you would have 4++, +2, +1. MoT would deactivate since it would be contributing to the invulnerable save past 3++, but you would still end with a 2++ thanks to the shield and the Grimoire.

Also as a heads up, your name is breaking the quote system, you should ask a moderator/admin to remove the square brackets from your name " [ ] "

What says 5-1=4?

MoT is explicitly a +1 to the invul save. GoTN is explicitly a +2 to the invul save. You're applying them at different times and asserting it makes a difference - please cite actual rules support.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Apologies, that was perhaps uncalled for. However, 5-1 is clearly 4 and the permission to calculate like this for inv saves is given in the individual rules e.g. the MoT where there is an example of doing exactly this.

See, improving is not subtraction for normal equations.

Actually, I don't see. A 4++ inv save is better than a 5++ for the controlling player.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Inv saves are different entities to armour saves (and not characteristics according to The BRB) but for the purpose of individual modifier calculations basic mathematical functions are also used.

And basic math says that improving a number makes it bigger.

This statement is so flawed it's laughable. Improving is not neccessarily synonymous with increasing, or making bigger as you put it. As I've stated above a 4++ inv save is better than a 5++ for the controlling player.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Can you point out the specific rules detailing how to calculate the results of modifiers to armour saves?

Sure - page 2 it says that unlike any other characteristic, lower is better (and therefore improving gets lower). Perhaps you'd like to actually cite rules showing the same for invulnerable saves?

I'm sorry, but the Armour Save section you've referred to contains no rules detailing how to calculate the results of modifiers. The word modifier isn't even used. The statements of substance here only tell us that the lower an Armour Save is, the better. It's the same for inv and cover saves values although these two stats aren't characteristics of a model and therefore aren't discussed on this page. Also stated is that a model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+. I've already cited rules demonstrating how the MoT modifier is calculated, perhaps you'd like to try another reference?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) total assumption on your part there. As pointed out, losing the daemon rule means you have a 6++, it is by no means "permanent"

I don't believe I used the word "permanent". And how would a model "lose" the Daemon rule?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
2) ton the only permission to subtract instead of add is given in the armour save rules, that you say canno apply.

I'm still waiting for someone to cite the specific rules detailing how to calculate the results of modifiers to armour saves. And in any case, the debate is over invulnerable saves which are a different thing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rules for inv saves state they are the same as armour saves except....., meaning it must be the same in terms of being a characteristic. Therefore he modifier rules apply, and the limits apply

You're advocating breaking the limit, and cannot provide a rule allowing so.

Regarding the bolded text, the rules for inv saves do not say this at all. You've just completely made this up to suit your argument. Your following suppositions are also false. Is inv save listed as a characteistic? No. Therefore it isn't one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Finally, snarky comments like "back on track" show you haven't understood the point made. Read the tenets, and note you have to back up your assumptions with rules. Armour and invulnerable saves are linked, as we've shown. Your assertion is that they aren't. That assertion is wrong.

Finally, my "back on track" comment shows that I thought we were finished with irrelevant and pedantic arguments that 5-1=6 and the like. Sadly, Rigeld had other ideas.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Armour and invulnerable saves are linked, as we've shown. Your assertion is that they aren't. That assertion is wrong.

Actually you've shown nothing of the sort. You've just re-stated your opinion as if it were a demonstrated fact, without backing it up.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Apologies, that was perhaps uncalled for. However, 5-1 is clearly 4 and the permission to calculate like this for inv saves is given in the individual rules e.g. the MoT where there is an example of doing exactly this.

See, improving is not subtraction for normal equations.

Actually, I don't see. A 4++ inv save is better than a 5++ for the controlling player.

Please cite the rule that states this.

This statement is so flawed it's laughable. Improving is not neccessarily synonymous with increasing, or making bigger as you put it. As I've stated above a 4++ inv save is better than a 5++ for the controlling player.

Please cite the rule.

It's the same for inv and cover saves values although these two stats aren't characteristics of a model and therefore aren't discussed on this page. Also stated is that a model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+. I've already cited rules demonstrating how the MoT modifier is calculated, perhaps you'd like to try another reference?

Please cite the rule that defines that lower is better for invul and cover saves.

Finally, my "back on track" comment shows that I thought we were finished with irrelevant and pedantic arguments that 5-1=6 and the like. Sadly, Rigeld had other ideas.

It's not irrelevant - your refusal to actually cite rules when asked is absolutely relevant. I'm not asking these questions to troll but to glean relevant information.

Actually you've shown nothing of the sort. You've just re-stated your opinion as if it were a demonstrated fact, without backing it up.

Please, cite the differences the rules assert between Invul saves and Armor saves. I've cited the one - singular - time they're different. You're asserting there's more - prove it.

Hmm, that's odd about my name breaking stuff. Thank you Nilok.

It says +1 to your invulnerable save. The invulnerable save as a Daemon is 5++. You'd need to work out your invulnerable save before applying a bonus of +2 to your save.

 Reptile wrote:
Hmm, that's odd about my name breaking stuff. Thank you Nilok.

It says +1 to your invulnerable save. The invulnerable save as a Daemon is 5++. You'd need to work out your invulnerable save before applying a bonus of +2 to your save.

Perhaps you should read the rules about Multiple Modifiers?
+1 to your invulnerable save is a modifier (by definition).
+2 bonus to your invulnerable save is a modifier (by definition).

Please cite rules differentiating them.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Reptile wrote:
Hmm, that's odd about my name breaking stuff. Thank you Nilok.

It says +1 to your invulnerable save. The invulnerable save as a Daemon is 5++. You'd need to work out your invulnerable save before applying a bonus of +2 to your save.

Perhaps you should read the rules about Multiple Modifiers?
+1 to your invulnerable save is a modifier (by definition).
+2 bonus to your invulnerable save is a modifier (by definition).

Please cite rules differentiating them.

about time you cited a rule that says that invulnerable saves are taken into consideration for the chart on page 2.

please enlighten us with a direct rule that stipulates that an invulnerable save is subject to the characteristic modifiers section on page 2.

Reptie[5iN],

It is the square brackets, they are often used in coding so the quote system is likely trying to read it as such. Now I am not a coder myself, but if I had to hazard a guess as to why I would put the blame on the ] itself. The program is likely hitting this spot and reading it as 'end of code' instead of just another character to be process. Everything after it would then either be treated as plain text, or might be read as some sort of separate code that wouldn't make sense to the program.

also a 'bonus' would be the difference between the two.

a 'bonus' is extra, as opposed to an absolute

It's a bonus. A bonus is defined as "something extra". What other rules have a 'bonus' modifier? I want to see how they work, out of curiosity.

I have read the rules there. I work out my invul before adding a bonus of +2 to the sum. Assuming that 'bonus' still means 'extra'.

Thanks JinxDragon, I've pm'd an Admin about it.

Bonus is used in number of bonus attacks (due to charging, multiple weapons, etc)
Strength Bonus from Melee weapons (power fist, power axe, etc)
Adamantium Will gives a bonus to your DTW roll.
Rampage shows that bonuses are by definition modifiers (as you get +D3 attacks that are then referred to as bonus later in the rule)
Shrouded gives cover save bonuses.
As does Stealth.
Bikes give a Bonus Toughness.

Bonuses are modifiers. MoT is a modifier.

[quote=Reptile[5iN] 560960 6227729 c23067932e324988a0ff39f4cf4fb9b9.png]It's a bonus. A bonus is defined as "something extra". What other rules have a 'bonus' modifier? I want to see how they work, out of curiosity.

I have read the rules there. I work out my invul before adding a bonus of +2 to the sum. Assuming that 'bonus' still means 'extra'.

Thanks JinxDragon, I've pm'd an Admin about it.

jessus... really?

people are still stuck on the order you apply the modifiers?

it doesnt fehting matter...

both are modifiers, both are applied at the same time, even if one is before the other, you have to have applied BOTH before you roll your saves.

applying both rules, to get a 2++, when one rule says you cannot use it to get better then 3++, is breaking the rules, no matter how you cut it.

order DOES NOT MATTER< not a single rule has been quoted to prove otherwise.

your argument is that you are not using MoT to get a 2++, when in fact you are very much using MoT to get a 2++,
1st, 2nd, or simultaneously, you are using the MoT rule.
if your save after adding up MoT and all other modifiers is 2++, you have used MoT to get a 2++

which is illegal, and breaks a written rule.

FFS its not that often that happy, nos, rigel AND myself actually agree on something, and all of us do actually take a different view on RAW in many cases,

so far all these people and myself have had 0 RAW quoted to back up why someone is allowed to break the "no better the 3++" rule while applying MoT.

fact of the matter is, when you roll your save, you have applied all the modifiers, and you cannot argue that you are NOT applying MoT, because you are trying to benifit from its +1,
Mot has a restriction, that you have to follow, you cannot ignore it because you want to, or hand wave it away as "happening too soon to count"

 easysauce wrote:
j

both are modifyers, both are applied at the same time,

To be fair, thats exactly what the 2++ side is arguing against. But so far this position isnt backed up by rules in my opinion.

All of those things are just one rule. I meant, show me something similar to this. A special rule from wargear/special gear that has a 'bonus' effect being applied at the last stage.

 nutty_nutter wrote:


about time you cited a rule that says that invulnerable saves are taken into consideration for the chart on page 2.

please enlighten us with a direct rule that stipulates that an invulnerable save is subject to the characteristic modifiers section on page 2.

There's no rule for adding a bonus to an invul before taking the models wargear into account either... The rule says bonus to the invul, the invul is 4++.

You would seriously try and get a 1+ cover save? Yes it says no save in game can ever exceed a 2+/2++ or a 2+ cover save. That's common sense, they would never, ever, fail a save with those rules in effect.

Reptile wrote: All of those things are just one rule. I meant, show me something similar to this. A special rule from wargear/special gear that has a 'bonus' effect being applied at the last stage.

One rule?

rigeld2 wrote:Bonus is used in number of bonus attacks (due to charging, multiple weapons, etc)
Strength Bonus from Melee weapons (power fist, power axe, etc)
Adamantium Will gives a bonus to your DTW roll.
Rampage shows that bonuses are by definition modifiers (as you get +D3 attacks that are then referred to as bonus later in the rule)
Shrouded gives cover save bonuses.
As does Stealth.
Bikes give a Bonus Toughness.

Bonuses are modifiers. MoT is a modifier.

I count 7 there. And the number is irrelevant - bonuses are modifiers and treating them differently is incorrect. Your interpretation treats them differently.

[quote=Reptile[5iN] 560960 6228041 c23067932e324988a0ff39f4cf4fb9b9.png] All of those things are just one rule. I meant, show me something similar to this. A special rule from wargear/special gear that has a 'bonus' effect being applied at the last stage.

 nutty_nutter wrote:


about time you cited a rule that says that invulnerable saves are taken into consideration for the chart on page 2.

please enlighten us with a direct rule that stipulates that an invulnerable save is subject to the characteristic modifiers section on page 2.

There's no rule for adding a bonus to an invul before taking the models wargear into account either... The rule says bonus to the invul, the invul is 4++.

You would seriously try and get a 1+ cover save? Yes it says no save in game can ever exceed a 2+/2++ or a 2+ cover save. That's common sense, they would never, ever, fail a save with those rules in effect.

 Mywik wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
j

both are modifyers, both are applied at the same time,

To be fair, thats exactly what the 2++ side is arguing against. But so far this position isnt backed up by rules in my opinion.

what are they if they are not modifiers?

regardless, if they are rules, modifyers or whatever, MOT, whatever you want to classify it as, cannot be used to get better then a 3++

no one questions that MoT is in effect, modifier or not,

no one question that without MoT in effect, the save is not going to be 2++

everyone with me now?

so with MoT in effect, and GOTN in effect, you have a 2++

and one side is literally saying, that the combo of MoT and GOTN, that results in 2++, is not useing MoT, in any way, shape or form, to get a 2++, which is undeniably false by RAW.

using something earlier, is still using it, the restriction in MoT is not time sensitive...

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Apologies, that was perhaps uncalled for. However, 5-1 is clearly 4 and the permission to calculate like this for inv saves is given in the individual rules e.g. the MoT where there is an example of doing exactly this.

See, improving is not subtraction for normal equations.

Actually, I don't see. A 4++ inv save is better than a 5++ for the controlling player.

Please cite the rule that states this.

This statement is so flawed it's laughable. Improving is not neccessarily synonymous with increasing, or making bigger as you put it. As I've stated above a 4++ inv save is better than a 5++ for the controlling player.

Please cite the rule.

It's the same for inv and cover saves values although these two stats aren't characteristics of a model and therefore aren't discussed on this page. Also stated is that a model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+. I've already cited rules demonstrating how the MoT modifier is calculated, perhaps you'd like to try another reference?

Please cite the rule that defines that lower is better for invul and cover saves.

Finally, my "back on track" comment shows that I thought we were finished with irrelevant and pedantic arguments that 5-1=6 and the like. Sadly, Rigeld had other ideas.

It's not irrelevant - your refusal to actually cite rules when asked is absolutely relevant. I'm not asking these questions to troll but to glean relevant information.

Actually you've shown nothing of the sort. You've just re-stated your opinion as if it were a demonstrated fact, without backing it up.

Please, cite the differences the rules assert between Invul saves and Armor saves. I've cited the one - singular - time they're different. You're asserting there's more - prove it.

I've already cited all the relevant rules to support my arguments. Several times. If you can't follow this, relentlessly repeating "cite the rule" in response to something you disagree with isn't really providing any counter-argument. Relevant rules for Armour, Invulnerable and Cover Saves are on p16-18. Obviously their mechanics are similar in that if your saving throw is higher than the relevant save value then the wound is stopped. Therefore a lower value is better for all of these save values as it increases your chances of stopping the wound - this isn't a rule per se but rather a consequence of the rule mechanics I've just described. If you removed the statement from the BRB saying "an Armour Save is better if it is a lower number" it wouldn't make it untrue due to these actual rule mechanics. Do you really need GW to reiterate similar logical statements for every type of save just to satisfy your pedantry?

It's also clear that Armour, Invulnerable and Cover Saves are different entities as the save values are defined by different factors - in addition Armour Save is clearly defined as a characteristic whilst the other two are not. Are you trying to argue that they are the same thing? p17 of the BRB even states in bold print that invulnerable saves are different to armour saves due to ignoring AP values; it's the same for cover saves. However many individual differences there are, the three saves are still different; that is my assertion.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
I've already cited all the relevant rules to support my arguments. Several times. If you can't follow this, relentlessly repeating "cite the rule" in response to something you disagree with isn't really providing any counter-argument. Relevant rules for Armour, Invulnerable and Cover Saves are on p16-18. Obviously their mechanics are similar in that if your saving throw is higher than the relevant save value then the wound is stopped.

Your assertion was that no rules for Armor saves applied to invul saves. Are you now saying that assertion is incorrect? The mechanic of lower=better does not exist for invul saves on pages 16-18. I wonder where you're getting that information from... It can't possibly be page 2 as you've said - repeatedly - that those rules don't apply to invul saves.

edit: And no - you've never cited what I asked for. I asked for a rule that says a 4++ is better than a 5++. You've never - ever - cited that rule. Instead you pretend I'm silly for asking for it.

Therefore a lower value is better for all of these save values as it increases your chances of stopping the wound - this isn't a rule per se but rather a consequence of the rule mechanics I've just described. If you removed the statement from the BRB saying "an Armour Save is better if it is a lower number" it wouldn't make it untrue due to these actual rule mechanics. Do you really need GW to reiterate similar logical statements for every type of save just to satisfy your pedantry?

It's amusing you're accusing me of pedantry. Like - hilarious.
Yes - applying actual rules instead of making them up is important in a rules discussion.

It's also clear that Armour, Invulnerable and Cover Saves are different entities as the save values are defined by different factors - in addition Armour Save is clearly defined as a characteristic whilst the other two are not. Are you trying to argue that they are the same thing? p17 of the BRB even states in bold print that invulnerable saves are different to armour saves due to ignoring AP values; it's the same for cover saves. However many individual differences there are, the three saves are still different; that is my assertion.

They're different in specific, spelled out ways.

Ton - no, you havent actually cited any rules that state a 4++ save is a better save than a 5++ save. That rule exists for armour saves, but your statement is that you cannot use ANY rules for armour saves for invulnerable saves.

You ar therefore required to find something for invulnerable (and cover, of course, but try just one first) stating that a 4++ is better than a 5++. Page and paragraph, or else retract your assertion.

Secondly, you have asserted that Invulnerable and Armou are not linked; the ACTUAL rules for invulnerable saves state:

"Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken....

So 1) we know invulnerable saves are different to armour because 2) they may always be taken. That is it. It is an exhaustive list, by definition. As such, we know the sum total of all differences between armour and invulnerable

You have stated there are more differences. Prove it. Cite the rule stating that there are more differences. Page and paragraph, and the actual wording.

Given you cannot do so, you now have no choice but to accpet that it is a characteristic (it must be - that is not THE listed difference, using ACTUAL rules) and therefore the modifier rules are to be used.

You are modifying 5 (+1+2), and getting to 2++. Breaking a rule.

You would seriously try and get a 1+ cover save? Yes it says no save in game can ever exceed a 2+/2++ or a 2+ cover save. That's common sense, they would never, ever, fail a save with those rules in effect.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

You would seriously try and get a 1+ cover save? Yes it says no save in game can ever exceed a 2+/2++ or a 2+ cover save. That's common sense, they would never, ever, fail a save with those rules in effect.

off topic but yes a 1+ cover save is possible to reach but wouldn't be any more effective than a 2+ cover save since the BRB states that a natural roll of a '1' is always a fail. (excluding the exception when shooting with BS6+)

Citation needed. No such rule exists.

A 1+ cover save is not, in any way, possible. The rule on page 19 imaginatively entitled "Maximum Save" explicitly prohibits 1+ saves.

now your just being pedantic, its the same thing.

it is possible to receive enough benefits from rules to reach a 1+ save but a roll of a 1 is still a fail. the maximum restriction is just enforcing that.

Roll of 1 is not always a fail. Str 10 will penetrate AV10 even if you roll a 1. And a Techmarine with 4 servitors will pass a test to repair a vehicle even if you roll a 1.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
now your just being pedantic, its the same thing.

it is possible to receive enough benefits from rules to reach a 1+ save but a roll of a 1 is still a fail. the maximum restriction is just enforcing that.

Although you are right that currently there is nothing that makes a real difference it could be potentially game breaking when new rules are coming at us. The implementation of Grav guns shows that there is a difference between a 2+ and a 1+ that happens to be failed on a roll of a 1. We dont know if there are weapons/rules coming that use the current save to determine something. Be it cover invul or armour saves. The rules prohibit a 1+ save for a reason.

Old codex tau for example were lowering your cover save by 1 per markerlight (instead of 2 to get rid of all cover) and there it would be a difference if you allow a 1+ (with rolls of 1 fail) or a 2+ cover save.

So hes not being pedantic at all.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
I've already cited all the relevant rules to support my arguments. Several times. If you can't follow this, relentlessly repeating "cite the rule" in response to something you disagree with isn't really providing any counter-argument. Relevant rules for Armour, Invulnerable and Cover Saves are on p16-18. Obviously their mechanics are similar in that if your saving throw is higher than the relevant save value then the wound is stopped.

Your assertion was that no rules for Armor saves applied to invul saves. Are you now saying that assertion is incorrect? The mechanic of lower=better does not exist for invul saves on pages 16-18. I wonder where you're getting that information from... It can't possibly be page 2 as you've said - repeatedly - that those rules don't apply to invul saves.

edit: And no - you've never cited what I asked for. I asked for a rule that says a 4++ is better than a 5++. You've never - ever - cited that rule. Instead you pretend I'm silly for asking for it.

Wrong. You have misunderstood. My assertion is that Armour, Invulnerable and Cover Saves share similar rule mechanics but that they are different and separate things. And as I've already said, a statement saying a 4++ is better than a 5++ isn't a rule. It's a logical statement based on the mechanics of the actual rule. Do you really think every single sentence in the BRB is a rule? Just because it isn't explicitly stated for inv saves doesn't make it untrue. Are you seriously suggesting that it isn't? Try making another thread with a poll. How about "Which is a better inv save for the controlling player - a 4++ or a 5++?" See how many vote for 5++.

rigeld2 wrote:

Therefore a lower value is better for all of these save values as it increases your chances of stopping the wound - this isn't a rule per se but rather a consequence of the rule mechanics I've just described. If you removed the statement from the BRB saying "an Armour Save is better if it is a lower number" it wouldn't make it untrue due to these actual rule mechanics. Do you really need GW to reiterate similar logical statements for every type of save just to satisfy your pedantry?

It's amusing you're accusing me of pedantry. Like - hilarious.
Yes - applying actual rules instead of making them up is important in a rules discussion.

Yes, I think you are being pedantic. Remember - you're the one asserting 5-1=6 for inv save modifier calculations, and you refuse to accept that a 4+ inv or cover save is better than 5+ unless GW explicitly write this in the BRB.

rigeld2 wrote:

It's also clear that Armour, Invulnerable and Cover Saves are different entities as the save values are defined by different factors - in addition Armour Save is clearly defined as a characteristic whilst the other two are not. Are you trying to argue that they are the same thing? p17 of the BRB even states in bold print that invulnerable saves are different to armour saves due to ignoring AP values; it's the same for cover saves. However many individual differences there are, the three saves are still different; that is my assertion.

They're different in specific, spelled out ways.

At least you're admitting they are different now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ton - no, you havent actually cited any rules that state a 4++ save is a better save than a 5++ save. That rule exists for armour saves, but your statement is that you cannot use ANY rules for armour saves for invulnerable saves.

You ar therefore required to find something for invulnerable (and cover, of course, but try just one first) stating that a 4++ is better than a 5++. Page and paragraph, or else retract your assertion.

As I've pointed out to Rigeld, any such statement isn't a rule. It's a logical statement based on the mechanics of the actual rule and whether or not it is explicity stated doesn't make it untrue. You either haven't read this, don't understand logic, or are deliberately ignoring this point as it doesn't suit your argument. And I'm not even sure why you are disputing this - do you really think a 4++ isn't better than a 5++ for the controlling player?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Secondly, you have asserted that Invulnerable and Armou are not linked; the ACTUAL rules for invulnerable saves state:

"Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken....

So 1) we know invulnerable saves are different to armour because 2) they may always be taken. That is it. It is an exhaustive list, by definition. As such, we know the sum total of all differences between armour and invulnerable

You have stated there are more differences. Prove it. Cite the rule stating that there are more differences. Page and paragraph, and the actual wording.

I'm not sure how you conclude this is exhaustive by definition but at least we agree they are different. The other obvious difference (as I've pointed out on numerous occasions) is that Armour Save is a characteristic, while Invulnerable Save isn't. BRB, p2, para2. "Warhammer 40k uses nine different characteristics to describe the various attributes of the different models" Read on - Armour Save is the last paragraph. Do you see Invulnerable Save? You do not. That's because it isn't a characteristic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Given you cannot do so, you now have no choice but to accpet that it is a characteristic (it must be - that is not THE listed difference, using ACTUAL rules) and therefore the modifier rules are to be used.

You are modifying 5 (+1+2), and getting to 2++. Breaking a rule.

Given that I have just cited the rules governing characteristics, you now have no choice but to accept that inv save isn't a characteristic.

I am modifying 5 by -1 and then by -2, and getting to 2++. Breaking no rules.

Btw, you still haven't cited rules describing specifically how modifier calculations to Armour Saves are performed. And on that note, I'm going to restrict myself to discussing the actual topic of the thread from now on, which are Invulnerable Saves, not Armour saves, and try to avoid being drawn into pedantic discussions about irrelevant issues.

Not sure if serious... But going from 5++ to 2++ using the MoT when MoT specifically forbids this is in fact breaking a rule.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Wrong. You have misunderstood. My assertion is that Armour, Invulnerable and Cover Saves share similar rule mechanics but that they are different and separate things. And as I've already said, a statement saying a 4++ is better than a 5++ isn't a rule. It's a logical statement based on the mechanics of the actual rule. Do you really think every single sentence in the BRB is a rule? Just because it isn't explicitly stated for inv saves doesn't make it untrue. Are you seriously suggesting that it isn't? Try making another thread with a poll. How about "Which is a better inv save for the controlling player - a 4++ or a 5++?" See how many vote for 5++.

So are you making an argument for intent? You're refusing to cite rules supporting your stance and using "logic" and appealing to emotions instead of citing rules.

Yes, I think you are being pedantic. Remember - you're the one asserting 5-1=6 for inv save modifier calculations, and you refuse to accept that a 4+ inv or cover save is better than 5+ unless GW explicitly write this in the BRB.

Yes, I'm asserting that, based on your statements, those are the consequences of the actual rules and not the result of making things up.

At least you're admitting they are different now.

I always have. And you're still ignoring that they're only different in one specific way.

Given that I have just cited the rules governing characteristics, you now have no choice but to accept that inv save isn't a characteristic.

Proven incorrect.

I am modifying 5 by -1 and then by -2, and getting to 2++. Breaking no rules.

So you're applying the MoT modifier, getting a result lower than 3++ and claiming that breaks no rules?
Can you back that up?

Btw, you still haven't cited rules describing specifically how modifier calculations to Armour Saves are performed. And on that note, I'm going to restrict myself to discussing the actual topic of the thread from now on, which are Invulnerable Saves, not Armour saves, and try to avoid being drawn into pedantic discussions about irrelevant issues.

If you'd rather not discuss actual rules that's fine but normally in YMDC that's what we do.

Ton - then your concession is accepted, as you have failed to cite rules, by your own admission. You have again broken e tenets, as you will not back up you assertions, and are therefore arguing hywpi without marking your posts as such.

Because is exhaustive; it is not, by definition, a list of examples of ways they are different

As such it is a characteristic, and modifiers work as you would expect

You will, without a doubt, be breaking the mot rules.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

I am modifying 5 by -1 and then by -2, and getting to 2++. Breaking no rules.

except, you know, that rule that specifically prohibits you from using that -1 modifier from MoT to get better then a 3++


at this point, I cannot help you if you cannot see that...

you are, 100%, using MOT, , this is a proven fact

you do, in your equation (not in the game rules) end up with a 2++ after using moT, again, also a proven fact

the rule for MoT say "you may not use MOT to get better then a 3++",

seriously, you are being obtuse at this point... you on one hand, deny you are using MoT to get a 2++, yet you clearly are using MoT to get a 2++ in your equation, it would not add up to 2++ without MOT, yet you claim you are not using MOT at all.

you cannot claim to be correct simply by repeatedly, and falsely, stating (without RAW BACKING) that applying MOT before, somehow gets past its restriction of "no 2++"

besides deamons don't use MoT to increase their invuln, it is what lets them reroll it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Wrong. You have misunderstood. My assertion is that Armour, Invulnerable and Cover Saves share similar rule mechanics but that they are different and separate things. And as I've already said, a statement saying a 4++ is better than a 5++ isn't a rule. It's a logical statement based on the mechanics of the actual rule. Do you really think every single sentence in the BRB is a rule? Just because it isn't explicitly stated for inv saves doesn't make it untrue. Are you seriously suggesting that it isn't? Try making another thread with a poll. How about "Which is a better inv save for the controlling player - a 4++ or a 5++?" See how many vote for 5++.

So are you making an argument for intent? You're refusing to cite rules supporting your stance and using "logic" and appealing to emotions instead of citing rules.

I'm saying the citation you're looking for wouldn't be a rule. And emotions don't really feature in logic.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Yes, I think you are being pedantic. Remember - you're the one asserting 5-1=6 for inv save modifier calculations, and you refuse to accept that a 4+ inv or cover save is better than 5+ unless GW explicitly write this in the BRB.

Yes, I'm asserting that, based on your statements, those are the consequences of the actual rules and not the result of making things up.

A 4++ is better than a 5++. It's a fact.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

At least you're admitting they are different now.

I always have. And you're still ignoring that they're only different in one specific way.

Except they aren't. See below.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Given that I have just cited the rules governing characteristics, you now have no choice but to accept that inv save isn't a characteristic.

Proven incorrect.

Delusional. Did you even read p2 of the BRB? Can you cite a rule stating that inv save is a characteristic? No.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

I am modifying 5 by -1 and then by -2, and getting to 2++. Breaking no rules.

So you're applying the MoT modifier, getting a result lower than 3++ and claiming that breaks no rules?
Can you back that up?

No, I'm applying the MoT, and getting a 4++.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Btw, you still haven't cited rules describing specifically how modifier calculations to Armour Saves are performed. And on that note, I'm going to restrict myself to discussing the actual topic of the thread from now on, which are Invulnerable Saves, not Armour saves, and try to avoid being drawn into pedantic discussions about irrelevant issues.

If you'd rather not discuss actual rules that's fine but normally in YMDC that's what we do.

I'm happy to dicuss rules relevant to the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ton - then your concession is accepted, as you have failed to cite rules, by your own admission. You have again broken e tenets, as you will not back up you assertions, and are therefore arguing hywpi without marking your posts as such.

The citation you're looking for - stating that a 4++ save is a better save than a 5++ save - wouldn't be a rule. It's a matter of fact based on mathematical probability and the actual rules for saving throws.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because is exhaustive; it is not, by definition, a list of examples of ways they are different

You're just assuming this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As such it is a characteristic, and modifiers work as you would expect

It's not a characteristic unless you can cite a rule saying that it is.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You will, without a doubt, be breaking the mot rules.

Not if the MoT is active before using the Grimoire.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
A 4++ is better than a 5++. It's a fact.

Normally a higher number is better. For example, a STR4 is better than a STR3.
Meaning you should have rules to support your statement.

Delusional. Did you even read p2 of the BRB? Can you cite a rule stating that inv save is a characteristic? No.

I have cited it. More than once. I'm far from delusional.

No, I'm applying the MoT, and getting a 4++.

And then you're applying another modifier and pretending the MoT restriction doesn't apply.
Please explain why.

I'm happy to dicuss rules relevant to the thread.

You just refuse to cite rules support. And everything I've talked about is relevant.

The citation you're looking for - stating that a 4++ save is a better save than a 5++ save - wouldn't be a rule. It's a matter of fact based on mathematical probability and the actual rules for saving throws.

So there's no rule saying a 4++ is better than a 5++ but there's rules saying so.
What? Please explain.

It's not a characteristic unless you can cite a rule saying that it is.

It's a permissive rule set. Correct?
We have a statement that cites a single difference between them. Correct?
Since we know there is only a single difference we also know that they are alike in every other way.

Not if the MoT is active before using the Grimoire.

There's no such thing as "before". You've completely invented that and refuse to cite rule support. Please do so per the tenets of this forum.
Modifiers are applied at the same time. You're attempting to apply them at different times. Please actually show permission to do so.

 raiden wrote:
besides deamons don't use MoT to increase their invuln, it is what lets them reroll it.

CSM Obliterators, Warp Talons, Mutilators, Possessed. These are the sorts of units being discussed in this thread, as they are Daemons (and thus legal targets for the Grimoire) and get the Mark of Tzeench (the +1) rather than Daemon of Tzeench (the re-roll).