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 dont have any moral highground or try to cheat and play tournaments from time to time.
But I can read and make a point, with the fact at hand, not some imaginary paintjob that you claim you never meant to be an example after it is dissected. You can try to scream and call me stuff but thats usually the mark of someone who is wrong and makes you look quite redicoulus.

At some tournaments pepole actually only plays RAW as stated by GW, there you will find it applying at full all the time. Other tournaments will have houserules for a ton of things.

I am in agreement with harvey and kallbrand that the "+1" does not keep getting added even when taking their point of view.

You get a bonus "+1 invun" just like you get a bonus "+1A", you don't keep applying the bonus.

However you do apply the bonus once.

So what they're saying is that you do apply the +1 invun to units that don't have an invun, since they get an invun.

The wording is so unclear because it doesn't say "instead" or something similar.

But I know when to drop something and if I were harvey or kallbrand I wouldn't even bother trying to argue this. Noone will ever play it that way, because most people read what's not there and think it's very stupid.

I'm tempted to ask my peers what they think about 4+ invun save CSM with IoT but I'm pretty sure I'd be shut down.

Interesting reply to what I wrote, I quote:



I guess this just proves that you are a little more than just delusional. In any case, entertain me by naming a few known tournaments that you've attended, where people only use RAW as stated by GW, and not official tournament rules packages where all ambiguities and idiocies are cleared. Additionally I can assure you I don't need to scream nor call you 'stuff', god knows whatever that means.

While you're at it, you could make a couple of army lists to the army list section. I'm sure people would be interested in T4(5) bikes with standard 4+ invulnerable saves and 2+ invulnerable saves while turbo-boosting. In your imaginary world, a list like that might even win a game of 40K, and that would make you a better human being.

I see that you stick to the name calling and still offers no solid facts.
Makes you look like a bitter little kid trying to use the word delusional to get the way you want. But then again, I take it "god doesnt know what that means" or maybe it is just you who dont know.

Who I am or what I played matters little to the fact how a rule is worded. But I have played quite a few tournaments(most without any rules package, if you want to invent your own rules that is fine) and the game very long, again this doesnt make a rule more or less written.

All the stuff you write implies that you think the rule is indeed a RAI issue and that you know the RAW of it is as I say.

Of course. You come to that conclusion now, when a number of times I have pointed out that you're simply trying to create confusion where there isn't any by reading too much into a rule. You can call that RAW, I've called it delusional.

Don't worry, you not being a real 40K player and most definately not a tournament player comes as no surprise.

You call it alot of things, as you always seem to do in your post when pepole disagree with you.
But you rarley back it up with any facts.

I create clarity not confusion, you just try bully with no backup.

You're still arguing something that's very silly kallbrand. This might be dakka dakka, and it might have the reputation for playing by the rules, but it's just not always the case. I notice you and therion are both new, therion you could do with less garble and more discussion, kallbrand, you could just drop it.

I'm not saying it wasn't a good idea to bring it up, just that it's pointless. Always good to know stuff like this, never any point in discussing it.

and yet... YOU are discussing it TOO, Olainari. lol. obviously there's no point, eh?

let's move on to the turbo boost issue: turbo boosting bikes with MoT, according to the wording, have a 2+ invulnerable save... because it says "models with the MoT add +1 to their invulnerable save."

P1: models with the mark of tzeentch add +1 to their invulnerable save
P2: turbo boosting bikes have an invulnerable save.
C: turbo boosting bikes add +1 to their invulnerable save.

again it says "normal" invulnerable save which surely means you always have it, turbo boost is only treating your armour save as invulnerable. It seems pretty obvious....

Indeed it is pretty obvious... except to kallbrand and harvey, who I can only assume are being intentionally obtuse for their own perverse satisfaction or are so intent on gettting a game benefit where clearly none is allowed by RAW that they are making complete fools of themselves.

I say let them continue as they wish and let them play as they propose. Unless they surround themselves with other players who like non-RAW one-sdied house rules, they'll get laughed (or pummelled) out of the gamestore/tourney/friends garage.

The MOT doesnt mention "normal" save with regards to adding +1 to it. So it doesnt matter if you have an unnormal invunerable save or anything, but you get +1 to it.

Models with the MOT gains +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 a 5+ invulnerable save.

You can claim its not RAW all you like, but if you read those lines it is. I hear alot of "this isnt the case" yadda yadda but noone shows how it isnt. You cant interpret that any other way if you go by the exact wording. Calling those who read it cheaters or other things doesnt prove any point. If you think you can explain how you read it othervise?

Ok let me see if this is what Kallbrand in arguing.

People think the rules say mark of tzeentch gives you +1 invun or 5+ invun if you don't have an invun.

They don't actually say that. Here's what they actually say:

>>> 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+. <<<

Clearly, +1 invun save is a static ability. In other words, if it hasn't been applied, apply it.

Nowhere does it state an exception to this rule. If it hasn't been applied, apply it. No exceptions.

Thus models without invuns, well, they get a 5+ invun. But wait, we haven't applied +1 invun yet. Ok now lets apply it. They get 4+ invuns, because there is no "+1 invuns except when given 5+ invun" rule.

Here's what I'm saying:

Ok look at the time stamp. +1 invun works first. So lets apply the +1 invun to the model without an invun. Oh now wait, the rule tells us to give this model a 5+ invun. Ok he gets a 5+ invun.

Kallbrand, does this make enough sense? Will you see that people will not accept your argument?

We have all tried, onlainari, to explain MoT to these guys and I applaud you as well for your attempt.  But I think there are some who will try to claim that the wording supports giving a unit an I save AND increasing that I save all at the same time based upon the same rule.  This small group of people will try to sneak it past in firendly games and against people who either are unfamiliar with the rule or are new to the game, but if they try it at a Tourney or in a serious gameshop against players who know what is what, then they will perhaps receive the public scorn that they deserve for trying to muddy a clear rule and gain an unfair advantage.

I say let it go and let them learn the hard way not to try to cheat by twisting the rules to mean things that they just don't say.

That's funny. A guy who I've seen contributing to threads once or twice calls me new. I registered on Dakka in September of 2000, and I have contributed for almost 4000 posts through the years, including a number of massive GT reports and pictorials. If you're curious, my account was stolen recently and Yakface returned it to me last week but the post count has been reseted. While I didn't have my access to my stolen account, I posted 600 times under the nickname "Therion-". That good enough for you?


This is Dakka, and the fact is that from time to time a delusional kid who only plays 40K against himself but likes to metagame it over the internet finds our beloved forum and starts an argument he can never win. I remember the time when we had some new guy wander in here and argue that by the RAW Eldar Farseers can cast as many psychic powers per turn as they like, and the thread went on and on for fifty pages in a similar manner as this one. It's all good fun, really.

Olainari: there's no time stamp on applying either part of that rule... and maybe i am using incorrect terminology when i say 'time stamp,' so let me clarify: adding +1 to an (I) save is a static effect that declares the modification of an existing (I) save. it always applies. a model with MoT having a 5+ (I) save is also a static effect. it always applies. they are both applied one time, because there is nothing in the rules that say you apply 'marks of chaos' effects multiple times. there is no order to the static effects, except the order in which we read them...which doesn't, in and of itself, affect their 'static-ness.'

Therion: again, you're insinuating that because i am determining what the RAW say, i am actually going to try and push them on people when playing a game. this is not the case. you need to go back and read my previous posts. your recent posts are straying into the realm of the 'ad hominem' argument fallacy, where you attack someone, or question their character in an attempt to prove them wrong....as seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

you also stray into the category of Informal Relevance fallacies with your 'appeal to emotion' ...as seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

finally, there's the 'slippery slope' fallacy that you're using to say that we're going to walk into a tournament and try and pull off some ridiculous act of trickery because we're using logic and rhetoric to determine the outcome of a badly written rule on a game system ...as seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

so again, i suggest that if you have no valid counter-argument that logically opposes the argument set in place here, then you should just stop raising a ruckuss.

It worked, didn't it.

Olainari is the only one to actually try to "explain" his point of view here, even if I dont think it is correct that the rule only applies once when it is read at the start of taking the mark, but rather a static effect (only once tho). Affecting all invuln saves up to the maximum of 2+ without any limitations.

An example is the 1K marines that get a 4+ from their MOT, at least thats the only ability they have that confers an invuln save.

This is how the rule will be played with the groups I play with and at the tournaments in northern Sweden at least.

And Therion at least admitts he is just arguing cause he think it is fun, but that he doesnt really have a clue.

Beast, there is no "or" in the wording, no "instead", nothing that would appear to make the +1 not apply.

It applies, it always applies, there are no exceptions.

Now I've said what I think what actually happens already.

What I think happens is that the rules are applied in the order they are written. So units without invulnerable saves get +1 to their invulnerable save.

Then you apply the next line because they don't normally have invulnerable saves. They get a 5+ save because that's what the rules say to do.

Kallbrand and harvey are reading it backwards, they apply the 5+ save then the +1 save. Rules have a time stamp and they are breaking this rule, and not using the rules as written.

This is the counter argument harvey, now you can keep applying the rule backwards if you want, but I've got every chaos player on my side.

really, it doesn't matter who is on your side. the whole world used to believe the planet was flat, and denounced anyone who disagreed because they were in the minority. there is no substitute for faulty majority rule in determining the RAW when it comes to flat out logic.

HOWEVER, i thank you heartily for stating your side of the argument politely and concisely. i suppose we must agree to disagree.

...and as i've stated before, i'm just reading the RAW; i'm not stating how the rules should be played (except in the case of the bikes getting a 2+ (I) save).

the 2+ (I) save for turbo-boosting MoT bikers would work whether or not you applied the current RAW, or the intended 'OR' version of the rule.

It's simple and has been explained over and over again. With or without RAW the rule is clear.

Bikes don't have an invulnerable save. They only get one from turbo boosting as an ability. So according to the wording for Mark of Tzentch which is perfectly clear since the model doesn't have a invulnerable save it gets a 5+ invulnerable save making the bike 3+/5+ inv which is still a nice effect as they will get an invulnerable save when not turbo boosting.

They don't get a 5+ inv save and then get a 2+ inv save when they turbo boost.

Think about it seriously rules aside. Do you think GW is going to allow people to have 32pt 2+ inv save bikes? The answer is a glaring no. It would make bikes with the mark nigh unstoppable and over powered to the extreme.

Posted By Personification on 08/24/2007 6:42 PM
It's simple and has been explained over and over again. With or without RAW the rule is clear.

Bikes don't have an invulnerable save. They only get one from turbo boosting as an ability. So according to the wording for Mark of Tzentch which is perfectly clear since the model doesn't have a invulnerable save it gets a 5+ invulnerable save making the bike 3+/5+ inv which is still a nice effect as they will get an invulnerable save when not turbo boosting.

They don't get a 5+ inv save and then get a 2+ inv save when they turbo boost.

Think about it seriously rules aside. Do you think GW is going to allow people to have 32pt 2+ inv save bikes? The answer is a glaring no. It would make bikes with the mark nigh unstoppable and over powered to the extreme.

yes it's clear.  the two parts of the rule's text are static applications.  the bikes' turbo boost ability says that their armor saves are to be treated as invulnerable saves.  MoT says that models get +1 to their invulnerable saves.  it doesn't say when they get it.  it just says that they get it.

I won't think about it 'rules aside.'  Your claim that MoT bikes with a 2+ (I) save when turbo boosting are 'nigh unstoppable' and 'overpowered to the extreme' is unfounded.

i don't see anyone screaming bloody murder about eldar pathfinders, and they often have 2+ (I) saves when entrenched in a building.  they are obviously vulnerable to close combat, as well as template weapons.  tzeentch bikers aren't quite as vulnerable to close combat; they only have a 5+ when locked, because the turbo boost ability only applies during the enemy shooting phase.  and if they are turbo boosting all over the place to avoid getting shot, they aren't really doing anything offensive because they can't shoot.  if they run close to the enemy, they're going to get charged.  if they run far off they're going to be off in the middle of nowhere.  the thing they're best at is being a daemon-summoning platform... and WOW all those new daemons!  everyone is SO up in arms about how powerful they are... NOT.  i suppose they'd be really good at occupying a table quarter, though, until someone decided to shoot them with a couple psycannons, or drop them with an incinerator to the face.

also, the cheapest a MoT biker could be is 37 points (a unit of 5 is 41/model minimum). 

Personification, you're making a rule up.

This rule: "A model with mark of tzeentch doesn't get +1 invun if it doesn't have an invun".

There is no such rule.

Models with mark of tzeentch get +1 invun if they don't have an invun. It's just that it's an illegal action normally, so doesn't mean anything.

Then of course you get given 5+ invuns. But since you've already tried to give them +1 invun, you can't try again.

But if you suddenly get an invun before applying the 5+, then that +1 invun starts to work.

Thus bikes get 2+ invuns.

Where is the rule that says "you don't get +1 invun if you don't have an invun". I see no "or" or "instead". Just 2 static rules.

Also, at the very least, bikes normally have invulnerable saves when turboboosting, so they get the +1 invun save even if you throw an "or" that is not there into the rules text.

No because it says IF the model has no normal invulnerable save it gets a 5+ invulnerable save.

It's that big IF in the rules ya'll are ignoring. It doesn't say Mark of Tzentch grants models +1 to their invulnerable save AND if they don't have an invulnerable save it grants a 5+ invulnerable save.

So a model either has an Invulnerable save and gets +1 to it. Or it does not and gets a 5+ not both. I'm done here however we'll just wait as it won't be long and GW will have to release about 20 new FAQ's due to the mass confusion this and other new Chaos rules are causing.

I think you need to practice your english a bit. The "IF" in that sentence doesnt exclude anything, neither does it make the rule "either or".
You must be confusinf "if" with "or", that way the rule would work as you think.

It simply states that if the model doesnt have the save they get it, nothing about it beeing a choice of either +1 or a 5+.

Im playing devils advocate and say they both apply at the same time, if you go by stict RAW. Since there is nothing that limits it in the lines and you dont apply rules with a timestamp or at the start of the game only. What might be intended is totally another question and most pepole out there seem to think it means you get 3+/5+ and 2+ when boosting by RAI.