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.

Hey Everyone,

What makes a modifier a 'set-value' or a 'base-stat' modifier? What language is used to indicate something is a 'set-value' and not something else?

My sense is that nothing in the game modifies 'base stats' as such, and therefore, any modifier must follow the order of operations outlined in the BRB.

Everyone can agree that charging through difficult terrain drops you to Initiative 1 (barring exceptions) and this is applied as a 'Set-Modifier'. Thus, lash-whips, or mark of Slannesh cannot modify this past 1.

So, my question is, what makes charging through difficult terrain dropping your initiate different from something like Forewarning providing a model "a +4 invulnerable save". What are the instances of confusion between these two situations? Obviously, it is intended for the Grimoire of True Names to improve the +5 Daemon save, however, it would read to me that this is one such set modifier. So what makes these cases not set modifiers? What language is used in either case and when is it a set modifier and when is it not? It's quite ambiguous in my mind in most all of these cases.

Things like Forewarning arn't set modifiers. They're not modifying anything.
They aren't a modification to your invulnerable save, they simply are another invulnerable save that can in turn be modified.

Something must first exist before it can be modified.

The 4++ granted by Forewarning is an additionnal invulnerable save, it doesn't modify one. For another example take cover saves. Standing behind walls will grant you a 4+ cover save, that can be modified by a camo-cloak for example.
In the deamon's case, it'd have a 5++ (demon), a 4++ (forewarning) and gains +2 to its invuln(s). You have to use the best save, which would then be improved by the grimoire.

Thanks for the replies, but you both missed the point slightly.

I am asking more about the general way to arbitrate between cases such as these? Why is Unwieldy a set modifier and Daemon, not? What about the language differentiates them?

If you look at unwieldly you'll notice that it never modifies a models Initiative value.
It simply stays the initiative step that they attack in.

Daemon save is simply an invulnerable save. It's not modifying anything, so can be modified.

If you're granted something, it's a new characteristic (cover saves, Demon invulnerable save, Forewarning ...) . If it modifies, lowers and enhances anything to a fixed amount it's a set modifier.

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
If you're granted something, it's a new characteristic (cover saves, Demon invulnerable save, Forewarning ...) . If it modifies, lowers and enhances anything to a fixed amount it's a set modifier.

Thanks, that's a good enough way to distinguish them. I'm trying to figure out if there any cases not covered by this 'rule of thumb'.

One thing to be careful of is what the set modifier is actually modifying. Take, for example, a Librarian with a Force Axe and Quickening. The unwieldy of the Force Axe wins over the I10 of Quickening. Why? Because Quickening modifies your initiative, while unwieldy modifies the Initiative you attack at. Unwieldy isn't modifying the model's Initiative, so it never comes into conflict with the modification from Quickening and the order you apply them doesn't matter.

The same applies to charging into cover.

It is phrased "you attack at initiative 1" so its not modifying your models initiative.....

Where as if it said "your models initiative is reduced to 1", it would be a set value, and all your initiative tests would be performed at initiative 1.

 B0B MaRlEy wrote:
If you're granted something, it's a new characteristic (cover saves, Demon invulnerable save, Forewarning ...) . If it modifies, lowers and enhances anything to a fixed amount it's a set modifier.

That doesn't quite work as a definition. By that Forewarning on a Daemon would be a "set" because it already has a save. That would mean that Forewarning turns the Daemon+book save to a 4+ from a 3+. It also means that MoTz on a Sky Shield is a 4+ because MoTz gives a 6+ save to a model that doesn't have one. Camo Cloaks give a 6+ to a model that doesn't have one. So, they all end up with saves of some sort before Forewarning/Cover/Sky Shield kicks in to change it. I think everyone can agree that at least a couple of those results aren't correct.

In short, there is no definition that can be applied across the board. You have to talk with your opponent to decide.

Your post requires the assumption that you can only have one invul save. That assumption isn't supported by rules and therefore isn't correct.

They're a new characteristic because they grant a save - they aren't sets.

Angelic wrote:
That doesn't quite work as a definition. By that Forewarning on a Daemon would be a "set" because it already has a save.

Only if you assume a model can have only one invulnerable save.
This assumption is not correct however.

That only applies to characteristics which are listed in the BRB.

Saves are not characteristics and never have a set value.

Example of a set value...
Lascannon is S9 so if a psychic power gave the model S10 his lascannon is still S9.

Saves are never set values. They're always "2+, 3+, 4+, etc" and not "2, 3, 4, etc"
IE a model doesn't make a save on a roll of 4. It makes it on a 4, 5, or 6. There is no way to set that value.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Saves are not characteristics and never have a set value.

Absolutely false.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Saves are not characteristics and never have a set value.

Armour Save is a characteristic (BRB p2).
Invulnerable Saves however, are not. (BRB p2).

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Invulnerable Saves however, are not. (BRB p2).

So you can never modify Invulnerable saves then.
Or, you can modify them, but they go the opposite direction of Armor Saves (5++ with a +2 mod goes to 7++).
Or, you understand that page 19 shows that Invul saves are different in one, single, way - and that way is not a characteristic.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Wagguy80 wrote:
Saves are not characteristics and never have a set value.

Armour Save is a characteristic (BRB p2).
Invulnerable Saves however, are not. (BRB p2).

They are.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your post requires the assumption that you can only have one invul save. That assumption isn't supported by rules and therefore isn't correct.

They're a new characteristic because they grant a save - they aren't sets.

That is an interesting argument. Haven't seen that one before. So, that would basically mean that absent some explicit rule to the contrary, Saves can never have a "set" modifier, though they are characteristics. They are simply additional. I like it.

Lysander for example has 3 different invulnerable saves. Due to how saves work you use the best (3++) but should he somehow lose it he'd have his 2 others. Cover saves for example you could have several of too. Standing behind a unit (5+) and in a ruin (4+). You'd use the best but the other ones still exist

Exactly. The other argument (that they're all set modifiers) means that on your turn Lysander has a 3++ but on my turn he has a 5++.

Have fun pushing that argument.

I understand full well the concept of multiple saves, such as Lysander. I just never looked at Forewarning/Sky Shield as yet another save. I always treated them like Cover saves. I just wasn't solid on the reason it should be treated like that and not a modifier. Couldn't tell you why. Seems obvious now.

All those rules "Grant" you a save. It doesn't say anything about changing existing ones.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Invulnerable Saves however, are not. (BRB p2).

So you can never modify Invulnerable saves then.
Or, you can modify them, but they go the opposite direction of Armor Saves (5++ with a +2 mod goes to 7++).
Or, you understand that page 19 shows that Invul saves are different in one, single, way - and that way is not a characteristic.

None of the above. If you can point out where it is stated that Invulnerable saves are a characteristic I'll gladly concede that point.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Invulnerable Saves however, are not. (BRB p2).

So you can never modify Invulnerable saves then.
Or, you can modify them, but they go the opposite direction of Armor Saves (5++ with a +2 mod goes to 7++).
Or, you understand that page 19 shows that Invul saves are different in one, single, way - and that way is not a characteristic.

None of the above.

So you're asserting that Invulnerable saves can be modified and follow the rules for Armor save modification (ie that a 5++ with a +2 is a 3++)?
Cite rules support please. Not that you'll ever find any, but I'd love to see what you come up with. Remember - you may not cite anything on page 2 to support your argument.

If you can point out where it is stated that Invulnerable saves are a characteristic I'll gladly concede that point.

Sorry - I gave you the wrong page number.

p17 wrote:Invulnerable saves are different to armour saves because they may always be taken whenever the model suffers a Wound

Invul saves are different to armor saves. How are they different? In that Invul saves may always be taken.
Are there any other differences? Nope, rules don't state any. Oh - so they must be the same.
This is also consistent with how the rules are actually applied. Yay!

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Invulnerable Saves however, are not. (BRB p2).

So you can never modify Invulnerable saves then.
Or, you can modify them, but they go the opposite direction of Armor Saves (5++ with a +2 mod goes to 7++).
Or, you understand that page 19 shows that Invul saves are different in one, single, way - and that way is not a characteristic.

None of the above. If you can point out where it is stated that Invulnerable saves are a characteristic I'll gladly concede that point.

The part wher pe it gives the exhaustive list of howitzer are different. Meaning, unless you find "not a characteristic" on that list, they are one.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
If you can point out where it is stated that Invulnerable saves are a characteristic I'll gladly concede that point.

Invul saves are different to armor saves. How are they different? In that Invul saves may always be taken.
Are there any other differences? Nope, rules don't state any. Oh - so they must be the same.
This is also consistent with how the rules are actually applied. Yay!

You can't do so then. Instead you've chosen to quote that Inv saves are different to armour saves but then go on to claim that they also the same. Interesting. Moving on.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
If you can point out where it is stated that Invulnerable saves are a characteristic I'll gladly concede that point.

Invul saves are different to armor saves. How are they different? In that Invul saves may always be taken.
Are there any other differences? Nope, rules don't state any. Oh - so they must be the same.
This is also consistent with how the rules are actually applied. Yay!

You can't do so then. Instead you've chosen to quote that Inv saves are different to armour saves but then go on to claim that they also the same. Interesting. Moving on.

No, do not misrepresent someone elses argument - that is impolite at best.

It states exactly how they are different. Not being a characteristic is not listed as a difference, so it is still a characteristic. Claim proven, over to you to disprove it.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
If you can point out where it is stated that Invulnerable saves are a characteristic I'll gladly concede that point.

Invul saves are different to armor saves. How are they different? In that Invul saves may always be taken.
Are there any other differences? Nope, rules don't state any. Oh - so they must be the same.
This is also consistent with how the rules are actually applied. Yay!

You can't do so then. Instead you've chosen to quote that Inv saves are different to armour saves but then go on to claim that they also the same. Interesting. Moving on.

Did you even read the rule I referenced and quoted?
And you have zero actual support for your assertion that invul saves work without being a characteristic?

"Moving on" would mean you were right - since you're demonstrably not you should've said "I don't feel like supporting my argument so I'm going to take my toys home."
I've proven that they are different in one, single, way. You're stating that they're different in a way other than that. I've proven my point with rules. You've made yours up.
I wonder which one is more valid when discussing rules in 40k...

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
If you can point out where it is stated that Invulnerable saves are a characteristic I'll gladly concede that point.

Invul saves are different to armor saves. How are they different? In that Invul saves may always be taken.
Are there any other differences? Nope, rules don't state any. Oh - so they must be the same.
This is also consistent with how the rules are actually applied. Yay!

You can't do so then. Instead you've chosen to quote that Inv saves are different to armour saves but then go on to claim that they also the same. Interesting. Moving on.

Did you even read the rule I referenced and quoted?
And you have zero actual support for your assertion that invul saves work without being a characteristic?

"Moving on" would mean you were right - since you're demonstrably not you should've said "I don't feel like supporting my argument so I'm going to take my toys home."
I've proven that they are different in one, single, way. You're stating that they're different in a way other than that. I've proven my point with rules. You've made yours up.
I wonder which one is more valid when discussing rules in 40k...

I am right. You can't cite any rule that cites that Inv saves are a characteristic and you just can't handle that. If you want rules try reading p2 of the BRB; the page where the 40k characteristics are defined. You will notice that Invul saves aren't mentioned anywhere. You'll also notice they aren't included in a models characteristic statistics.

Tonberry, I have a model with a 4+ invulnerable save. I get a special rule that gives +1 to invulnerable saves. What is the models invuln save, and why?

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
If you can point out where it is stated that Invulnerable saves are a characteristic I'll gladly concede that point.

Invul saves are different to armor saves. How are they different? In that Invul saves may always be taken.
Are there any other differences? Nope, rules don't state any. Oh - so they must be the same.
This is also consistent with how the rules are actually applied. Yay!

You can't do so then. Instead you've chosen to quote that Inv saves are different to armour saves but then go on to claim that they also the same. Interesting. Moving on.

Did you even read the rule I referenced and quoted?
And you have zero actual support for your assertion that invul saves work without being a characteristic?

"Moving on" would mean you were right - since you're demonstrably not you should've said "I don't feel like supporting my argument so I'm going to take my toys home."
I've proven that they are different in one, single, way. You're stating that they're different in a way other than that. I've proven my point with rules. You've made yours up.
I wonder which one is more valid when discussing rules in 40k...

I am right. You can't cite any rule that cites that Inv saves are a characteristic and you just can't handle that. If you want rules try reading p2 of the BRB; the page where the 40k characteristics are defined. You will notice that Invul saves aren't mentioned anywhere. You'll also notice they aren't included in a models characteristic statistics.

So you're just refusing to answer my questions or cite rules?
Page 17 is all I need - and I cited that. Now it's your turn.
In addition, cite the rules allowing invul saves to be modified, and how to do so. Do not cite page 2.