|
|
Post by rpython on Nov 26, 2015 7:12:49 GMT -5
i am not sure if this has been asked before sorry if it has
chaos knight gets its 5 + invul save form being a daemon and has its 4+ ion shield would psychic powers effect both of these or just one
as im not sure there is another uni that can have two different invul saves at the same time
|
|
|
|
Post by nutty on Dec 2, 2015 6:00:58 GMT -5
Well you can only use one of them per hit: just as you have to choose between cover/invulnerable/armor save. It doesn't matter if that wound is generated by a gun or a psychic power. But if you have the ion shield pointed forward you can use the 5+ Daemon save against hits against your rear/sides, or you can choose to point the ion shield towards threats at the rear/side and hope the front armour & 5++ keep you safe. So that's nice... If you're a dirty traitor  |
|
|
|
Post by rpython on Dec 2, 2015 7:58:22 GMT -5
It's not for me I'd never go there. An opponent. It was that I faced. Waa querying the powers/ items that increase invul saves and if they would effect both ot only thr one
|
|
|
|
Post by nutty on Dec 2, 2015 10:46:31 GMT -5
Ah my bad I missread the question.
Now the only other units I can think of that has two invulnerable saves are space marines with either a rosarius/iron halo/terminator armor and a stormshield; a captain in terminator armor with a stormshield even having 3 different invulnerable saves (3++,4++, & 5++). But these models only ever use the best save. So they would have 2++ thanks to the power buffing their stormshield save. The chaos knight is unique in that it has the ability to project the 'ion shield' in one direction, and have the rest of the model covered by a different invulnerable save.
The 'sanctuary' & 'cursed earth' Daemonology powers in the rulebook state that units affected increase their invulberable save by one, so you could argue that you opponent has to pick either the 'daemon' save or the 'ion shield' save to improve. But honestly due to the lack of models that could use multiple invulnerable saves at the time that the rulebook was written.. It probably is not an intentional restriction.
So RAW you can argue that it only affects one of the saves, but it is definately a question worthy of the FAQ/errata in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by rpython on Dec 3, 2015 16:10:58 GMT -5
That was what I thought but wanted someone else to check my thinking. But yeah I understand the difficulty in proving it either way
|
|
