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.

The Baronial Court formation allows a single Imperial Knight to take artifacts, having Belisarius Cawl in my army allows him to take one from the Fall of Cadia artifacts.
One of them peaks my interest at the moment, namely the Omnissiah's Grace. This nifty artifact grants a model a 6++ invulnerable save or increases an existing one with +1 till a max. of 3++.
Allowing you to increase the invulnerable save of the Ion Shield to 3++
The Baronial Court formation can also increase the invulnerable save of the Ion Shield with +1 (on the front side and within 6'' of another Knight) but does not have an inbuilt limit.
Does this allow me to increase the invulnerable save of the Ion Shield on my front facing to 2++?
Or does the limit on the artifact counteract the bonus of the formation?

I would of course love to see this work in my favour, especially if I can get (with a bit of luck) the Ion Bulwark warlord trait. Allowing me to re-roll 1's on my Ion Shield.

The artifact alone prevents it.
The cap on that states it can't be improved past a 3++

If you take the court first then the artifact you still breach the rule on it as the save has been increased beyond its limit.

 Jackal wrote:
The artifact alone prevents it.
The cap on that states it can't be improved past a 3++

If you take the court first then the artifact you still breach the rule on it as the save has been increased beyond its limit.

The thing is, one could argue that that limit is for the artifact only. Not allowing it to be used to increase an invulnerable save to 2++, yet still keeping it on 3++.
So if the artifact precedes the formation rule, it would be allowed to increase the save to 2++.
Otherwise the artifact would deny a lot of potential +1 bonuses on a models invulnerable save. Anytime a model that already would have a 3++ because of the Omnissiah's Grace it would not be allowed to increase its invulnerable save any further in any way possible.

 Arlen wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
The artifact alone prevents it.
The cap on that states it can't be improved past a 3++

If you take the court first then the artifact you still breach the rule on it as the save has been increased beyond its limit.

The thing is, one could argue that that limit is for the artifact only. Not allowing it to be used to increase an invulnerable save to 2++, yet still keeping it on 3++.
So if the artifact precedes the formation rule, it would be allowed to increase the save to 2++.
Otherwise the artifact would deny a lot of potential +1 bonuses on a models invulnerable save. Anytime a model that already would have a 3++ because of the Omnissiah's Grace it would not be allowed to increase its invulnerable save any further in any way possible.

HIWPI: if you need a modifier that's limited to a set number, you can't go below that with it's help at all. "Sorting" them in some way without having explicit permission to do so is plain cheating to me. You also can't fire Ordnance last to get around it's limitations on other weapons.

If it's a chaos knight and you grimoire it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arlen wrote:

 Jackal wrote:
The artifact alone prevents it.
The cap on that states it can't be improved past a 3++

If you take the court first then the artifact you still breach the rule on it as the save has been increased beyond its limit.

The thing is, one could argue that that limit is for the artifact only. Not allowing it to be used to increase an invulnerable save to 2++, yet still keeping it on 3++.
So if the artifact precedes the formation rule, it would be allowed to increase the save to 2++.
Otherwise the artifact would deny a lot of potential +1 bonuses on a models invulnerable save. Anytime a model that already would have a 3++ because of the Omnissiah's Grace it would not be allowed to increase its invulnerable save any further in any way possible.

No it couldn't, the artifact imposes a hard cap. The only way to avoid the cap is to not use the artifact in the first place.

One could argue a lot.

But you have no permission in which to sort the order of these benefits.
Nekooni nailed it on the head with the ordnance example.


Picking and choosing when to apply a benefit is not down to you when there is no order.



The artifact states it can't be used to increase past a 3++
This is still be used as part of the way to do so in your point.

I can't pick to apply furious charge on an ork before the power klaw bonus for example (this making it S10 instead of S9)

Well.. to bad then.
The ordnance example was really good and seems indeed the best way to describe this situation.
Not that a 3++ is that terrible, but for the Baronial Court the artifact kinda loses its merit in this formation then.

 Jackal wrote:

I can't pick to apply furious charge on an ork before the power klaw bonus for example (this making it S10 instead of S9)

To be honest, this is more a mathematical situation then one where different rules interact with each other. Think of PEMDAS.
But I get what you mean.

I know and apologies, after looking at it I can see it wasn't the best example :p


While the artifact loses its potential from that, what if you throw it on a knight lancer instead?
I think they had a fair bit to think about considering through either intent or wording, they made the artifacts available to most armies.

I would say that since the Artifact has a conditional clause in it, the answer would be no. That the best you can improved it to is 3+.

 Jackal wrote:
I know and apologies, after looking at it I can see it wasn't the best example :p


While the artifact loses its potential from that, what if you throw it on a knight lancer instead?
I think they had a fair bit to think about considering through either intent or wording, they made the artifacts available to most armies.

It is indeed quite good on the Knight Lancer, as it also has effect on its close combat save.
I can see this combination work, yeah. Thank you for the tip.

I'd still go with the 4++ on all facings, no deepstrike relic myself.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I'd still go with the 4++ on all facings, no deepstrike relic myself.

Yeah, but that would mean taking Saint Celestine. Which is not a bad choice, but not the army I want to build right now.

My friend played with that 2++ save the other day goddamn loyalist scum.

If i recall properly there is some FAQ answer stating similar situations, where they state you can't go beyond a limit of some item (this case save shouldn't be able to improve beyond 3++) but can't remember exactly where it is to properly point the reference.

I don't know about a FAQ but there's always p.8 of the rulebook regarding modifiers. Specifically you multiply first, then add or subtract, then set if a particular value is specified.

As with all of these do this unless that things, think of the las part as a conditional "set" value. I.E. if the save is 2++ or better set it to 3++ instead.

That's kind of a moot point since both of them are additions I believe. The problem is which order they're applied in. If the one with the restriction is applied first, then the next bonus would push it to 2++. If the one without the restriction is applied first, then the one with the restriction can't be applied.

HIWPI would be that if there is any restriction, then it is always applied last/affects all bonuses equally. Most of these types of issues comes up because 40k barely has anything resembling an order of operations, which is why you get dozen-page long chicken fights about whether or not Apothecaries can take wargear or stuff like this (I think the Apothecary one was FAQ'd though).

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
That's kind of a moot point since both of them are additions I believe. The problem is which order they're applied in. If the one with the restriction is applied first, then the next bonus would push it to 2++. If the one without the restriction is applied first, then the one with the restriction can't be applied.

HIWPI would be that if there is any restriction, then it is always applied last/affects all bonuses equally. Most of these types of issues comes up because 40k barely has anything resembling an order of operations, which is why you get dozen-page long chicken fights about whether or not Apothecaries can take wargear or stuff like this (I think the Apothecary one was FAQ'd though).

Wouldn't matter regarding the order if there is a limit in place on one. If the combine addition is lower than the limit, then you remove the bonus that is limited. If it is still lower than the limit, it is not because of that rule that provided any limit.

Yeah but you and I both know that there will be people who insist on arguing Order of Operations to gain some technical advantage. Which is why that's the way I choose to play, regardless of any logic on their reading style.

Personally I think they should just flat out make it a core rule that an Invul Save can't be improved beyond 3+ (but can come natively at 2+, like the Dark Eldar Shadowfield).

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Yeah but you and I both know that there will be people who insist on arguing Order of Operations to gain some technical advantage. Which is why that's the way I choose to play, regardless of any logic on their reading style.

Unfortunately, mathematical Order of Operations doesn't take in to account set values, nor do the Multiple Modifiers rule.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Personally I think they should just flat out make it a core rule that an Invul Save can't be improved beyond 3+ (but can come natively at 2+, like the Dark Eldar Shadowfield).

There are many things that need to be changed and addressed, this one is relatively minor on the list, but potentially useful.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Yeah but you and I both know that there will be people who insist on arguing Order of Operations to gain some technical advantage. Which is why that's the way I choose to play, regardless of any logic on their reading style.

Personally I think they should just flat out make it a core rule that an Invul Save can't be improved beyond 3+ (but can come natively at 2+, like the Dark Eldar Shadowfield).

The rules for modifers are clearly stated on page 8 IIRC of the BRB.

I THINK, you would have to double check.
That it is multipliers first, plus and malus, and then set numbers.
Since it is defined in that order that is why rules cannot change snapshooting above a 1, because setting is always applied last.

I think there is also a sequencing rule that I will have to find but pretty sure it was only for "start of turn" effects.

Sequencing page 17 BRB

While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar.

When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order.

So it seems that on your OPPONENTS turn you might be able to argue that you have a 3++ but have a 2++ on your own turn.

My train of thought goes "Once it becomes a 2+, the one with the restriction shuts off until it goes back to 3+ because it's still contributing to it being a 2+". Nothing says that the check only happens on application. Again, just how I would play it.

You could always turn to chaos if you want a knight with a 2++ (re-rolling depending on who you ask).