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.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
No hostility, just how we feel dude...

I refuse to support any such claims without the appropriate bribe.

 HoverBoy wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
No hostility, just how we feel dude...

I refuse to support any such claims without the appropriate bribe.

Hows 50 cents (American) sound? lmao

Ok, so at first blush it seems that Protect is a power that it useless for the caster granting a 6+ armor save that is never going to be used given that the caster will have a 4+ invuln. But it's actually not completely useless. The caster can use the artifact that reduces the warp charge cost of another power, losing their invuln for a turn, and then use Protect to get a 6+ save.

Read the description of "Rune armor". If I had the book with me, I'd post it.

Regardless, pointing out that this was, IMO, badly worded seems to have infuriated the GW dittohead contingent. You're an angry little bunch of monkeys, ain'tcha? ;-)

Good night lads. Try to relax a bit, and treat each other with a modicum of respect. You could all take a page from Tehjohnny's book, and feel better about yourselves at the end of the day.

People are getting upset because you're ignoring the cardinal rule of "Fluff != Rules". In a discussion of rules, the fact that it's name includes the word Armour is irrelevant when the rules for Protect only cover Armour Saves, a very specific term from the rule book. Rune Armour provides an Invulnerable Save, which is not an Armour Save and so is not boosted by Protect. This is not poorly written as you claim, it's how rules work.

The only part of the description of Rune Armour that is relevant to the rules is the line "This grants the wearer a ?+ Invulnerable Save." That's it, nothing else. The rules are clear.

Dude, I get it. No need to get your panties in a bunch.

You'd think a psychic power called protect would improve the protection of the caster's own psychic armor.

It could be an oversight or it could be deliberate. They have a history of stuff like this. Shrike couldn't infiltrate as designed and had to be FAQd. The Wraithknight can take 4 weapons, but can only ever fire 2 of them etc.

I'm just glad no one has brought heavy flamers or assault cannons into the discussion

VoidAngel - everyone's getting uppity because this is YMDC. This board is for discussion of, and clarification on, the actual rules.
It seems instead you were perfectly clear on how the rules work and just wanted to have a moan. Which is fine, but should belong in General Discussion and not here.

With that in mind I'm flagging this up to see if a mod will consider moving it for you.

Time to calm down, folks.

The rules here are pretty clear; thread terminated.