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.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Mark of tzeentch can't be used to get 2++,it does not forbid getting it from other sources.

Empiric shield is 3++ base, and the 1ksons blessing rule boosts it to 2++, MoT isn't used.

No such thing as "not used" unfortunately. The unit has mark of Tzeentch, regardless of whether you use it or not, according to the wording the unit has to have a maximum invul save of 3++. No matter anyways, since empyric shield in a single unit champion or a character inside a unit doesn't make much sense anyways. Where it is really good (daemon princes) they do benefit from it.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Mark of tzeentch can't be used to get 2++,it does not forbid getting it from other sources.

Empiric shield is 3++ base, and the 1ksons blessing rule boosts it to 2++, MoT isn't used.

No such thing as "not used" unfortunately. The unit has mark of Tzeentch, regardless of whether you use it or not, according to the wording the unit has to have a maximum invul save of 3++. No matter anyways, since empyric shield in a single unit champion or a character inside a unit doesn't make much sense anyways. Where it is really good (daemon princes) they do benefit from it.

I'd say this is very much open to interpretation.

They way I look at MoTz is that you can never get a better invuln than 3+, if you use MoTz to boost your invuln.
You can get a 2+ invuln if you don't use MoTz in order to obtain it though, such as with Empiric Shield.

Or are you seriously suggesting that if there came out a psychic power tomorrow that gave the caster a 2+ invuln (by default), that MoTz-Sorcerers would only gain a 3++, while every other psyker in the game would gain a 2++?
If you are, you can't be serious.

That's not how it works at all.

The mark gives +1 to a maximum of 3+.not limit to 3+ in general.
That means that the 1+ does not apply if it would cause a 2+,not that it forbids it to be formed otherwise.

In this case, the mark is there, it's "used", it just doesn't do anything.

As for doing nothing us squads, a 2++rr tank in front of the squad is nothing to ignore. The unit is practically unkillable with it.

On a prince its just outright cheating to get that power, but you can't really get many princes in chosen 1ksons formations, and your war cabal Prince slot competes with your ahriman slot.

I am pretty serious. You can't choose to ignore a special rule on a unit by virtue of "not using it". Chaos terminators are both relentless and Slow and Purposeful. I cannot state that I "don't use the SnP rule" since relentless does the same thing anyways. And your units do not have multiple invul save instances available so they don't get to choose. You have one invul save and you can roll for it, but you have to take all the USRs into consideration. A unit with a MoT has a maximum invul save of 3++.

If such a power was created, the MoT sorcerer would in fact only benefit to a 3++ save, unless MoT was changed.

On a prince its just outright cheating to get that power, but you can't really get many princes in chosen 1ksons formations, and your war cabal Prince slot competes with your ahriman slot.

Why is cheating getting Empyric shield on a DP with MoT? He can actually get it. And you get 3 DP in the Rehati sect.

You are reading the MoT wrong based on its English.

In no place it limits your invul to a 3+, but limits the +1 it gives from going beyond 3+.
It has zero effect on other invul boosting sources.



As for the Prince, I meant cheating in the sense it's plain nasty, not that it's illegal on any level.
As for the rehati, it's not rather practical for a game of rational size.

I do not think we can choose to ignore the MoT. Its english is pretty clear. The model gets +1 to its invul save, to a maximum of 3+. Even if you have a better save than the +1 and you don't really need it, the second part of the rule is still in effect, and your maximum invul save is 3+. You can't choose not to use a rule you have. Regardless of how many sources of invul a model has, it is limited on a 3++ maximum.

Sample Rehatti list on 1850:

Magnus
3 x DP, wings, ML(3), spell familiars, 2 artifacts (black mace, arcane compulsion)

Pandaemoniad of Tzeentch
Blue scribes
3x11 blue horrors
3 x Heralds anarchic

That's 4 flying MCs, 26 warp charges, casting on 3+ with rerolls and no LoS needed, Magnus, 35 daemons on the ground with 4++ (and quite possible a 3++ if you make a herald your warlord), rerollable new warpstorm table, splitting units into brimstones.

The list is also completely immune to grav weapons except for Magnus. (Once you are done with the main targets that can trouble you, land your DP's and magnus, go to town in close combat. Rolling all powers on Ectomancy, each DP has a 33% chance to become immortal and then you don't have to fly him at all.

Sounds decent list to me.

Sorry man, but Boomwolf is right. The MoT cannot improve your INV save beyond a 3++. But if you have it from somewhere else, then it can be.

 nintura wrote:
Sorry man, but Boomwolf is right. The MoT cannot improve your INV save beyond a 3++. But if you have it from somewhere else, then it can be.

We will have to agree disagree on this one. "Elsewhere" does not mean you can choose to ignore the MoT rule. And the rule says that your maximum invul save is a 3++. Not using the +1 invul from MoT does not mean you can ignore the rest of the text.

That's fine, you play that way. Common sense dictates otherwise. One piece of gear doesn't supersede another.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 nintura wrote:
Sorry man, but Boomwolf is right. The MoT cannot improve your INV save beyond a 3++. But if you have it from somewhere else, then it can be.

We will have to agree disagree on this one. "Elsewhere" does not mean you can choose to ignore the MoT rule. And the rule says that your maximum invul save is a 3++. Not using the +1 invul from MoT does not mean you can ignore the rest of the text.

You're probably right. At least that's how it's been played for a long-long time by people who still used MoT (for some odd reason). It was also played that it only increases the initial save that hte model has. Means that if you have csm with MoT, they get 6++. If they stand on a landing pad that confers 4++, they still get 4++ cause the +1 inv is only applied to initial save - basically before the game begins. Unless it was re-worded, we should consider this too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nintura wrote:
That's fine, you play that way. Common sense dictates otherwise. One piece of gear doesn't supersede another.

Yeah, like megaarmour. Why not get the 2+ for tanking and move as if you weren't SNP cause you obviously don't use 2+ armor to move, right?

"Models with the Mark of Tzeentch have +1 to their invulnerability save (to a maximum of 3+)"
It's the increase that caps at 3+, it wont increase it beyond that.

No where in the rules for MoT does it say that a model can't have a 2+ invulnerable save.

Unfortunately it's GW, I don't believe we are going to get any responses to these questions in the near future. Forge the narrative fellas.

It's.... Simple English. There is nothing for GW to clarify here...

 BoomWolf wrote:
It's.... Simple English. There is nothing for GW to clarify here...

It is simple English indeed. If a model has a MoT, its maximum allowed invul save is 3++. There is no such thing as multiple invul saves therefore you don't get to pick. IF the +1 bonus is superfluous then it's ok. But you can't ignore the whole rule. The MoT model is restricted to 3++.

The hunt for the illusive 2++ has been going on for many years, and the result is always pages upon pages of people circling around rules and not reaching a definitive verdict. Let's not do this again. Let's just agree to disagree. At least we can agree that we have it on DP's , with reroll function as well.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
It's.... Simple English. There is nothing for GW to clarify here...

It is simple English indeed. If a model has a MoT, its maximum allowed invul save is 3++. There is no such thing as multiple invul saves therefore you don't get to pick. IF the +1 bonus is superfluous then it's ok. But you can't ignore the whole rule. The MoT model is restricted to 3++.

The hunt for the illusive 2++ has been going on for many years, and the result is always pages upon pages of people circling around rules and not reaching a definitive verdict. Let's not do this again. Let's just agree to disagree. At least we can agree that we have it on DP's , with reroll function as well.

No, that's not what it says. You're fixated on that.

"Models with the Mark of Tzeentch have +1 to their invulnerability save (to a maximum of 3+)"

This is what it says. Key Part: "have +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 3+)". This is one statement. MoT adds a bonus, and that bonus is not allowed to make it better than a 3++. It's not two statements. It doesn't say maximum invuln save is 3++.

MoT adds a bonus, and that bonus is not allowed to make it better than a 3++.

That is not what the rule does. The rule gives a bonus AND has a restriction. There is nothing in the rule to state that the bonus +1 is what is limited by the restriction.

Really, please, let's drop this. We are not going to convince each other. I stand by my opinion. A model with the MoT has +1 to its invul save AND has a maximum of 3+.

Seriously, please let us drop this matter.

I second the request to close the max invul conversation or to take it to YMDC at least.

On the tactical side, I've almost finished painting my tzaangors but I don't really see myself ever using them. I'm struggling to find a time where I'd rather use them over regular cultists (although, so far I've been getting by just using formations and not needing a CAD at all). Anyone find a good use for them?

 lessthanjeff wrote:
I second the request to close the max invul conversation or to take it to YMDC at least.

On the tactical side, I've almost finished painting my tzaangors but I don't really see myself ever using them. I'm struggling to find a time where I'd rather use them over regular cultists (although, so far I've been getting by just using formations and not needing a CAD at all). Anyone find a good use for them?

Woa! You got Tzaangors? How many? In my opinion, it's either forget them or get 60 of them and run 3x20 plus a sorc in the tzaangor formation. While they are very weak on their own, getting Fleet, run+charge and extra +1 WS/Str when getting high charges (which with fleet rerolls is more likely than what it seems) for free just because you bought many guys is awesome. The formation basically turns them from glorified, expensive cultists to cheap,fast,naked assault marines. Maybe add an astral grimoire for good measure. Unit of 20-30 tzaangors moves 12", runs 5" (fleet) and charges an extra 9" for a total of 25-26" of move in a single turn. not bad at all for 7 pts a body.

The grimore is a waste on them.

Just horde and smash into enemy lines as a distraction while preparing your beams

Were they hard to find? I've been able to get several boxes of all the new tzeentch kits easily enough. I only bought 10 because I'm not feeling them much yet so I've been getting more of the term and rubric kits instead. My local store still has more of them sitting and waiting though.

The WS bonus just means they get hit less and does't help their damage output but their save is so bad they're going to take lots of casualties anyways. For 70 points, I'd rather take 15 cultists which would do more damage and be harder to remove.

I don't see me using a grimoire move on them over occult terminators either.

 lessthanjeff wrote:
Were they hard to find? I've been able to get several boxes of all the new tzeentch kits easily enough. I only bought 10 because I'm not feeling them much yet so I've been getting more of the term and rubric kits instead. My local store still has more of them sitting and waiting though.

The WS bonus just means they get hit less and does't help their damage output but their save is so bad they're going to take lots of casualties anyways. For 70 points, I'd rather take 15 cultists which would do more damage and be harder to remove.

I don't see me using a grimoire move on them over occult terminators either.

In a thousand sons detachment you would get 12 cultists (they need to purchase MoT). So 10 tzaangors might be better than 12 cultists overall. In a normal CSM Cad, definitely go cultists.

 godardc wrote:
I never understood why some people try to play competitively a game that is not intended to be played competitively.
Why not play chess ?

Chess is boring and computers are already better at it than humans.

Chess is not competitive either The black has no chance to win in the professional settings. Just tries to draw the game.

Yeah, they might not come out doing much more damage aside from having the pistols already so they can shoot and charge. The cultists also come with their champ for the extra leadership though so that's another 10 for the tzaangors to hit ld 8. I don't know, I'm just not seeing much of an appeal for them right now. The thing they'd be best at is tying up units in combat that you don't want out and about but I feel like rubrics already do that pretty well with fearless and a solid invul save.

 lessthanjeff wrote:
Yeah, they might not come out doing much more damage aside from having the pistols already so they can shoot and charge. The cultists also come with their champ for the extra leadership though so that's another 10 for the tzaangors to hit ld 8. I don't know, I'm just not seeing much of an appeal for them right now. The thing they'd be best at is tying up units in combat that you don't want out and about but I feel like rubrics already do that pretty well with fearless and a solid invul save.

The biggest problem against the tzaangors was that they were printed in the same book with blue and brimstone horrors. Should I get a unit of 11 no save guys for 77 pts or should I get a unit of 11 4++ save guys which also give me 2 warp charges and make new units as they die? Decisions, decisions...

True enough. its hard to compete with blue/brime horrors in pure spammery.

Though the blue scribes formation made me look at them again and wonder-why would any daemon player NOT take them? they are fething insane for the cost.

Quick add in to the beaten horse:

The rules state that Modifiers should be treated as such:
1. Multiply 2. Add/Subtract 3. Set value

So in the example of Empyric Shield:

The +1 blessing bonus would be overwritten by the spell giving it a 3++ (A set value overwrites the +1 bonus)

That's for stats (mostly Strenght.)

Otherwise with that logic, the +1 blessing bonus would be nearly useless.

Aura of Dark Glory? Nope, gives a set value of 5++.
Seems rubrics and occult termies have a 5++, shame about that useless mark of tzeentch and blessing of tzeentch, and here we all thought they could get a 3++.
Ahriman? Also stuck with a 5++.

Blessing of Tzeentch does not apply until after the unit gets affected by the blessing. So the Empyric shield gets cast, caster gets 3++ save, then the blessing of tzeentch kicks in and takes it to 2++ (or does nothing in case of MoT - evil laughter huehuhehue).

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Chess is not competitive either The black has no chance to win in the professional settings. Just tries to draw the game.

gw nerf white pls ok