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.

Apologies, that was perhaps uncalled for. However, 5-1 is clearly 4 and the permission to calculate like this for inv saves is given in the individual rules e.g. the MoT where there is an example of doing exactly this.

Inv saves are different entities to armour saves (and not characteristics according to The BRB) but for the purpose of individual modifier calculations basic mathematical functions are also used.

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

 Nilok wrote:

 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

because an invulnerable save is not listed as a characteristic and as such should be treated diffrently, as the only other save that is not a characteristic is a cover save we should treat it as such.

the presumtion to use a the order of operations is just that, I'm more inclined to revert to base mathmatics and utilise a similar approach to cover saves that are cumulative in order of reciving them (e.g. a ruin grants 5+, I get stealth granting a +1, I also benafit from shroud and add a further +2, resulting in a mathmatical formula of (5+1) + 2)

I am open to being incorrect on the summation but on the basis the BRB is not very helpful in the matter and it is clearly noted as not being a characteristic I'm inclined to say it should folow base maths and act like cover


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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


MoT exists always.

no it does not, it exists at the start of the game, as nothing exists before the game begins other than the 'list' your deamon spawns and recieves a +1 modifyer to its invulnerable, this modifys its 'active' invulnerable save, it later recieves an additional modifyer later which is then added to the active save bufing it in this instance tempoarlly by +2, the +1 is permanent in terms of active modifyers, the +2 is activational.

in terms of rules to cite how they work, the relavent rules have been layed out by both others in the post and a previous post I made to reference the page numbers, please refer to those to prevent clogging the discussion more than needed covering ground previously covered.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

no it does not, it exists at the start of the game, as nothing exists before the game begins other than the 'list' your deamon spawns and recieves a +1 modifyer to its invulnerable, this modifys its 'active' invulnerable save, it later recieves an additional modifyer later which is then added to the active save bufing it in this instance tempoarlly by +2, the +1 is permanent in terms of active modifyers, the +2 is activational.

in terms of rules to cite how they work, the relavent rules have been layed out by both others in the post and a previous post I made to reference the page numbers, please refer to those to prevent clogging the discussion more than needed covering ground previously covered.

I agree with the above; I'm also glad to see the thread back on topic. The MoT gives you a continuously active 4++ from the start of the game, the grimoire can then optionally buff this with a temporary +2 bonus to give you the 2++. The MoT modifier was already active and thus no rules are broken.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Apologies, that was perhaps uncalled for. However, 5-1 is clearly 4 and the permission to calculate like this for inv saves is given in the individual rules e.g. the MoT where there is an example of doing exactly this.

See, improving is not subtraction for normal equations.

Inv saves are different entities to armour saves (and not characteristics according to The BRB) but for the purpose of individual modifier calculations basic mathematical functions are also used.

And basic math says that improving a number makes it bigger.

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

Sure - page 2 it says that unlike any other characteristic, lower is better (and therefore improving gets lower). Perhaps you'd like to actually cite rules showing the same for invulnerable saves?

1) total assumption on your part there. As pointed out, losing the daemon rule means you have a 6++, it is by no means "permanent"
2) ton the only permission to subtract instead of add is given in the armour save rules, that you say canno apply. The rules for inv saves state they are the same as armour saves except....., meaning it must be the same in terms of being a characteristic. Therefore he modifier rules apply, and the limits apply

You're advocating breaking the limit, and cannot provide a rule allowing so.

Finally, snarky comments like "back on track" show you haven't understood the point made. Read the tenets, and note you have to back up your assumptions with rules. Armour and invulnerable saves are linked, as we've shown. Your assertion is that they aren't. That assertion is wrong.

I voted 3++, and here's why:

We're not given any rules to tell us in what order to apply save modifiers. Lacking these rules, we must instead try to apply the modifiers as we are told without breaking any rules. The MoT rule states that it may not increase a save beyond 3++. Therefore, the only way to apply both modifiers without breaking the MoT rule is to limit the bonus to 3++.

The only way it is possible to reason for a 2++ is to apply MoT first, but the 2++ breaks the MoT rule if we were to apply the modifiers in the opposite order or simultaneously. Again, since we are not given rules to tell us which order to use, the only way we can be sure that we are not breaking any rules is to apply the 3++ limit from MoT.

I'm pretty sure that 3++ reroll 1 was the intent of the codex authors. But has since been mangled by jerkhole powergamers to mean "I win."

dadakkaest wrote:
I'm pretty sure that 3++ reroll 1 was the intent of the codex authors. But has since been mangled by jerkhole powergamers to mean "I win."

Man, we get it. You hate 2++ rerollable. You've commented multiple times in multiple threads about how much you hate it, even when it's totally off topic. Like right here.

They're talking about MoT from the CSM codex which adds +1 to the invuln. Rerolls aren't even in the equation or discussion. Get off your soap box and stop trolling and derailing threads.

Something I think needs to be clarified, with MoT, you do not get a base 4++ save. You have 5++ with a constant +1, like stealth for cover saves.

I do find it odd that some people are claiming it is a 4++ that gets +2, insteads of a 5++ that gets a +1 and +2.

I originally thought that a 2+ invulnerable save could be reached through MoT and put my vote down as a yes. My reasoning was that the MoT was active before the game and the 3+ limit would be reached by SoC + MoT and that the rule was just a reminder for wargear. But MoT is not wargear and is classified as a special rule, as Shrouded or Stealth for cover saves would be. Meaning that no matter what, 3+ is the maximum that can be achieved with MoT or MoT is disregarded if 2+ invulnerable save can be reached in other ways.

A mark of Chaos is not special gear btw. It comes under its own 'Marks of Chaos' section in the Chaos Wargear list. 'Special issue wargear', is still wargear.

I voted for the 2++. You've paid a shed loads of points for this item to give you a boost. You should get it. The MoT is applied to a model with a 5++, "Models with the MoT have +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 3+)." So the model now has a 4++. The way I interpret that is the model at the list writing stage cannot be given wargear/items that will bump the models invulnerable save beyond a 3++. I mean, you're not buying wargear mid-game are you? The Grimoire is a one off item used in game that bumps an invulnerable save by +2. The Grimoire goes over the 3++, not the MoT. I'd be happy to let my opponent do this.

Sounds like it's all gone a bit too anal to me. Ofc people using the items are going to want the 2++ and their opponents will not. That's what it feels like reading all of this.

All the people complaining about the order the items are applied; are you going to want to see your opponents army lists and say things like "I'm sorry mate, you've written your HQ here as MoT first and then SoC, so he doesn't have a 3++, he has a 6++ and a 4++"?

I am reminded of a discussion about Orks, in which the order in which upgrades were applied mattered to make it 'legal' or not.

GW FAQ'ed:

Q. If a Boyz mob exchange sluggas and choppas with shootas, can a
Nob take a power klaw or a big choppa? (p100)
A. You may upgrade the Nob to have a big choppa or power
klaw before you choose to upgrade the mob to have shootas, in
which case the Nob is not affected by the mob’s weapon swap
(as he no longer has a choppa to swap), does not receive a
shoota and keeps his slugga and power klaw/big choppa
instead.

I don't think claiming that order doesn't matter is right. Things that are chosen/happen during list-building must happen before things that happen during gameturns. MoT's requierments were satisfied during listbuilding, do you have to keep validating them? Does the Nob above break the rules during the game itself because he didn't exchange his choppa for a shoota?

Is the SoC a modifier or another source for an invul save?
I'm not sure what the acronym is referencing.

And you're differentiating between a modifier gained at list writing time vs one gained during the game. Please explain why using actual rules.

Insinuating bias isn't polite - I have no dog in this fight.

sorry i meant special rule, MoT is a special rule. I just edited it. But if you go to the index for the characters and their profiles the marks are shown under special rules.

Sigil of Corruption is a modifier (4++).

I'm not differentiating between two modifiers, I'm just saying about when they are done, which seems to be the gripe. If you add it all one way, it breaks MoT's rule, you then do it in the order the model acquires the modifiers, then it doesn't break the rule. The MoT caps its own contribution, if it was intended otherwise then why wasn't it written as; "A model with the MoT can never have better than a 3++"? As I also said in my post, this is just the way that I interpret it and why I voted for what I did.

I wasn't insinuating bias either, I just said that's what it felt like reading all of this.

Sigil is NOT a modifier. It grants something in the first place.

You have NO PERMISSION to reorder how you like. You have a 5++ (+1 +2) save, and are told the MoT doesnt get to take your save below 3++, meaning it MUST cap at 3++.

...First off, calm yourself.

I am not reordering anything the way I like. If you read what I said, I used the same way you have.

Is this thread not about interpretations of rules?

You can't say that it MUST cap at 3++ in your example as the MoT hasn't given the model a 2++, the Grimoire has, as a temporary buff.

I think the salient point for me is that the wording for the MoT says that the MoT in particular cannot be the modifier that pushes a save past 3++. It is one coherent sentence. The no save past 3++ is not an independant clause which thus imposes an independant restriction. It is a dependant clause tied to the MoT restriction. Thus, order of application matters. If the MoT is applied first, no rules are violated (5++ becomes 4++, check MoT restriction, it is valid, add grimoire to become 2++). If the MoT is applied second, it has no effect because the restriction triggers (5++ becomes 3++, MoT tries to improve but can't because of the MoT can't improve past 3++ restriction). Thus, based on the order of operations whoevers turn it is would choose the order effects are applied.

The rule states it explicitly. You cannot gain a 2+ invunerable by using the +1 from MoT.



Never, ever, no how, no way.


You can still obtain a 2+ invun, just not by using the +1 from MoT.

 Reptile wrote:
You can't say that it MUST cap at 3++ in your example as the MoT hasn't given the model a 2++, the Grimoire has, as a temporary buff.

Why are you differentiating between the Grimoire and the MoT modifiers?
The MoT modifier is involved in getting a 2++. This is explicitly denied in the rules for the MoT. Why are you breaking a rule?

 Reptile wrote:
...First off, calm yourself.

I am not reordering anything the way I like. If you read what I said, I used the same way you have.

Is this thread not about interpretations of rules?

You can't say that it MUST cap at 3++ in your example as the MoT hasn't given the model a 2++, the Grimoire has, as a temporary buff.

Dose MoT say your base save becomes one better, or just +1 to your save?

The difference is that one would set for the game, the invulnerable to 4++, while the other would be a 5++ with a constant +1 to your invulnerable. If it was the first instance, then I can see your point, if a model has a 3++ base and MoT was applied it would not take effect. If the second is true, MoT is constantly saying you have a +1 to your invulnerable save like stealth to cover.

If MoT is just +1 to your invulnerable, you have to constantly ask, 'Is the Mark of Tzeentch currently helping improve my save to 2++ right now?'. If it is, it would be violating its own rule.

If you use Grimoire while behind a Skyshield giving you a 4++ save, you would have 4++, +2, +1. MoT would deactivate since it would be contributing to the invulnerable save past 3++, but you would still end with a 2++ thanks to the shield and the Grimoire.

This question was constantly ignored through out the thread so i ask it again.

Assuming the MoT is a set modifier that is granted at list building stage what exactly is the restriction there for?

Theres not a single model that could gain a 2++ at list building stage using a MoT in the codex.

 Mywik wrote:
Theres not a single model that could gain a 2++ at list building stage using a MoT in the codex.

I don't think that's a valid point - GW has written rules that obviously don't work as written before.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
Theres not a single model that could gain a 2++ at list building stage using a MoT in the codex.

I don't think that's a valid point - GW has written rules that obviously don't work as written before.

I normally assume that rules are there for a reason.

But you are right it would be more a RAI argument than RAW. Conceded.

I am not breaking a rule, insinuating that I am isn't polite.

Until GW clear it up, players should agree before the game or have a roll off, if interpretations/opinions differ.

You can say that it is involved and results in a breach all you like, it itself has not increased the save past 3++. It's simply a bonus, a one off.

 Reptile wrote:
I am not breaking a rule, insinuating that I am isn't polite.

Until GW clear it up, players should agree before the game or have a roll off, if interpretations/opinions differ.

You can say that it is involved and results in a breach all you like, it itself has not increased the save past 3++. It's simply a bonus, a one off.

If you add in the bonus from MoT, the save is 2++ which breaks the rule on MoT. That's not insinuation - that's fact.
You're attempting to say that the modifiers are different for some reason. I'm simply asking you to back that up with rules support instead of just saying they're different.
It shouldn't be that hard - you wouldn't make an assertion unless you had rules support, right?

Googled Grimoire of the nameless, found a photo of the rule in the hardback "-all Daemon models (excluding the bearer of the grimoire of true names) in the unit have a +2 bonus to their invulnerable save until the start of your next movement phase."

It isn't giving you a plus 2 inul, it's giving you a bonus to your existing invul.

Correct. And?

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct. And?

His argument is that the save is not technically being modified by the Grimoire in RAW. Your save is 5++ from Demon, 4++ from the MoT. When you roll the dice, you add +2 to each dice rolled from the Griomoire. So the save is technically a 4++ and not breaking the MoT restriction because the Grimoire is a bonus to the roll, not the save.

Thank you, someone understands what I am saying.