Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Now, this particular set of circumstances made me wonder.... but first, some quotes:

Page 110 of WoC wrote:[the mark of tzeentch] bestows a 6+ ward save upon the bearer. If the model has a ward save from another source then that ward save is instead increased by 1. So, for instance, a Daemon Prince of Tzeentch would have his 5+ ward save increased to a 4+ ward save.

This seems relatively straight-forward. got a ward save already? Tzeentch that baby up 1 better. The concern I have is, how does it interact with conditional ward saves? Let me give you a hypothetical unit:

5 Chaos Knights - Mark of Tzeentch, full command, Blasted Banner 310

Now, this unit has a 6+ ward save with it's mark. However, what happens when they get shot at by a bolt thrower? Since, situationally, they have a 5+ ward save, does the mark of Tzeentch improve it to a 4+? Since the banner sounds like the aforementioned "other source", it initially looks like a yes. However, since the model doesn't have this as an inbuilt save and simply gets to use the ward granted by the banner under specific circumstances, I'm not 100% sure this is true.

I'm curious about this for two reasons; one, this makes this particular combo rather tasty. Secondly, it makes something like a Tzeentch sorceror or hero rediculously tough when mounted and wearing the Armour of Morrslieb; grants a 4+ save vs. non-magic attacks. The MoT making this a 3+ would make the character virtually immune to 95% of shooting and all but the most badass magic-touting heroes w/ a 2+ or better armour save and a 3+ ward against non-magic attacks. There're many other magic items this would potentially be effective with, like the golden eye of tzeentch, talisman of protection, collar of khorne, etc.

I'm personally leaning towards the side of 'MoT adds +1 to any ward save, no matter the circumstances', but I was hoping to hear some more opinions on the subject; perhaps you find gents and lasses have considered something I haven't?

MoT adds +1 to any ward save, no matter the circumstances. There is nothing that would leave me to believe otherwise.

You get +1 to your ward save, regardless of when and where you get that ward save.

For once they got this right in the WoC battle report, when they mentioned they MoT + Blasted standards == 4+ ward save in the shooting phase.

the question is if you have a conditional ward save but no other one, do you get the 6+ when the condition isnt met. For eg. the Armor of Morrsleib character mentioned above gets hit with the Deathpiercer (KB lance) and the DE rolls a 6 to wound. Does the WoC character get a 6+ ward?

Yes, you get the 6+ basic save regardless, ify ou have a ward save it gets improved by +1.
It's that straightforward.

i agree, however if you look at the wording of the rule it says "instead" of getting a 6+ opening things up to some interpretation

"instead" of getting the 6+ ward save it improves an exisitng one: if you don't have an existing ward, or it doesnt apply, then you have a 6+ as you don't have an exisitng ward to swap for.

Ouch my head hurts from all the typing....!

You do not get the 6+ "all the time" if you have a conditional ward save to improve. IMO the wording is clear. As I recall there is an "or" in that sentence.

Except if the conditions are not met for the conditional ward save, the conditional ward save does not exist and there is no way for the Tzeentch improvement to occur.

At that point you have no ward save, so you are granted a 6+ ward instead.

Ok, now to stir in some fun.... What about Regen.? I believe it counts in the book as a special ward save. Does that get enhanced by the mark as well? Gods I hope not...

No, it doesn't, as technically it's not a ward save.

It is not a ward save, technically or not. It is a completely seperate save that, in common with a ward save, is not affected by armour save modifiers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except if the conditions are not met for the conditional ward save, the conditional ward save does not exist and there is no way for the Tzeentch improvement to occur.

At that point you have no ward save, so you are granted a 6+ ward instead.

Incorrect. The model still has a ward save. It's just not allowed to use it against the indicated attack.

Just like you can have an armor save, but the armor save is negated if you're hit by a bolt thrower. That doesn't mean the model has no armor save anymore, just that it's inapplicable for that particular attack.

Gobstomp420 wrote:Ok, now to stir in some fun.... What about Regen.? I believe it counts in the book as a special ward save. Does that get enhanced by the mark as well? Gods I hope not...

As the two previous posters have noted, Regenerate is not a Ward Save. Look at your book again.

Ok I have to butt in. Regen is not a ward save at all. Its a completely different save. I just want to throw this out there though you could have a Lord on a mount with a shield and give him MoT and armor of morrslieb and the regenerate crown. That means the lord has 2+ armor, 3+ward (against non magic, which is often), and 4+ regen. AND 3 Wounds. Im pretty sure, everyone will hate you.

yesimgerman wrote:Ok I have to butt in. Regen is not a ward save at all. Its a completely different save. I just want to throw this out there though you could have a Lord on a mount with a shield and give him MoT and armor of morrslieb and the regenerate crown. That means the lord has 2+ armor, 3+ward (against non magic, which is often), and 4+ regen. AND 3 Wounds. Im pretty sure, everyone will hate you.

You thi THAT will make people hate you? Field the DE 'unkillable' Lord.

To bring back up the previous problem of conditional ward saves. The way I would look at it is that it would his ward save would be modified +1 from 7+. one way to look at it is all things have a 7+ ward, you cant roll a 7 on a d6 and 7+ with a +1 modifier is 6+.

woot.

I agree with Manahein- those knights have a ward save, and it is improved by the mark of tzeentch. It's a conditional ward save- so they can't always use it.

Nowhere in any rule book does it suggest that all models should be considered as having 7+ ward saves. This sounds like wishful thinking to get a rule to work above and beyond what it actually does.

"[the mark of tzeentch] bestows a 6+ ward save upon the bearer. If the model has a ward save from another source then that ward save is instead increased by 1. So, for instance, a Daemon Prince of Tzeentch would have his 5+ ward save increased to a 4+ ward save."

The key word here is instead. Read that sentence focusing on the word isntead. It's clear that the knights in question here are giving up the 6+ universal ward to ahve a +1 to their conditional ward.

What's even better is to give the icon to a unit that somehow then receives the #12 blessing from a Warshrine. 3+ ward save for a whole unit, anyone?

Gwoss.
[/shawks]

I personally think it would make sense if each source of ward save had an individual save.

ex. mark give 6+, roll a dice
some item give 5+, roll a new dice for this

The intent of the mark seems pretty clear. 6+ ward, or +1 to any applicable ward already in effect. Having a conditional ward that doesn't apply to the wound should leave you with the mark's 6+.

No, the phrasing is quite clear. You get EITHER a 6+ ward save, OR you get to improve an existing ward save. You don’t get the 6+ if you improved a different one. Note that word “OR”.

Mannahnin wrote:No, the phrasing is quite clear. You get EITHER a 6+ ward save, OR you get to improve an existing ward save. You don’t get the 6+ if you improved a different one. Note that word “OR”.

Yes, the phrasing is quite clear. Unfortunately what you're quoting isn't anywhere in the rules for this mark, as there is no 'either' or 'or' there.

I'll break it down:

"It bestows a 6+ ward save on the bearer." Okay, nothing ambiguous there. Flat 6+ for all.

"If the model has a ward save from another source then that ward save is instead increased by 1." So if another ward save applies to the wound, that one is improved in place of the flat 6+.

From the BRB, p.30: "If a model has two ward saves for any reason, use the better ward save." Clarifying that a model can indeed have two or more different ward saves, which would apply to different conditions. In the case of the Mark of Tzeentch, such models have a default 6+ in addition to any conditional ward saves they may have.

To word it differently, if the conditional ward save doesn't apply to the wound, they don't have it. So you fall back on the first line, which states that they have a 6+.

Pardon me. I misquoted. The relevant word is "instead".

I believe "instead" makes clear that the 6" ceases to be.

At best you are arguing an ambiguous case in favor of the more powerful interpretation, which is usually seen as poor sportsmanship. There's a maxim which applies in these kind of situations- "When in doubt, aspire to the solution that is less likely to be a loophole."

Mannahnin wrote:Pardon me. I misquoted. The relevant word is "instead".

I believe "instead" makes clear that the 6" ceases to be.

At best you are arguing an ambiguous case in favor of the more powerful interpretation, which is usually seen as poor sportsmanship. There's a maxim which applies in these kind of situations- "When in doubt, aspire to the solution that is less likely to be a loophole."

It says "instead" as in, if you have something better that applies, improve that instead. If I have a ward save against ranged attacks, in melee I do not have the save, so I get the 6+ instead. This is the first place I've seen anyone think it was intended to work otherwise.

And don't resort to personal attacks in a rules debate. That's really poor form, especially as a moderator.

Voharius wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Pardon me. I misquoted. The relevant word is "instead".

I believe "instead" makes clear that the 6" ceases to be.

At best you are arguing an ambiguous case in favor of the more powerful interpretation, which is usually seen as poor sportsmanship. There's a maxim which applies in these kind of situations- "When in doubt, aspire to the solution that is less likely to be a loophole."

It says "instead" as in, if you have something better that applies, improve that instead. If I have a ward save against ranged attacks, in melee I do not have the save, so I get the 6+ instead. This is the first place I've seen anyone think it was intended to work otherwise.

And don't resort to personal attacks in a rules debate. That's really poor form, especially as a moderator.

No personal attack was made. You may have percieved that you were being called a poor sportsman when in fact he simply stated that the activity you were engaged in is often seen as poor sportsmanship. Two very differnt things. Any personal slight was from your misinterpretation of the communication. It's the world of difference form saying to someone, for example "You are childish" vs. "You are acting in a childish manner."

As for the ward save issue you are adding additional "clarification" that is not present in the wording. Where in the wording does it say if the ward does not apply to the wound type that that model no longer has a ward save (and therefore receives a 6+)?

You have two options here: no ward save becomes a 6+ OR ward save from another source or existing ward save improved by +1. Anything else is at best a shady attempt to discern "intent" and play by "intended" rules, or a flat out misreading of the rule as written. Until this shows up in a FAQ we go by the rule AS WRITTEN not by how it may have been intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voharius wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:No, the phrasing is quite clear. You get EITHER a 6+ ward save, OR you get to improve an existing ward save. You don’t get the 6+ if you improved a different one. Note that word “OR”.

Yes, the phrasing is quite clear. Unfortunately what you're quoting isn't anywhere in the rules for this mark, as there is no 'either' or 'or' there.

I'll break it down:

"It bestows a 6+ ward save on the bearer." Okay, nothing ambiguous there. Flat 6+ for all.

"If the model has a ward save from another source then that ward save is instead increased by 1." So if another ward save applies to the wound, that one is improved in place of the flat 6+.

From the BRB, p.30: "If a model has two ward saves for any reason, use the better ward save." Clarifying that a model can indeed have two or more different ward saves, which would apply to different conditions. In the case of the Mark of Tzeentch, such models have a default 6+ in addition to any conditional ward saves they may have.

To word it differently, if the conditional ward save doesn't apply to the wound, they don't have it. So you fall back on the first line, which states that they have a 6+.

To be specific here are the points where you have claimed to parse the wording of the rule but have added adidtional, untrue outside information.

"If the model has a ward save from another source then that ward save is instead increased by 1." So if another ward save applies to the wound, that one is improved in place of the flat 6+.

No. This is not what the rule says. Read it out loud again. The model has a ward save from another source. That ward save receives a + 1. There is nothing more to the rule!

From the BRB, p.30: "If a model has two ward saves for any reason, use the better ward save." Clarifying that a model can indeed have two or more different ward saves, which would apply to different conditions. In the case of the Mark of Tzeentch, such models have a default 6+ in addition to any conditional ward saves they may have.

Sure that can happen. However these models don't have 2 ward saves. Where do you get that impression from the MArk of Tzeentch rules. The rules clearly state it gives a no ward save model a 6+ or improves an existing. That is all of one ward save in either case.

To word it differently, if the conditional ward save doesn't apply to the wound, they don't have it. So you fall back on the first line, which states that they have a 6+.

To word it correctly, they have a ward save, it simply does not apply in this case. Why do they suddenly "Not have a ward save"? Answer this- does a model hit by a bolt thrower not have a armor save- or is it simply not allowed to use it? At no point does that unit not have the ward save, unless if, perhaps the magic item is destroyed by a spell or effect, at which point the unit reverts to no ward save and gains a 6+ from the MoT.

You are clearly intending to be insulting in your posts. You're also saying that anyone who disagrees with you is "shady" and exhibiting "poor sportsmanship."

As for the "additional clarification," isn't that what this forum is all about?

It says if you don't have a ward save you have a 6+. If you have something else you improve that. If you're in melee with a ranged ward save, you don't have a ward save. In such a case, the 6+ applies. That's not a stretch, that's pretty much how it's written already.

If you really want to go by the rule as written, your ward save INCREASES. It doesn't improve. So that 5+ would become a 6+.

Voharius wrote:You are clearly intending to be insulting in your posts. You're also saying that anyone who disagrees with you is "shady" and exhibiting "poor sportsmanship."

Voharius wrote:And don't resort to personal attacks in a rules debate. That's really poor form, especially as a moderator.

There was no personal attack. I apologize if the comment felt insulting. It was earnestly intended as a warning.

Attempting to interpret the rules so as to maximize benefit to oneself is potentially dangerous ground, sportsmanship-wise. Making a habit of it is a behavior commonly understood to be poor sportsmanship.

Voharius wrote:As for the "additional clarification," isn't that what this forum is all about?

The forum is indeed for discussion of ambiguities and areas the poster finds unclear. I apologize if you felt insulted, and will attempt to maintain the assumption that you are not attempting to bend the rules for personal advantage.

Voharius wrote:It says if you don't have a ward save you have a 6+. If you have something else you improve that. If you're in melee with a ranged ward save, you don't have a ward save. In such a case, the 6+ applies. That's not a stretch, that's pretty much how it's written already. +.

Given the rules from the main book, which specify that a model can have more than one ward save, but can only use the best applicable ward save against a given wound, it becomes clear that the word “instead” as used in the Mark of Tzeentch rules is superfluous and meaningless, unless it is intended to mean that you lose the basic 6+ if you have some other ward save to improve.

To put it another way, if the rule were intended to work the way you describe, it could be written almost the same as it is now, but with the simple omission of that word. E.g.: ‘It bestows a 6+ ward save on the bearer. If the model has a ward save from another source then that ward save is increased by 1.’

This would have the meaning that you are arguing.

The only way the word “instead” can mean anything is if it is saying that said improved ward save replaces the 6+ default.

It does replace the 6+, if another ward save applies. That's when you use the improved save instead.

I've been reading these forums for a while, but never felt like I had much to add until I saw this thread. This is not "Attempting to interpret the rules so as to maximize benefit." I just saw one guy giving an opinion contrary to everything else I've seen and heard regarding the mark, and felt like I should say something. You are the ONLY person who seems to think this. You are the only one in this thread. I've been checking other forums and haven't seen a single post that agrees with your stance on it.

You were putting a lot of emphasis on the word "instead" but now you're saying that the word is "superfluous" and "meaningless." You even went both ways in one post. How do I debate that? You're saying RAI is meaningless, and now you're saying RAW is as well. What's left? Fluff?

This isn't about powergaming or personal advantage. I'm just trying to stop misinformation.

Reference from COTEC, the only place where this question was spelled out:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/cotec/index.php?showtopic=3793

Every other post I found just assumed the 6+ was always there. Nobody but you thought it would be any other way.

Mannahnin, you and I play each other a lot, but I can't recall if I've used my Warriors against you since the book came out and I've rebuilt the army. I, too, have always played it Tzeentch models ALWAYS have at least a 6+ ward save, even if they have a conditional save (Blasted Banner, Golden Eye, etc.).

I just always read it that way. Wasn't done intended find an advantageous loophole, I just thought it was pretty obvious. So does everyone else I've run into at our store - no one has suggewsted differently until now.

I know GW has that silly RAW policy, but [sarcasm alert] do we really need to analyze every word as if we all had English degrees? [/sarcasm alert] Let's face it, no one on GW's rules crew seems to know how to WRITE rules...