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 a Spiritseer with 'Protect' gain the benefit of the power?

It seems to me that the power clearly states that he does, and the description of rune armor clearly characterizes it as "armor" - yet it provides only an invulnerable save, and not an "armor" save. Is this GW writing obtusely again, or is the situation as clear as it seems if one reads the plain language?

Any help/opinions appreciated.

He gets his armor save improved by one, as such he gets a 6+.
Honestly his invulnerable save is still better.

So, the Rune ARMOR which is clearly...I don't know...armor, is not improved by the power? Lol GeeDubs...

It is, it improves it's armor save.
I suggest you check the BRB (Pg.16-18) on what the different kinds of saves are.

No, no - I "get" it - it's just stupid. You have to wonder if they meant the armor improving power to work on the *armor* of the guy they gave it to, or if they just didn't even understand their own RAW?? It's just comically stupid.

The rules are only an abstraction of the fluff - there are a *LOT* of things that don't make sense when you look too closely, but to fix everything would mean creating a game that takes a couple of minutes just to figure out how to move one model. Don't worry too much about it - concentrate on the strict RAW instead.

I've been in this game since RT; which is why it so disappoints me when they *still* do stupid things like describe thing explicitly as ARMOR, name them
ARMOR, and forget to give them the RULES that govern...armor. It just makes my head hurt. Probably a single malt deficiency.

Rune armor is made of paper with runes on it. The paper armor does little to protect the wearer, but the runes upon it are infused with psychic power providing an invulnerable save.

Does that help you wrap your mind around it?

P.S. to answer your question of "When is armor, armor?" A: When it grants an armor save.

I am with Deathreaper here; if you need a fluffy reason for why the armour does not provide any actual armour save then you do not need to look much further then the 'paper' explanation.

I just feel the need to point out that it doesn't need to be made of paper but could still constructed out of some high-technology based alloy. It just sucks as 'armour' because this alloy has not be designed to withstand the shear amount of over-kill that 40K weapons have. The armour side of it is likely ceremonial and made of lighter, non-40K weapon resistant, materials in order to look better then the other bulkier armours. The protection itself comes in the form of the 'shields,' which is shown by the invulnerability save like most types of shielding. These alloys might even be strong enough to turn a knife or stop a 20th century bullet still, just not good enough to rate an Armour Save in the 40K.

So if you are really concerned over the Armour Save of - just remind yourself that - is in relation to weapon that put 20th century armaments to shame.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think you lot are missing the point here.

It seems to me that he's moaning about the way gw writes their rules as much as explain to me what armour actually is in a fluff sense.

Moaning? Whatever.

I thought it was amusingly stupid that something the looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - is broccoli in the 40k universe.

Perhaps some of you could bother to read the descriptions and the power in the current codex - and you might see where this seems...odd.

"When it gives an armor save" is the correct answer; but it begs the question as to why they did not simply call it "magic bathrobe" or "crazy alien wizard jumpsuit" to avoid confusion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Moaning? Whatever.

I thought it was amusingly stupid that something the looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - is broccoli in the 40k universe.

Perhaps some of you could bother to read the descriptions and the power in the current codex - and you might see where this seems...odd.

"When it gives an armor save" is the correct answer; but it begs the question as to why they did not simply call it "magic bathrobe" or "crazy alien wizard jumpsuit" to avoid confusion.

Its armor made of runes. Not armor with runes on it.

The Runes provide an invuln save. Which is frankly better than an armor save.

This really feels like having a chocolate sundae and complaining you got only 1 cherry instead of 2.

 VoidAngel wrote:

Moaning? Whatever.

I thought it was amusingly stupid that something the looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - is broccoli in the 40k universe.

Perhaps some of you could bother to read the descriptions and the power in the current codex - and you might see where this seems...odd.

"When it gives an armor save" is the correct answer; but it begs the question as to why they did not simply call it "magic bathrobe" or "crazy alien wizard jumpsuit" to avoid confusion.

Welcome to the abstract ruleset that is the 40K rules.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

No, no. I'm not complaining - though the 3-up save I thought the power would have granted by spirits ever would have saved him. It didn't lose me the game or something (even if it had - so what?).

It is just silly that a power that improves the ARMOR of the guy casting it...doesn't actually WORK on the garment he is wearing. A garment called rune ARMOR, and described as being finely crafted ARMOR.

Other than that - it all makes perfect sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
*would have granted my spiritseer. Cursed spellcheck!

No, it works just fine. It just doesn't give a useful net effect.

 VoidAngel wrote:
No, no. I'm not complaining - though the 3-up save I thought the power would have granted by spirits ever would have saved him. It didn't lose me the game or something (even if it had - so what?).

It is just silly that a power that improves the ARMOR of the guy casting it...doesn't actually WORK on the garment he is wearing. A garment called rune ARMOR, and described as being finely crafted ARMOR.

Other than that - it all makes perfect sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
*would have granted my spiritseer. Cursed spellcheck!

Describing something in the fluff does not equal the actual rules of said item.

You are missing the point. I've been playing this probably as long as you've been alive. The point is, for the cost of calling it "Runeguard" or "Rune-anything-but-armor" there could have been no confusion.

It makes you wonder if they actually INTENDED the power (Protect) to work as you'd think it would, or if they just like writing useless rules, or if they are just bad at it.

Is that terribly difficult to understand?

For someone who doesn't care you're coming off as quite distressed.

 VoidAngel wrote:
. I've been playing this probably as long as you've been alive.

This doesn't help your argument, isn't relevant, and probably isn't true.

There's no confusion.

My point being, yes - I am used to the fluff not matching the rules. This is not a matter of fluff. It is a matter of poorly worded, poorly written rules - which is disappointing, considering how much practice they've had.

Why is it poorly worded and written?
You're assuming the intent is for the spirit seer to benefit. Aside from the name if its armor do you have any basis for that assumption?

This is 6th ed. I played 5th ed as well, they have continued writing in the same style as 5th for this 6th ed rules. Sometimes they write unclear rules.

I imagine it is just more of the same for the editions prior to 5th.

Just par for the course for the 40K writing team why do people expect anything else from them, they have never shown to be a truly competent writing team.

P.S. you are correct that something that improves an armor save will not work on an item that provides an Invulnerable save...

rigeld2 wrote:
Why is it poorly worded and written?
You're assuming the intent is for the spirit seer to benefit. Aside from the name if its armor do you have any basis for that assumption?

Yes, that basis would be the wording of the power itself. I can't reproduce it fully here - but it reads roughly that the seer and his unit get +1 to their armor save.

The seer doesn't have armor.

See how that works? Or rather, does not work... Seems like they may have intended it to, but didn't bother to check or remember their own rules well enough to ensure that it would.

Alternatively the games designers knew full well that it wouldn't provide a net benefit to the seer and intended it only to benefit other troops the seer is with.

 VoidAngel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Why is it poorly worded and written?
You're assuming the intent is for the spirit seer to benefit. Aside from the name if its armor do you have any basis for that assumption?

Yes, that basis would be the wording of the power itself. I can't reproduce it fully here - but it reads roughly that the seer and his unit get +1 to their armor save.

The seer doesn't have armor.

See how that works? Or rather, does not work... Seems like they may have intended it to, but didn't bother to check or remember their own rules well enough to ensure that it would.

If they had worded the power to exclude the seer people would be wondering why.
It benefits his unit just fine. I don't see an issue here.

 VoidAngel wrote:
You are missing the point. I've been playing this probably as long as you've been alive. The point is, for the cost of calling it "Runeguard" or "Rune-anything-but-armor" there could have been no confusion.

It makes you wonder if they actually INTENDED the power (Protect) to work as you'd think it would, or if they just like writing useless rules, or if they are just bad at it.

Is that terribly difficult to understand?

No, not at all.

The rules are abstracted strangely at times. You'd think if a guy had a power that improves his 'armour' (I'm English :p), it would act upon something he wears. But actually, it just acts on his 'save', so he doesn't take a 'wound', or rather it acts on his 'invulnerable save', which can be and are quite often independent of anything the guy is actually wearing.

A coherent rules system would most likely just say that he has an 'armour value' (most do...) as opposed to a 'save'. Then anything that acts upon your 'save', actually has to act upon a garment you are wearing it improve it's armour value or potential to save your behind, to alter the dice roll to your benefit.

I don't know why you've got such an angry reaction (the internet ay...) - I think other people are just saying that for all intents and purposes, though this kind of thing can be abstract and cumbersome, as long as you read as RAW and take the invulnerable save as it is (independent of anything he is wearing), you'll be ok .

* Nevermind *

Rorschach9 wrote:

 VoidAngel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Why is it poorly worded and written?
You're assuming the intent is for the spirit seer to benefit. Aside from the name if its armor do you have any basis for that assumption?

Yes, that basis would be the wording of the power itself. I can't reproduce it fully here - but it reads roughly that the seer and his unit get +1 to their armor save.

The seer doesn't have armor.

See how that works? Or rather, does not work... Seems like they may have intended it to, but didn't bother to check or remember their own rules well enough to ensure that it would.

It works just fine. The seer has no armour save. Improve it by 1 and you now have a 6+ armour save (or does he still only have his invuln?)

What doesn't work there? If you cannot (for some reason) take your invulnerable save, you at least now (possibly) have a 6+ armour save (as useless as it may be) and the rest of the unit (which the power was clearly meant to help) has a (whatever +1 better) armour save.

I don't see how it doesn't work.

I think what he means is the Seer doesn't originally have any 'armour' to improve a save upon. So what actually happens is he gets a 'save'. Which is fine, because for all intents and purposes in the rules, you get a 'save', and much of the armour stuff is just fluff around what level of 'save' you get.

Most other systems use the concept of 'armour value', so that any wargear or power has to have direct impact on the 'armour' you are wearing to improve it's 'value'.

In 40K, you just get yourself a 'save', and the rest is just semantics. And I agree with you that is fine, but I can also see the OP's point about it being stupid from a logical stand-point. However, 40k isn't going to turn on it's back rules wise and it's developed now to the point where in my opinion it is a pretty solid and coherent system, and actually sometimes you do need to sacrifice real world 'logic' for in game abstraction for playability purposes.

Wait a sec... is this thread seriously only about the use of the word "armor"? All of you must have more spare time than I do. 9-/

How does a storm shield provide an invulnerable save?

So the spiritseers robe gets a little more stiff. Good for him I guess but great for the rest of his unit.

 VoidAngel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Why is it poorly worded and written?
You're assuming the intent is for the spirit seer to benefit. Aside from the name if its armor do you have any basis for that assumption?

Yes, that basis would be the wording of the power itself. I can't reproduce it fully here - but it reads roughly that the seer and his unit get +1 to their armor save.

The seer doesn't have armor.

See how that works? Or rather, does not work... Seems like they may have intended it to, but didn't bother to check or remember their own rules well enough to ensure that it would.

I normally play devil's advocate, but clearly no one would agree that there is confusion here. It seems like you want to be confused, and thus make us confused with you about something that is quite clear...
The name of the equipment is "Rune Armor"... It confers a 4+ invulnerable save...
Then there is "heavy aspect armor"... it confers a 3+ armor save...

see the difference? the proof isnt in the name, its in the description...

By your logic boltguns fire silver pointless screws, boomgun doesnt actually fire anything but noise, anything but a CCW should not be treated as a CCW... none of this actually matters, what matters is the description of the item in question. If you are still hung up on this then you should probably not post anymore on this as it does not appear your method of deduction makes any sense to anyone.

No hostility, just how we feel dude...