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 don't get it. Nothing about the 1k sons says that their 4+ invulnerable save is entirely due to their mark. It just says that the 4+ includes the mark so you don't add it in and make it 3+. Heck, the fact that they say it includes the mark implies that they're separate from the normal mark rules...why wouldn't it just say "due to the mark". They have to say it includes the mark because if it was simply due to the mark, it would be 5+. There are plenty of units that have an invulnerable save for various reasons, and 1k sons may just happen to be one of them, and I can think of some fluffy reasons that they might have a 5+ save before even counting the mark, such as the fact that just shooting through their armor isn't going to hurt a pile of dust.

The text in the rulebook says "models with the mark of tzeentch gain +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 2+). If given to a model that does not normally have an Invulnerable save, the mark confers an Invulnerable save of 5+.

There is no reason to believe that the lines stack. The second like is for cases when the first line would not apply, since the unit doesn't have an invulnerable save.

"Do you have an invulnerable save? Yes? here's +1 to it. No? Now you get a 5+. Now go kill the servents of the false emperor."

There is no reason to read through it like

"Do you have an invulnerable save? No? Now you get a 5+. What? you want to be asked the question again? Ok, do you have an invulnerable save? Yes? Hey, wait, didn't I already give that to you? ah whatever, here's a +1 bonus."

As for the turbo boost save...I'm on the fence. I think you can argue it both ways. Based on the text, the mark of Tzeentch is giving a +1 to their invulnerable save, or granting a 5+ invulnerable save. The turbo boost rule says "treat the bikes armor save as being an invulnerable save".

RAW, you'd probably add the +1. If I'm treating the armor save an invulnerable save, well, I get +1 to my newly gained invulnerable save. But from the wording I can see why people wouldn't think this was the intention of the two rules - the "treating the bikes armor save as" implying that it's still just an armor save, that happens to also be invulnerable, as opposed to a regular invulnerable save. But arguing intention is kind of pointless, and based on the two rules I'd say you'd have to either get the 2+, or play with a group where everyone agreed to go against the RAW.

lambadomy, exactly. "Treat X as being an invulnerable save" = "X is an invulnerable save." You can't just decide that X doesn't benefit from MoT, because then you aren't treating it as an invulnerable save, are you?

harvey-  the rule makes perfect sense.  Yes you apply all of the rule to a unit (and I'm talking about all units, not just Tsons) where applicable but you can't use the same rule to stack bonuses onto a unit ad infinitum....  (You would have to give the unit 2 or more MoT for that- and that isn't allowed) If a unit is given a MoT which does not originally have an I save then it receives a 5+I.  If it already has an I save in its original statline (or through another rule like Turbo-boost or wargear) then the MoT increases it by +1.  The line of reasoning you are describing is used by players attempting to gain an advantage over their opponent which is not supported by the MoT rule.

As for Tsons... I wasn't talking about them specifically- not sure how you got the idea I was...  How the MoT affects Tsons or whether it is already included in their stats is a whole different and more specific issue.  I will leave that to a different thread.

Although I mentioned Turbo-boost as a situation where MoT gives a benefit- I am not totally convinced of that yet.  mauleed has argued pretty well that is does, but the Turbo-boost rule states that the unit's armor save becomes Invulnerable when they boost.  The MoT does nothing for the unit's armor save.  However, the armor save does become invulnerable under a specific situation and for a specific duration.  I can see arguments for both interpretations of whether the MoT applies to the armor save that becomes invulnerable for a turn...  RAW is not clear enough on this (imho) to make any clear-cut ruling.  But I wouldn't dream of suggesting that YMDC wait for an faq while GW sucks the thumb that it just pulled out of its own a$$.

Beast, again, you are to "treat the bikes armor save as being an invulnerable save". How would you treat it if it were an invulnerable save? You'd give it +1 from MoT, surely?

Harvey, sometimes a position is so ridiculous it requires no rebuttal.

This is one of those times.

if you want to determine what the rules say, then do that.  if you want to conjecture over what they really mean, then do that... but be clear which stance you're taking. 

also, refuting my argument with a personal attack is not only a logical fallicy... it's just plain rude.

Posted By HarveyDent on 08/20/2007 10:03 PM

if you want to determine what the rules say, then do that.  if you want to conjecture over what they really mean, then do that... but be clear which stance you're taking. 

also, refuting my argument with a personal attack is not only a logical fallicy... it's just plain rude.

How is this a personal attack?

Posted By mauleed on 08/19/2007 6:36 AM

Harvey, sometimes a position is so ridiculous it requires no rebuttal.

This is one of those times.

He said that your position was ridiculous.

While rude is as rude does, this clearly doesnt qualify as a personal attack.

From my understanding, its perfectly within ettiquette to attack the position. How you attack the position is another matter entirely, but thats where it seems to be directed at IMO.

While it doesn't do yourself a favour having such silly positions, doesn't mean you're being attacked.

The english are the masters of attacking silly positions.

Behold, a wicket bat about to strike a silly position!

If you just read the MOT rule, it will give a 5+ then add +1. Applying both parts of the rule, not multiple them or anything. There is no limitation or "ifs and buts" in it.
It will also add +1 to any invuln save you ever get, boosting bikes or psychic powers or whatever. All actually pretty clear in the writing of the rule, if that is whats intended is another question.

Kallbrand what you seem to be saying is that "+1 invun" is a static ability. It always applies.

What we're saying is that "+1 invun" only applies if you had an invun in the first place.

It's hard to argue either way, but I don't see the point in even trying. It's dumb.

If the basic statline has an Invuln save then it gets a bonus. The bike does not come with an invulnerable save.

Therefore the Bike would then be given a 5+ invulnerable save for taking the MoT.

It would then NOT get a +1 on top of that, much the same reason as why Harvey's claim does not work.

At least that's what I am reading, that I agree with. Seems a bit of a grasp to claim that a special rule that activates only if the bike does "x" qualifies it as having an Invulnerable save 'normally'. If the bike never turbo boosts in a game then it loses all benefits of the MoT. You either add a +1 or give it a 5+ but not both.

Where do you read that only 1 part of the rule applies?

Or that the +1 only applies if you had it in your basic statline?

As worded it applies all the time (wich may or may not be as intended)

On the sidetopic that harvey brought up, 1k sons get a 4+. And doesnt have any rule that gives them a "basic" invuln save except for the MoT. Not that it matters when reading other rules that are quite separate.

Well reading the new codex today no bikes won't get a 2+ inv save when they turbo boost. Simply because the codex says the Mark of Tzentch gives them +1 to their inv save IF they do not have a inv save then it grants them a 5+ inv save.

So it's simple check their statline. Any inv save there? So they get a 5+ inv save from Mark of Tzentch making them 3+/5+inv and they still get a 3+inv when turbo boosting.

It's all because of that big IF. Now if it just said Mark of Tzentch grants the unit +1 to their Inv save then bikes would be 3+, and 2+ inv when turbo boosting. However the IF kills it outright.

Personification is dead on the money!!! It says if you normally don't have an invul save you get a 5+ one. Normally!!! Not due to some special circumstance. Normally as in i just got shot by a lascannon i still have a chance at survival due to this save on my profile. And even if you decide that your turbo boost gets a bonus +1 sv then guess what that "if" kills your 5+ invuln. I personally hope people who are trying to twist this rule get met with a wall of psycannon while you are turbo boosting....

"Models with the Mark of Tzeentch gain +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 2+). If given to a model that does not normally have an invulnerable save, this mark confers an invulnerable save of 5+."

If you try to play smart wordings make sure you read them right. As written the "IF" only makes pepole lacking an invuln save get a 5+. It doesnt affect the +1 in any way. Neither does it make the rule "one or the other".

Why don't you guys try reading the last 3 pages of this thread before jumping in with the same old thing on the 4th page? These are arguments worth considering, no doubt, but they have been raised already.

Just continued that discussion, since I want anyone to show where the part of splitting the rule or the exception for the +1 part?
What i read the last 3 pages have been discussion about intent.

Posted By Kallbrand on 08/21/2007 9:29 PM
"Models with the Mark of Tzeentch gain +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 2+). If given to a model that does not normally have an invulnerable save, this mark confers an invulnerable save of 5+."

If you try to play smart wordings make sure you read them right. As written the "IF" only makes pepole lacking an invuln save get a 5+. It doesnt affect the +1 in any way. Neither does it make the rule "one or the other".

This line of reasoning is perhaps the most blatant attempt at cheating I have seen in a long long time...  There are two conditions that the MoT rule addresses: models that already have an I save and models that do not already have an I save.  The former condition receives a bonus to the existing I save and the latter condition grants an I save if they normally don't have one. 

But just to play along with your argument for a moment...  Let's examine your argument vis-a-vis the order in which the rule is written...  Bikers don't start with an I save so the first part of the rule is not applicable.  Moving on...  The second part of the rule is applicable and thus grants bikers a 5+I save.  You can not then jump back to the first part of the rule (which was already deemed inapplicable due to the bikers lack of an original I save).  By your line of thinking, you could just bounce around inside the rule and keep adding +1 ad infinitum (or until you gave the unit a 2+I save).  Your argument is so logically flawed that it is hardly worth addressing.  But the fact that you so adamantly hold to it shows you are very seriously mistaken and would therefore inflict your unsound rules-lawyering on your opponents.

Not really, but the whole rule will be applied once at all times, as are all rules. If a circumstance change, the first part of the rule effects it since ruls arent "checked" just at the start of the game.
Although there is nothing stating that you can read it over and over untill it hits 2+. Why shouldnt a rule a circumstance changes so it fits the thing it affects? That is how every other rule in the game works. Also note that this isnt an "idea", it is just simply what is worded. If anyone could back up why it wouldnt work I would be happy to change my "idea".

I am also one to claim it will add up so that anything with MOT will have a 4+ invuln save and I dont even play tzeench normally, only reading the rule.

Kallbrand you don't make any sense whatsoever.

There's no applying the 'whole rule' or anything even remotely as idiotic as what you've been suggesting all along. The Mark of Tzeentch, when granted on a model can benefit the model in one of two ways.


It's most definately simply an idea (and an attempt to cheat) and not how it's worded.

It is exactly how it is worded, where do you see that it is one or the other.. how is that worded?

As said, show it before you start calling something idiotic and just dismissing it. Back it up

As worded the rule is 2 parts, that you get +1 to your invulnerable save and that if you dont have one you get a 5+, wich ofcourse part 1 of the rule would apply to.

How do you come to that conclusion? Back it up.

Think about this for a second: "Cars that are painted green are painted red. Cars that aren't painted green are painted green." What you're saying is that the correct way to understand that statement is to first paint a blue car green, then red, then green, then red, then green, then red, ad infinatum. The correct way to understand the statement is of course that cars of any other colour than green are indeed painted green, but the cars that were green in the first place become red, end of story.

What you're doing is yet another petty attempt to cheat or to create confusion where there isn't any. In my opinion there isn't any aspect of the Mark of Tzeentch rule that is reactive in nature or continous in any way. If you think of the mark as wargear you apply the stat bonus in the beginning of the game, either improving your existing invulnerable save by one or granting you a 5+ invulnerable save. By the same logic it shouldn't apply to turbo-boosting either.

You are right in one thing, there isnt any confusion.

If you have an invuln save you get +1 to it, regardless where it comesfrom and without any limitation (stated in the rule).
You get a 5+ if you dont have an invuln save. Also without any limitations. Nowhere in the wording is it either or. Neither does it ever state that you read the rules once at the start and apply them then skip them.

About that absurd comment about painting a car, it seems you just make up something since you dont see anywhere in the rules that it would apply and fail miserably, since your example isnt even a likness of this case. The thing you write is just a paradox, if you are supposed to follow it.. then yes.. green->red and red--> green forever.. Altho this is your wording on it and a total missmatch.

An accurate linkess would be a carshop has the following deal. If you have a new Volvo carborator we paint your car red for you. If you dont have a carborator we will give you a Volvo one for a cheap price. (thus also painting your car red for you). Not they would paint your car red and redder ad infinitum.

This whole discussion is from some parts based on the interpretation that the rule includes an "either or" in the wording, wich it doesnt. So who is trying to cheat?

My example was simply an extreme example what happens if we follow your way of reasoning, which we of course won't. Nowhere did I claim that it was an exact analogy to the MoT issue.

Basically you're just delusional.

Haha, i take that as you cant back it up then.

Basically, you just dont know what you are talking about.

i don't know where people are getting the "keep applying +1 to the save over and over" part.

i never suggested that you keep reading the rule over and over. i just meant that the MOT rule applies, in all parts, at all times.

it doesn't say that you get one part of the rule or the other. it just says that you get a 5+ if you don't have an (I) save. it also says that you add +1 to your (I) save.

like i said earlier, to clear up the rule to be (obviously) what it was intended to be, it needs to say:

A model with the MoT gains a 5+ invulnerable save, OR it gets +1 to its non-MoT invulnerable save.

printing the text as two separate clauses without an 'or' was a mistake, because it allows you to apply both clauses without making you choose one or the other.

the inclusion of the word 'normally' is also a mistake. there is no 'normal' game state in which a model exists, therefore 'normally' can't reference it.

EDIT:  i am only assuming what the rule is intended to be, because i've seen it described by GW peeps in print.  as for what they intended for bikers and adding to turbo boost saves, i don't know.  all i know is that there is no way, aside from a turbo boost, that a model from the new codex could get a 2+ ...but they reference a 2+ being the best (I) save you could get (which logically doesn't mean anything, but it points at the possibility that bikes were intended to be able to benefit from the +1 part of the MoT rule).

That's funny. You make an intentional attempt to distort the rules, in other words cheat, and while doing it you take the moral high ground and call your opponents clueless. I bow to your excellence. Oh wait, I don't, because you don't play at tournaments and neither would any tournament ref ever play the MoT the way you are suggesting.

Basically, I know what I'm talking about. There are many occasions when RAW simply doesn't win.

noone is suggesting you play the RAW. the RAW are only accurate a certain percentage of the time. we are simply pointing out what the RAW actually states. personally i find it fun to figure out.

...and there's no reason to get upset over this, or call people names, or say their argument is ridiculous (unless of course you are able to completely refute what they are trying to say, and you do it in a logical and concise manner).