Sky Shield Landing Pad + the Mark of Tzeentch = 3++?

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.

**JinxDragon**

Rigeld2,
I'm unconvinced it is exclusive. The use of the word because on page 17 does not make what follows an exclusive list unless I am overlooking something stating it is the 'only' differences. For example the sentence "Apples and bananas are different because one us yellow and one is red" is correct but we all know the list of differences between these two is longer. It could be quite possible that other difference exist that simply are not listed on this page, and I am accepting that possibility because of the wording used. I'm not going to bother dedicating mind power to finding any of these differences however, I'm sure it is a very small list, as I believe they are characteristics. Besides it would be irrelevant anyway, unless the exact line quoted was 'is not a characteristic' then the existence of additional differences changes nothing.

After-all;
It is still is up to the side stating 'Invulnerability Saves are not Characteristics' to prove that it is one of the differences, with page and paragraph quote.

**Angelic**

JinxDragon wrote:
I have to side with rigeld2 on this one,
The Rule doesn't need to be listed as a characteristic if it contains instructions telling us to treat it as one. In this case we are told that Invulnerability Saves are identical except for one difference, so aside from that one difference we are to treat them identically. As that difference is not it's status as a characteristic, just giving you permission to evoke these rules in more situations then a standard Armour Save. As the Armour Save is a Characteristic, and the Invulnerability Save is identical to an Armour Save with one non-status related exception, then Invulnerability Save is a characteristic because the body of it's rule tell us to treat it identical to a characteristic.

If you are not allowing it to be modified as a characteristic, have you obeyed the rule telling us it is identical to a known characteristic?

Added:
I am reviewing the rule in a little more depth now and curious if it does tell us to treat it identically. It does state that they are different because of X, but that sort of wording doesn't mean X is an exhausted list. By pointing out that they are different it does allow the argument that part of that differences is the lack of permission to be a characteristic. It still fails precedent, there are rules informing us to improve a Invulnerability Saves by +1 and they break with this interpretation, but it is a good question when you look at the wording used.

Just in case I am overlooking something, where does it state to treat them identically?

You also have to treat them as characteristics in order to even use the +1 modifier. There are no modifier rules other then modifying characteristics. And to the point about Daemon saves, they are not inherently modifiers. If its a base characteristic of the model, it is not a modifier. I wouldn't argue about it. I'd just use small arms fire to clear them out. Volume of small arms fire is plenty effective at clearing 3+ saves. 3++ saves (as compared to 3+) really only matter to ap 3 (or better) weapons.

One other point, is it a persistent effect (the +1) or a one time bonus?

**JinxDragon**

Angelic,
Basic Math exists, and as a fundamental it can be said any time permission to modify something with a +X or -X we can evoke the ability to apply maths. This doesn't work with the Invulnerability Save however, because they use a form of 'inverted math' which is only permitted by certain Characteristics. Because the ability to improve a number by lowering it is vital gain a higher probability of success, it has to be a Characteristic as it requires those permissions to function. Without the ability to consider it a Characteristic, then the only way it can be 'improved' is to make the score worse and this can't be correct.

As for the Daemon saves:
It was highlighting that the idea the Sky-shild is a 'set modifier' can not be correct because it uses the same terminology as many other Special Rules granting Invulnerability Saves. As these other saves are clearly designed to be modified, which is impossible if they are 'set modifiers' and applied last, then it can not be correct that it is a Set Modifier in this instance. The Sky-shield is simply a Special Rule granting the model am Invulnerability Save Characteristic and there is nothing within to suggest we treat it any other way then a 'base' Characteristic. Therefore it must be altered by additional Rules demanding allows further modifications.

**Angelic**

JinxDragon wrote:
Angelic,
Basic Math exists, and as a fundamental it can be said any time permission to modify something with a +X or -X exists we can evoke the ability to apply maths. This doesn't work with the Invulnerability Save however, because they use a form of 'inverted math' which is only permitted by certain Characteristics. Because the ability to improve a number by lowering it is vital to make it so these Saves gain a higher probability of success, it has to be a Characteristic. Without the ability to consider it a Characteristic, then the only way it can be 'improved' is to make the score worse and this can't be correct.

That was my point since +1 (mathematically) isn't strictly what we are doing , though more specifically stated.

**JinxDragon**

Which I have never questioned, it is a vital way these Saves work so I can't fathom why people are questioning it in the first place! All I do have is a little doubt that the one example after the word 'because' is an exhausted list but this is far from proving 'Invulnerability saves are not characteristics.' I will need a paragraph quoted from the Rule book stating as much before I will allow anyone to try and deny a models 'improved' Invulnerability save as I do not accept 'unwritten Rules' as Rule as Written evidence for the obvious reasons.

**Wagguy80**

dif·fer·ent
ˈdif(ə)rənt/Submit
adjective
1. not the same as another or each other; unlike in nature, form, or quality.

synonyms: dissimilar, unalike, unlike, contrasting, contrastive, divergent, differing, varying, disparate

2. distinct; separate.

synonyms: distinct, separate, individual, discrete, independent More

Also pg 19 under Maximum Save it states the limitations of throwing save modifiers.

**rigeld2**

Wagguy80 wrote:
dif·fer·ent

Yes, they are not the same in a single, defined way.

Also pg 19 under Maximum Save it states the limitations of throwing save modifiers.

It has nothing to say about the fact that saves are inverted - the single place that exists is on page 2.
So +1 to a 4+ invul save, according to you, makes it a 5+ invul. I'm sure you'll agree that's how modifying invul saves works.

**McNinja**

What is going on? How is this even open for debate? Not only is the mark pretty clear, but the example it gives is also very clear. Models with MoT on a skyshield have a 3++.