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.

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).

Ton - don't insult other posters. Rigeld is far from delusional. Reported. Rule number 1, please become familiar with it.

As to your flawed rebuttal - the rules for Armour saves state that they are better when lower. You are claiming we cannot use those rules to discuss invulnerable saves, so you cannot use that rule in your "argument" (as you refuse to cute rules, it is technically an assertion, and breaches the forum rules)

It is funny that you claim there is no need for a rule, yet armour saves have precisely such a rule. Explain this, after you explain where you have decided that a 4++ is better than a 5++, despite the 5++ being higher, and better by normal definitions. Rules would be helpful.

Secondly, I have not assumed anything about because. If you disagree, rebut, don't assert. Because ..... Defines an exhaustive list. Definitively. You are wrong, yet will not accept it.

Thirdly, I cited the rule. The rule that lays out the single difference between inv and armour saves. Given there is just one difference, and one aspect of an armour save is that they are a characteristic , then inv saves must also be a characteristic.

Fourthly, you have asserted an order of operations. Prove it. Page and paragraph

You have resoundingly failed to follow not only rule one, but the rules for debating in this forum. Please now mark your posts ax hywpi, as you refuse to cite any rules to support your assertion, and I refuse to argue opinions that lack a shred of rules basis, as it is a waste

 Tonberry7 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You will, without a doubt, be breaking the mot rules.

Not if the MoT is active before using the Grimoire.

It does seem to be getting testy in here.

As previously noted, Rule #1 is #1 for a reason - restrict your arguments to the case at hand, and avoid personal insults at all times.

Thanks!

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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.

You haven't, because no such rule is there. If I really am mistaken please cite it again for my benefit. If it is a characteristic, why isn't it listed in a models characteristic profile? The base 5++ from the Daemon USR (BRB p35) is from a rule, not a characteristic.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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 claiming the MoT modifier is already in effect, giving a 4++, then the temporary grimoire bonus takes it to 2++. Where does it state that all modifiers are applied at the same time?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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.

How do we know they are applied at the same time? Can you cite a rule that states this? We know that the MoT is already active and the grimoire is used in the movement phase (Daemons Codex, p65)

Tonberry, hypothetical situation.

I have a model that has a Strength of 4. I purchase a special rule that says "Models with this special rule have +1 to their Strength to a maximum of 8." Later the model attacks with a Power Fist. What Strength is the attack resolved at? Why?

 Tonberry7 wrote:


I'm claiming the MoT modifier is already in effect, giving a 4++, then the temporary grimoire bonus takes it to 2++. Where does it state that all modifiers are applied at the same time?

where does it state that order matters?

Ton, actually respond, or you are admiting you are just trolling at this point.



you agree, that MoT is in effect, when you roll your save yes?

you agree that, when you roll your save, MoT and GOTN are in effect yes?

you will also agree that the save you have rolled is 2++, yes?

and you know that you cannot get that 2++, without Using MoT, weather used first, second, or simultaneously, it has been used, and in fact MUST be used to get the 2++ you are talking about. do you agree?

at no point do are you rolling a 4++ save, you are rolling a 5++ (+1+2) save, and no, you have not provided any rules that state that the order you apply modifiers in overrides specific rules that put a cap on how far that modifier may be used.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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.

You haven't, because no such rule is there. If I really am mistaken please cite it again for my benefit. If it is a characteristic, why isn't it listed in a models characteristic profile? The base 5++ from the Daemon USR (BRB p35) is from a rule, not a characteristic.

I've cited the fact that there is only a single difference between an armor save and an invul save. One.
Is that single difference the fact that one of them is a characteristic? Or are you making up another difference?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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 claiming the MoT modifier is already in effect, giving a 4++, then the temporary grimoire bonus takes it to 2++. Where does it state that all modifiers are applied at the same time?

Under the rules for Multiple Modifiers.
If you're going to continue to assert that doesn't apply, please cite allowance to modify invul saves. You keep asserting permission but have never cited it. Please use actual rules to support your stance.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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.

How do we know they are applied at the same time? Can you cite a rule that states this? We know that the MoT is already active and the grimoire is used in the movement phase (Daemons Codex, p65)

Multiple Modifiers says they are. And it doesn't matter even then - you're applying both modifiers and one of them has a restriction. You're ignoring that restriction and refusing to cite permission to do so.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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.

You haven't, because no such rule is there. If I really am mistaken please cite it again for my benefit. If it is a characteristic, why isn't it listed in a models characteristic profile? The base 5++ from the Daemon USR (BRB p35) is from a rule, not a characteristic.

Rigeld has cited it, as have others.

There is precisely ONE difference between an armour and invulnerable save, and that ONE difference is not that it is not a characteristic. Please, if you are claiming there are more differences - provide some actual rules.

You have bene asked this repeatedly, further refusal to cite relevant rules will be considered acceptance that you are not arguing rules, but how you want to play it.

Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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 claiming the MoT modifier is already in effect, giving a 4++, then the temporary grimoire bonus takes it to 2++. Where does it state that all modifiers are applied at the same time?

The rules for modifiers states so, and you have no permission to use other rules.

There is no "already in effect" - a S4 model who has the Choas Boon "+1S" attacking with a powerfist is S9. A model under the effect of two additive modifiers applies both at the same time.

If you disagree, you MUST provide rules. Failure to do so is failure to follow the tenets fo the forum.

Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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.

How do we know they are applied at the same time? Can you cite a rule that states this? We know that the MoT is already active and the grimoire is used in the movement phase (Daemons Codex, p65)

The rules on page 2 / 3under multiple modifiers. We KNOW that there are two modifiers, and you do not know the ACTUAL save until you apply them, whcih is when you take any savesin this case.

You have still failed to use a single rule to back up your assertion, including ANY rule ANYWHERE which allows you to a) modify invulnerable saves (as you claim page 2/3 does not apply) AND b) modify them so that MoT takes a save from 5++ to 4++ by adding 1.

Prove your argument, using actual rules, or concede.

@Tonberry

Please answer this question.

Grimoire aside lets pretend we have a model bearing MoT that is located on a Skyshield landing pad with its walls up and is therefor conferred an invulnerable save of 4++.

Does MoT increase said inv save to a 3++? Yes or no and please explain why.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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.

You haven't, because no such rule is there. If I really am mistaken please cite it again for my benefit. If it is a characteristic, why isn't it listed in a models characteristic profile? The base 5++ from the Daemon USR (BRB p35) is from a rule, not a characteristic.

I've cited the fact that there is only a single difference between an armor save and an invul save. One.
Is that single difference the fact that one of them is a characteristic? Or are you making up another difference?

Ok, so we've established that you can't actually cite a rule stating that inv save is a characteristic despite having claimed to have done so more than once. You aren't backing up your assertion with rules. Your concession is accepted.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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 claiming the MoT modifier is already in effect, giving a 4++, then the temporary grimoire bonus takes it to 2++. Where does it state that all modifiers are applied at the same time?

Under the rules for Multiple Modifiers.
If you're going to continue to assert that doesn't apply, please cite allowance to modify invul saves. You keep asserting permission but have never cited it. Please use actual rules to support your stance.

The rules for Multiple Modifiers apply specifically to characteristics. Inv save isn't a characteristic in the RAW and you have been unable to demonstrate that it is with rules backing. As I've cited several times already (you must have missed it) the allowance to modify invul saves using the MoT is given in the CSM Codex p30 under the MoT rules. And as I've pointed out several times previously there's even an example (the bit in italics) to help you understand how the modifier is applied.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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.

How do we know they are applied at the same time? Can you cite a rule that states this? We know that the MoT is already active and the grimoire is used in the movement phase (Daemons Codex, p65)

Multiple Modifiers says they are. And it doesn't matter even then - you're applying both modifiers and one of them has a restriction. You're ignoring that restriction and refusing to cite permission to do so.

RAW, Multiple Modifiers don't apply to inv saves. And I'm not ignoring the restriction; I'm just not contravening it.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Ok, so we've established that you can't actually cite a rule stating that inv save is a characteristic despite having claimed to have done so more than once. You aren't backing up your assertion with rules. Your concession is accepted.

That's a lie.

The rules for Multiple Modifiers apply specifically to characteristics. Inv save isn't a characteristic in the RAW and you have been unable to demonstrate that it is with rules backing. As I've cited several times already (you must have missed it) the allowance to modify invul saves using the MoT is given in the CSM Codex p30 under the MoT rules. And as I've pointed out several times previously there's even an example (the bit in italics) to help you understand how the modifier is applied.

The example is not rules. The MoT rules do *not* give permission to apply a modifier or how to do it. You've failed to prove your point.

RAW, Multiple Modifiers don't apply to inv saves. And I'm not ignoring the restriction; I'm just not contravening it.

You absolutely are - you've applied MoT and you have a save under 3++. That is breaking the rule.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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.

You haven't, because no such rule is there. If I really am mistaken please cite it again for my benefit. If it is a characteristic, why isn't it listed in a models characteristic profile? The base 5++ from the Daemon USR (BRB p35) is from a rule, not a characteristic.

I've cited the fact that there is only a single difference between an armor save and an invul save. One.
Is that single difference the fact that one of them is a characteristic? Or are you making up another difference?

Ok, so we've established that you can't actually cite a rule stating that inv save is a characteristic despite having claimed to have done so more than once. You aren't backing up your assertion with rules. Your concession is accepted.

Ton, the rules state that Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because "X". What is "X"? Please answer the question and cite your source (including page and paragraph).

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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 claiming the MoT modifier is already in effect, giving a 4++, then the temporary grimoire bonus takes it to 2++. Where does it state that all modifiers are applied at the same time?

Under the rules for Multiple Modifiers.
If you're going to continue to assert that doesn't apply, please cite allowance to modify invul saves. You keep asserting permission but have never cited it. Please use actual rules to support your stance.

The rules for Multiple Modifiers apply specifically to characteristics. Inv save isn't a characteristic in the RAW and you have been unable to demonstrate that it is with rules backing. As I've cited several times already (you must have missed it) the allowance to modify invul saves using the MoT is given in the CSM Codex p30 under the MoT rules. And as I've pointed out several times previously there's even an example (the bit in italics) to help you understand how the modifier is applied.

I'll concede that Mark of Tzeentch tells you how it applies to Invulnerable saves. Please cite permission (again including page and paragraph) to modify Invulnerable saves the same way using the Grimoire of True Names.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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.

How do we know they are applied at the same time? Can you cite a rule that states this? We know that the MoT is already active and the grimoire is used in the movement phase (Daemons Codex, p65)

Multiple Modifiers says they are. And it doesn't matter even then - you're applying both modifiers and one of them has a restriction. You're ignoring that restriction and refusing to cite permission to do so.

RAW, Multiple Modifiers don't apply to inv saves. And I'm not ignoring the restriction; I'm just not contravening it.

Mark of Tzeentch modifies your Invulnerable save, correct?
Grimoire of True Names modifies your Invulnerable save, correct?
Since they both modify your Invulnerable save, and Multiple modifiers does not apply, then you cannot claim the bonus from both.
Unless you can cite a rule stating otherwise.

Ton - no, you have still failed to cite any rules, or even attempted to rebut in any meaningful way.

We have proven our case, repeatedly. RAW MoT cannot take an inv save below a 3++, which is what you are trying to do here. That is cheating

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Ok, so we've established that you can't actually cite a rule stating that inv save is a characteristic despite having claimed to have done so more than once. You aren't backing up your assertion with rules. Your concession is accepted.

That's a lie.

Ok, you've failed to cite rules backing up your assertion and are now just resorting to calling me a liar. Some people would report you for less.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
The rules for Multiple Modifiers apply specifically to characteristics. Inv save isn't a characteristic in the RAW and you have been unable to demonstrate that it is with rules backing. As I've cited several times already (you must have missed it) the allowance to modify invul saves using the MoT is given in the CSM Codex p30 under the MoT rules. And as I've pointed out several times previously there's even an example (the bit in italics) to help you understand how the modifier is applied.

The example is not rules. The MoT rules do *not* give permission to apply a modifier or how to do it. You've failed to prove your point.

So you're now saying that not everything in the BRB is a rule after all?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
RAW, Multiple Modifiers don't apply to inv saves. And I'm not ignoring the restriction; I'm just not contravening it.

You absolutely are - you've applied MoT and you have a save under 3++. That is breaking the rule.

Well unless the issue gets an FAQ, with the RAW you just can't be sure a rule has been broken and the thread poll suggests there's a split opinion on the matter.

Ton, I asked you some question is my last post. I'm curious, are you unwilling or unable to answer them?

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Ok, so we've established that you can't actually cite a rule stating that inv save is a characteristic despite having claimed to have done so more than once. You aren't backing up your assertion with rules. Your concession is accepted.

That's a lie.

Ok, you've failed to cite rules backing up your assertion and are now just resorting to calling me a liar. Some people would report you for less.

What you said was factually and demonstrably untrue. I didn't "call" you anything, I stated a fact.

So you're now saying that not everything in the BRB is a rule after all?

Where did I say that? It's demonstrably untrue.

Well unless the issue gets an FAQ, with the RAW you just can't be sure a rule has been broken and the thread poll suggests there's a split opinion on the matter.

Well, no, you can be sure a rule has been broken. I've demonstrated that
People have a split opinion on whether the rules allow models without eyes to shoot or not. The actual rules, however, do not.
You're free to pretend and make whatever house rules you want, but the actual rules are pretty clear here.

 Happyjew wrote:
Ton, I asked you some question is my last post. I'm curious, are you unwilling or unable to answer them?

As above - Ton, a number of us have asked for you to answer questions, and provide some quotes to back up your assertions (that you can modify Inv saves with the Grimoire in the same way armour saves are modified, as one example) and yet you have failed to address these questions

Are you unwilling or unable to answer them?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Ok, so we've established that you can't actually cite a rule stating that inv save is a characteristic despite having claimed to have done so more than once. You aren't backing up your assertion with rules. Your concession is accepted.

That's a lie.

Ok, you've failed to cite rules backing up your assertion and are now just resorting to calling me a liar. Some people would report you for less.

What you said was factually and demonstrably untrue. I didn't "call" you anything, I stated a fact.

No, you stated an opinion comprising a personal insult, after failing to back up your assertions with rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
So you're now saying that not everything in the BRB is a rule after all?

Where did I say that? It's demonstrably untrue.

Ok, I’m glad you now acknowledge that not everything in the BRB is a rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Well unless the issue gets an FAQ, with the RAW you just can't be sure a rule has been broken and the thread poll suggests there's a split opinion on the matter.

Well, no, you can be sure a rule has been broken. I've demonstrated that
People have a split opinion on whether the rules allow models without eyes to shoot or not. The actual rules, however, do not.
You're free to pretend and make whatever house rules you want, but the actual rules are pretty clear here.

You’ve actually demonstrated nothing of the sort. Not only that, but you’ve completely missed my point. Your example of whether or not models without eyes can shoot may however help in this case.

Yes, there will be some people that argue no eyes = no shooting, but if you actually took a poll you would probably find that the overwhelming majority of people would vote yes, the model can still shoot. Of course the results of a forum poll does not constitute an actual ruling, but if the overwhelming majority take one side over the other, on the balance of probabilities it is likely that the RAW are very clear and that the majority have made the correct interpretation of the RAW in terms of RAI. In this instance however, the divide of opinion is very even, meaning that on the balance of probabilities it’s not possible to conclude with any degree of certainty that one interpretation of RAW is correct over the other in terms of the RAI, hence the need for an FAQ.

I’ll reiterate that with the RAW you can’t actually back up your assertion that a rule has been broken and maintain that it is possible to achieve a 2++ with the MoT and Grimoire. The RAW for the Grimoire (Daemons Codex, p65) tell us that it is used in the movement phase and its successful use confers a +2 bonus to inv saves. The MoT has already improved a 5++ to 4++ at the start of the game (i.e. before this point) and therefore no rules have been broken. Remember, you’ve also failed to cite rules stating specifically when inv saves are calculated, and your claim that any modifiers are all applied at the same time.

If we're going by the meaning of the rule rather than just RAW, I'd say that something with MoT is meant to never have an invul past 3++.

HIWPI, I'd still edge away from this because IMHO this seems like trying to exploit the wording of the MoT rule and seems a bit unsportsmanlike. I would not personally use this if I played CSM/daemon because I try to play friendlier games with fewer debates.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
No, you stated an opinion comprising a personal insult, after failing to back up your assertions with rules.

It's not an opinion. It's demonstrable fact.

Ok, I’m glad you now acknowledge that not everything in the BRB is a rule.

Relevance. Where have I said that everything in the BRB is a rule?

You’ve actually demonstrated nothing of the sort. Not only that, but you’ve completely missed my point. Your example of whether or not models without eyes can shoot may however help in this case.

Really? Are you sure?

Yes, there will be some people that argue no eyes = no shooting, but if you actually took a poll you would probably find that the overwhelming majority of people would vote yes, the model can still shoot. Of course the results of a forum poll does not constitute an actual ruling, but if the overwhelming majority take one side over the other, on the balance of probabilities it is likely that the RAW are very clear and that the majority have made the correct interpretation of the RAW in terms of RAI. In this instance however, the divide of opinion is very even, meaning that on the balance of probabilities it’s not possible to conclude with any degree of certainty that one interpretation of RAW is correct over the other in terms of the RAI, hence the need for an FAQ.

Wait - so are you saying the rules don't require a line to be drawn from a model's eyes as written? Are you arguing RAW or RAI? Or are you under the mistaken impression they're the same?

I’ll reiterate that with the RAW you can’t actually back up your assertion that a rule has been broken and maintain that it is possible to achieve a 2++ with the MoT and Grimoire. The RAW for the Grimoire (Daemons Codex, p65) tell us that it is used in the movement phase and its successful use confers a +2 bonus to inv saves. The MoT has already improved a 5++ to 4++ at the start of the game (i.e. before this point) and therefore no rules have been broken. Remember, you’ve also failed to cite rules stating specifically when inv saves are calculated, and your claim that any modifiers are all applied at the same time.

Fact: You've invented a difference between the modifier MoT applies and the modifier GoTN applies. The actual rules make no such distinction.
Fact: You've invented a way to modify Invul saves that does not use the rules for characteristics.
Fact: You are pretending Invul saves are not characteristics.

I've proven all 3 of these using actual rules. You've cited literally nothing that helps your argument, you've lied (not an accusation, a statement of fact) about what I've said... Do you have a single leg to stand on that the Rules as Written support your stance?

Do you actually understand the difference between RAW and RAI?

Ton - will you answer either mine or Happys questions? You seem to be ignoring them, which seems to be a concession that they show the flaws in your assertions.