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.

Agreed with the above.

The Mark was used to improve the invulnerable save.
The save is now better than 3+
The rule for the Mark has been broken.

Well, what if a player Forewarned his Tzeentch Possessed or Obliterators (or put them on a Skyshield for that matter), and then used the Grimoire on them to make it +2 to a 2++? In that instance, the Mark of Tzeentch is NOT being used to increase the invulnerable save better than 3++.

What say you to this? Or is Tzeentch just somehow screwed into never getting a 2++, even though any other Marked Possessed or Oblits would benefit in this manner to a 2++?

In this case it would be ok; its how Daemons do it all the time.

If you forewarn you get a 4++ save, AND another 4++ save from MoT+Daemon.; one gets bumped to 2++, the other to 3++

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In this case it would be ok; its how Daemons do it all the time.

If you forewarn you get a 4++ save, AND another 4++ save from MoT+Daemon.; one gets bumped to 2++, the other to 3++

See but this breaks the argument since even though you can get a 2++ without the MoT, the MoT is still applied to the unit and thus would require a person to be selective in how modifiers are applied. For the argument to be consistent, the unit marked with the MoT could never get better than a 3++. So if you Grimoire, forewarn and MoT a unit from CSM you either will get max save (breaking MoT per some people) o just a 3++.

I am still of the camp that the 3++ restriction is only tested when the mark is applied and he Grimoire would allow it to go to a 2++.

Now, thinking of the wording without the Grimoire, do the marks stack similarly to DE pain tokens? So if an IC with MOT joins a unit that also has MoT, would that grant +2 to the invulnerable or is it specific to the unit? At this pint I'm just trying to figure out how the 3++ limit could ever be hit in the first place.

If you had a way to improve a invulnerable save to a 2++ without counting the MoT that would be fine. The MoT just can't be used help the model get better then a 3++.

The MoT bonus is in effect until the save gets pushed beyond 3++.

If all modifiers including MoT would result in a 3++, MoT would still be in effect, and the model would have a 3++ save.

If all modifiers, including the MoT would result in a 2++ save, MoT would not be in effect, and the save would be determined by the other modifies. If this means that the other modifiers still result in a 2++, then that is fine (ex: grimoire on a skyshield).

 Unholyllama wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In this case it would be ok; its how Daemons do it all the time.

If you forewarn you get a 4++ save, AND another 4++ save from MoT+Daemon.; one gets bumped to 2++, the other to 3++

See but this breaks the argument since even though you can get a 2++ without the MoT, the MoT is still applied to the unit and thus would require a person to be selective in how modifiers are applied. For the argument to be consistent, the unit marked with the MoT could never get better than a 3++. So if you Grimoire, forewarn and MoT a unit from CSM you either will get max save (breaking MoT per some people) o just a 3++.

I am still of the camp that the 3++ restriction is only tested when the mark is applied and he Grimoire would allow it to go to a 2++.

Now, thinking of the wording without the Grimoire, do the marks stack similarly to DE pain tokens? So if an IC with MOT joins a unit that also has MoT, would that grant +2 to the invulnerable or is it specific to the unit? At this pint I'm just trying to figure out how the 3++ limit could ever be hit in the first place.

The mark is applied consistently, any time you evaluate their save. Thats how modifiers work. As pointed out, if you remove their save (somehow!) then they end up with a 6++; under your interpretation they would have nothing.

The MoT in the forewarn example isnt used at all.

the order, does not matter in the case of applying MoT and GOTN

both are being used to improve the ++ saves, MoT has a stipulation specifically forbidding it being used to get a ++ better then 3++,

you cannot get a 2++ without using both, order does not matter at all, simply that you are using both, and one cannot be used to grant a 3++, and weather you are adding the +1 from MoT before or after, it most certainly IS being used to achieve that 2++,

to argue otherwise is to say you dont need that extra +1 to your ++ save to achieve a 2++, which does not work mathematically, and does not work RAW.

With the mot no save improvment will alter it past 3++ as the mot is being used to get the save to a point where 2++ is possible. A lord with no mot and a 4++ can get to 2++ with it though.

 Bausk wrote:
With the mot no save improvment will alter it past 3++ as the mot is being used to get the save to a point where 2++ is possible. A lord with no mot and a 4++ can get to 2++ with it though.

A lord is not a legal target for the grimoire.

Well the way I'd look at it is that the Mark is a constant state and so always activates before the Grimoire, so I think 2++ is fine.

Ah only thngs with the daemon usr I gather? Yeah sadly unless you can get something to 4++ without the MoT then I don't see a 2++ happening.

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Well the way I'd look at it is that the Mark is a constant state and so always activates before the Grimoire, so I think 2++ is fine.

You're still using the MoT to achieve better than 3++, so you're breaking a rule.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 Godless-Mimicry wrote:
Well the way I'd look at it is that the Mark is a constant state and so always activates before the Grimoire, so I think 2++ is fine.

You're still using the MoT to achieve better than 3++, so you're breaking a rule.

exaclty,

when the two rules are applied does not matter,

the fact is, you have to apply both rules before you roll your save, to get a 2++ save, and one of those rules stipulates it cannot be used to get better then a 3++,

order does not matter, you use both, and are bound by both the benefits and restrictions of both

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 wildboar wrote:
I'm not a Chaos player myself but play against them regularly and my take on it would be:

1) Your MoT models have paid for the +1 Invuln at the list building stage and start the game with it (4+ Invuln)

That isnt how MoT works for Daemons; it is rerolled failed saves of a 1.

You cast 4++ invulnerable save, then use grimoire to increase to a 2+. The Tz rule then kicks in, rerolling that save.

wow, that is beyond stupid

Mozzamanx wrote:

For reference:
The 'no better than a 3++' clause therefore appears redundant unless it is specifically to avoid cross-Codex combinations.

Note that the CSM codex has tons of useless redundant things in it.
Axe of Blind Furry giving rage, yet is only available to models with Rage.
Warpsmiths repair on a 5+ but mechandrites give +1 to repair and Warpsmiths come stock with mechandrites hence warpsmiths repair on 4+ ALWAYS.

Check your FAQ, it can now be given to a DP.

actually this seems quite straight forward.

while I can see where people are comming from with the 3++ 'restriction' within the mark text you are fundamentally inccorect in your interpretations of it.

the mark is applied as a squad/character upgrade, it is at this point that any existing invul save cannot be pushed behond a 3++. at the start of the game this is still true and it is true thougout the game, this save is a constant. so for example, a model with a 4++ invul pays for the MoT, this buffs his standard save to a 3++.

the 3++ is based on the marks abbility to buff behond a 3++, this means the MARK cannot take you past a 3++ but it doesnt say that it PREVENTS any additional modifyers.

in this instance your 3++ could recive a +1 from an external source as it isnt the mark that is making it go to a 2+ it is the grimoure, similarly the grimoure doesnt care if the mark is there or not, it is simply a buff tool.

What about non-modifiers?
Say a model with a MoT (and no other inv save) has the power Forewarning cast on him. This isn't a save that was there when the mark was purchased, so would it boost the new save to a 3++?

The only way I can see the Mark working is if it's re-evaluated every time the Invulnerable save is changed. As I see it, the Mark has been used, and the save is 2++ (in the Grimoire example) so the Mark rule has been broken.

I'm collecting a Thousand a Sons force, and use this Mark a lot, this interpretation is very much to my detriment, but it's how I see it.

just to clarify/add to this, the 3++ restriction is for the mark and the mark alone, it doesn't imply nor state it is a restriction on the models abillity to have a save better than a 3++ only that the mark itself cannot grant a 2++

it isnt the mark providing the buff, it is the grimoure

 nutty_nutter wrote:
actually this seems quite straight forward.

while I can see where people are comming from with the 3++ 'restriction' within the mark text you are fundamentally inccorect in your interpretations of it.

the mark is applied as a squad/character upgrade, it is at this point that any existing invul save cannot be pushed behond a 3++. at the start of the game this is still true and it is true thougout the game, this save is a constant. so for example, a model with a 4++ invul pays for the MoT, this buffs his standard save to a 3++.

the 3++ is based on the marks abbility to buff behond a 3++, this means the MARK cannot take you past a 3++ but it doesnt say that it PREVENTS any additional modifyers.

in this instance your 3++ could recive a +1 from an external source as it isnt the mark that is making it go to a 2+ it is the grimoure, similarly the grimoure doesnt care if the mark is there or not, it is simply a buff tool.

Nothing you stated was based in rules.

+1 to your inv is a modifier. Nothing states that that is a "fixed" modifier you dont ever look at again; it is, and will always be, a modifier. As I pointed out, and you pointedly ignored, removing the daemon save would set the save back to a 6++, as you when determinig "what save do I have" notice you no longer have a 5++ to modify to a 4++, but a 6++ as you have no other save.

You have nothing, anywhere, that says you do not evaluate the modifier every time you are called upon to do so, and the multiple modifiers rule certainly indicates that you DO reevaluate it as needed.

Given the above, you have no possible way to get to a 2++; either you evaluate the MoT first, and stop at 3++ because your save isnt allowed to got any further, or do it second and you cannot apply it.

 Orock wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 wildboar wrote:
I'm not a Chaos player myself but play against them regularly and my take on it would be:

1) Your MoT models have paid for the +1 Invuln at the list building stage and start the game with it (4+ Invuln)

That isnt how MoT works for Daemons; it is rerolled failed saves of a 1.

You cast 4++ invulnerable save, then use grimoire to increase to a 2+. The Tz rule then kicks in, rerolling that save.

wow, that is beyond stupid

I'm actually a fan of it, but then again I play Daemons

In a game I can generally get two FMCs with a rerollable 2+ save of some sort, cover or invulnerable.

I had always read the GoTN rule as a modifier to the roll, which would mean that if your save was 4++, that's still what you had, but rolls of 2 or higher had 2 added giving the same effect as a 2++. This would allow the MoT to work. But after reading the Codex last night, I realized that the GoTN modifies the save itself. I think I'd cast my vote with the crowd that says MoT cannot be used with the GoTN to get a 2++.

But it's still contributing.
Without the mark (in this example) the save couldn't be a 2++
So the save, mark and Grimoire are all responsible for the 2++
So it could easily be said that the Mark is improving a save to 2++ which violates it's own rule.

The largest issue with this thread is that the BRB talks about HOW modifiers are applied (page 2) but not WHEN they are applied.

This leaves it to interpretation. If they are applied at the time the effect is equipped, then 2++ makes sense. If they are applied when tested only, then the 3++ makes sense.

It needs FAQed

There are other stacking modifiers in the game if they come from different sources.... why not this?

Stealth/shrouded for example

"Models with the Mark of Tzeentch have +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 3+)"

Seems to me, given the stacking modifiers elsewhere in the game, the Mark is intended to improve the save up to 3++. Grimoire is a different modifier.

Stealth and Shrouded do not have a clause stating they only apply up to a certain limit. However, I am going to use that as an argument in terms of Cover Saves, and then transfer it to Invuls to prove a point.

The Mark of Tzeentch is the 'Stealth' of Invulnerable Saves. It provides +1, or a 6++ in the absence of any saves. The Grimoire is 'Shrouded' in the same way.
If a Stealthy model sits in 5+ Cover, he now gains a 4+ because this is incredibly straightforward. If he also had Shrouded, then it would be a combination of 5+, +1, and +2 for a total of 2+. See the paralels here?

I am aware that it does not, but *if* Stealth had a clause stating it added +1 to a maximum of 3+, then I think the final save goes without saying. You'd be stuck at a 3+ because the only way to exceed it, is by using Stealth. Which in this case is expressly forbidden from benefitting past a 3+ (In my hypothetical situation).

People here are seeing a 5++ from Daemon and +1 from the Mark of Tzeentch, and assuming it to be identical to a 4++. It is not. If one of those elements is removed (Vindicare Shield Breaker for one) the save is not a true 4++.

I stand by my limit of a 3++ maximum.

It's a simple concept.

MoT states that it can only improve an invulnerable save to 3++.

So your Warp Talons start the game with a 3++ save, and have it forever.

If you, in turn 3, decide to cast the grimoire on them and give them a 2++, that does not conflict with the MoT. The MoT has already done its job and given the Talons their 3++ save. It is never stated nor implied anywhere that the MoT's benefit FLUCTUATES throughout the match based upon other influences to your ++sv. The grimoire is an entirely separate game mechanic, and it can alter the Talon's invulnerable save to whatever the feth it wants. That isn't going to make the MoT magically go "Oh, I guess I'd better make myself worse in order to maintain that 3++ cap!"

Yeah these 2++ reroll save rules are begging for a nerf-bat to the face.

Are not totals checked to make sure we are not going over an imposed limit before we apply that total? I mean I can't have my stealth, shrouded bike turbo boost and give the bike a 1+ cover save because after each item is added we check to make sure the cover save has stayed a 2+ or worse. If it is better then 2+ we have to reset to 2+.

It would work the same here, regardless of the order once MoT is added to the equation the best you can get is 3+. After each item is added we check to make sure the save is no better then 3+.

Its a whole different debate if a model with a MoT can choose not to include it if several other factors could improve its save to 2+ with out using the MoT.

Ok I'm just to edit the whole thing now...

How do you interpret a unit of Tzeentch Havocs under the effects of Forewarning?
The Mark confers +1 to a max 3++, or a 6++ in the absence of a save.
Forewarning confers a 4++.


By your argument, they would only have a 4++ because the Mark is applied before the game starts, once and forever, and is not a modifier. You cannot turn it into a modifier for a 3++ when it suits you and then treat it as permanent for the Grimoire.