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.

Ok lets look at the debate like this. If the 3++ limit is only at the time of the MoT's use, then what does the limit actually limit? As far as I can tell there is no way to get above the 3++ with normal CSM upgrades. As such wouldn't the 3++ limit be pointless if it didn't apply to other way of increasing invul saves like the Grimoire?

 Nilok wrote:

 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?

No, the MoT brings it to 4++. Then the Grimoire brings it to 2++.
In other words, can you get better than a 3++ using just the MoT?

Or the grimoire takes it to a 3++, and Mark can't take it lower. Why are you applying Mark first, when that has no rules support? Are you using the idea that Mark is "first" because you buy it at list building? Because that also has no rules support, and breaks multiple modifiers rules

One way breaks rules, the other doesn't. 3++ is the best you're getting

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or the grimoire takes it to a 3++, and Mark can't take it lower. Why are you applying Mark first, when that has no rules support? Are you using the idea that Mark is "first" because you buy it at list building? Because that also has no rules support, and breaks multiple modifiers rules

One way breaks rules, the other doesn't. 3++ is the best you're getting

Because the MoT improves your invulnerable save and then the Grimoire provides a bonus. No rules are broken and you get a 2++.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or the grimoire takes it to a 3++, and Mark can't take it lower. Why are you applying Mark first, when that has no rules support? Are you using the idea that Mark is "first" because you buy it at list building? Because that also has no rules support, and breaks multiple modifiers rules

One way breaks rules, the other doesn't. 3++ is the best you're getting

Because the MoT improves your invulnerable save and then the Grimoire provides a bonus. No rules are broken and you get a 2++.

They are both modifiers. Find a rule supporting your assertion that
A) The order of modifiers matters
B) You get to pick the order.

As it is you have 5+1+2=2 which breaks the MoT rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or the grimoire takes it to a 3++, and Mark can't take it lower. Why are you applying Mark first, when that has no rules support? Are you using the idea that Mark is "first" because you buy it at list building? Because that also has no rules support, and breaks multiple modifiers rules

One way breaks rules, the other doesn't. 3++ is the best you're getting

Because the MoT improves your invulnerable save and then the Grimoire provides a bonus. No rules are broken and you get a 2++.

They are both modifiers. Find a rule supporting your assertion that
A) The order of modifiers matters
B) You get to pick the order.

As it is you have 5+1+2=2 which breaks the MoT rule.

You don't get to pick the order. The rules are that the Grimoire is used in the Movement phase whereas the MoT is already active. Therefore the order is relevant. In addition the multiple modifiers rules are specifically relevant to the 9 model characteristic values, of which invulnerable save is not one. Otherwise things like the Daemon USR and Forewarning would overwrite any modifiers giving you a flat 5++ or 4++.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or the grimoire takes it to a 3++, and Mark can't take it lower. Why are you applying Mark first, when that has no rules support? Are you using the idea that Mark is "first" because you buy it at list building? Because that also has no rules support, and breaks multiple modifiers rules

One way breaks rules, the other doesn't. 3++ is the best you're getting

Because the MoT improves your invulnerable save and then the Grimoire provides a bonus. No rules are broken and you get a 2++.

They are both modifiers. Find a rule supporting your assertion that
A) The order of modifiers matters
B) You get to pick the order.

As it is you have 5+1+2=2 which breaks the MoT rule.

You don't get to pick the order. The rules are that the Grimoire is used in the Movement phase whereas the MoT is already active. Therefore the order is relevant. In addition the multiple modifiers rules are specifically relevant to the 9 model characteristic values, of which invulnerable save is not one. Otherwise things like the Daemon USR and Forewarning would overwrite any modifiers giving you a flat 5++ or 4++.

\
So then when would the 3++ invul limit of MoT take effect?

It doesn't. The MoT takes you to 4++.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
You don't get to pick the order. The rules are that the Grimoire is used in the Movement phase whereas the MoT is already active. Therefore the order is relevant. In addition the multiple modifiers rules are specifically relevant to the 9 model characteristic values, of which invulnerable save is not one. Otherwise things like the Daemon USR and Forewarning would overwrite any modifiers giving you a flat 5++ or 4++.

You're treating the MoT as a different kind of modifier. Please cite the allowance. Multiple Modifiers doesn't care about order - they're all applied when relevant. So when you're making your save its 5-1-2=2 which breaks a rule.
Invul saves are the same as armor saves with one exception. Therefore they're a characteristic. You are allowed to have multiple armor and invul saves, so no - the Demon and Forewarning rules would not set your invul.
Please, if you disagree on invul saves being characteristics, cite allowance to modify them. Make sure it includes that saves are modified lower when a bonus is applied.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
It doesn't. The MoT takes you to 4++.

Then will will the limit ever matter? There is nothing you can do during list building to get a 2++ invul save. What is the point of writing that rule if the limit only applies when you purchase MoT

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
You don't get to pick the order. The rules are that the Grimoire is used in the Movement phase whereas the MoT is already active. Therefore the order is relevant. In addition the multiple modifiers rules are specifically relevant to the 9 model characteristic values, of which invulnerable save is not one. Otherwise things like the Daemon USR and Forewarning would overwrite any modifiers giving you a flat 5++ or 4++.

You're treating the MoT as a different kind of modifier. Please cite the allowance. Multiple Modifiers doesn't care about order - they're all applied when relevant. So when you're making your save its 5-1-2=2 which breaks a rule.
Invul saves are the same as armor saves with one exception. Therefore they're a characteristic. You are allowed to have multiple armor and invul saves, so no - the Demon and Forewarning rules would not set your invul.
Please, if you disagree on invul saves being characteristics, cite allowance to modify them. Make sure it includes that saves are modified lower when a bonus is applied.

Invulnerable saves are not the same as armour saves. P2 of the BRB lists the 9 characteristics, as do the characteristic profiles for a model. You will find an armour save characteristic here, but not an invulnerable save. The multiple modifiers rules apply to these characteristics, which is why Daemon and Forewarning would not set your invulnerable save.

Invulnerable saves arise purely from rules or wargear; the multiple modifier rules don't apply as they are not a characteristic, and so yes, the MoT is a different kind of modifier in that sense.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Invulnerable saves are not the same as armour saves. P2 of the BRB lists the 9 characteristics, as do the characteristic profiles for a model. You will find an armour save characteristic here, but not an invulnerable save. The multiple modifiers rules apply to these characteristics, which is why Daemon and Forewarning would not set your invulnerable save.

p17 wrote:Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound- the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect.

There is only one cited difference between an invul and armor save. You're asserting more than one. Please cite rules supporting that.
You haven't cited rules allowing modifiers to apply at all - please do so.

Invulnerable saves arise purely from rules or wargear; the multiple modifier rules don't apply as they are not a characteristic, and so yes, the MoT is a different kind of modifier in that sense.

Please cite actual rules support citing a different kind of modifier. Right now you're just making things up.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Invulnerable saves are not the same as armour saves. P2 of the BRB lists the 9 characteristics, as do the characteristic profiles for a model. You will find an armour save characteristic here, but not an invulnerable save. The multiple modifiers rules apply to these characteristics, which is why Daemon and Forewarning would not set your invulnerable save.

p17 wrote:Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound- the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect.

There is only one cited difference between an invul and armor save. You're asserting more than one. Please cite rules supporting that.
You haven't cited rules allowing modifiers to apply at all - please do so.

Invulnerable saves arise purely from rules or wargear; the multiple modifier rules don't apply as they are not a characteristic, and so yes, the MoT is a different kind of modifier in that sense.

Please cite actual rules support citing a different kind of modifier. Right now you're just making things up.

The only thing I'm asserting is that invulnerable saves are not armour saves.
Invulnerable saves are not a characteristic (p2 & 3).
The rules allowing modifiers to be applied to Invulnerable saves are detailed in the specific rules giving the modifier e.g MoT & the Grimoire.
The multiple modifiers rule can only logically apply to characteristics due to the set value priority.
If you think an invulnerable save is a characteristic please cite the rule.

I personally voted no as IMO the MOT is needed combined with the Grimoire to get the 2++ save.

I don't play Daemons or Tzeentch though so I could be wrong.

So how is it ran at tournaments. Ones that matter anyway. If they allow this crap great for them. Personally, I think anyone running a 2++ with rerolls is a power gaming munchkin, and abusing the spirit of the game. But since I don't play in tournaments, I can just refuse the game.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

The only thing I'm asserting is that invulnerable saves are not armour saves.
Invulnerable saves are not a characteristic (p2 & 3).
The rules allowing modifiers to be applied to Invulnerable saves are detailed in the specific rules giving the modifier e.g MoT & the Grimoire.
The multiple modifiers rule can only logically apply to characteristics due to the set value priority.
If you think an invulnerable save is a characteristic please cite the rule.

The specific rules for the MoT say to give it a +1 to its invul. What's 5+1? The only guidance we have that lower is better is for Armor saves, according to you and therefore does not apply.
The Demon USR is not a set modifier.
I've cited actual rules - see the quote with the page number? Perhaps you could do the courtesy of doing the same?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

The only thing I'm asserting is that invulnerable saves are not armour saves.
Invulnerable saves are not a characteristic (p2 & 3).
The rules allowing modifiers to be applied to Invulnerable saves are detailed in the specific rules giving the modifier e.g MoT & the Grimoire.
The multiple modifiers rule can only logically apply to characteristics due to the set value priority.
If you think an invulnerable save is a characteristic please cite the rule.

The specific rules for the MoT say to give it a +1 to its invul. What's 5+1? The only guidance we have that lower is better is for Armor saves, according to you and therefore does not apply.
The Demon USR is not a set modifier.
I've cited actual rules - see the quote with the page number? Perhaps you could do the courtesy of doing the same?

The MoT gives a +1 to your invulnerable save (CSM codex p30). This means if you have the Daemon USR you now get a 4++.
I'm not sure why you are still referring to armour saves.
I never described the Daemon USR as a set modifier. Try reading again. It is a set value (5++, p35, BRB) which can then be modified.
I can't actually see any page numbers in your post. Sorry.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

The only thing I'm asserting is that invulnerable saves are not armour saves.
Invulnerable saves are not a characteristic (p2 & 3).
The rules allowing modifiers to be applied to Invulnerable saves are detailed in the specific rules giving the modifier e.g MoT & the Grimoire.
The multiple modifiers rule can only logically apply to characteristics due to the set value priority.
If you think an invulnerable save is a characteristic please cite the rule.

The specific rules for the MoT say to give it a +1 to its invul. What's 5+1? The only guidance we have that lower is better is for Armor saves, according to you and therefore does not apply.
The Demon USR is not a set modifier.
I've cited actual rules - see the quote with the page number? Perhaps you could do the courtesy of doing the same?

The MoT gives a +1 to your invulnerable save (CSM codex p30). This means if you have the Daemon USR you now get a 4++.

Citation required. Normally, 5+1 is 6, not 4. Why are you going backwards? The only allowance to count down instead of up is on page 2 under Armor Saves - you've asserted that isn't relevant for invul saves and therefore cannot be used to support your argument.

I can't actually see any page numbers in your post. Sorry.

Really? You see no page numbers in this post? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/560960.page#6222226
Let me say it again for you.

p17 wrote:Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound- the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect.

Did you see it that time? It's those words in bold before the sentence that proves your stance incorrect.

 Orock wrote:
So how is it ran at tournaments. Ones that matter anyway. If they allow this crap great for them. Personally, I think anyone running a 2++ with rerolls is a power gaming munchkin, and abusing the spirit of the game. But since I don't play in tournaments, I can just refuse the game.

I asked my TO about this last night and the couple of times that he's had to rule it was based on a tournament he went to in which they allowed a 2++ on a unit with MoT.



The issue here is that there is no explicit rule that says when modifiers from wargear are applied and triggered to a model. There is an order of operations expressed but there is no rule in the BRB or any FAQ that could be used as a precedence in determining if the MoT restriction is always on or only when the MoT is initially equipped. Likewise there is no rule to to say modifiers are applied at the time of a test or applied to the model profile at the time when the effect is given.

One group applies modifiers and restrictions when the effects (from powers or wargear) are applied to the model. The other group applies all of such when the value is tested. There is no explicit ruling so either case could be correct until it gets FAQed.



Furthermore - a FAQ needs to also clarify if an Invulnerable Save counts as a characteristic test like an Armor Save or not since the whole "it's not listed on page 2" is turning into a trolling argument.

Because of the wording of MoT and that they are both additive modifiers (ie +x instead of *x) the best the model could have is a 3++

Both the modifiers have to happen at the same time and since the limit of the MoT will be applied at that same time the models will not get better than 3++. (This will also apply to possessed with MoT, Mutilators+oblits)

in otherwords:

your save is 5++[(+2 from grimoire)+(+1 from MoT but can never be better than 3++)]

has the same result as

your save is 5++[(+1 from MoT but can never be better than 3++)+(+2 from grimoire)]

since they are both additive modifiers, and one of the comes with the rule that you can not go beyond 3++ then your save becomes 3++

blaktoof wrote:

Both the modifiers have to happen at the same time and since the limit of the MoT will be applied at that same time the models will not get better than 3++. (This will also apply to possessed with MoT, Mutilators+oblits)

That's just it - nowhere in the book does it say when modifiers are applied. You are interpreting that modifiers are applied at the point when the stat is tested against. There is nothing in the BRB or FAQ to confirm or refute this interpretation. Likewise there is nothing to confirm or refute that modifiers are applied when granted not when tested. So we're at an impasse.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

The only thing I'm asserting is that invulnerable saves are not armour saves.
Invulnerable saves are not a characteristic (p2 & 3).
The rules allowing modifiers to be applied to Invulnerable saves are detailed in the specific rules giving the modifier e.g MoT & the Grimoire.
The multiple modifiers rule can only logically apply to characteristics due to the set value priority.
If you think an invulnerable save is a characteristic please cite the rule.

The specific rules for the MoT say to give it a +1 to its invul. What's 5+1? The only guidance we have that lower is better is for Armor saves, according to you and therefore does not apply.
The Demon USR is not a set modifier.
I've cited actual rules - see the quote with the page number? Perhaps you could do the courtesy of doing the same?

The MoT gives a +1 to your invulnerable save (CSM codex p30). This means if you have the Daemon USR you now get a 4++.

Citation required. Normally, 5+1 is 6, not 4. Why are you going backwards? The only allowance to count down instead of up is on page 2 under Armor Saves - you've asserted that isn't relevant for invul saves and therefore cannot be used to support your argument.

I can't actually see any page numbers in your post. Sorry.

Really? You see no page numbers in this post? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/560960.page#6222226
Let me say it again for you.

p17 wrote:Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound- the Armour Piercing value of attacking weapons has no effect.

Did you see it that time? It's those words in bold before the sentence that proves your stance incorrect.

I'm not sure why you're now saying a model with the Daemon USR and the MoT has a 6++. That's just bizarre
How do modifiers not apply to invulnerable saves?.
Thanks for citing a reference this time however my stance all along is that invulnerable saves are different to armour saves, which is exactly what your reference is saying.

 Unholyllama wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Both the modifiers have to happen at the same time and since the limit of the MoT will be applied at that same time the models will not get better than 3++. (This will also apply to possessed with MoT, Mutilators+oblits)

That's just it - nowhere in the book does it say when modifiers are applied. You are interpreting that modifiers are applied at the point when the stat is tested against. There is nothing in the BRB or FAQ to confirm or refute this interpretation. Likewise there is nothing to confirm or refute that modifiers are applied when granted not when tested. So we're at an impasse.

Special rules are checked when they're used - why would modifiers be any different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
I'm not sure why you're now saying a model with the Daemon USR and the MoT has a 6++. That's just bizarre

I'm using your argument. Your assertion is that you cannot use the Armor save rules when discussing invul saves.

How do modifiers not apply to invulnerable saves?.

Because - according to you - they aren't characteristics.

Thanks for citing a reference this time however my stance all along is that invulnerable saves are different to armour saves, which is exactly what your reference is saying.

I cited it both times actually. And my reference specifies the one area they're different, meaning that they're the same in all other ways. You're pretending they're different in more than that one way. Please cite some support for your stance.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unholyllama wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Both the modifiers have to happen at the same time and since the limit of the MoT will be applied at that same time the models will not get better than 3++. (This will also apply to possessed with MoT, Mutilators+oblits)

That's just it - nowhere in the book does it say when modifiers are applied. You are interpreting that modifiers are applied at the point when the stat is tested against. There is nothing in the BRB or FAQ to confirm or refute this interpretation. Likewise there is nothing to confirm or refute that modifiers are applied when granted not when tested. So we're at an impasse.

Special rules are checked when they're used - why would modifiers be any different?

Why would Invulnerable saves be different than armor saves? That's one of the arguments you made a few posts back yet it's contradictory here since by your previous argument modifiers do not apply to anything that isn't a characteristic listed on page 2.

Also - do you have a page number saying when special rules are "checked" and what "checked" means? People are interpreting such as when the model gains the special rule since "uses" is contextual since the special rules for a force weapon are different than the special rules that just grant something like Split Fire.

Does it even matter?

Interpret it thusly : At all times, a daemon unit with MoT has a (5+1)++ save. If it is Grimoire'd, it is now (5+1+2)

I don't think there's support for ever stating that a daemon + MoT has a 'natural' 4++.

If, at some point, there was a way to remove marks mid-game, this would result in a unit with MoT retaining a 4++ if it lost the MoT rule (because it was already applied).

That's obviously not right.

The invulnerable remains, always, a 5+1 save. You can do whatever you want at any other point, the thing you are further modifying is a 5+1 save, not a 4++ save.

That results in a 5+1+2, which break's MoT's rule.

 Unholyllama wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unholyllama wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Both the modifiers have to happen at the same time and since the limit of the MoT will be applied at that same time the models will not get better than 3++. (This will also apply to possessed with MoT, Mutilators+oblits)

That's just it - nowhere in the book does it say when modifiers are applied. You are interpreting that modifiers are applied at the point when the stat is tested against. There is nothing in the BRB or FAQ to confirm or refute this interpretation. Likewise there is nothing to confirm or refute that modifiers are applied when granted not when tested. So we're at an impasse.

Special rules are checked when they're used - why would modifiers be any different?

Why would Invulnerable saves be different than armor saves? That's one of the arguments you made a few posts back yet it's contradictory here since by your previous argument modifiers do not apply to anything that isn't a characteristic listed on page 2.

You're misreading my point - invul saves aren't different from armor saves (except one specific case).

Also - do you have a page number saying when special rules are "checked" and what "checked" means? People are interpreting such as when the model gains the special rule since "uses" is contextual since the special rules for a force weapon are different than the special rules that just grant something like Split Fire.

For example, the Blood Angels FNP ability with the 6" range (can't remember the name) is checked at each init step to see if you're in range to use it. Termagants check for range to mommy when they charge (for Adrenal Glands) and when they wound (for Toxin Sacs).

rigeld2 wrote:

For example, the Blood Angels FNP ability with the 6" range (can't remember the name) is checked at each init step to see if you're in range to use it. Termagants check for range to mommy when they charge (for Adrenal Glands) and when they wound (for Toxin Sacs).

Those are both cases in which they explicitly mention a trigger and when the trigger is fired to examine the scenario. Things like the MoT aren't explicit so leaves things to interpretation. Even information based on a normal characteristic test (i.e. toughness tests) don't say "when a test is made, apply modifiers and then roll less than or equal to the result". It's this lack of a default explicit description is where this debate comes from. That and the fact that all of this would be a moot discussion if it wasn't for the MoT's restriction making the timing relevant.

Unholyllama wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

For example, the Blood Angels FNP ability with the 6" range (can't remember the name) is checked at each init step to see if you're in range to use it. Termagants check for range to mommy when they charge (for Adrenal Glands) and when they wound (for Toxin Sacs).

Those are both cases in which they explicitly mention a trigger and when the trigger is fired to examine the scenario. Things like the MoT aren't explicit so leaves things to interpretation. Even information based on a normal characteristic test (i.e. toughness tests) don't say "when a test is made, apply modifiers and then roll less than or equal to the result". It's this lack of a default explicit description is where this debate comes from. That and the fact that all of this would be a moot discussion if it wasn't for the MoT's restriction making the timing relevant.

Gwyidion wrote:Does it even matter?

Interpret it thusly : At all times, a daemon unit with MoT has a (5+1)++ save. If it is Grimoire'd, it is now (5+1+2)

I don't think there's support for ever stating that a daemon + MoT has a 'natural' 4++.

If, at some point, there was a way to remove marks mid-game, this would result in a unit with MoT retaining a 4++ if it lost the MoT rule (because it was already applied).

That's obviously not right.

The invulnerable remains, always, a 5+1 save. You can do whatever you want at any other point, the thing you are further modifying is a 5+1 save, not a 4++ save.

That results in a 5+1+2, which break's MoT's rule.

As presented, the timing argument isn't relevant. At all.

Perhaps some questions can be used to focus the debate. These are questions for both sides.

When is the effect from MoT applied?
When is the restriction for MoT applied?
When can the restriction end?

One last question I had that wasn't answed:
Is MoT being used in the calculation to bring the invul save to 2++?

 Nilok wrote:
When is the effect from MoT applied?

Always.

When is the restriction for MoT applied?

Always.

When can the restriction end?

Never.

Is MoT being used in the calculation to bring the invul save to 2++?

Yes. Meaning it's breaking a rule.