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.

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.