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.

Does mark of tzeench give bikes a 2+ save whenb they boost?

I figure no because mark of tzeench either improves inv save for those who have or gives one to those eho haven't.

since a bike doesn't have an inv save, the MoT will give it one, thus negating the second part...

Thsu when a bike boosts, you choose to either use the armour save now turned invulnerable or the moT invulnerable.

am I right ot wrong?

 

thanks in advance.

At the time you turbo boost, you have an invulnerable save. MoT adds one to that, so 2+.

Only the wording in the new codex can clear this up for sure.

Currently, turbo boosting turns your armor save into an Inv save. So if you get hit by a weapon that requires an Inv save, you can use your armor save against it or your inv save. So to answer your question, I don't think the MoT increase your armor save if you are turbo boosting.

I don't have the wording in front of me, but it was posted elsewhere that the wording says something to the effect of the +1 being added for models that "normally" get an invulnerable save. The conclusion drawn was that bikes don't fall into this category, and this the MoT only gives them the standard 5+, regardless of whether or not they turbo.

The mark of tzeentch rules say "normally" just as swize points out.

Bikes will be getting 2+ invuns but I don't believe the rules specifically say they do. (In other words, people won't be playing RAW imo).

Bikes normally have an INV save when they turbo boost.

Agree with Mauleed and Whitedragon.

I'm too lazy to type the whole thing, but I'm staring at it, and it just said it adds +1 to your invulnerable save.

Nothing about normal saves, or special situations, just +1.

So no need to FAQ or errata it, it works just fine as written as a 2+ invulnerable.

Now if only those bikes had some decent daemons to summon in.

Or enough attacks to be worth using for themselves.

Actually it says if they don't normally have an invulnerable save they don't get the +1 invun save.

Turbo boosting bikes normally have an invulnerable save.

It seems pretty straightforward to me.


P#1 Mark of Tzeentch adds +1 to your inv saves.
P#2 CSM bikers may turboboost
P#3 When turboboosting the normal save turns inv.

C: Tzeentchian bikers are 2+ inv when turboboosting.

its a pretty basic syllogism, really.

Ok well I'll just fall back and repeat what I said before, that's exactly how everyone will play.

I posted my reasoning on warseer on this very topic and no one has been able to counter it. You can find it by looking on the rule question forum for a thread called 3 chaos question or something like that, but I will try to explain it here. (I can't access warseer at work for some reason.)

There are different types of saves and there are times when more than one applies. however, you only get to apply one save. For example, choose between armor or cover save.

The rule says that the armor save should be "treated as" an invulnerable save. It does not say it replaces the invulnerable save. So while turbo boosting you have the option of using your armor save against a weapon that normally ignores armor saves, but you can still use your invulnerable save. The invulnerable save does not simply cease to exist. (Assuming the model has an invulnerable save to start with.)

Now an example with two bikes. Bike A has a 3+ armor save and no invulnerable save. Bike B has a 3+ armor save and a 5+ invulnerable save. When you give each model the MoT Bike A now has a 5+ invulnerable save (per the rule under MoT) and Bike B has a 4+ invulnerable save.

Both bikes turbo boost in their turn. Both bikes are wounded by a weapon that ignores armor saves.

Based on RAW or RAI or any other system you choose to use:

Bike A can save with his 3+ armor save or his 5+ invulnerable save.
Bike B can save with his 3+ armor save or his 4+ invulnerable save.

Can anyone come up with a rule to invalidate this? Like a rule that states that while Turbo boosting, the models invulnerable save does not exist?

If the armor save is treated as an invulnerable save, all rules that apply to invulnerable saves apply to his armor save. Thus the MoT will give a +1 to the save. So this leads to a 2+ save on a turboboosting bike.

Posted By skyth on 08/16/2007 7:11 AM
If the armor save is treated as an invulnerable save, all rules that apply to invulnerable saves apply to his armor save. Thus the MoT will give a +1 to the save. So this leads to a 2+ save on a turboboosting bike.

"Since you turbo boosted last turn, you can use your armor save OR your invulnerable save against that wound. Which will you be using?"

The armor save which is treated as an invulnerable save, so it gets the +1 from the mark of Tzeentch.

njfed, would you care to tell me what you take "treated as" to mean?

And again:

Posted By Hellfury on 08/15/2007 2:21 PM
It seems pretty straightforward to me.


P#1 Mark of Tzeentch adds +1 to your inv saves.
P#2 CSM bikers may turboboost
P#3 When turboboosting the normal save turns inv.

C: Tzeentchian bikers are 2+ inv when turboboosting.

its a pretty basic syllogism, really.

So, spending points on tzeentchian bikers makes them worse than a vanilla biker? I think I will stick to the above conclusion until it has been syllogistically proven to be a false conclusion.

Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 08/16/2007 10:30 AM
njfed, would you care to tell me what you take "treated as" to mean?

Lets rewrite the turbo boosting rule using the two interpretations:

1. To represent the difficulty of hitting a turbo boosting model, the model may use its armor save against wounds that would normally only allow an invulnerable save.

2. To represent the difficulty of hitting a turbo boosting model, the model's armor save is now an invulnerable save.

I subscribe to the first one.

But 2 is what the rulebook says.

I understand that this is an abstraction which sometimes has odd effects, but that's okay. I don't mind MoT bikers benefitting from their mark when they're turboboosting. They do pay for it, after all.

NJfed, welcome to dakka.

Now cut it out.

Read the book, the actual words in it, and base your statements on them, not whatever bologna you'd like to subscribe to.

Personally, I like my bologna with mustard, not dakka.

here's the text for MoT:

"Models with the Mark of Tzeentch gain +1 to their invulnerable save (to a maximum of 2+). If given to a model that does not normally have an invulnerable save, this mark confers an invulnerable save of 5+."

there are 2 different things that the MoT gives, as per the 2 sentences of text (in no particular order):

1) if you don't normally have an invul. save, you get a 5+

2) +1 to your invul. save (max of 2+).

so a Chaos Marine whose squad has the MoT will gain a (5+), and then they get +1 to their invul. save... giving them a (4+).

according to this, a unit of bikers with the MoT has a 3+(4+) until they turbo boost, at which time, since you now have a (3+)(4+), and you add +1 to your invulnerable SAVE (singular), you would get to choose which invulnerable save you would give +1 to... giving you either a (2+)(4+), or a (3+)(3+).

also, how you read this completely depends on whether or not you choose to utterly disregard the adverb 'normally.'  it messes things up.

Um, harvey I don't agree with you.

Harvey: No

can you both explain why? i mean, this is about the RAW, right? you don't just get to say "i don't agree" and have that carry your argument without any kind of backup.

Harvey- You don't get to apply the two parts of the MoT to the same squad sequentially.  Either they start with an Invul save and increase it by +1, or they don't start with an Invul save and thus gain a 5+I.  You can't claim the rule grants them a 5+I and then say the rule also increases this new Invul save to 4+I.  Your line of reasoning would allow it to be increased endlessly  (well actually to the limit of 2+I) and I sure hope you are not suggesting that.....

Posted By Janthkin on 08/14/2007 1:55 PM

Now if only those bikes had some decent daemons to summon in.

Or enough attacks to be worth using for themselves.

Assuming there's nothing written someplace that they can't do this, CSM bikes have lost their +1 attack for "spikes and blades" but are armed with both a close combat weapon and a bolt pistol, giving +1 attack.  pg.  99

As far as Harvey's discussion is concerned, while in the spirit of RAW it sounds like a definate FAQ issue to me.  Unless of course a lawyer/logician type can show he's wrong.  Thousand Sons _do_ have a 4+ invulnerable, maybe that's the reason.

beast -

the facts are: you apply all rules. the rule says they get a 5+ if they don't normally have one. the rule also says they get +1 to their (I) save. there is nothing stated in the rule that says you must use them in sequence... it is merely implied by the order in which the two sentences are written.

i find it odd that the 1ksons entry conforms to the RAW rules, and NOT to the interpretive version of them that you are suggesting.

their entry says "4+ invulnerable save, including the MoT." if they were going to go by the rules you are implying, then their entry would say:

5+ invulnerable save, fearless, slow and purposeful, mark of tzeentch
(they would have a 5+(I) save, and the MoT would add +1)

instead, their entry implies that they have the MoT that gives a 5+(I) save, which is increased to 4+(I) by the same rule.

so where is the counter logic to this? personally, i understand and agree with what the interpretation is (5+, or +1 if you already have one), but the rules state otherwise...and don't make sense.

I rolled a d6, I got a 4.