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.

You can not START the game with Forewarning cast on a unit, but you DO start the game with MoT on a unit. So yes, the unit has a flat, always-present ++ of 6++. Now that 6++ can be increased or lowered by other mechanics, such as forewarning or a skyshield. So yes, it would be lowered to 4++ as per forewarning's rules.

I don't see the contradiction here.

What about the CSM boon table?

There is a boon that is +1 armor save if I am not mistaken. Does that affect your Invuln save or not

Say you have power armor and a sigil of corruption. 3+/4++
you get this boon, are you 2+/3++ or 2+/4++

then what happens if you have MoT?

Armor saves and invulnerable saves exist independently of one another.

The contradiction is that a very common tactic for the Mark of Tzeentch is to put them on a Skyshield or bless them with Forewarning for a tasty 4++ Invul. Most players would then say the Mark builds this up to a 3++ because it adds a +1 modifier.
If you don't play this way or have never considered it, then fair play to you and your argument is at least consistent. Unfortunately this is not covered in the official FAQs.

Just as an aside, current vote is 52:48% and I don't think there's been more than a 45/55 split the entire time this thread has existed, so I'm very glad to see how contentious this topic is.

Mozzamanx wrote:


Just as an aside, current vote is 52:48% and I don't think there's been more than a 45/55 split the entire time this thread has existed, so I'm very glad to see how contentious this topic is.

I agree - ironically this would be extremely easy to clear up in an FAQ by just saying if the MoT's restriction is applied when the unit is deployed or any time a save has to be made and then to expand it to all modifiers on stats. The fact that it's about a 50/50 split in the poll - until it gets FAQ'ed, it turns into a discussion or roll off at the beginning of the game and move on.

Mozzamanx wrote:
The contradiction is that a very common tactic for the Mark of Tzeentch is to put them on a Skyshield or bless them with Forewarning for a tasty 4++ Invul.

That's how the rule works. 0++ -> MoT =6++ -> Skyshield= 4++

Most players would then say the Mark builds this up to a 3++ because it adds a +1 modifier.

Most players don't know how to read then. It is literally impossible to apply the MoT buff AFTER the Skyshield/Forewarning buff because units START the game with MoT, meaning its affect is already applied. They do not START the game with forewarning or on a skyshield.

Heading you off at the pass, I am aware that you technically can "start" the game with a unit already deployed on a skyshield. However, you place the unit there during the deployment phase, so it doesn't get its 4++ until the deployment phase. The MoT's +1 to an invulnerable save follows the exact same mechanic as a bike giving a model +1 strength or a palaquin of nurgle giving more wounds. The buff is there before any phases in the game even start.

Which doesn't matter. It's a modifier to all invul saves. Forewarning/Skyshield aren't modifiers so the 4++ from either will get modified by MoT to be a 3++.

Sure, if you want to be obtuse and pretend that the order in which the buffs are bestowed does't matter.

Point out to me where the rule states that the MoT is organic and fluctuates throughout the match depending on any modifiers to your ++. Using your argument, a player could use the MoT to negate the Grimoire backfiring by applying the MoT buff AFTER the Grimoire reduces the units invulnerable save. Using your argument, I could cast Grimoire on my MoT cultists, and if it backfires and reduces their ++ by 2, I can say "aha! Well since the Grimoire failed, NOW I'll apply their MoT buff so that they have a 6++."

No. The Mark of Tzeentch is applied BEFORE the Grimoire of True Names, at the very start of the game. So if a unit with a 6++ was grimoire'd and it backfired, the MoT would be overruled and the target would have no ++ for that turn. SIMILARLY, because a unit STARTS the game with the MoT, you can not apply its effect AFTER you get the 4++ from a Skyshield. You start with the 6++, move on to the skyshield or cast forewarning, and get a 4++.

The whole restriction on the MoTz is due to the awful reward of the gods table... c'mon guys read the full codex, one of the million results improves your Invul sv, if you have sigil+ MoT you are sitting at 3++ if you get that rewards you'd go to 2++ but the MoT forbids this from happening. I'd allow and I've played the 2++ trick on talons/oblies + daemons it is one of the few synergies between codexe, and truly i doubt I'll ever played again, my talons only got 2++ 1 turn and 5++ the remaining 4.

Besides, even the champion of the talons can get to 2++ Without the MoT, if he gets the reward from the gods, it gets to 4++ plus GOTN 2++, so if the stars align and my warp talon champion of Tz gets that reward + GOTN he can't have a 2++ due to MoTz? that doesn't sound right.

Is there actual support for MoT being resolved before the game starts?

It's a rule. It just IS, at all times during the game.

Rules of units aren't evaluated at the start of the game and then left as-is. By this logic, stealth gives +1 cover save to... nothing.

Its simple. MoT improves an invulnerable save by 1.

It isn't permanent, it isn't resolved once, its just a rule the unit has.

The save is 5+1. The save is not 4.

Edit: i'm split if a unit with MoT can have its save improved to 2 by other means. I don't think the rule says "may not benefit from an invulnerable better than 3..." it states, "MoT can not be used to improve" -

This would mean that 5+2+1 is not allowed, as the +1 from MoT is needed to get to 2+. However, a MoT unit with forewarning and grimoire (4++, +2 (G) +1 (MoT)) = 2, because MoT isn't needed....

Again, i'm split on that. not sure. But i'm still convinced you can't do 5+2+1.

 Lord Yayula wrote:
The whole restriction on the MoTz is due to the awful reward of the gods table... c'mon guys read the full codex, one of the million results improves your Invul sv, if you have sigil+ MoT you are sitting at 3++ if you get that rewards you'd go to 2++ but the MoT forbids this from happening. I'd allow and I've played the 2++ trick on talons/oblies it is one of the few synergies between codexes.

Besides, even the champion of the talons can get to 2++ Without the MoT, if he gets the reward from the gods, it gets to 4++ + GOTN 2++, so if the stars align and my warptalon of Tz gets that reward + GOTN he can't have a 2++ due to MoTz? that doesn't sound right.

I have the Codex and I assure you, none of the Rewards have anything to do with Invulnerable saves. Mechanoid (35) improves Armour, not Invulnerables. Cosmic Fate (42) allows rerolls, again only of Armour.

Mozzamanx wrote:

 Lord Yayula wrote:
The whole restriction on the MoTz is due to the awful reward of the gods table... c'mon guys read the full codex, one of the million results improves your Invul sv, if you have sigil+ MoT you are sitting at 3++ if you get that rewards you'd go to 2++ but the MoT forbids this from happening. I'd allow and I've played the 2++ trick on talons/oblies it is one of the few synergies between codexes.

Besides, even the champion of the talons can get to 2++ Without the MoT, if he gets the reward from the gods, it gets to 4++ + GOTN 2++, so if the stars align and my warptalon of Tz gets that reward + GOTN he can't have a 2++ due to MoTz? that doesn't sound right.

I have the Codex and I assure you, none of the Rewards have anything to do with Invulnerable saves. Mechanoid (35) improves Armour, not Invulnerables. Cosmic Fate (42) allows rerolls, again only of Armour.

True, I was thinking on the Fantasy one, which does indeed reduce your sv by 1++

I'm surprised there is such a debate over what should be a straightforward logical application of the rules based on the order of invulnerable save modifiers, which is entirely relevant.

So your model with the Daemon USR starts off with their base 5++. You can then take the MoT as an upgrade; the associated modifier to invulnerable saves is a permanent effect that applies from the start of the game. The MoT automatically and instantly improves your current base invulnerable save by +1 (to a maximum of 3++), so your Daemon model now gets a 4++. No problem.

You can then apply the effects of the Grimoire, which can be done at any point of the bearers Movement phase and therefore after the effects of the MoT modifier. This gives a further +2 bonus to your invulnerable save, resulting in a 2++ and no conflict with the restrictions of the MoT modifier. No problem.

In the case of Forewarning, this is a blessing, manifested at the start of your Psyker's Movement phase. OK, so this means your model now has a 4++ which takes the place of your base 5++ Daemon save. Your MoT then of course immediately gives you a +1 to this, which improves your current invulnerable save (4++) to a 3++. No problem. You can then choose to apply the effects of the Grimoire to this if you wish, after Forewarning has been resolved, to again give you a 2++. No problem.

The key points are that the Daemon save and effects of Forewarning give absolute invulnerable save values, which can then be improved by MoT and/or the Grimoire in the relevant order. Using the Grimoire to further improve an invulnerable save in no way breaks the rules of the MoT or negates its effect as the associated modifier has already been applied.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
..... You can then choose to apply the effects of the Grimoire to this if you wish, after Forewarning has been resolved, to again give you a 2++. No problem.

The key points are that the Daemon save and effects of Forewarning give absolute invulnerable save values, which can then be improved by MoT and/or the Grimoire in the relevant order. Using the Grimoire to further improve an invulnerable save in no way breaks the rules of the MoT or negates its effect as the associated modifier has already been applied.

The rules for Multiple Modifiers do not say to apply them in an order chosen by the player, they say to apply:
- Multipliers
- Additions and Subtractions
- Set modifiers

At no point does it say you are allowed to apply the +1 from Tzeentch and then the +2 from the Grimoire, it says to add the additions/subtractions at once. In this case it would be a 5+, +2 and +1, of which one of those additions expressly forbids going past a 3++.


(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Sure, if you want to be obtuse and pretend that the order in which the buffs are bestowed does't matter.

I'm not pretending - they absolutely don't.

Point out to me where the rule states that the MoT is organic and fluctuates throughout the match depending on any modifiers to your ++. Using your argument, a player could use the MoT to negate the Grimoire backfiring by applying the MoT buff AFTER the Grimoire reduces the units invulnerable save. Using your argument, I could cast Grimoire on my MoT cultists, and if it backfires and reduces their ++ by 2, I can say "aha! Well since the Grimoire failed, NOW I'll apply their MoT buff so that they have a 6++."

Does MoT give you a set invul or does it modify your invul?
a) Cultists can't be targeted by the Grimoire, but let's pretend they could.
Cultists have no invul, MoT makes it a 6++.
Grimoire fails and throws a -1 modifier on that invul save.
0+1-1=0 therefore there's no invul save. It's like it's the actual rules or something.

No. The Mark of Tzeentch is applied BEFORE the Grimoire of True Names, at the very start of the game. So if a unit with a 6++ was grimoire'd and it backfired, the MoT would be overruled and the target would have no ++ for that turn. SIMILARLY, because a unit STARTS the game with the MoT, you can not apply its effect AFTER you get the 4++ from a Skyshield. You start with the 6++, move on to the skyshield or cast forewarning, and get a 4++.

Nothing in this paragraph is a a rule.

Mozzamanx wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
..... You can then choose to apply the effects of the Grimoire to this if you wish, after Forewarning has been resolved, to again give you a 2++. No problem.

The key points are that the Daemon save and effects of Forewarning give absolute invulnerable save values, which can then be improved by MoT and/or the Grimoire in the relevant order. Using the Grimoire to further improve an invulnerable save in no way breaks the rules of the MoT or negates its effect as the associated modifier has already been applied.

The rules for Multiple Modifiers do not say to apply them in an order chosen by the player, they say to apply:
- Multipliers
- Additions and Subtractions
- Set modifiers

At no point does it say you are allowed to apply the +1 from Tzeentch and then the +2 from the Grimoire, it says to add the additions/subtractions at once. In this case it would be a 5+, +2 and +1, of which one of those additions expressly forbids going past a 3++.


(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

The rules also do not state WHEN modifiers are applied - if they are applied at the point of the test or if they are applied when the effect is granted. So both points of view could be correct.

Mozzamanx wrote:
(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

No, Forewarning is not a set modifier. At all. It does not replace your existing invul save (which is what a set modifier would do).

rigeld2 wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

No, Forewarning is not a set modifier. At all. It does not replace your existing invul save (which is what a set modifier would do).

How is "Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit as a 4+ invulnerable save" NOT a set modifier?

Mozzamanx wrote:
The rules for Multiple Modifiers do not say to apply them in an order chosen by the player, they say to apply:
- Multipliers
- Additions and Subtractions
- Set modifiers

At no point does it say you are allowed to apply the +1 from Tzeentch and then the +2 from the Grimoire, it says to add the additions/subtractions at once. In this case it would be a 5+, +2 and +1, of which one of those additions expressly forbids going past a 3++.

It doesn't actually say apply the additions/subtractions at once, but following the Multiple Modifiers rules, if the +1 from MoT on it's own doesn't break the 3++ limit the +2 from the Grimoire will stack to give 2++.

Mozzamanx wrote:
(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

By this logic you couldn't improve a Daemon invulnerable save at all as the 5++ from the USR would be a set value arising from rules or wargear.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

By this logic you couldn't improve a Daemon invulnerable save at all as the 5++ from the USR would be a set value arising from rules or wargear.

Taking that logic to the extreme, all invulnerable saves would be set modifiers since you can't have an invulnerable save without wargear or special rule. So the rules for invulnerable saves contradict the profile stat modification rules found on page 2 of the BRB. Then again, invulnerable saves are part of a model's profile so the degree in which the modifier rules are able to apply may or may not debatable as well.

 Unholyllama wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

No, Forewarning is not a set modifier. At all. It does not replace your existing invul save (which is what a set modifier would do).

How is "Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit as a 4+ invulnerable save" NOT a set modifier?

Because it's giving you an invulnerable save. So you have 2 (as a Demon) - a 5++ and a 4++.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unholyllama wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
(Quite ignoring the fact that Forewarning is a set modifier and thus arguably resets the whole bloody thing to 4+ anyway, regardless of modifers...)

No, Forewarning is not a set modifier. At all. It does not replace your existing invul save (which is what a set modifier would do).

How is "Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit has a 4+ invulnerable save" NOT a set modifier?

Because it's giving you an invulnerable save. So you have 2 (as a Demon) - a 5++ and a 4++.

Yet the example of a set modifier on page 2 of the BRB shows the example of getting +1 S and a S8....resulting in just the S8 since it's a set modifier. So wouldn't daemon USR and Forewarning yield 2 set modifiers if, in fact, invulnerable saves are a profile characteristic to modify?

No. Nothing in the Demon rule or Forewarning says that it's a set modifier, so it's not.

rigeld2 wrote:
No. Nothing in the Demon rule or Forewarning says that it's a set modifier, so it's not.

So your interpretation of the two is the same as having multiple cover or armor saves - best one wins. Works for me.

Though now I'm wondering where an example of a set modifier could be found in any of the rules/codices.

Mostly weapons or wargear (such as lash whips).

 Unholyllama wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No. Nothing in the Demon rule or Forewarning says that it's a set modifier, so it's not.

So your interpretation of the two is the same as having multiple cover or armor saves - best one wins. Works for me.

Though now I'm wondering where an example of a set modifier could be found in any of the rules/codices.

Psyocculum - you count as being BS10. Since the rules only allow for a single BS, it's a set modifier.
There's allowance for more than one save.

Its a 2++ without those stupid re-rolls, go for it.

Edit: Just realized this could apply to Possessed.

*rubs hands manically*

Again: for those claiming MoT fixes a save value before the game, any rules for that?

It is a modifier, so according to t=page 2 you woul ddetrmine the value of the save each time you need to use it. Same as a model captain with a powerfist isnt S8, they can be S9 due to furious charge. Easy example - Gift of Chaos giving a +1S boon with a powerfist lord doesnt give a S10 lord, but a S9 lord, despite the gift being present from deployment. This is because you always follow the modifiers rule.

Here you have no permission to apply the MoT when it takes saves below a 3++, and given every time we have a limit we apply same modifiers (+2, +1) at the same time, to the limit, to avoid breaking a rule, you cannot get better than a3++

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Here you have no permission to apply the MoT when it takes saves below a 3++, and given every time we have a limit we apply same modifiers (+2, +1) at the same time, to the limit, to avoid breaking a rule, you cannot get better than a3++

In this case however the MoT doesn't take saves below 3++, the Grimoire does. So a 2++ is possible.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Here you have no permission to apply the MoT when it takes saves below a 3++, and given every time we have a limit we apply same modifiers (+2, +1) at the same time, to the limit, to avoid breaking a rule, you cannot get better than a3++

In this case however the MoT doesn't take saves below 3++, the Grimoire does. So a 2++ is possible.

I have to ask, is MoT being used in any part of the calculation for bringing the save to 2++?
In other words, can you get a 2++ without MoT?