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.

No, it's a bonus to the save. It even says that in the rule he quoted:

"have a +2 bonus to their invulnerable save" not "save roll".

I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong, just how I read the ruling. Gotn places a bonus on an existing save of 4++ which has already accounted for the MoT.

In a forum about discussing rules you sure are black and white about something that isn't in black and white. If it was then this topic wouldn't be here and we wouldn't need an answer from GW. You are going on how YOU read them and are being rude about it in the process.

 Reptile wrote:
I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong, just how I read the ruling. Gotn places a bonus on an existing save of 4++ which has already accounted for the MoT.

No - the existing save is not a 4++. It's a 5-1++. You add a bonus of 2 to that and get 5-1-2=2++ which breaks a rule.
Also - is your argument that the save roll is modified or that the save is modified? It looks like you're arguing both (which are mutually exclusive).
I saw that because you said - and I'll quote -

Reptile wrote:Thank you, someone understands what I am saying.

When another user said

PanzerLeader wrote: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.

And now you're saying that the GoTN modifies the 4++ (which isn't a roll, it's the save).

In a forum about discussing rules you sure are black and white about something that isn't in black and white. If it was then this topic wouldn't be here and we wouldn't need an answer from GW. You are going on how YOU read them and are being rude about it in the process.

It actually is in black and white - your refusal to accept it doesn't mean it's not clear.
You have a 5++ invul.
You add 2 modifiers to it (a 1 bonus and a 2 bonus) to get a 2++.
One of those modifiers has a restriction that you're ignoring and have cited no rules support for doing so.

I'm not being rude, I'm asking you to support your viewpoint with rules.

Sorry, misread that last part then by PanzerLeader, was rushing out the door to get my pizza. It was nice btw.

Nonetheless.... You see it how you want to see it.

It says 5-1=4. Daemon rule and MoT applied. A bonus of +2 to invulnerable saves. 4-2=2.

5-1=4, Bonus time! 4-2=2.

 Reptile wrote:
Sorry, misread that last part then by PanzerLeader, was rushing out the door to get my pizza. It was nice btw.

Nonetheless.... You see it how you want to see it.

It says 5-1=4. Daemon rule and MoT applied. A bonus of +2 to invulnerable saves. 4-2=2.

5-1=4, Bonus time! 4-2=2.

Why is it base 4++?
I would like you to please respond to my post about this

 Nilok wrote:

 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.

Also as a heads up, your name is breaking the quote system, you should ask a moderator/admin to remove the square brackets from your name " [ ] "

What says 5-1=4?

MoT is explicitly a +1 to the invul save. GoTN is explicitly a +2 to the invul save. You're applying them at different times and asserting it makes a difference - please cite actual rules support.

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

Actually, I don't see. A 4++ inv save is better than a 5++ for the controlling player.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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.

This statement is so flawed it's laughable. Improving is not neccessarily synonymous with increasing, or making bigger as you put it. As I've stated above a 4++ inv save is better than a 5++ for the controlling player.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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?

I'm sorry, but the Armour Save section you've referred to contains no rules detailing how to calculate the results of modifiers. The word modifier isn't even used. The statements of substance here only tell us that the lower an Armour Save is, the better. It's the same for inv and cover saves values although these two stats aren't characteristics of a model and therefore aren't discussed on this page. Also stated is that a model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+. I've already cited rules demonstrating how the MoT modifier is calculated, perhaps you'd like to try another reference?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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"

I don't believe I used the word "permanent". And how would a model "lose" the Daemon rule?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
2) ton the only permission to subtract instead of add is given in the armour save rules, that you say canno apply.

I'm still waiting for someone to cite the specific rules detailing how to calculate the results of modifiers to armour saves. And in any case, the debate is over invulnerable saves which are a different thing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

Regarding the bolded text, the rules for inv saves do not say this at all. You've just completely made this up to suit your argument. Your following suppositions are also false. Is inv save listed as a characteistic? No. Therefore it isn't one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

Finally, my "back on track" comment shows that I thought we were finished with irrelevant and pedantic arguments that 5-1=6 and the like. Sadly, Rigeld had other ideas.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Armour and invulnerable saves are linked, as we've shown. Your assertion is that they aren't. That assertion is wrong.

Actually you've shown nothing of the sort. You've just re-stated your opinion as if it were a demonstrated fact, without backing it up.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

Actually, I don't see. A 4++ inv save is better than a 5++ for the controlling player.

Please cite the rule that states this.

This statement is so flawed it's laughable. Improving is not neccessarily synonymous with increasing, or making bigger as you put it. As I've stated above a 4++ inv save is better than a 5++ for the controlling player.

Please cite the rule.

It's the same for inv and cover saves values although these two stats aren't characteristics of a model and therefore aren't discussed on this page. Also stated is that a model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+. I've already cited rules demonstrating how the MoT modifier is calculated, perhaps you'd like to try another reference?

Please cite the rule that defines that lower is better for invul and cover saves.

Finally, my "back on track" comment shows that I thought we were finished with irrelevant and pedantic arguments that 5-1=6 and the like. Sadly, Rigeld had other ideas.

It's not irrelevant - your refusal to actually cite rules when asked is absolutely relevant. I'm not asking these questions to troll but to glean relevant information.

Actually you've shown nothing of the sort. You've just re-stated your opinion as if it were a demonstrated fact, without backing it up.

Please, cite the differences the rules assert between Invul saves and Armor saves. I've cited the one - singular - time they're different. You're asserting there's more - prove it.

Hmm, that's odd about my name breaking stuff. Thank you Nilok.

It says +1 to your invulnerable save. The invulnerable save as a Daemon is 5++. You'd need to work out your invulnerable save before applying a bonus of +2 to your save.

 Reptile wrote:
Hmm, that's odd about my name breaking stuff. Thank you Nilok.

It says +1 to your invulnerable save. The invulnerable save as a Daemon is 5++. You'd need to work out your invulnerable save before applying a bonus of +2 to your save.

Perhaps you should read the rules about Multiple Modifiers?
+1 to your invulnerable save is a modifier (by definition).
+2 bonus to your invulnerable save is a modifier (by definition).

Please cite rules differentiating them.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Reptile wrote:
Hmm, that's odd about my name breaking stuff. Thank you Nilok.

It says +1 to your invulnerable save. The invulnerable save as a Daemon is 5++. You'd need to work out your invulnerable save before applying a bonus of +2 to your save.

Perhaps you should read the rules about Multiple Modifiers?
+1 to your invulnerable save is a modifier (by definition).
+2 bonus to your invulnerable save is a modifier (by definition).

Please cite rules differentiating them.

about time you cited a rule that says that invulnerable saves are taken into consideration for the chart on page 2.

please enlighten us with a direct rule that stipulates that an invulnerable save is subject to the characteristic modifiers section on page 2.

Reptie[5iN],

It is the square brackets, they are often used in coding so the quote system is likely trying to read it as such. Now I am not a coder myself, but if I had to hazard a guess as to why I would put the blame on the ] itself. The program is likely hitting this spot and reading it as 'end of code' instead of just another character to be process. Everything after it would then either be treated as plain text, or might be read as some sort of separate code that wouldn't make sense to the program.

also a 'bonus' would be the difference between the two.

a 'bonus' is extra, as opposed to an absolute

It's a bonus. A bonus is defined as "something extra". What other rules have a 'bonus' modifier? I want to see how they work, out of curiosity.

I have read the rules there. I work out my invul before adding a bonus of +2 to the sum. Assuming that 'bonus' still means 'extra'.

Thanks JinxDragon, I've pm'd an Admin about it.

Bonus is used in number of bonus attacks (due to charging, multiple weapons, etc)
Strength Bonus from Melee weapons (power fist, power axe, etc)
Adamantium Will gives a bonus to your DTW roll.
Rampage shows that bonuses are by definition modifiers (as you get +D3 attacks that are then referred to as bonus later in the rule)
Shrouded gives cover save bonuses.
As does Stealth.
Bikes give a Bonus Toughness.

Bonuses are modifiers. MoT is a modifier.

[quote=Reptile[5iN] 560960 6227729 c23067932e324988a0ff39f4cf4fb9b9.png]It's a bonus. A bonus is defined as "something extra". What other rules have a 'bonus' modifier? I want to see how they work, out of curiosity.

I have read the rules there. I work out my invul before adding a bonus of +2 to the sum. Assuming that 'bonus' still means 'extra'.

Thanks JinxDragon, I've pm'd an Admin about it.

jessus... really?

people are still stuck on the order you apply the modifiers?

it doesnt fehting matter...

both are modifiers, both are applied at the same time, even if one is before the other, you have to have applied BOTH before you roll your saves.

applying both rules, to get a 2++, when one rule says you cannot use it to get better then 3++, is breaking the rules, no matter how you cut it.

order DOES NOT MATTER< not a single rule has been quoted to prove otherwise.

your argument is that you are not using MoT to get a 2++, when in fact you are very much using MoT to get a 2++,
1st, 2nd, or simultaneously, you are using the MoT rule.
if your save after adding up MoT and all other modifiers is 2++, you have used MoT to get a 2++

which is illegal, and breaks a written rule.

FFS its not that often that happy, nos, rigel AND myself actually agree on something, and all of us do actually take a different view on RAW in many cases,

so far all these people and myself have had 0 RAW quoted to back up why someone is allowed to break the "no better the 3++" rule while applying MoT.

fact of the matter is, when you roll your save, you have applied all the modifiers, and you cannot argue that you are NOT applying MoT, because you are trying to benifit from its +1,
Mot has a restriction, that you have to follow, you cannot ignore it because you want to, or hand wave it away as "happening too soon to count"

 easysauce wrote:
j

both are modifyers, both are applied at the same time,

To be fair, thats exactly what the 2++ side is arguing against. But so far this position isnt backed up by rules in my opinion.

All of those things are just one rule. I meant, show me something similar to this. A special rule from wargear/special gear that has a 'bonus' effect being applied at the last stage.

 nutty_nutter wrote:


about time you cited a rule that says that invulnerable saves are taken into consideration for the chart on page 2.

please enlighten us with a direct rule that stipulates that an invulnerable save is subject to the characteristic modifiers section on page 2.

There's no rule for adding a bonus to an invul before taking the models wargear into account either... The rule says bonus to the invul, the invul is 4++.

You would seriously try and get a 1+ cover save? Yes it says no save in game can ever exceed a 2+/2++ or a 2+ cover save. That's common sense, they would never, ever, fail a save with those rules in effect.

Reptile wrote: All of those things are just one rule. I meant, show me something similar to this. A special rule from wargear/special gear that has a 'bonus' effect being applied at the last stage.

One rule?

rigeld2 wrote:Bonus is used in number of bonus attacks (due to charging, multiple weapons, etc)
Strength Bonus from Melee weapons (power fist, power axe, etc)
Adamantium Will gives a bonus to your DTW roll.
Rampage shows that bonuses are by definition modifiers (as you get +D3 attacks that are then referred to as bonus later in the rule)
Shrouded gives cover save bonuses.
As does Stealth.
Bikes give a Bonus Toughness.

Bonuses are modifiers. MoT is a modifier.

I count 7 there. And the number is irrelevant - bonuses are modifiers and treating them differently is incorrect. Your interpretation treats them differently.

[quote=Reptile[5iN] 560960 6228041 c23067932e324988a0ff39f4cf4fb9b9.png] All of those things are just one rule. I meant, show me something similar to this. A special rule from wargear/special gear that has a 'bonus' effect being applied at the last stage.

 nutty_nutter wrote:


about time you cited a rule that says that invulnerable saves are taken into consideration for the chart on page 2.

please enlighten us with a direct rule that stipulates that an invulnerable save is subject to the characteristic modifiers section on page 2.

There's no rule for adding a bonus to an invul before taking the models wargear into account either... The rule says bonus to the invul, the invul is 4++.

You would seriously try and get a 1+ cover save? Yes it says no save in game can ever exceed a 2+/2++ or a 2+ cover save. That's common sense, they would never, ever, fail a save with those rules in effect.

 Mywik wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
j

both are modifyers, both are applied at the same time,

To be fair, thats exactly what the 2++ side is arguing against. But so far this position isnt backed up by rules in my opinion.

what are they if they are not modifiers?

regardless, if they are rules, modifyers or whatever, MOT, whatever you want to classify it as, cannot be used to get better then a 3++

no one questions that MoT is in effect, modifier or not,

no one question that without MoT in effect, the save is not going to be 2++

everyone with me now?

so with MoT in effect, and GOTN in effect, you have a 2++

and one side is literally saying, that the combo of MoT and GOTN, that results in 2++, is not useing MoT, in any way, shape or form, to get a 2++, which is undeniably false by RAW.

using something earlier, is still using it, the restriction in MoT is not time sensitive...

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

Actually, I don't see. A 4++ inv save is better than a 5++ for the controlling player.

Please cite the rule that states this.

This statement is so flawed it's laughable. Improving is not neccessarily synonymous with increasing, or making bigger as you put it. As I've stated above a 4++ inv save is better than a 5++ for the controlling player.

Please cite the rule.

It's the same for inv and cover saves values although these two stats aren't characteristics of a model and therefore aren't discussed on this page. Also stated is that a model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+. I've already cited rules demonstrating how the MoT modifier is calculated, perhaps you'd like to try another reference?

Please cite the rule that defines that lower is better for invul and cover saves.

Finally, my "back on track" comment shows that I thought we were finished with irrelevant and pedantic arguments that 5-1=6 and the like. Sadly, Rigeld had other ideas.

It's not irrelevant - your refusal to actually cite rules when asked is absolutely relevant. I'm not asking these questions to troll but to glean relevant information.

Actually you've shown nothing of the sort. You've just re-stated your opinion as if it were a demonstrated fact, without backing it up.

Please, cite the differences the rules assert between Invul saves and Armor saves. I've cited the one - singular - time they're different. You're asserting there's more - prove it.

I've already cited all the relevant rules to support my arguments. Several times. If you can't follow this, relentlessly repeating "cite the rule" in response to something you disagree with isn't really providing any counter-argument. Relevant rules for Armour, Invulnerable and Cover Saves are on p16-18. Obviously their mechanics are similar in that if your saving throw is higher than the relevant save value then the wound is stopped. Therefore a lower value is better for all of these save values as it increases your chances of stopping the wound - this isn't a rule per se but rather a consequence of the rule mechanics I've just described. If you removed the statement from the BRB saying "an Armour Save is better if it is a lower number" it wouldn't make it untrue due to these actual rule mechanics. Do you really need GW to reiterate similar logical statements for every type of save just to satisfy your pedantry?

It's also clear that Armour, Invulnerable and Cover Saves are different entities as the save values are defined by different factors - in addition Armour Save is clearly defined as a characteristic whilst the other two are not. Are you trying to argue that they are the same thing? p17 of the BRB even states in bold print that invulnerable saves are different to armour saves due to ignoring AP values; it's the same for cover saves. However many individual differences there are, the three saves are still different; that is my assertion.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
I've already cited all the relevant rules to support my arguments. Several times. If you can't follow this, relentlessly repeating "cite the rule" in response to something you disagree with isn't really providing any counter-argument. Relevant rules for Armour, Invulnerable and Cover Saves are on p16-18. Obviously their mechanics are similar in that if your saving throw is higher than the relevant save value then the wound is stopped.

Your assertion was that no rules for Armor saves applied to invul saves. Are you now saying that assertion is incorrect? The mechanic of lower=better does not exist for invul saves on pages 16-18. I wonder where you're getting that information from... It can't possibly be page 2 as you've said - repeatedly - that those rules don't apply to invul saves.

edit: And no - you've never cited what I asked for. I asked for a rule that says a 4++ is better than a 5++. You've never - ever - cited that rule. Instead you pretend I'm silly for asking for it.

Therefore a lower value is better for all of these save values as it increases your chances of stopping the wound - this isn't a rule per se but rather a consequence of the rule mechanics I've just described. If you removed the statement from the BRB saying "an Armour Save is better if it is a lower number" it wouldn't make it untrue due to these actual rule mechanics. Do you really need GW to reiterate similar logical statements for every type of save just to satisfy your pedantry?

It's amusing you're accusing me of pedantry. Like - hilarious.
Yes - applying actual rules instead of making them up is important in a rules discussion.

It's also clear that Armour, Invulnerable and Cover Saves are different entities as the save values are defined by different factors - in addition Armour Save is clearly defined as a characteristic whilst the other two are not. Are you trying to argue that they are the same thing? p17 of the BRB even states in bold print that invulnerable saves are different to armour saves due to ignoring AP values; it's the same for cover saves. However many individual differences there are, the three saves are still different; that is my assertion.

They're different in specific, spelled out ways.

Ton - no, you havent actually cited any rules that state a 4++ save is a better save than a 5++ save. That rule exists for armour saves, but your statement is that you cannot use ANY rules for armour saves for invulnerable saves.

You ar therefore required to find something for invulnerable (and cover, of course, but try just one first) stating that a 4++ is better than a 5++. Page and paragraph, or else retract your assertion.

Secondly, you have asserted that Invulnerable and Armou are not linked; the ACTUAL rules for invulnerable saves state:

"Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken....

So 1) we know invulnerable saves are different to armour because 2) they may always be taken. That is it. It is an exhaustive list, by definition. As such, we know the sum total of all differences between armour and invulnerable

You have stated there are more differences. Prove it. Cite the rule stating that there are more differences. Page and paragraph, and the actual wording.

Given you cannot do so, you now have no choice but to accpet that it is a characteristic (it must be - that is not THE listed difference, using ACTUAL rules) and therefore the modifier rules are to be used.

You are modifying 5 (+1+2), and getting to 2++. Breaking a rule.

You would seriously try and get a 1+ cover save? Yes it says no save in game can ever exceed a 2+/2++ or a 2+ cover save. That's common sense, they would never, ever, fail a save with those rules in effect.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

You would seriously try and get a 1+ cover save? Yes it says no save in game can ever exceed a 2+/2++ or a 2+ cover save. That's common sense, they would never, ever, fail a save with those rules in effect.

off topic but yes a 1+ cover save is possible to reach but wouldn't be any more effective than a 2+ cover save since the BRB states that a natural roll of a '1' is always a fail. (excluding the exception when shooting with BS6+)

Citation needed. No such rule exists.

A 1+ cover save is not, in any way, possible. The rule on page 19 imaginatively entitled "Maximum Save" explicitly prohibits 1+ saves.

now your just being pedantic, its the same thing.

it is possible to receive enough benefits from rules to reach a 1+ save but a roll of a 1 is still a fail. the maximum restriction is just enforcing that.

Roll of 1 is not always a fail. Str 10 will penetrate AV10 even if you roll a 1. And a Techmarine with 4 servitors will pass a test to repair a vehicle even if you roll a 1.

 nutty_nutter wrote:
now your just being pedantic, its the same thing.

it is possible to receive enough benefits from rules to reach a 1+ save but a roll of a 1 is still a fail. the maximum restriction is just enforcing that.

Although you are right that currently there is nothing that makes a real difference it could be potentially game breaking when new rules are coming at us. The implementation of Grav guns shows that there is a difference between a 2+ and a 1+ that happens to be failed on a roll of a 1. We dont know if there are weapons/rules coming that use the current save to determine something. Be it cover invul or armour saves. The rules prohibit a 1+ save for a reason.

Old codex tau for example were lowering your cover save by 1 per markerlight (instead of 2 to get rid of all cover) and there it would be a difference if you allow a 1+ (with rolls of 1 fail) or a 2+ cover save.

So hes not being pedantic at all.