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.

Another question, seeing I am away from my library and I tend to play Slaanesh so this rule is not 100% cemented in my fleshy head-organ: Does the Mark of Tzeentch give you the option to not use it?

To answer Nilko, and this is my own personal opinion:

1) Effectively Always, assuming no choice is given. While I believe you apply the modifiers only when you are calculating what the invulnerability save it really is irrelevant as the result is always the same. If you add it at the very moment of list creation then it will be included into all calculations when you reference that save. If you only include it when you reference the save, then it still is included into all those calculations anyway. Effectively it doesn't matter when you apply the modifications, only that they are being applied.

2) The restriction is added any time the special rule is in effect. There is nothing in the Mark of Tzeentch rules, that I remember, giving exceptions to this restriction so it simply can not be circumvented due to situation in which it is being applied. This means it doesn't matter if you have the philosophy that the modifications are added at list building, or during the game, as the restriction would also have to be in effect during this point.

3) The only way for this restriction to end would be to remove or deny access to the special rule entirely, which means you would lose the bonus as well.

4) Assuming no permission granted to opt-out of the rule, then it is included in the 2++ save even if you don't need it to reach 2++. However I would be more then willing to accept a 'house rule' that a 2++ can be used if that value is achieved without including the mark of Tzeentch. While I can see where might may have meant to be a tactical choice, a permanent +1 in exchange for not being able to drop below 3++, I don't feel entirely comfortable holding an opponent to that interpretation of the rules. Besides, 2++ without the mark is often very difficult to acquire so unless they built the list with that in mind, it is unlikely they will achieve it.

not the option no, but once again, it does not prevent your models from having better than a 3++ save, it just cannot contribute to making the save better than 3++

I play mono tzeentch daemons so the way in know to get a 2++ is either using grimoire on fateweaver or using it on a normal daemon unit or MC and rolling warp surge (+1 to all daemons invulnerables on the board) on the warp storm, plus the grimoire can only be used on units with the daemon USR so if used on Csm what units can it be used on? Obits, warp talons, forge/mauler fiend, defiler, possessed. But short answer is yes you will get +1 from MOT the +2 from grimoire making it a 2++ aslong as the models in the unit have daemon rule though daemons of tzeentch with it is better as they re-roll ones on all saves

 necronspurs2012 wrote:
But short answer is yes you will get +1 from MOT the +2 from grimoire making it a 2++ aslong as the models in the unit have daemon rule though daemons of tzeentch with it is better as they re-roll ones on all saves

We are not arguing whether there are enough modifiers to create a 2++, we arguing because we don't know how to apply one of those modifiers and how to interpret the 'to a maximum of 3++' clause.

Ok having re-read the orriginal question, the thread, re-read the relavent sections mentioned in the BRB and reviewing hte posted rules for the deamons and MoT from codex Deamons/ CSM.

I have come to the conclusion that it should still be possible to reach a 2+ invulnerable save and I shall outline why I believe this to be so.

For the example we will take a standard Deamon.

This model has a 5+ invulnerable save from stock.

The model purchases a Mark of Tzeentch among other upgrades available to it.

This means that it's invulnerable save is considered to be a 4+.

the game begins, at some point during the game this model becomes the target of the Grimoure and recieves a +2 to its invulnerable save.

now, this is where the bone of contention rises.

the mark of Tzeentch is a part of the overall sum of the 2+ invulnerable save, which people are saying that since it becomes a part of the equasion, it cannot therefore be applied.

now this makes a measure of sense based on the written wording, however, as has been pointed out by many, without a proper measure of how modifyers are applied there isnt strictly a deffinitive of IF the restriction on the mark itself (which is only restricting its own +1 on making it go above 3+) applies.

my gut reaction is that there is an inherant application of modifyers based on time of recieving and that you do not 'check' at time of need, you have a state of being that is tested against, just like a chracteristic test, you don't 'check' to see wht the value is, the value is the same from start to finish unless a modifyer happens to change its state.

so some page references.

invulnerable saves are mentioned on p17 and 26, p26 is not relavent to this iscussion.

p19 covers maximum saves (note it does actually specify that a 2+ invulnerable is possible)

p2/3 covers modifyers to characteristics, now an invulnerable save isn't listed as a basic characteristic, it is completely seperate and as such isn't contained within the same mechanisms as characteristics and their modifyers, since in the end it is a save of a description and has modifyers, to which the only other save that is not a characteristic with modifyers is a cover save, it can be assumed that they are cumulative overall, and as such should work the same way as a cover save, in that cover + rue + rule (as an example, stealth + shroud)

in this instance you have a 5+ (base) + 1 ( MoT) then +2(grimoure)

the state changes after the mark is applied since the mark would come first in the calculation logically as it is always present.

So your argument is that since we don't know which comes first, the active player chooses to have MoT first. However, what if it is the opponent's turn. Is this like multiple effects happening at the same time and the active player chooses the order?

Can on the opponent's turn, they choose to have MoT happen last so your save becomes 3++?

How is it different from you choosing the order?

 nutty_nutter wrote:
the state changes after the mark is applied since the mark would come first in the calculation logically as it is always present.

What is the rule for then? Now I'm not saying that GW wouldn't write a completely useless rule, but for some reason they chose to add "to a maximum of 3+" to the MoTz.

To those arguing that the RAW is that a 2+ is possible using MoTz, do you believe this to be RAI as well? I'm just curious (since YMDC is mostly about RAW anyways), and the poll really is too close to call.

Because neither of the benefits discussed in this situation are set modifiers, characteristic modifiers don't really apply at all. These are both additive modifiers.

You have an error in interpreting a Daemon with MoT as having a 4++. This model has a 5++ which is improved by 1. These are very different things, and this state is continuous. It always has a 5+1 save.

If rules are evaluated at list building, stealth is useless. A model has no endogenous cover save, so stealth would confer a 6+ cover save to models with stealth at all times. That's not how stealth works. The model has stealth, and every cover save they ever benefit from is improved by 1.

A Daemon with MoT has MoT permanently. It isn't "resolved" and forgotten about forever at list building. The model possesses the rule and just carries it around on the table.

5+1+2 --> 2++ breaks MoT's rule. It doesn't work.

 Nilok wrote:
So your argument is that since we don't know which comes first, the active player chooses to have MoT first. However, what if it is the opponent's turn. Is this like multiple effects happening at the same time and the active player chooses the order?

Can on the opponent's turn, they choose to have MoT happen last so your save becomes 3++?

How is it different from you choosing the order?

no I'm saying that there is an order of effect and we do know in what order.

the problem stems from in introduction of a third element.

the mathematic equations are the best answer to working out how it all works; the vast majority that are saying no are working on the basis that an invulnerable save works the same way as a characteristic. Characteristic modifies follow an 'Associativity' paradigm as is set down by the way the BRB tells you to work them out, they all happen simultaneously and in a specific order, this is why a furious charging power fist is resolved at (Sx2) +1 and not (S+1) x 2

however since an invulnerable save is not a characteristic, as shown in the BRB, it must inherently be different, as there is only one other save that works outside of characteristics being cover we must use the two and draw out parallels.

so if we say:

daemon have a 5+ (a) and MoT grants a +1 (b) also grimoure grants a +2 (c)

deamon exists at the start of the game making 'a' part of the equation

MoT exists at the stat of the game making 'b' part of the equation

grimoure does not exist at the start of the game meaning 'c' is not a part of the equation at the start

so the invulnerable save is 'a+b'

later the grimoure is added making it a+b+c

now because there are no defined 'operations' within the context of the rules, the sum is worked out left to right making the sum: (a+b) + c

if a additional modifier were introduced, it would be ((a+b)+c) + d and so on.

You're making a mistake in stating the MoT exists at the start of the game.


MoT exists always.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
So your argument is that since we don't know which comes first, the active player chooses to have MoT first. However, what if it is the opponent's turn. Is this like multiple effects happening at the same time and the active player chooses the order?

Can on the opponent's turn, they choose to have MoT happen last so your save becomes 3++?

How is it different from you choosing the order?

no I'm saying that there is an order of effect and we do know in what order.

the problem stems from in introduction of a third element.

the mathematic equations are the best answer to working out how it all works; the vast majority that are saying no are working on the basis that an invulnerable save works the same way as a characteristic. Characteristic modifies follow an 'Associativity' paradigm as is set down by the way the BRB tells you to work them out, they all happen simultaneously and in a specific order, this is why a furious charging power fist is resolved at (Sx2) +1 and not (S+1) x 2

however since an invulnerable save is not a characteristic, as shown in the BRB, it must inherently be different, as there is only one other save that works outside of characteristics being cover we must use the two and draw out parallels.

so if we say:

daemon have a 5+ (a) and MoT grants a +1 (b) also grimoure grants a +2 (c)

deamon exists at the start of the game making 'a' part of the equation

MoT exists at the stat of the game making 'b' part of the equation

grimoure does not exist at the start of the game meaning 'c' is not a part of the equation at the start

so the invulnerable save is 'a+b'

later the grimoure is added making it a+b+c

now because there are no defined 'operations' within the context of the rules, the sum is worked out left to right making the sum: (a+b) + c

if a additional modifier were introduced, it would be ((a+b)+c) + d and so on.

I understand the using math to help, but why are you not using the order of operation?
Since we, according to you, do not have any information on invulnerable save modifiers, should we not use the order of operations in lack of any rules.

I also see you are adding parentheses to the equation, but I would like to know why. There is nothing stating that you are to include any part of the equation first, save for the base 5++. Why are you not simply adding the three variables together instead of adding a new part of the function that is not specified or mentioned?


Internet hiccup double post removed

again, ORDER DOES NOT MATTER

whatever order you use the two rules in, you are, in fact, undeniably, using BOTH rules, to improve the ++ save to 2++

one of the rules you have used, specifically restricts it being used to get better then a 3++

order does not matter, its just a long line of non RAW justification for why you want to get a 2++, using the help of a rule that specifically says "you cant use it to get better then 3++"

no matter what order you use them in, you have in fact used both rules, and must abide by the restriction in MOT, that is 100% RAW

making long arguements that "if I add one, THEN add two, its ok, cause im not adding two then one, hence I get to completly IGNORE the 3++ restriction from the +1 part" is fallacious, and not RAW at all

Nutty - again, you have NO RULES to state you evaluate the modiifer once at the start of the game.


Yet again you ignore that, if the daemon loses its save (who knows, the Inq codex could do that) it would revert to having a 6++. Not a 4++

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

I have never made the argument that a model with the Daemon USR and the MoT has a 6++ as it is clearly not the case. You also seem to be obsessed with armour saves when the debate is actually about invulnerable saves.

rigeld2 wrote:

How do modifiers not apply to invulnerable saves?.

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

It's not according to me - it's a matter of fact. Read p2 in the BRB again to remind yourself of the 9 characterstics in 40k. You'll notice that invulnerable saves aren't one of them, neither are cover saves for that matter. This doesn't mean however that an invulnerable save can't be modified. My actual point (which you appear to have completely missed) was in regard to the application of multiple modifiers rules (also p2) which specifically refer to dealing with "a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic".

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Again with the armour saves. If an invulnerable save is different (which it is - see p17, BRB) then it is different. That is my point. It doesn't even say they are the same in all other ways - you've just made that part up.

Tonberry, what is 4+1?
What is 4+1 when dealing with Armour saves?
What is 4+1 when dealing with Invulnerable saves?

It's the same result. This doesn't mean Armour and Invulnerable saves are the same thing though.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
It's the same result. This doesn't mean Armour and Invulnerable saves are the same thing though.

Save are modified in the same way, if they are not, then they would be modified just like in math.

So we rest a two choices:
Are invulnerable save modifiers handled like armor save, which has the rules for modifying saves to go down 1 with +1 (4++ (+1) = 3++), or are they handed like other characteristics with math (4+1 = 5)?

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

I have never made the argument that a model with the Daemon USR and the MoT has a 6++ as it is clearly not the case. You also seem to be obsessed with armour saves when the debate is actually about invulnerable saves.

Is this a correct statement according to you: The rules around Armor Saves (on page 2 and 3) have nothing to do with, and cannot be applied to, invul saves.
Please clarify.

It's not according to me - it's a matter of fact. Read p2 in the BRB again to remind yourself of the 9 characterstics in 40k. You'll notice that invulnerable saves aren't one of them, neither are cover saves for that matter. This doesn't mean however that an invulnerable save can't be modified. My actual point (which you appear to have completely missed) was in regard to the application of multiple modifiers rules (also p2) which specifically refer to dealing with "a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic".

WRT the underlnied: Please cite permission to modify them. I've asked multiple times now.

Again with the armour saves. If an invulnerable save is different (which it is - see p17, BRB) then it is different. That is my point. It doesn't even say they are the same in all other ways - you've just made that part up.

It says they are different in one way. There is no other rule saying they're different. Therefore they're the same in all other ways.

"Models with the MoT add +1 to their invulnerable save to a maximum of 3+"

The rule that gives you any modifier to your invulnerable save requires that your save is limited to a 3+ save from any source if you have MoT. The way it is written, RAW, if you even were given a save from some other power that gave you a 2+ invulnerable save flat out, by having mark of tzeenetch it would now be a 3+ save.

if at anytime a model with a MoT has to make a save, because it has MoT it cannot be improved beyond 3+ due to the rule for MoT specifically stating that the model has a maximum of a 3+ invulnerable.

It doesnt matter when or how you add the modifiers or if one is all the time or not, the fact the model has "MoT" which has rules to it, one of them is the models invulnerable save is maximum +3.


if you have MoT your max invulnerable save is 3+. RAW.

rigeld2 wrote:

Is this a correct statement according to you: The rules around Armor Saves (on page 2 and 3) have nothing to do with, and cannot be applied to, invul saves.
Please clarify.

I can't see invulnerable saves mentioned anywhere on p2 & 3. If you can, please do point it out.

rigeld2 wrote:

It's not according to me - it's a matter of fact. Read p2 in the BRB again to remind yourself of the 9 characterstics in 40k. You'll notice that invulnerable saves aren't one of them, neither are cover saves for that matter. This doesn't mean however that an invulnerable save can't be modified. My actual point (which you appear to have completely missed) was in regard to the application of multiple modifiers rules (also p2) which specifically refer to dealing with "a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic".

WRT the underlnied: Please cite permission to modify them. I've asked multiple times now.

And I've answered multiple times now. To indulge you, how about the CSM Codex p30 - MoT.

rigeld2 wrote:

Again with the armour saves. If an invulnerable save is different (which it is - see p17, BRB) then it is different. That is my point. It doesn't even say they are the same in all other ways - you've just made that part up.

It says they are different in one way. There is no other rule saying they're different. Therefore they're the same in all other ways.

Is there even a point to this statement? There is a difference, therefore they are not the same thing.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Is this a correct statement according to you: The rules around Armor Saves (on page 2 and 3) have nothing to do with, and cannot be applied to, invul saves.
Please clarify.

I can't see invulnerable saves mentioned anywhere on p2 & 3. If you can, please do point it out.

You didn't answer my question. Please do so.

And I've answered multiple times now. To indulge you, how about the CSM Codex p30 - MoT.

That rule doesn't tell you how to modify a save though - so using normal math it'd be a 5+1=6.

Is there even a point to this statement? There is a difference, therefore they are not the same thing.

They're the same thing except for one difference. Is that difference that invuls are not a characteristic?

JinxDragon wrote:
Another question, seeing I am away from my library and I tend to play Slaanesh so this rule is not 100% cemented in my fleshy head-organ: Does the Mark of Tzeentch give you the option to not use it?

To answer [Nilok], and this is my own personal opinion:

1) Effectively Always, assuming no choice is given. While I believe you apply the modifiers only when you are calculating what the invulnerability save it really is irrelevant as the result is always the same. If you add it at the very moment of list creation then it will be included into all calculations when you reference that save. If you only include it when you reference the save, then it still is included into all those calculations anyway. Effectively it doesn't matter when you apply the modifications, only that they are being applied.

2) The restriction is added any time the special rule is in effect. There is nothing in the Mark of Tzeentch rules, that I remember, giving exceptions to this restriction so it simply can not be circumvented due to situation in which it is being applied. This means it doesn't matter if you have the philosophy that the modifications are added at list building, or during the game, as the restriction would also have to be in effect during this point.

3) The only way for this restriction to end would be to remove or deny access to the special rule entirely, which means you would lose the bonus as well.

4) Assuming no permission granted to opt-out of the rule, then it is included in the 2++ save even if you don't need it to reach 2++. However I would be more then willing to accept a 'house rule' that a 2++ can be used if that value is achieved without including the mark of Tzeentch. While I can see where might may have meant to be a tactical choice, a permanent +1 in exchange for not being able to drop below 3++, I don't feel entirely comfortable holding an opponent to that interpretation of the rules. Besides, 2++ without the mark is often very difficult to acquire so unless they built the list with that in mind, it is unlikely they will achieve it.

Thank you, this answers a lot. Unless there is a key piece we are missing from your analisis, this probably the best examination of the Mark of Tzeentch we currently have.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Is this a correct statement according to you: The rules around Armor Saves (on page 2 and 3) have nothing to do with, and cannot be applied to, invul saves.
Please clarify.

I can't see invulnerable saves mentioned anywhere on p2 & 3. If you can, please do point it out.

You didn't answer my question. Please do so.

Which specific rules are you referring to exactly? We've already covered the multiple modifiers one.

rigeld2 wrote:

And I've answered multiple times now. To indulge you, how about the CSM Codex p30 - MoT.

That rule doesn't tell you how to modify a save though - so using normal math it'd be a 5+1=6.

It's pretty clear to most people. If you're struggling there's an example in italics to help you. I'll give you a clue though - the answer isn't 6 as you have proposed several times already.

rigeld2 wrote:

Is there even a point to this statement? There is a difference, therefore they are not the same thing.

They're the same thing except for one difference. Is that difference that invuls are not a characteristic?

So therefore they are not the same thing. One difference is that invuls are not a characteristic.

This is starting to get out of hand, currently we are arguing if an invulnerable save follows the rules of modifying saves.

There may be a need to explore this in another thread, however, without a common basis of rules, there is no discussion.

Can we please get back on topic.

The grimoire improves the invulnerable save for a model with the Daemon rule. It's not dependent on any other factor nor does it say that it does not stack.

The MoT improves the invulnerable save by 1, to a maximum of 3+.

If you think about it, why would the MoT ever decrease someone's Invulnerable save? I mean, why would it go away just because someone used an artefact?

TOnberry - the point Rigeld is making is that you have made a lot of assumptions, without any basis in rules.

The rules for modifying armour saves allows you to go from 5++ to 4++ by adding 1; yet your claim is you cannot use the rules for modifying armour saves, as they are not a characteristic. Meaning adding 1 to a 5++ makes it a 6++

The point Rigeld is correctly making i that the rules for invulnerable saves only specifies they are different in one, and only one, way. Meaning they MUST be the same in ALL other ways. Meaning they MUST be a characteristics.

This is the bind you are in: You are claiming you dont have to follow the modifier rules, as it isnt a characteristic. Except the rules state the opposite. And even if we follow your unsupported assertion, it ends up that you follow normal maths - that 5++ +1 goes to a 6++ - as you have no permission to use the special rules for armour saves any longer.

So, which is it? Are they a characteristic - as the rules cover, by stating the only ways that they are different, and being a characteristic is NOT one of them - and therefore the modifier rules apply, or are they not, in which case +1 makes the save *worse*.

You have no choice in the matter - either you make Inv saves worse, not better, or you follow the actual rules, and the 3++ limit applies.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
TOnberry - the point Rigeld is making is that you have made a lot of assumptions, without any basis in rules.

The rules for modifying armour saves allows you to go from 5++ to 4++ by adding 1; yet your claim is you cannot use the rules for modifying armour saves, as they are not a characteristic. Meaning adding 1 to a 5++ makes it a 6++

The point Rigeld is correctly making i that the rules for invulnerable saves only specifies they are different in one, and only one, way. Meaning they MUST be the same in ALL other ways. Meaning they MUST be a characteristics.

This is the bind you are in: You are claiming you dont have to follow the modifier rules, as it isnt a characteristic. Except the rules state the opposite. And even if we follow your unsupported assertion, it ends up that you follow normal maths - that 5++ +1 goes to a 6++ - as you have no permission to use the special rules for armour saves any longer.

So, which is it? Are they a characteristic - as the rules cover, by stating the only ways that they are different, and being a characteristic is NOT one of them - and therefore the modifier rules apply, or are they not, in which case +1 makes the save *worse*.

You have no choice in the matter - either you make Inv saves worse, not better, or you follow the actual rules, and the 3++ limit applies.

Nosferatu - Rigeld isn't really making any relevant points to be honest.

I'm not talking about armour saves, I was discussing invulnerable saves re the OP. I'm not claiming that invulnerable saves are modified by different methods to armour saves - if you improve a 5++ by 1 it's 4++. This is not only common sense but it's illustrated in the MoT rules. Pedantically asserting that it's 6++ is nonsense.

Where does it state that armour saves and invulnerable saves are the same in all ways apart from that in p17? And on p2, invulnerable saves are not listed as a characteristic, therefore they are not. Would you class cover saves as a characteristic following the same logic?

I am in no bind whatsoever - I'm not claiming that invulnerable saves don't follow the same maths as armour saves at all. I'm claiming they are different things, are not characteristics, and that the multiple modifiers rules on p2 written for characteristics cannot safely be applied. This is relevant with regard to the order of different modifiers, not just additions and subtractions.

You're making unsupported assumptions that invulnerable saves are characteristics when they are clearly not listed as such. Why aren't they in a character profile if they are characteristics? Also could you please cite a reference for the specific rules for modifying armour saves?

My choice is to follow the rules; making inv saves better and a 2++ possible. An FAQ would clarify the issue but at the moment I don't see any problem with this.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
TOnberry - the point Rigeld is making is that you have made a lot of assumptions, without any basis in rules.

The rules for modifying armour saves allows you to go from 5++ to 4++ by adding 1; yet your claim is you cannot use the rules for modifying armour saves, as they are not a characteristic. Meaning adding 1 to a 5++ makes it a 6++

The point Rigeld is correctly making i that the rules for invulnerable saves only specifies they are different in one, and only one, way. Meaning they MUST be the same in ALL other ways. Meaning they MUST be a characteristics.

This is the bind you are in: You are claiming you dont have to follow the modifier rules, as it isnt a characteristic. Except the rules state the opposite. And even if we follow your unsupported assertion, it ends up that you follow normal maths - that 5++ +1 goes to a 6++ - as you have no permission to use the special rules for armour saves any longer.

So, which is it? Are they a characteristic - as the rules cover, by stating the only ways that they are different, and being a characteristic is NOT one of them - and therefore the modifier rules apply, or are they not, in which case +1 makes the save *worse*.

You have no choice in the matter - either you make Inv saves worse, not better, or you follow the actual rules, and the 3++ limit applies.

Nosferatu - Rigeld isn't really making any relevant points to be honest.

I'm not talking about armour saves, I was discussing invulnerable saves re the OP. I'm not claiming that invulnerable saves are modified by different methods to armour saves - if you improve a 5++ by 1 it's 4++. This is not only common sense but it's illustrated in the MoT rules. Pedantically asserting that it's 6++ is nonsense.

Where does it state that armour saves and invulnerable saves are the same in all ways apart from that in p17? And on p2, invulnerable saves are not listed as a characteristic, therefore they are not. Would you class cover saves as a characteristic following the same logic?

I am in no bind whatsoever - I'm not claiming that invulnerable saves don't follow the same maths as armour saves at all. I'm claiming they are different things, are not characteristics, and that the multiple modifiers rules on p2 written for characteristics cannot safely be applied. This is relevant with regard to the order of different modifiers, not just additions and subtractions.

You're making unsupported assumptions that invulnerable saves are characteristics when they are clearly not listed as such. Why aren't they in a character profile if they are characteristics? Also could you please cite a reference for the specific rules for modifying armour saves?

My choice is to follow the rules; making inv saves better and a 2++ possible. An FAQ would clarify the issue but at the moment I don't see any problem with this.

What you still arent getting is that common sense has nothing to do with the issue.

IF Invulnerable saves arent characteristics you HAVE TO follow math while applying modifiers. This means a 5++ save becomes 6++ if +1.
The ONLY permission to subtract the 1 is if you handle Invulnerable saves the same way as armor saves (except for the one difference pointed out in the BRB). If you dont count INV saves as Characteristics you dont have that permission

Additionally if you count invulnerable saves as characteristics you have to follow the max 3++ rule of MoT always.

Rigeld is making a really good point here ... only that you are not getting what he wants to show you.

Ok well I'm not sure where you were taught maths but if you improve a 5++ by 1 it's a 4++. As I've pointed out several times already there's even an example on the MoT rule.

I'm not counting invulnerable saves as characteristics as they are not listed as such and nothing in the BRB states they should be.

Can you point out the specific rules detailing how to calculate the results of modifiers to armour saves?

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Ok well I'm not sure where you were taught maths but if you improve a 5++ by 1 it's a 4++. As I've pointed out several times already there's even an example on the MoT rule.

Okay first off stop snarky comments like "im not sure where you were taught maths". Its not helpful at all

Secondly the only situation where you have permission to substract (like you did here) is when dealing with the armour save characteristics. Since you insist inv saves are different you dont have permission to do that.

Cite permission to modify in the way you did when not dealing with an armorsave.