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.

I would say the concession is there also. He's the only one actually fighting for the 2++ and still isn't supporting his claim with actual rules citations.

Agreed. Probably time for a thread lock - the ACTUAL rules, not ones made up by a single poster, show quite clearly that you cannot get better than a 3++.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Agreed. Probably time for a thread lock - the ACTUAL rules, not ones made up by a single poster, show quite clearly that you cannot get better than a 3++.

Right now the poll disagrees with you, as do a lot of major tournaments ATM.

Personally I'd be asking my TO before my tournaments if they don't have a FAQ already on the matter.

1) The poll is irrelevant, as it is not clear if it is RAW or HYWPI, making it useless as a poll.
2) I dont give a rats rear about "major" tournaments choosing to houserule, when the RAW is clear. Tournaments have houseruled cannon dont need LOS to place the initial point on the table, despite 8th ed WHFB stating that clear as day in the first sentence of the cannon rules. Doesnt mean there is ambiguity in the rules.

The ACTUAL rules are very clear - invulnerable saves have One (1) difference to armour saves, meaning they are a characteristic. Characteristics are modified using the multiple modifier rules, which state that ALL modifiers are applied at the point the characteristic is evaluated, meaning there is no "MoT "first" idea. As such you have (5++ +1 +2, capped at 3++) = 3++

There are no [b[Rules[/b] arguments against it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) The poll is irrelevant, as it is not clear if it is RAW or HYWPI, making it useless as a poll.
2) I dont give a rats rear about "major" tournaments choosing to houserule, when the RAW is clear. Tournaments have houseruled cannon dont need LOS to place the initial point on the table, despite 8th ed WHFB stating that clear as day in the first sentence of the cannon rules. Doesnt mean there is ambiguity in the rules.

The ACTUAL rules are very clear - invulnerable saves have One (1) difference to armour saves, meaning they are a characteristic. Characteristics are modified using the multiple modifier rules, which state that ALL modifiers are applied at the point the characteristic is evaluated, meaning there is no "MoT "first" idea. As such you have (5++ +1 +2, capped at 3++) = 3++

There are no [b[Rules[/b] arguments against it.

Clearly only clear to 48% of people. If the poll isn't clear if RAW or RAI or HIWPI why are you arguing something irrelevant.

You are making a leap to Inv saves being a set characteristic, you are then applying rules regarding characteristics towards your leap. Yes you are making a logical leap, however your point that INV saves are set is a HIWPI and one I agree with, it just doesn't make you correct for sure.

I'm a part of the minority who believes you can't go to 2++. But I understand why the Majority or people and TOs argue otherwise. My hope is the FAQ will limit it to 3++ as I believe you can't use the rule to get past said save RAW.

1) Which is why I said the poll is useless. I am not arguing the poll, I am arguing the rules. Again: if the poll is HIPWI then you may get people viting 2++ even if they understand the rules are only 3++, which is why a useful poll would make that distinction.

2) I am not making a leap. Dont just assert, refute. You are told Inv saves are different in one, single, solitary way. What is that way? You are stating it is that they are not a char. - or claiming it is a leap to say it is still a char, whcih amounts to the same claim - so prove it. Page and para

You are claiming it is a leap without a single shred of evidence. Poor form.

3) If Inv saves are not a char, you have no permission to modify them - even if you accept the example as permission (it isnt, stricvtly) then that onlyt allows MoT to modify the save, NOT grimoire.

Oh, and it isnt the majority of TOs - not that i've seen in the UK anyway.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) Which is why I said the poll is useless. I am not arguing the poll, I am arguing the rules. Again: if the poll is HIPWI then you may get people viting 2++ even if they understand the rules are only 3++, which is why a useful poll would make that distinction.

2) I am not making a leap. Dont just assert, refute. You are told Inv saves are different in one, single, solitary way. What is that way? You are stating it is that they are not a char. - or claiming it is a leap to say it is still a char, whcih amounts to the same claim - so prove it. Page and para

You are claiming it is a leap without a single shred of evidence. Poor form.

3) If Inv saves are not a char, you have no permission to modify them - even if you accept the example as permission (it isnt, stricvtly) then that onlyt allows MoT to modify the save, NOT grimoire.

Oh, and it isnt the majority of TOs - not that i've seen in the UK anyway.

Wound - the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapon ;
has no effect. Even if a wound ignores all armour saves, an
invulnerable saving throw can still be taken.

The very rule you're using has 2 differences in it.
Rule 1. AP Doesn't matter
Rule 2. Even if there is no AP but its a wound such as Doom's life leach, you can still take your INV save.

You could argue Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because
they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a
Wound is the blanket "Because"

but that would mean I could take a 5++ even if my 3+ fails. Which is why it states (2) way which INV and Armor saves are different.

Stormbreed wrote:
but that would mean I could take a 5++ even if my 3+ fails. Which is why it states (2) way which INV and Armor saves are different.

No you couldn't - there's a rule saying you only ever get one save...

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
but that would mean I could take a 5++ even if my 3+ fails. Which is why it states (2) way which INV and Armor saves are different.

No you couldn't - there's a rule saying you only ever get one save...

Agreed, so

Wound - the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapon ;
has no effect. Even if a wound ignores all armour saves, an
invulnerable saving throw can still be taken.

Is the important part, which is clearly 2 rules, not one rule as some people have been arguing.

Storm - OK, so if you decide to break it down, that is still only 2 ways. And it is an exhaustive list. So, have you found where it states any other differences, with one of those being it is nt a Char.? (I can still argue that is one rule - the "even if" is an effect of AP values having no effect, but that isnt important)

There is a basic rule about only ever being able to take a single save, so no, you couldnt argue that.

You are still missing the entire point, which is that you havent found a rule, anywhere, stating that it is differnt to armour in more ways thn those listed. The number of ways it is different is irrelevant, as long as the list is exhaustive, and the list does not mention char.

So, can you either a) prove it is an inexhaustive list of differences, or b) show that it states "this is not a char." somewhere? If so, prove it. No more irrelevancies please.

IF you can prove it - you cannot actually do so, as the last 9 pages show - then you ALSO then need to show that Grimoire has permission to modify an invulnerable save, AND that MoT does as well, AND do so by changing %++ to 3++, not taking it to 7++ as normal maths would require. Only armour saves have this per5mission, under that current flawed assumption by some that Inv saves are not a char.. Failure to do either proves that those items are functionally useless at improving saves.

Whic his the point we have made, for 9 pages now. There are no rules, whatsoever, anywhere that can possibly be found, that support the 2++ case. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Nothing. There is a complete lack of rules support for the 2++ case.

The "case" relies on the pretense - debunked at every turn - that the MoT is a "permanent" modifier, and somehow isnt used to get the model to 2++. Neither is true.

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
but that would mean I could take a 5++ even if my 3+ fails. Which is why it states (2) way which INV and Armor saves are different.

No you couldn't - there's a rule saying you only ever get one save...

Agreed, so

Wound - the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapon ;
has no effect. Even if a wound ignores all armour saves, an
invulnerable saving throw can still be taken.

Is the important part, which is clearly 2 rules, not one rule as some people have been arguing.

Fine - if you break it down into 2 rules, that's still 2 explicit permitted differences and zero others.
Where is the rule stating a difference in that invul saves are not characteristics?
If they are not characteristics, why are you using a bonus to get a lower number? Mathematically a bonus should make it higher since... well... the only rule saying that lower is better is under the Armor Save characteristic...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - OK, so if you decide to break it down, that is still only 2 ways. And it is an exhaustive list. So, have you found where it states any other differences, with one of those being it is nt a Char.? (I can still argue that is one rule - the "even if" is an effect of AP values having no effect, but that isnt important)

There is a basic rule about only ever being able to take a single save, so no, you couldnt argue that.

You are still missing the entire point, which is that you havent found a rule, anywhere, stating that it is differnt to armour in more ways thn those listed. The number of ways it is different is irrelevant, as long as the list is exhaustive, and the list does not mention char.

So, can you either a) prove it is an inexhaustive list of differences, or b) show that it states "this is not a char." somewhere? If so, prove it. No more irrelevancies please.

IF you can prove it - you cannot actually do so, as the last 9 pages show - then you ALSO then need to show that Grimoire has permission to modify an invulnerable save, AND that MoT does as well, AND do so by changing %++ to 3++, not taking it to 7++ as normal maths would require. Only armour saves have this per5mission, under that current flawed assumption by some that Inv saves are not a char.. Failure to do either proves that those items are functionally useless at improving saves.

Whic his the point we have made, for 9 pages now. There are no rules, whatsoever, anywhere that can possibly be found, that support the 2++ case. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Nothing. There is a complete lack of rules support for the 2++ case.

The "case" relies on the pretense - debunked at every turn - that the MoT is a "permanent" modifier, and somehow isnt used to get the model to 2++. Neither is true.

When you openly declared, what, 3 posts ago there was only ONE in caps and bold letters ect ect ect difference between armor saves and INV and now are willing to admit there very well could be 2.

Again I'm on the minority side that believes you stop @ 3++, I don't think there is a rule in the BRB that gives permission, and that's how it should be, we're talking about Codex rules and interactions with BRB rules, it's never gonna be black and white in everyone's eyes, which is why I understand the 52% of the people who vote against yours and my beliefs and the TO's who also believe INV saves are different from Armor saves and thus the rules for applying modifiers doesn't apply. Regardless I'd still argue they are past a 3++ which is forbidden based on the rules they are using.

They are treating INV saves different from armor saves. Interestingly enough, I can't find the place that it says Armor saves are the set value on the stat line. I see only a place where is says "Save" which means that stat line is populated by our best save available. Not sure where that leads this train.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
but that would mean I could take a 5++ even if my 3+ fails. Which is why it states (2) way which INV and Armor saves are different.

No you couldn't - there's a rule saying you only ever get one save...

Agreed, so

Wound - the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapon ;
has no effect. Even if a wound ignores all armour saves, an
invulnerable saving throw can still be taken.

Is the important part, which is clearly 2 rules, not one rule as some people have been arguing.

Fine - if you break it down into 2 rules, that's still 2 explicit permitted differences and zero others.
Where is the rule stating a difference in that invul saves are not characteristics?
If they are not characteristics, why are you using a bonus to get a lower number? Mathematically a bonus should make it higher since... well... the only rule saying that lower is better is under the Armor Save characteristic...

There is a rule in the BRB saying we can never get passed a maximum save of 2+, its a BRB rule stating which way we go to get the "best"

Stormbreed wrote:
There is a rule in the BRB saying we can never get passed a maximum save of 2+, its a BRB rule stating which way we go to get the "best"

Since that's an inference it means that invul saves - unless you acknowledge they're a characteristic - fail to function per the rules. Since there is no statement that better==lower for invul saves and the max is a 2++, a 5++ breaks a rule.

Storm - again, 100% irrelevant the number of changes, as long as:

a) the list is exhaustive - which it is; and
b) it doesnt mention char. - which it doesnt.

Then our premise holds.

Note you still havent addressed that - and I asked for no irrelevancies.

If you cant use the BRB rules for modifying, then you cannot modify Inv saves using Grimoire.

Again: the 52:48 split is meaningless, as the poll question is not well worded. How you you know the 52% dont know the rules say stop at 3++, but would let others play it as 2++? You cannot, because the poll did not ask the right question.

A point that i was trying to make some pages ago but my question wasnt answered so far.

Trying to put aside the argument if inv saves are characteristics or not for a moment. I also want to put aside the GoTN.

A commonly used argument by the pro 2++ side is that MoT gives a permanent bonus to your invulnerable save that is somehow not calculated when you determine your actual save but at an earlier point.

If that was true wouldnt MoT be unable to modify more than one invulnerable save? Because jeah that magical moment where it was applied is already done. There was an argument that its at list building stage.

So i ask. If a model is located on a shielded skyshield landing pad (rules found on page 115 BRB) and that model happens to have a MoT does it have a 3++ or a 4++ save?

Mywik - myself and Happy ALSO asked questions around that erroneous "permanent modifier" concept that, to this point, remain unanswered.

We even took it away from saves altogether, by asking what the Boon +1S does to a marine model wielding a powerfist - is it S9 or 10? The answer is, of course, 9, but the pro-2++ have been unable or unwilling to answer any of these questions.

Which is why I think this thread IS done - RAW, currently, you CANNOT get to a 2++ with the Grimoire and MoT. To attempt to do so is cheating.

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
There is a rule in the BRB saying we can never get passed a maximum save of 2+, its a BRB rule stating which way we go to get the "best"

Since that's an inference it means that invul saves - unless you acknowledge they're a characteristic - fail to function per the rules. Since there is no statement that better==lower for invul saves and the max is a 2++, a 5++ breaks a rule.

OOOOOOOP YOU MISS!

Some models gain additional benefits that may
increase their Save by +l or +2 or even more however
no save (armor, cover or invulnerable) can ever be
improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model
its save, a roll of 1 always fails.

The BRB refers to them as different and explains how to make them better. Heck it even throws cover saves in there.

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
There is a rule in the BRB saying we can never get passed a maximum save of 2+, its a BRB rule stating which way we go to get the "best"

Since that's an inference it means that invul saves - unless you acknowledge they're a characteristic - fail to function per the rules. Since there is no statement that better==lower for invul saves and the max is a 2++, a 5++ breaks a rule.

OOOOOOOP YOU MISS!

Some models gain additional benefits that may
increase their Save by +l or +2 or even more however
no save (armor, cover or invulnerable) can ever be
improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model
its save, a roll of 1 always fails.

Please bold where it says lower is better. I'm sure I just can't see it because my eyes are old - help me out please.

I think it is the fact that the characteristic is called "save" and not "armor save" proves INV saves fall under the normal modifier rules.

You should probably re-read page 2.

 Mywik wrote:
A point that i was trying to make some pages ago but my question wasnt answered so far.

Trying to put aside the argument if inv saves are characteristics or not for a moment. I also want to put aside the GoTN.

A commonly used argument by the pro 2++ side is that MoT gives a permanent bonus to your invulnerable save that is somehow not calculated when you determine your actual save but at an earlier point.

If that was true wouldnt MoT be unable to modify more than one invulnerable save? Because jeah that magical moment where it was applied is already done. There was an argument that its at list building stage.

So i ask. If a model is located on a shielded skyshield landing pad (rules found on page 115 BRB) and that model happens to have a MoT does it have a 3++ or a 4++ save?

How I read the rules, a MoT unit on the Skyshield would have a 3++ & a 4++ save (one from Daemon USR and one from the Skyshield - both would be adjusted from the MoT rule). Since you have to take the best save, the Daemon + MoT would be ignored since the Skyshield + MoT provides a better save.

As for the "commonly used argument" bit - the argument stems from the fact that there is no specific rule on when modifiers and special rules are applied. For example - a CSM: Possessed unit has the Daemon USR (5++ save). It also has MoT (+1 to invuln / max 3++ save). The Argument looks at the MoT as wargear or a unit upgrade and thus at deployment does the model have a 5++ save or a 4++ save. This is subtle because the argument is that if it's a 4++ save and NOT a 5++ w/ +1, then it means the modification (and thus restriction) are already applied before the unit hits the table. This means the restriction happens only when the MoT is applied/equipped like a trigger. So when a grimoire goes off, the restriction isn't triggered since it was triggered back in deployment and passed.

Now the flip side to this argument is that the unit ALWAYS has a 5++ save and all equipment and blessings and other modifications are ONLY applied when a model is forced to use said save. In this case, the MoT's restriction would trigger at every time a person has to make a save and thus would be capped at 3++. A counter argument here though is that if modifiers are only applied when you have to make a save, then a model's 4+ armor would be better than their 5++ with MoT save since the invulnerable would only become better in the event the armor is negated.

Ultimately - there's no explicit ruling on 2 things here. 1) is the MoT restriction always present or only present when the MoT modifier is applied? 2) are modifiers applied upon the modifier being granted (i.e. equipped during list building or when the blessing was successful) or only when a test is called for?

I can see it going either way since the rulings are missing. I don't interpret MoT's restriction to be present after MoT is granted and equipped - this grimoire being possible to a 2++. However, I DO see the argument of others that the restriction is always present or that the MoT modifier is applied and triggered only when a test is called for. It's all different interpretations of poorly written rules that need to be FAQ'ed.

Well there is - you apply the modifiers when you are called upon to do so, in this case you do it when the model needs to make a save.

Otherwise, as pointed out, you cannot have a 3++ save from a skyshield - you have already applied the MoT, nothing allows you to do it again.

Similarly the +1S boon - with a powerfist on a marine this gives you S9, not S10.

There is nothing in the rules allowing you to make a distinction beetween the +1inv from MoT and the +2inv from Grimoire. Any argument which relies on there being a difference has to PROVE there is a difference - and as this is impossible, ruleswise, the argument fails.

Hence, lock time. We're down to only one poster arguing for 2++, who still cannot provide any rules support.

If the MoT modifier is applied at list building, why are you applying it to the Skyshield save (which cannot be present during list building)?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

We even took it away from saves altogether, by asking what the Boon +1S does to a marine model wielding a powerfist - is it S9 or 10? The answer is, of course, 9, but the pro-2++ have been unable or unwilling to answer any of these questions.

I missed this from earlier.

This is a great example of the counter argument to the 2++ mentality since true characteristics are listed and explicitly mentioned to address this issue. Likewise though, it provides a very good example in that it shows a scenario where a modifier may be applied during the deployment phase and then recalculated later on. Based on this itself - I'm convinced it's 3++ as long as invulnerable saves are considered a characteristic - which would be a simple FAQ to add to page 2.

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
There is a rule in the BRB saying we can never get passed a maximum save of 2+, its a BRB rule stating which way we go to get the "best"

Since that's an inference it means that invul saves - unless you acknowledge they're a characteristic - fail to function per the rules. Since there is no statement that better==lower for invul saves and the max is a 2++, a 5++ breaks a rule.

OOOOOOOP YOU MISS!

Some models gain additional benefits that may
increase their Save by +l or +2 or even more however
no save (armor, cover or invulnerable) can ever be
improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model
its save, a roll of 1 always fails.

Please bold where it says lower is better. I'm sure I just can't see it because my eyes are old - help me out please.

can ever be
improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model
its save, a roll of 1 always fails.

We know 1 fails. We know we can't be IMPROVED beyond 2.

You're welcome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

I think it is the fact that the characteristic is called "save" and not "armor save" proves INV saves fall under the normal modifier rules.

You should probably re-read page 2.

Glad we agree, nowhere on there does it call INV or Cover saves Characteristics.

forget what i wrote. brainfart.

Stormbreed wrote:


can ever be
improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model
its save, a roll of 1 always fails.

We know 1 fails. We know we can't be IMPROVED beyond 2.

You're welcome.

Right. So according to the rules, 2+ is the highest an invul save can be. Which means, as I said, that according to the rules where you ignore page 2 for invul saves a 5+ invul is illegal.
Meaning 1 is the lowest and always fails, 2 is the highest.

Glad we agree, nowhere on there does it call INV or Cover saves Characteristics.

Let's reread what you said, shall we?

I think it is the fact that the characteristic is called "save" and not "armor save" proves INV saves fall under the normal modifier rules.

The characteristic is not called "save". Your statement was incorrect.
And there are no "normal" modifier rules. The only modifier rules are for - wait for it - characteristics. Unless you're talking about modifying dice rolls.
So unless an invul save is a characteristic it cannot be modified. Ever.

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:


can ever be
improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model
its save, a roll of 1 always fails.

We know 1 fails. We know we can't be IMPROVED beyond 2.

You're welcome.

Right. So according to the rules, 2+ is the highest an invul save can be. Which means, as I said, that according to the rules where you ignore page 2 for invul saves a 5+ invul is illegal.
Meaning 1 is the lowest and always fails, 2 is the highest.

Glad we agree, nowhere on there does it call INV or Cover saves Characteristics.

Let's reread what you said, shall we?

I think it is the fact that the characteristic is called "save" and not "armor save" proves INV saves fall under the normal modifier rules.

The characteristic is not called "save". Your statement was incorrect.
And there are no "normal" modifier rules. The only modifier rules are for - wait for it - characteristics. Unless you're talking about modifying dice rolls.
So unless an invul save is a characteristic it cannot be modified. Ever.

I'm gonna say that Swarmlord gains a 4+ INV but only in CC. My specific rule overrides that wall of BRB text you just post about a 5+ being illegal

In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit
type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth
on page 44.It might also have an
additional
save of some kind,
representing any armor or magic protection it might have,

So we know there will be special rules which can still save you from harm.

Cover, invulnerable, FNP ect.

rigeld2 wrote:
Fact: You've invented a difference between the modifier MoT applies and the modifier GoTN applies. The actual rules make no such distinction.

Incorrect. They are different modifiers. The rules make this absolutely clear. I haven't "invented" anything.

rigeld2 wrote:
Fact: You've invented a way to modify Invul saves that does not use the rules for characteristics.

Incorrect. Again, I haven't "invented" anything. I'm applying the RAW for the two modifiers in question - the MoT and the Grimoire.

rigeld2 wrote:
Fact: You are pretending Invul saves are not characteristics.

Incorrect. I'm not "pretending" anything. Nowhere in the BRB does it state that inv saves are characteristics. You've had several opportiunities to cite a rule stating that this is the case, and have failed to do so on every occasion.

rigeld2 wrote:
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?

You've proven none of these statements using actual rules; what you have actually done is presented a number of opinions as so-called "facts". Not only that, but you've again called me a liar, justifying your insult by describing it as a "fact".

Do you actually understand the difference between facts and opinions?

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Fact: You've invented a difference between the modifier MoT applies and the modifier GoTN applies. The actual rules make no such distinction.

Incorrect. They are different modifiers. The rules make this absolutely clear. I haven't "invented" anything.

Citation required - the rules really don't support the idea of different modifiers.

rigeld2 wrote:
Fact: You've invented a way to modify Invul saves that does not use the rules for characteristics.

Incorrect. Again, I haven't "invented" anything. I'm applying the RAW for the two modifiers in question - the MoT and the Grimoire.

No, you're not - as proven.

rigeld2 wrote:
Fact: You are pretending Invul saves are not characteristics.

Incorrect. I'm not "pretending" anything. Nowhere in the BRB does it state that inv saves are characteristics. You've had several opportiunities to cite a rule stating that this is the case, and have failed to do so on every occasion.

So I've failed to cite page 19? I'm 100% sure I have done so. You're incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:
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?

You've proven none of these statements using actual rules; what you have actually done is presented a number of opinions as so-called "facts". Not only that, but you've again called me a liar, justifying your insult by describing it as a "fact".

Do you actually understand the difference between facts and opinions?

Yes, I do. If you feel insulted please click the yellow triangle of friendship.
It's interesting that you say I've proven none of this using actual rules when I'm the one that has cited rules support and we're just supposed to take your word for it on your statements. Maybe you'd actually like to, I dunno, cite some rules? Quote them? Do something other than ignore rules?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Fact: You've invented a difference between the modifier MoT applies and the modifier GoTN applies. The actual rules make no such distinction.

Incorrect. They are different modifiers. The rules make this absolutely clear. I haven't "invented" anything.

Citation required - the rules really don't support the idea of different modifiers.

rigeld2 wrote:
Fact: You've invented a way to modify Invul saves that does not use the rules for characteristics.

Incorrect. Again, I haven't "invented" anything. I'm applying the RAW for the two modifiers in question - the MoT and the Grimoire.

No, you're not - as proven.

rigeld2 wrote:
Fact: You are pretending Invul saves are not characteristics.

Incorrect. I'm not "pretending" anything. Nowhere in the BRB does it state that inv saves are characteristics. You've had several opportiunities to cite a rule stating that this is the case, and have failed to do so on every occasion.

So I've failed to cite page 19? I'm 100% sure I have done so. You're incorrect.

rigeld2 wrote:
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?

You've proven none of these statements using actual rules; what you have actually done is presented a number of opinions as so-called "facts". Not only that, but you've again called me a liar, justifying your insult by describing it as a "fact".

Do you actually understand the difference between facts and opinions?

Yes, I do. If you feel insulted please click the yellow triangle of friendship.
It's interesting that you say I've proven none of this using actual rules when I'm the one that has cited rules support and we're just supposed to take your word for it on your statements. Maybe you'd actually like to, I dunno, cite some rules? Quote them? Do something other than ignore rules?

In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit
type, such as Infantry or Cavalry, which we discuss in more depth
on page 44.It might also have an
additional
save of some kind,
representing any armor or magic protection it might have

That seems to point to INV/Cover/FNP not being a characteristic at all.

So you're also ignoring the rules I've cited in this thread?
Cool story bro.