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.

Ton - you absolutely are treating the modifiers differently, as you are claiming the MoT is something permanent. You have no actual rules for that, that, just your assertion.

You are also modifying a n inv save, claimin you aren't using the rules on page 2, but cannot show how you are allowed to do this. You have Provided nothing at all.

Follow he tenets, or concede.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're also ignoring the rules I've cited in this thread?
Cool story bro.

Not ignoring anything, I've given a specific example that shows there are additional saves that are not the same. It's clearly in the BRB, we know INV are not Armor saves.

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're also ignoring the rules I've cited in this thread?
Cool story bro.

Not ignoring anything, I've given a specific example that shows there are additional saves that are not the same. It's clearly in the BRB, we know INV are not Armor saves.

You do realize he has never said Armor save and Invulnerable saves are the same, right?

 Nilok wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're also ignoring the rules I've cited in this thread?
Cool story bro.

Not ignoring anything, I've given a specific example that shows there are additional saves that are not the same. It's clearly in the BRB, we know INV are not Armor saves.

You do realize he has never said Armor save and Invulnerable saves are the same, right?

True my bad, this whole thread is about something else as well and has been horribly side tracked by Invulnerable saves being called characteristics. Which as close as they may be I don't think they are.

Not that it changes my opinion on the poll which is 2++ = No.

It's often the case that people side track threads when they can't back up their arguments relevant to the topic.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
It's often the case that people side track threads when they can't back up their arguments relevant to the topic.

That's amusing coming from the person who has cited no rules support.

Well the New wording of the New inquisition codex means you can have a chance at nullifying the grimoire, since it switches off all deamonic gifts and is now a malediction. Small mercies and all that

 Formosa wrote:
Well the New wording of the New inquisition codex means you can have a chance at nullifying the grimoire, since it switches off all deamonic gifts and is now a malediction. Small mercies and all that

If you can get past the 4+ DTW since there'll be a lvl 3 herald and inquisitors are ml1.

Hence small mercies, 55pts to at least have a chance vs this is a small price to me

 Tonberry7 wrote:
It's often the case that people side track threads when they can't back up their arguments relevant to the topic.

Planning on giving any rules support yourself soon. Or answering the questions that also destroy your argument.? No? Just troll then,

As far as I am concerned the grimoire of true names adds a seperate modifier that takes no restraint from different speciel rules. And as the MoT is applied at the start of the game it is not the MoT that is taking it over 3++

 Chaos Rising wrote:
As far as I am concerned the grimoire of true names adds a seperate modifier that takes no restraint from different speciel rules. And as the MoT is applied at the start of the game it is not the MoT that is taking it over 3++

So maybe you can answer the question that were posed to Tonberry? So far he has been unwilling or unable to.

 Chaos Rising wrote:
As far as I am concerned the grimoire of true names adds a seperate modifier that takes no restraint from different speciel rules. And as the MoT is applied at the start of the game it is not the MoT that is taking it over 3++

So of course you can cite rule support for there being a different modifier?

 easysauce wrote:

 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++"

respond to these very valid questions then, if you want to keep contending that you are not using MoT to get a 2++, yet you cannot get a 2++ without MoT.

how are you using modifiers rules to add them, yet contending that additional rules exist that state we add up modifiers at different times?

not only do those rules not exist, they wouldnt even prove you're are not adding them for the purposes of achieving that 2++.

you have not proven that order of applying modifiers matters, nor have you shown in any way or form, that you are not using MoT to get the 2++.

you are not using MoT to get a 4++, and you are not using GOTN to get a 2++,

you are using BOTH MOT and GOTN to add +3, and get a 2++, and you cannot prove otherwise.

In fact you keep saying you are in fact casting MoT, but that because its first, it "doesnt count" for some un defined, un RAW backed up reason.

order of modifyers does not matter, and two additive modifiers would be added at the same time, before the save is made.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ton - you absolutely are treating the modifiers differently, as you are claiming the MoT is something permanent. You have no actual rules for that, that, just your assertion.

You are also modifying a n inv save, claimin you aren't using the rules on page 2, but cannot show how you are allowed to do this. You have Provided nothing at all.

Follow he tenets, or concede.

Preview
Post Re:Mark of Tzeentch plus Grimoire of True names = 2++ Invul?
Actually, the Mark of Tzeentch does permanently improve the Invulnerable save by 1. This is because if you read Abbadon the Despoiler's entry in the Chaos Space Marines codex, there is a clause clearly stating that: due to the Mark of Tzeentch, the Invulnerable save granted by Abbadon's Terminator Armour is a 4++. Therefore, it is fixed and not tested as a modifier. Consequently, a Daemon unit with Mark of Tzeentch does permanently improve Invulnerability by 1, so he has 4++, and the Grimoire of True Names improves it to 2++.

A) threadnomancy
B) nope, modifier. Same as a thunder wolf mount. This is backed up by rules.

Thread is being locked due to thread necromancy.