There was a small argument in our group lately.
I said the ironfist is a shield and thus slaughtermasters and butchers can use magic armour.
He said it's a weapon that functions as a shield so they have no common armor to use magical with.

Whos right, and why?

You are. In the old book it was a weapon that could be used as a shield. Now it's nothing but a shield.

I was sorta hoping for some quote help.
I never doubted im right


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dunno if this helps but his whole argument was based on army builder not letting said characters use magic armor.
I OTOH have on multyple occassions stated my dislike for that thing.

Well Army Builder isnt an Army Book......so it cant really be the basis for a rules discussion....

Otherwise, they are just shields.

I knew it AB does suck.

HoverBoy wrote:I knew it AB does suck.

Sometimes....

But definitely in a rules discussion, AB has no reason to be brought up (or used, in this case). Tell them to read the rules and not AB.

HoverBoy wrote:I knew it AB does suck.

I know the guy who maintains those AB files face to face. Be nice

I agree it is a shield and thus Slaughtermasters/Butchers can take magic armor. The AB 2.2 maintainer doesn't. /shrug

"An iron fist works exactly the same way as a shield - an ogre using an iron fist benefits from a bonus to its armor save, and may be eligible to make a parry save as described in the warhammer rulebook"

as it is referencing the shield rules in the main book that makes it follow all of the rules for a shield.

Davall wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:I knew it AB does suck.

I know the guy who maintains those AB files face to face. Be nice

It's not his fault, the whole idea is flawed since its based on people having to translate GW's incomprehencible rules to a medium that the company barely acknowledges.

I thought it counted as both a shield and a hand weapon now? I left my book at home so I cannot verify this

No, those were the old rules (additional hand weapon or a psuedo shield). The ironfist is only a shield now.

Actually, it's a little better than "only" a shield now. It allows mounted units with the Ironfist to get a parry save, which shields do not allow.

The "only" part was in response to "I thought it counted as both a shield and a hand weapon now?", meaning it is only the shield part of it.

Considering Mournfangs and a mounted Hunter on a Stonehorn (Huge. Waste. Of. Points.) can take advantage of the mounted parry save, that part, while neat, isn't overly OMFGAWESOMESAUCE or anything

On the page with ogre special rules, (page 32), you get the entry on ogre charge, then Iron Fist, then Look out gnoblars.
At the head of the Next column is titled Special Ogre Weapons, and under that section it has Chain Trap, Harpoon Launcher and Ogre Pistols.

If the Ironfist was a weapon, it would be listed under the weapons, not sandwiched between the ogre charge and the look out gnoblar.

-Matt

O hell thanks Matt thats the kind of logical argument i needed.

I don't know if AB has put an update out that has the new OK rules, so until that changes, AB may not be a good place to find rule logic.

The ironfist is indeed a shield, and no longer able to be considered a weapon, despite the fact that they look like weapons with their spikes and whatnot.

Naah the one they found had the new rules, still it's fresh and apparently wrong.

I saw this debated on Ogre Stronghold.

I think it's pretty douchey to try and give them magic armor. Butchers are the ONLY Ogres to not wear guttplates.

"No, we don't believe in covering our sacred bellies...except with super awesome magic platemail."

There aren't many casters in the game who can use magic armor and they kind of go out of their way to point it out when they can. You're forced here to deduce Ironfist=shield, Ironfist=option, option=magic armor. That's a bit of deducing for such a big anomaly in the game world.

I think it was an oversight and they're probably seeing how it plays out. But Slaughtermasters in Armor of Destiny is just silly. I'll bet 5 spacebucks it will eventually get FAQ'd to say they can't wear it.

HoverBoy wrote:

Davall wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:I knew it AB does suck.

I know the guy who maintains those AB files face to face. Be nice

It's not his fault, the whole idea is flawed since its based on people having to translate GW's incomprehencible rules to a medium that the company barely acknowledges.

Exactly, i think its GW's hindsight and we'll be seeing an errata for it.

"works exactly the same way as a shield" ≠ "shield"

Yes it is - otherwise it isnt working exactly the same way as a shield. It is also, by definition, armour

TiB wrote:"works exactly the same way as a shield" ≠ "shield"

I agree with this. If something is a shield, it should say it is. Since the Ironfist doesn't say it is a shield, it is not a shield, it just functions like a shield (and not even exactly, as like someone mentioned above, shields don't grant parry saves while mounted and the ironfist does).

It works exactly the same as a shield, and has an additional allowance for parry while mounted

If you say it isnt a shield in terms of being armour, then it isnt "exactly the same as" a shield

Yep, exactly is a pretty strong word.

Even if it isn't a shield, it is still armor.

So you can give Butchers and SMs magic armor.

Where is the option listed in the army choice section of the book? I only ask because I know the Beastmen books splits it out into armor and weapon sections.

Not that that is actually indicative of anything concrete I suppose.

its under the Ogre Special Rules section.

It is NOT under the weapon section which tells us it most certaintly isn't a weapon. It isn't under any special section.


But it improves armor saves, which tells us that it is armor. So anything that can get one is allowed to take magic armor.

Oooh, I'd also like to point out that any unit with an ironfist entry can take it OR a weapon. You can't even take a single pistol and an ironfist. And the sections for upgrading to armor is separate. I.e., it's certainly under the weapon selections.

DukeRustfield wrote:Oooh, I'd also like to point out that any unit with an ironfist entry can take it OR a weapon. You can't even take a single pistol and an ironfist. And the sections for upgrading to armor is separate. I.e., it's certainly under the weapon selections.

So?


most units that can take shields have it in the "weapon" section.

To stop this silly "It's under weapons so it's a weapon" line of thinking, please show us how it's a weapon. Meaning, what effect does it have in hand to hand, or shooting when used to attack. It can't be done, because in its description and rules, it never even mentions it is a weapon. At the bare minimum, it should have said something along the lines of "Hand Weapon", but it doesn't.

It is a piece of armor, that works exactly like a shield with an additional rule of giving a parry save while mounted.

Grey Templar wrote:
So?


most units that can take shields have it in the "weapon" section.

Not in 8th they don't. O&G and TK all have separate sections for weapons and shields.

See entry for Tomb King. And Goblin/Orc Bosses.

And? In actual rules it still isnt a weapon. It is armour, as it works EXACTLY like a shield. Exactly meaning EXACTLY- so it is a piece of armour

I think GW broke it. Ogres already have bad armor, and really T4 is not hard to kill with tons of missile fire, especially when units can fire multiple shots. However, the RAW, do state it is the exact same manner as a shield but it can be used when mounted. The description does say it is used in pit fighting, and that is is often used to bash people's skulls in, but as far as the rules go it does not count as both a shield and a hand weapon anymore. Which I think is dumb and it should be changed back. I looked it up in my book when I got home yesterday.

I would have liked if it was a Shield that could parry while mounted AND it gave you +1A. or maybe for every parry save that is passed with it causes a Str4 hit on the attacking unit/model.

DukeRustfield wrote:O&G and TK all have separate sections for weapons and shields.

Ahem, goblin wolf riders and boarboys want a word with you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And? In actual rules it still isnt a weapon. It is armour, as it works EXACTLY like a shield. Exactly meaning EXACTLY- so it is a piece of armour

I was countering the argument that shield selections are joined with weapons. In 8th they aren't. A shield is a shield and has its own rules in the BRB. And "works" != "is". A car can work like a truck, but it's still a car.

This all come backs to magical interference section in the BRB p. 500

Wizards cannot choose magic armor unless they have an option for 'normal' armor.
[snip]
The only exception to this is when a Wizard has armor as part of his standard equipment or an option for 'normal' armor, such as light armor, or a shield.
[snip]
The chief examples of this kind of Wizard are the dread Chaos Sorcerers of the frozen north.

Butchers do not have an option of a shield. They have an option of an ironfist. Which WORKS in exactly the same way as a shield. Is ironfist = 'normal' armor? It's easy to argue both ways (obviously).

I'm a lover fat boy McFatties. But I like balance more. And fluff. It simply doesn't make sense for unarmored, self-healing, high T, high W Guttcasters to wear the best magic armor when they don't even bother to wear the worst non-magic armor. I mean, someone please explain that. It's nonsense. Ironguts have access to heavy armor because they are elite troops (it not being easy to get armor that fits Ogres...). Bruisers and Tyrants can wear it too. Butchers, who are on par with those guys in terms of prestige in the tribe, don't wear it. Don't have the option. It's not because they can't, it's because they don't want to. They're not covering their religious guts:

Of all true Ogres, only the Butches do not wear a gut-plate -- they trust their guts to the protection of the Great Maw

Oh, except when they wear magic platemail??? Come on! That's just rules-raping. It makes no sense in the fluff at all.

It's a massive departure from all the other army books. If they wanted it done, they could have spared a sentence. What they did spare was to highlight (in the fluff) that they don't wear armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoverBoy wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:O&G and TK all have separate sections for weapons and shields.

Ahem, goblin wolf riders and boarboys want a word with you.

Well, O&G is typically Orcy since they aren't consistent even on the same page. I.e., Boarboys and SavageBoars and Goblin Wolf and Goblins....

So I'm down with saying it's irrelevant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And? In actual rules it still isnt a weapon. It is armour, as it works EXACTLY like a shield. Exactly meaning EXACTLY- so it is a piece of armour

Symantically, not quite. It doesn't work EXACTLY like a shield because it offers something a shield doesn't: a parry save while mounted.

Not that that discounts it being marked as armor and thus allowing access to magic armor. I don't know the exact wording/placement of Ironfists, so can't really comment past that.

An ironfist works in exactly the same way as a shield--an Ogre using an ironfist benefits from a bonus to its armor save, and may be eligible to make a Parry save as described in the Warhammer warbook.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Wizards cannot choose magic armor unless they have an option for 'normal' armor.
[snip]
The only exception to this is when a Wizard has armor as part of his standard equipment or an option for 'normal' armor, such as light armor, or a shield.
[snip]
The chief examples of this kind of Wizard are the dread Chaos Sorcerers of the frozen north.

Butchers do not have an option of a shield. They have an option of an ironfist. Which WORKS in exactly the same way as a shield. Is ironfist = 'normal' armor? It's easy to argue both ways (obviously).

The only exception to this is when a Wizard has armor as part of his standard equipment or an option for 'normal' armor, such as light armor, or a shield.

It says "such as light armor or a shield"

such as means it is NOT an exaustive list. other things can be armor, like helmets.


The Ironfist is clearly armor of a unique kind to ogres, but armor regardless.



I know it is useless in a rules argument, but when Jervis was asked about this at Gamesday by a member of the Ogrestronghold he confirmed that it was deliberatly put in so Butchers and SMs could get magic armor.

I garuntee that we will see the FAQ clarifying that SM and Butchers can indeed purchase magic armor.

Grey Templar wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:

Wizards cannot choose magic armor unless they have an option for 'normal' armor.
[snip]
The only exception to this is when a Wizard has armor as part of his standard equipment or an option for 'normal' armor, such as light armor, or a shield.
[snip]
The chief examples of this kind of Wizard are the dread Chaos Sorcerers of the frozen north.

Butchers do not have an option of a shield. They have an option of an ironfist. Which WORKS in exactly the same way as a shield. Is ironfist = 'normal' armor? It's easy to argue both ways (obviously).

The only exception to this is when a Wizard has armor as part of his standard equipment or an option for 'normal' armor, such as light armor, or a shield.

It says "such as light armor or a shield"

such as means it is NOT an exaustive list. other things can be armor, like helmets.


The Ironfist is clearly armor of a unique kind to ogres, but armor regardless.



I know it is useless in a rules argument, but when Jervis was asked about this at Gamesday by a member of the Ogrestronghold he confirmed that it was deliberatly put in so Butchers and SMs could get magic armor.

I garuntee that we will see the FAQ clarifying that SM and Butchers can indeed purchase magic armor.

I agree with this

Shield is armor, Ironfist is a shield, therefore ironfist is armor. This is simple deductive logic you used in math to do proofs.

#edit I typed Ironfish instead of Ironfist lol

We don't even need the shield argument as it is a piece of wargear that improves your armor save. ergo, it is armor.

Crom wrote:
I agree with this

Shield is armor, Ironfist is a shield, therefore ironfist is armor. This is simple deductive logic you used in math to do proofs.

#edit I typed Ironfish instead of Ironfist lol

Awesome, I want an Iron fish!

They had to take Iron Fish out of the game, way too over powered....


As for the Iron Fist, it reminds me of a martial arts concept, which was simultaneous attack and defense. Most Chinese (and other Eastern) martial arts usually are conceptual, and built off of ideas and not just the hard technique you learn in a form or a kata. There are 100s of ways to apply any said set of motion or technique. Simultaneous attack and defense puts the practitioner in an optimal position to attack, and while attacking their attacks can easily also act as defense.

So imagine you are an giant fat ass super strong Ogre. You have basically an over sized Iron clad boxing glove on, with maybe some spikes or whatever. When I say over sized, I mean like the size of a small shield. Obviously, this gives you the mobility to attack with in your straight forward gates, and it occupying enough space will also allow for automatic defense. I basically started an Ogre Army because I want to make them Cathay influenced, with tattoos, and an eastern look because GW refuses to give me a Cathay/Nipon army. Ogres are known to travel, and they obviously pick up different arts of combat from their travels, just read their fluff and look at some of their war gear options. It is my opinion the Iron Fist should give both the +1 to armor save and the parry save, along with it being a hand weapon. That is really not that much to ask for considering there are troops in other armies that have way better options.

The rules clearly state it is just a shield though, and shields count as armor, now if the Iron Fist also counted as a weapon then it may get weird, since you cannot have an additional hand weapon with a magic weapon, and if it is a weapon does it still count as armor?

So, I think logically we can all come to a conclusion that it is only a shield and counts as armor, just like shields do for everyone else, and the only benefit it has is that it can be used on mounted creatures, which is honestly not that big of a deal. Ogres don't have a lot of mounts, nor do I see you building a huge mounted Ogre army. You are still going to have your blocks of bulls, and your other nasty foot units doing most of the work in your army.

Grey Templar wrote:We don't even need the shield argument as it is a piece of wargear that improves your armor save. ergo, it is armor.

First off, shields aren't armor. They are their own heading under the BRB. Conveniently enough, called Shields.

Second, Mournfangs, and every other mount, improve your armor save. But they are not armor. Same with Chariots. Same with Scaly Skin. And some weird stuff that works like cover.

I've yet to hear an explanation why Butchers, who "trust in the Great Maw to protect their guts" and thus don't wear armor, will wear magic armor. Pretend you're not a lawyer in a court of law trying to get for your Butcher client everything possible, but a gamer standing over a fantasy world. Can anyone honestly say it makes sense that they shun armor of all kinds unless it's enchanted. Is there any other unit in the game that does that, let alone a caster?

But really, I'm open to persuasion, I just haven't heard anyone try and argue it other from the stand-point of, "this will make my Butcher stupid powerful, so it makes sense."

Besides the fact that it doesn't even need to be "armor" to allow the wearing of magic armor (counter-intuitive, but the rules)?

Fluff != game rules. That isn't even a remotely valid argument point.

Is it a shield? Seems that way , therefore it allows the use of magic armor.

Ogre wizards getting access to magic armor is the same token as Chaos wizards getting access to magic shields.
Chaos wizards can choose magic shields (when they can't get mundane ones) because they have a special type of armor.
Ogre wizards can get magic armor because they have access to a special type of shield.

Personally, I don't see the point to magic armor. Best you can get is a 4+ ward, (which is cheaper as a talisman), or force an opponent to re-roll to wound you (which isn't huge as being T5).


From a Fluff stand point
How about savage orcs wearing magic armor? Fluff says no armor but when something as rare and unique as magic gear shows up, you can bet the most important individual is going to be packing it.
What armor are the butchers wearing? All I've seen is the re-roll to wound me helm (which doesn't cover the belly), or the dragon helm (for the better ward vs flaming).

Firebellies do wear gutplates, can take ironfists and as such, why shouldn't they get access to armor?
What is the "Stupid Powerful" build that you get by having access to armor?


AS for the silly Car is like a Truck, that's a great example. A car is like a truck, but it isn't EXACTLY like a truck. A car doesn't have an open storage area, doesn't have higher wheel clearance or any number of other differences.
If GW didn't say Exactly, followed by a specific exception, I'd say you've got a position that can be defended.


-Matt

You forget that one armor that gives a 2+ armor save.
I dunno bout stupid powerful but that and the ward talisman makes for a hard to kill caster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually of the 3 wizard types the firebellies don't get ironfists.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Firebellies do wear gutplates, can take ironfists and as such, why shouldn't they get access to armor?
What is the "Stupid Powerful" build that you get by having access to armor?

Actually, Firebellies can't take an Ironfist. Yet another reason (arguing RAI) that the whole Ironfist allowing magical armor may have been a conscious decision. But we all know where arguing RAI gets us: Sad FaceLand

DukeRustfield wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:We don't even need the shield argument as it is a piece of wargear that improves your armor save. ergo, it is armor.

First off, shields aren't armor. They are their own heading under the BRB. Conveniently enough, called Shields.

Second, Mournfangs, and every other mount, improve your armor save. But they are not armor. Same with Chariots. Same with Scaly Skin. And some weird stuff that works like cover.

I've yet to hear an explanation why Butchers, who "trust in the Great Maw to protect their guts" and thus don't wear armor, will wear magic armor. Pretend you're not a lawyer in a court of law trying to get for your Butcher client everything possible, but a gamer standing over a fantasy world. Can anyone honestly say it makes sense that they shun armor of all kinds unless it's enchanted. Is there any other unit in the game that does that, let alone a caster?

But really, I'm open to persuasion, I just haven't heard anyone try and argue it other from the stand-point of, "this will make my Butcher stupid powerful, so it makes sense."

If GW games went on fluff alone, Space Marines would kill everything, then invent inter dimensional travel and conquer the fantasy world. It is very logical that they can in fact wear magic armor, magic items in Fantasy aren't always what they appear either and there is no WYSIWYG rules to go with it. Armor could be some plating attached to a garment, it doesn't have to be a full set of plate mail.

Chaos Wizards aren't T5 with W5, either. That's always been what Ogres are about: T and W.

Personally, you haven't looked at all the builds all over the intertubes. If you don't see the value of giving a heavy armor +4 ward +ironfist to a melee powerhouse who self-heals with every cast, then you're alone, because everyone else does.

You're right about Savage Warbosses. And they are another lord with nothing but shield and options for magic items. Though theirs is obviously just a regular shield.

Firebellies aren't the discussion. Firebellies don't have in their fluff that they don't wear armor. And they can't take Ironfists, anyway. So they don't get armor.

If GW didn't say Exactly, followed by a specific exception, I'd say you've got a position that can be defended.

But they didn't say Exactly. They said "works exactly..." If they said it was exactly a shield, that would be it. But it says it works the same way as a shield and then it explains what that means. If you view the same page an Ogre Pistol follows "the same rules as an additional hand weapon." Period.

A wrench can work exactly like a hammer if you turn it sideways and bang on a nail. It is not a hammer.


I mean I don't amazingly care. But the downside is there really isn't a lot of reason to take a Tyrant over a Slaughtermaster. In nearly every case the SM will live longer and do more damage, not to mention buff and such--this is assuming he's great maw. Unless they both last one round of combat or something. Not including BS, there's 6 pts of stat difference between them in exchange for lvl 3 wizard and a cost of +40pts. Already I see most people recommending not taking Tyrants and just grabbing Bruisers with casters.

DukeRustfield wrote:Chaos Wizards aren't T5 with W5, either. That's always been what Ogres are about: T and W.

Personally, you haven't looked at all the builds all over the intertubes. If you don't see the value of giving a heavy armor +4 ward +ironfist to a melee powerhouse who self-heals with every cast, then you're alone, because everyone else does.

You're right about Savage Warbosses. And they are another lord with nothing but shield and options for magic items. Though theirs is obviously just a regular shield.

Firebellies aren't the discussion. Firebellies don't have in their fluff that they don't wear armor. And they can't take Ironfists, anyway. So they don't get armor.

If GW didn't say Exactly, followed by a specific exception, I'd say you've got a position that can be defended.

But they didn't say Exactly. They said "works exactly..." If they said it was exactly a shield, that would be it. But it says it works the same way as a shield and then it explains what that means. If you view the same page an Ogre Pistol follows "the same rules as an additional hand weapon." Period.

A wrench can work exactly like a hammer if you turn it sideways and bang on a nail. It is not a hammer.


I mean I don't amazingly care. But the downside is there really isn't a lot of reason to take a Tyrant over a Slaughtermaster. In nearly every case the SM will live longer and do more damage, not to mention buff and such--this is assuming he's great maw. Unless they both last one round of combat or something. Not including BS, there's 6 pts of stat difference between them in exchange for lvl 3 wizard and a cost of +40pts. Already I see most people recommending not taking Tyrants and just grabbing Bruisers with casters.

I agree with this....

I tend to give my magic users dispel scrolls, or items that help with casting, and a ward save. I don't think I have ever built a butcher/slaughter master with magic armor.

DukeRustfield wrote:Chaos Wizards aren't T5 with W5, either.

Can't heal themselves too.

I run my SM general with the Armor of Destiny and an Ironfist for 4+/4+ save. He is my general and I need him to stay alive. I also take the Crown of Command and the Channeling staff. I need him to survive.

T5 and 5 wounds isn't as durable as it seems.

I think Armor of Silvered Stee + Talisman of Preservation would be more durable, goes well with an AHW.

Grey Templar wrote:I run my SM general with the Armor of Destiny and an Ironfist for 4+/4+ save. He is my general and I need him to stay alive. I also take the Crown of Command and the Channeling staff. I need him to survive.

T5 and 5 wounds isn't as durable as it seems.

Armor is 50, crown is 35 and staff is 15.
4+ armor doesn't matter much on a T5 model that is immune to poison. Anything that's going to have ease wounding you is going to ignore your armor. You're pretty much depending on your 4++ ward to keep you alive. You can get that with the talisman.

Tricksters helm is better than 2+ armor on a T5 model.
VS S1 to S7, both have the same effect, as the chance of armor saving equals the chance of re-roll wounding, but the helm also improves your armor save, and still gives a benefit against S8 or high, or attacks that allow no armor save.
The down side of the helm is that hits that auto-wound, that don't ignore armor give the edge to 2+ armor save. Since the Slaughtermaster ignores armor, I don't think there is anything in the game that falls into that category.


Advantage helm.




-Matt

DukeRustfield wrote:

If GW didn't say Exactly, followed by a specific exception, I'd say you've got a position that can be defended.

But they didn't say Exactly. They said "works exactly..." If they said it was exactly a shield, that would be it. But it says it works the same way as a shield and then it explains what that means. If you view the same page an Ogre Pistol follows "the same rules as an additional hand weapon." Period.

but that additional paragraph after "works in exactly the same way as a shield" only applies to mounted Ogres and it says they get all the benefits. and if we're going to talk semantics then I would say that using Magic Armour is one of those benefits.

on foot = shield
mounted = all the benefits of shields

Grey Templar wrote:T5 and 5 wounds isn't as durable as it seems.

You're being ridiculous now. A giant is T5 W6 in the same book. If you had to buy spell levels from 0, the Slaughtermaster would actually be a discounted giant. Give him a 4+ ward and he's a Slann, except with +9 (as in NINE) to attributes. A Lord of Change is only T6 W5 (at a 450 cost, mind you). It might not seem durable to you, but it's durable to the entire warhammer universe peer group.

Lotet wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:

If GW didn't say Exactly, followed by a specific exception, I'd say you've got a position that can be defended.

But they didn't say Exactly. They said "works exactly..." If they said it was exactly a shield, that would be it. But it says it works the same way as a shield and then it explains what that means. If you view the same page an Ogre Pistol follows "the same rules as an additional hand weapon." Period.

but that additional paragraph after "works in exactly the same way as a shield" only applies to mounted Ogres and it says they get all the benefits

No, it doesn't. It says they get a bonus to armor save and may be eligible to make a Parry as described in the BrB.

You think T5 W5 is durable, meet my sphinx, T8 W4 and undead, enjoy that, and its a mount

Enjoy it when you crumble after the Slaughtermaster uses your Heirophant as toilet paper.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:T5 and 5 wounds isn't as durable as it seems.

You're being ridiculous now. A giant is T5 W6 in the same book. If you had to buy spell levels from 0, the Slaughtermaster would actually be a discounted giant. Give him a 4+ ward and he's a Slann, except with +9 (as in NINE) to attributes. A Lord of Change is only T6 W5 (at a 450 cost, mind you). It might not seem durable to you, but it's durable to the entire warhammer universe peer group.

Sure, T5 is great against Str3. but when you get Heros or Lords wacking on you you will go down fast without saves, and I don't fancy trusting myself to get enough Gutmagic spells off each turn to heal back up from more then minor damage.

Call me paranoid, but I want my caster to live. for 8 more points then the 4+ ward, I get a 4+ armor in addition to the ward. thats pretty good.

I understand wanting more. But I also understand what the game decides is protection. T6 W6 is about the upper limit for 200-300pt MONSTERS let alone spell casters.

If someone was debating that a giant or ghorgon should be able to take 100pts of magic armor I'd also be saying that was way overpowered.

IMO DukeRustfield is right. Sorry about the pointless post but I accidently posted a comment based a page 1 post. lol soz

Duke - so youre now arguing "RAI"? Sorry, but thats irrelevant. RAW you can take magical armour as you can take something that works exactly like a shield.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Duke - so youre now arguing "RAI"? Sorry, but thats irrelevant. RAW you can take magical armour as you can take something that works exactly like a shield.

Taking some that "works exactly like a shield" is not the same as actually having access to a shield though. RAW, the "Shield" option is not available to a SM. If the description of the ironfist had said "this is a special sort of shield", then it would be fairly cut and dry: it doesn't. The Ironfist is listed under special rules, not equipment. Most items that contain the special rules of another mundane item are described along the lines of:

Ironfist
Shield; a model with an Ironfist can break the normal rules of not getting parries while mounted because you're a super special fat ass butterfly.

The fact that the Ironfist takes up a weapon slot is also telling. Taking an Ironfist on a Tyrant, for instance, prevents him from taking some other sort of weapon like an AHW or a GW. The fact that he is "armed" with an ironfist also leans away from it being armor; it becomes a weapon that has the rules of a shield plus its own special rules about applying those bonuses while mounted. Your argument that an Ironfist is a shield is actually more RAI than RAW. The fact that it works like a shield is immaterial to the fact that it is not, in fact, ever actually called one.

I think we have proven shields on other units also take up what you call "a weapon slot".

Fair enough.

HoverBoy wrote:I think we have proven shields on other units also take up what you call "a weapon slot".

We proved it was inconsistent. Even within the same army on the same page. GO GW!

When you add a shield to a model, is it under the armor or weapons section? It is under the armor. Shields mitigate damage, which is what armor does. They improve your saving throw and give you a parry in hand to hand.

Crom wrote:When you add a shield to a model, is it under the armor or weapons section? It is under the armor. Shields mitigate damage, which is what armor does. They improve your saving throw and give you a parry in hand to hand.

I know it's rough, but you have to go ALL the way up to the post above yours to realize that shields are added in both weapons and armor sections in army books. They are not consistent.

Scaly skin mitigates damage.
A horse (mount) mitigates damage.

Lots of things give saving throws including arcane items.

So... does that mean that if you have Scaley Skin you can take magic armor? That functions just like armor. That would make a few Beastmen players happy. (Lizardment? I dunno if Skinkpriests or Slaan have Scaley skin...)

Skinks and Slann don't have scaly skin.

I have to agree with Rustfield.

It is NOT a shield. Nowhere, in exact text, does it say "The Ironfist is a shield." It acts "like" a shield, but because it uses the rules for shields does not make it a shield.

Because it is not a shield, more importantly, we cannot say that it is "mundane armor" because it does not fit the category of shield or light/heavy armor.

Make what you will.

As has been said, it doesn't work "like" a shield. It "works in exactly the same way as a shield", a pretty big difference in quoting. Exactly is a very strong word.

It is clear a FAQ will be in order. Hopefully, a quick FAQ at that.

I may just be a recent refugee from the GarageHammer forums but its a shield, it give an armor save. It's armor. It's not the same as a shield ... it's better b/c you can parry while mounted.

Also, it's not a weapon. Does not give an extra attack, have any attack bonus or attack capability whatsoever.

It's armor. (Not saying it won't get FAQ'd)

I think DukeRustField has made this one pretty clear:
-It is not a shield, it just works like a shield.
-Not everything that grants an armour save bonus counts as armour (mounts for example).
-The ironfist doesn't say it is armour.

If we sum all that up, according to RaW, the ironfist just isn't armour.

It works exctly like a shield. A shield is armour. An ironfist works exactly like something that is armour. An ironfist is armour.

RAW it is mundane armour

Stop dropping the "exactly", as it changes a whole lot of meaning.

TBH mounts arent armour because they "improve" armor saves rather than grant them. The ironfist still grants one "exactly like a shield".

@Hoverboy
So if a model had no other armour saves, but was mounted, the model would still have no armour save?

@nosferatu
It's exactly, except... not just exactly. Additionally, if something works exactly like something, that doesn't make it something. A bread slicing machine works exactly like you slicing bread. That doesn't make you a bread slicing machine...

Airmaniac wrote:@Hoverboy
So if a model had no other armour saves, but was mounted, the model would still have no armour save?

It would if the book didn't specifically say otherwise in the armour save chart at the end (page 179 of the small BRB).

Sounds an aweful lot like mounts granting armour saves to me then...

Ok great my skink priest can wear armor too

As I'm sure you already understood, the points was that being able to take something that grants armour saves doesn't necessarily allow you to take Magic Armour.

But yes, if your Ogre Kingdoms opponent feels like his ironfist granting an armour save allows him to take Magic Armour, then feel free to take Magic Armour on your Skink Priest as well.

Whatever i've seen the same things repeated for the last two pages. The rest of you have fun without me.

Wow, people read the rule. and stop with the "like a shield"

focus on where it says to use the shield rules from the main rule book.

thus that makes it a shield.

Air - So its a shield, but isnt one because you say so?

No, it works exactly like a piece of mundane armour, unlike a mount. COmparing apples to monkeys isnt productive.

No it isn't a shield because the Armybook doesn't say it is... Show me a passage in the Armybook where it says the Ironfist IS a shield and I'll gladly admit it is. Notice the word is though, not works exactly as, because that does not mean it is one, as has been pointed out by multiple posters.

So you dont use the shield rules, because it isnt one?

"works exactly like" a piece of mundane armour makes it a piece of mundane armour, because otherwise it isnt working exactly like a piece of mundane armour

I can see both points here, and I've had extensive discussions about this with people who have made rulings left and right of this issue.

1) It is written poorly. This argument would be obviated if they had phrased it either "It is a weapon choice that acts exactly like a shield..." or "It is a piece of mundane armor that acts...".

2) It will be FAQ'd. Guess we all just have to wait. Currently I don't armor my Slaughtermaster, as he's got other things to spend magic points on rather than armor.

3) I think it's been done to death that one group is convinced "Exactly like a shield" means it is a shield, and the other group is convinced since it's in the section on "weapons Choice" it's a weapon. Agree to disagree, most of these arguments boil down to "I read the rules and interpret my way" and both ways have valid points supporting them.

4) I know the AB maintainer personally, and he's a good guy, and working to find a middle ground as a volunteer. Agree with him, or don't, but don't say anything personal or derogatory. He's doing a thankless job very well.

Creon wrote:4) I know the AB maintainer personally, and he's a good guy, and working to find a middle ground as a volunteer. Agree with him, or don't, but don't say anything personal or derogatory. He's doing a thankless job very well.

At this point i return to point out my jabs where aimed at GW, i help maintain a vassal module and know how he must feel.

So if it isn't a shield, then I can take a shield with my tyrant/bruiser?
I guess it doesn't take up a hand either, so great weapon + iron-fist should be fine.

-Matt

lixulana wrote:
focus on where it says to use the shield rules from the main rule book.

You're not reading correctly. The only reference to main rule book is when it talks specifically about Parry and that you should use to rules from the main book.

So if it isn't a shield, then I can take a shield with my tyrant/bruiser?
I guess it doesn't take up a hand either, so great weapon + iron-fist should be fine.

"Ogres often cover their off-hand with a spiked metal gauntlet...."

"works exactly like" a piece of mundane armour makes it a piece of mundane armour, because otherwise it isnt working exactly like a piece of mundane armour

That makes no sense at all as we've pointed out in countless other logic demonstrations that seem to be escaping you. Works like != is. Also, if you want to get anal about works exactly like, it doesn't work exactly like, because it has its own special rules. So if you're going to harp on the fact it's exactly like means equals then it wouldn't work whilst mounted because it IS a shield. If it's a shield with extra rules, then it's not a BRB shield, as a BRB shield has specific, exact rules as defined in the big book.

@HawaiiMatt
The description says it is a gauntlet that covers the off-hand. Sounds to me like you could still have something in that hand, yes.

"Ogres often cover their off-hand with a spiked metal gauntlet..."

So, the off hand is only covered? Cool, that doesnt mean it has been used up!

Parry while mounted is not a property of the shield but of the Parry rules, actually DR - sorry that that escapes you. Its modifying the parry rules not eh shield rules.

Working like a shield means it has to count as a shield for the purposes of selecting magical armour, otherwise it isnt working exactly like a shield. Sorry if that escaped you

You keep saying it works exactly like a shield, which it doesn't. It allows parry while mounted, which shields don't. This means it doesn't work EXACTLY like a shield. Sorry if that escaped you.

which is a modification to the Parry rules, as I explained. Not the shield rules.

"works exactly like a shield" + modification to the Parry rules. Still works exactly like a shield

So if an ironfist modifies the parry rules, but a shield doesn't, an ironfist still works EXACTLY the same as a shield? If you can't see that that is illogical than there is nothing more I can say.

So an ironfist is better than a shield but it ain't armor.
Thats masterfull logic right there.

I don't know why that is illogical to you. Better than is not the same as is. In fact, the entire point of better than is that something is different.... How else would it be better than?

I agree it isn't a shield, it's an ironfist and it's mundane armour.

It doesn't say it is mundane armour, where do you get that from?

Well it's not in the magical gear section of the book.

Neither are great weapons and the like, but they aren't mundane armour either...

Go back two pages and find out that weapons and armors often share a selection slot.

Airmaniac wrote:So if an ironfist modifies the parry rules, but a shield doesn't, an ironfist still works EXACTLY the same as a shield? If you can't see that that is illogical than there is nothing more I can say.

According to the actual rules it works exactly the same as a shield, because it does. It also has additional rules, but as far as a shield goes - it is exactly the same as a shield.

You cannot see your own flawed logic either, namely that youre ignoring the rules written down in favour of something youve just made up

An ironfist is, RAW, mundane armour. "RAI" arguments otherwise are just a waste of time.

I am saying that the Ironfist isn't classified as being mundane armour or not (RaW). The RaW are conflicting: it says ironfists work exactly the same as, and then immediately giving a case where they do not work the same. Therefore, in my opinion, RaW are on nobody's side here, which means you should resort to the most logical option (which, given the fluff that Ogre Wizards don't wear armour, is that the ironfist is not mundane armour). Anyway, you guys feel free to bend the rules as always (still casting Scorch into combat nosferatu?)... It is not like you are my opponents anyway.

Sigh, apparently you dont read forum rules either.

Scorch can currently be cast into combat, as can IG. If youd bothered to pay attention to any of those threads, my position on what was meant is clear.

This isnt twisting rules, this is applying clear as day rules: IF is a sheld, and allows you to wear magical armour. Anything else is arguing RAI, whcih gets you nowhere

Easy with the snark, folks. It doesn't help with the "discussion".

Can someone post the line in the ironfist description where it specifically says an Ironfist is a shield? I mean where it is layed out in black and white "An ironfist is a shield" or "shield; an ironfist blah blah blah".

OK Army book, page 32 "An ironfist works exactly the same way as a shield"

A little further down:
"As such, an Ogre using an ironfist benefits from all of the rules for shields"

It's only 3 short paragraphs. The first is essentially fluff. The third says it can use it mounted. Below is the 2nd.

An ironfist works in exactly the same way as a shield--an Ogre using an ironfist benefits from a bonus to its armor save, and may be eligible to make a Parry save as described in the Warhammer rulebook.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scarecrow456 wrote:A little further down:
"As such, an Ogre using an ironfist benefits from all of the rules for shields"

This is only a sentence fragment and should not be construed to be a complete thought. Because it isn't (at least in English). The complete sentence indicates you get the rules for shields while mounted. There is no comma.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Scarecrow456 wrote:A little further down:
"As such, an Ogre using an ironfist benefits from all of the rules for shields"

This is only a sentence fragment and should not be construed to be a complete thought. Because it isn't (at least in English). The complete sentence indicates you get the rules for shields while mounted. There is no comma.

Ogre Kingdoms Army Book wrote:As such, an Ogre using an ironfist benefits from all the rules for shields (including parry save) even if he is mounted.

That's the full and exact quote. I'm not sure what comma your referring to, but if it's the first one, it's very much there. The first line of the 3rd paragraph is just a fluff fragment, and doesn't really mean much when it comes to rule discussions.

The iron fist is neither armor or a weapon. It is simply an option/army special rule (which is why it's listed in the army book where it is) that allows the model to follow/benefit from the same rules for shields, even when mounted.

Works exactly as does not equal is.

Shields function as mundane armour, something working exactly like a shield works exatly like mundane armour

There is no listing for "mundane armor" anywhere in any of the relevant rules.

The only exception [to magical interference] to this is when a Wizard has armor as part of his standard equipment or an option for 'normal' armor, such as light armor, or a shield.

-They don't have armor as part of their standard equipment.
-They don't have light armor or a shield as options. That's RAW. You can look under their entry and see neither the word 'shield' nor 'light armor' nor 'heavy armor.'
-An ironfist is pretty clearly not 'normal' armor or it wouldn't be in a special rules section.

I think we've beaten this to death and we'll obviously need clarification. But RAW and RAI I simply don't see it.

And RAW I do see it. Functioning as a shield makes something as normal an armour as you can get.

Too bad they don't say "functioning like" or "exactly like" or "sorta kinda like."

The definition of RAW is the exact wording of what is there. What you are doing is what RAI is and making an extrapolation.

If an ironfist was normal armor, it wouldn't have special rules. It would be a shield. That's normal. Scaly skin functions exactly like light/heavy armor, but it's not normal armor. If a unit had a magic mushroom that increased the armor by 1 and gave the unit a parry save when in CC it still wouldn't be a normal armor shield.

Except this is normal armour - it works exactly like a shield, working exactly like normal armour makes you "normal amour" for anything that cares, otherwise you are not "working exactly like" but "working a bit like, bit not quite like"

You are arguing RAI and not RAW, as has been proven repeatedly over these 4 pages.

working exactly like normal armour makes you "normal amour" for anything that cares

Where is this rule in the BRB? Or army book? We're talking RAW.

otherwise you are not "working exactly like" but "working a bit like, bit not quite like"

And that's what the Ironfist does. Because it works like a shield with its own special rule added. That's RAW, and thanks for point it out. It works "not quite like" a shield.

If working exactly like makes you = then an ironfist can't work while mounted. Because it IS a shield as you keep contending. But it's not equal because it has its own rules. Equal means equal. It's 100%. 3=3. 3 != 3+1. An ironfist is a shield + special. Normal armor is a shield, light armor, heavy armor. The BRB lists nothing else. They certainly don't list ironfists.

That's RAW. (Though I don't think it will come down to RAW in the long run.)

Except, RAW, it works exactly like a shield. You keep on ignoring this, I presume for humorous reasons. After all, we're talking RAW, and you're ignoring EXACTLY the work EXACTLY in the rules. Repeatedly.

ALso Ironfists alter the parry rules, not the shield rules. So, again, youre still wrong.

DukeRustfield wrote:

working exactly like normal armour makes you "normal amour" for anything that cares

Where is this rule in the BRB? Or army book? We're talking RAW.

otherwise you are not "working exactly like" but "working a bit like, bit not quite like"

And that's what the Ironfist does. Because it works like a shield with its own special rule added. That's RAW, and thanks for point it out. It works "not quite like" a shield.

If working exactly like makes you = then an ironfist can't work while mounted. Because it IS a shield as you keep contending. But it's not equal because it has its own rules. Equal means equal. It's 100%. 3=3. 3 != 3+1. An ironfist is a shield + special. Normal armor is a shield, light armor, heavy armor. The BRB lists nothing else. They certainly don't list ironfists.

That's RAW. (Though I don't think it will come down to RAW in the long run.)

We've got 3 types of armor saves. Armor from equipment:

Armor Saves: Page 43
The value of a model's armor save is determined by the equipment it carries, as detailed in its entry in the relevant Warhammer Armies book.
Goes on to mention special armor, such as Gromril and chaos armor, but doesn't state those as an exclusive or complete list (otherwise empire full plate wouldn't be armor)

Armor from being mounted (part of Cav rules on page 83)

Scaly Skin (special rule, page 75).


Is the ogre riding an iron fist? No. That rules out Cav.
Is the Iron Fist equipment, or is it a Special Rule?

Seeing how Iron Fists are bought (great weapon, pistol, extra hand weapon, or ironfist; single choice, excludes others) it lends a lot of weight to an Iron Fist being equipment and not a special rule (such as the daemonic scaly skin).


I'm kind of surprised at how little effort has gone into looking up and quoting rules in this thread. Maybe I just missed it.


-Matt

Except, RAW, it works exactly like a shield. You keep on ignoring this, I presume for humorous reasons. After all, we're talking RAW, and you're ignoring EXACTLY the work EXACTLY in the rules. Repeatedly

But it doesn't work exactly like. You already mentioned this yourself. Whatever rules it modifies, it DOESN'T work exactly like a shield. It is not exactly a shield. If you hold the two up together and test for rules, they are not EXACTLY the same. So that right there is false. I don't think anything here is humorous other than people trying to bend rules to suit themselves.


Matt, that's very wacky logic indeed.

There's no proof by exclusion. RAW is as written. Not Rules as Not-Written. A proton isn't a proton because it doesn't behave like an electron, like a neutron, like a neutrino, like a quark, like a toaster, like a swan, etc etc etc, it's a proton because it behaves like a proton. Your parents aren't your parents because they DIDN'T give birth to the kid up the street, or that kid in Zimbabwe, or that kid in China, and every other kid in the world except you--they are your parents, in the affirmative, because they gave birth to you. Otherwise, every time a new child was born you'd have to recheck to see if they were still your parents.

By your logic an ironfist might be a spell, because spells can modify your armor class. And a firebutt is a caster. Anything GW wants can modify armor. But it's irrelevant if it does. All we are concerned about is if it states it is a shield. It does not.

A shield is not an ironfist because it behaves like an ironfist. A shield is a shield because it's written that it's a shield. RAW. It says "shield."

If they add a new item to the Dwarf book they put out next week that has the exact same rules as the ironfist, but it's the Stone Beard Comb, an ironfist won't be a Stone Beard Comb just because they share the same rules. And a Stone Beard Comb won't be an ironfist. And the wearer of a Stone Beard Comb won't be able to get magic armor unless the unit has another rule that satisfies the condition.

HawaiiMatt wrote:Seeing how Iron Fists are bought (great weapon, pistol, extra hand weapon, or ironfist; single choice, excludes others) it lends a lot of weight to an Iron Fist being equipment and not a special rule (such as the daemonic scaly skin).

This argument was debunked, as other units too have shields that exlude them from taking weapons.

Hover - reread Matts argument. Hes pointing out that it isnt a special rule, but equipment

Duke - well, gues syoure still ignoring the Rules As Written. Stop doing so and maybe you'll have an argument.

OK, here's my take on the argument.

First of all, regarding Army Builder. It now lets Slaughtermasters and Butchers take magic armour. The reason it didn't before was mostly just an oversight, as the way AB is setup, if you create a magic-using entry, by default it cannot take magic armour. You need to make an exception to allow it, and I just overlooked it.

However, I have looked into it, cross-referencing the BRB and OK book, and I have fallen on the side of allowing them to take magic armour as it seems obvious to me that an Ironfist IS a shield. I understand the wording can be a bit ambiguous, but looking beyond these two and taking the Firebelly into consideration, it seems it was intended to allow them to take magic armour.

Some may disagree with me, but I need to make these choices when doing the files. If I am proven wrong, I am always happy to change things!

DukeRustfield wrote:

Except, RAW, it works exactly like a shield. You keep on ignoring this, I presume for humorous reasons. After all, we're talking RAW, and you're ignoring EXACTLY the work EXACTLY in the rules. Repeatedly

But it doesn't work exactly like. You already mentioned this yourself. Whatever rules it modifies, it DOESN'T work exactly like a shield. It is not exactly a shield. If you hold the two up together and test for rules, they are not EXACTLY the same. So that right there is false. I don't think anything here is humorous other than people trying to bend rules to suit themselves.


Matt, that's very wacky logic indeed.

There's no proof by exclusion. RAW is as written. Not Rules as Not-Written. A proton isn't a proton because it doesn't behave like an electron, like a neutron, like a neutrino, like a quark, like a toaster, like a swan, etc etc etc, it's a proton because it behaves like a proton. Your parents aren't your parents because they DIDN'T give birth to the kid up the street, or that kid in Zimbabwe, or that kid in China, and every other kid in the world except you--they are your parents, in the affirmative, because they gave birth to you. Otherwise, every time a new child was born you'd have to recheck to see if they were still your parents.

By your logic an ironfist might be a spell, because spells can modify your armor class. And a firebutt is a caster. Anything GW wants can modify armor. But it's irrelevant if it does. All we are concerned about is if it states it is a shield. It does not.

A shield is not an ironfist because it behaves like an ironfist. A shield is a shield because it's written that it's a shield. RAW. It says "shield."

If they add a new item to the Dwarf book they put out next week that has the exact same rules as the ironfist, but it's the Stone Beard Comb, an ironfist won't be a Stone Beard Comb just because they share the same rules. And a Stone Beard Comb won't be an ironfist. And the wearer of a Stone Beard Comb won't be able to get magic armor unless the unit has another rule that satisfies the condition.

Now I'll use your example and actual rules.
The one and only spell in the game to give an armor save.
Glittering Robe: target unit gains a 5+ Scaly skin save. GW isn't making up a whole new thing, it's using the existing rules. Rant all you want, but please stop making stuff up.


Maybe my point wasn't clear enough.
1) Iron Fist is equipment. (I'm not calling it a shield or a weapon, just equipment)
2) Armor is defined as equipment that modifies an armor save, as per page 43.
3) Magical interference prevents buying magic armor, unless you come with, or can buy 'normal' armor.

The ironfist doesn't need to be a shield, it just needs to be equipment that provides an armor save.

The rules allow for 3 types of armor saves, and no others. It's mounted/barding as covered in unit type rules, scaly skin in the special rules, or equipment. A Dwarf who had a Stone Beard Comb (and a magical item allotment) could buy magic armor, as he has equipment that provides an armor save; ergo, 'normal' armor.


How about this one.
Iron fist gives the parry rule.
Parry rule states that a model armed with a Hand Weapon and a Shield gains a 6+ ward...
If the Iron fist isn't a shield, ogres gain a rule that they cannot use, as the parry rule requires use of both a hand weapon and... wait for it... A SHIELD.


-Matt

nosferatu1001 wrote:Hover - reread Matts argument. Hes pointing out that it isnt a special rule, but equipment

Pssh i lost track ages ago

DukeRustfield wrote:

working exactly like normal armour makes you "normal amour" for anything that cares

Where is this rule in the BRB? Or army book? We're talking RAW.

otherwise you are not "working exactly like" but "working a bit like, bit not quite like"

And that's what the Ironfist does. Because it works like a shield with its own special rule added. That's RAW, and thanks for point it out. It works "not quite like" a shield.

If working exactly like makes you = then an ironfist can't work while mounted. Because it IS a shield as you keep contending. But it's not equal because it has its own rules. Equal means equal. It's 100%. 3=3. 3 != 3+1. An ironfist is a shield + special. Normal armor is a shield, light armor, heavy armor. The BRB lists nothing else. They certainly don't list ironfists.

That's RAW. (Though I don't think it will come down to RAW in the long run.)

Actually 3!=6

Also if the BRB says that normal armor is only light armor, heavy armor, or a shield, then why do chaos sorcerers, who do not wear light armor, heavy armor, or use shields, have the option to wear magic armor, as the rule states they can,

/See Deadhorse Thread lie there.
//See Dakka beat Deadhorse Thread.
///See Deadhorse Thread not get anywhere.

HawaiiMatt wrote:Maybe my point wasn't clear enough.
1) Iron Fist is equipment. (I'm not calling it a shield or a weapon, just equipment)
2) Armor is defined as equipment that modifies an armor save, as per page 43.
3) Magical interference prevents buying magic armor, unless you come with, or can buy 'normal' armor.

The ironfist doesn't need to be a shield, it just needs to be equipment that provides an armor save.

That is nowhere in the rules whatsoever. It needs to be normal armor. Normal armor is a shield, light armor, heavy armor. If an arcane item provide an armor save, by your logic, then any caster that takes it can also take magic armor. That is obviously not correct. Again, you're making a rule based on exclusion, not inclusion.

DukeBadham wrote:Also if the BRB says that normal armor is only light armor, heavy armor, or a shield, then why do chaos sorcerers, who do not wear light armor, heavy armor, or use shields, have the option to wear magic armor, as the rule states they can,

There's actually 2 rules to magical interference. One is, does the unit have ARMOR as part of their standard equipment. There is no reference to normal armor at that point. A chaos sorcerer has chaos armor as part of their standard equipment. The only requirement is to test if it's some kind of armor. Chaos armor most certainly is. The second test is if they have the option to purchase 'normal' armor such as a shield or light armor.

Your right on my point rustfield, but I still think that the ironfist allows you to take magic armor.

at least I was right on the fact that 3!=6

DukeRustfield wrote:There's actually 2 rules to magical interference. One is, does the unit have ARMOR as part of their standard equipment. There is no reference to normal armor at that point. A chaos sorcerer has chaos armor as part of their standard equipment. The only requirement is to test if it's some kind of armor. Chaos armor most certainly is. The second test is if they have the option to purchase 'normal' armor such as a shield or light armor.

That is some mighty fine hair splitting right there

I think its very clear that this is a race specific piece of armor, just like Chaos Armor is a race specific piece of armor.

By your definitions, Chaos Armor isn't armor because it isn't called "light armor, heavy armor, or a shield"

The Ironfist is clearly a shield with additional benifits and as such grants the usage of Magical Armor.

DukeRustfield wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:Maybe my point wasn't clear enough.
1) Iron Fist is equipment. (I'm not calling it a shield or a weapon, just equipment)
2) Armor is defined as equipment that modifies an armor save, as per page 43.
3) Magical interference prevents buying magic armor, unless you come with, or can buy 'normal' armor.

The ironfist doesn't need to be a shield, it just needs to be equipment that provides an armor save.

That is nowhere in the rules whatsoever. It needs to be normal armor. Normal armor is a shield, light armor, heavy armor. If an arcane item provide an armor save, by your logic, then any caster that takes it can also take magic armor. That is obviously not correct. Again, you're making a rule based on exclusion, not inclusion.

You do know the context of "such as" correct?
The examples that follow "Such As" is not an all inclusive list.

Heavy Armor is not included in the magical interference, you're adding words to part of your argument, but pretending it's all inclusive in another. You're not consistent with your reasoning.

Page 43 describes armor, including examples (again not all inclusive) that adds chaos armor and Gromril, while leaving out Full Plate, and the rules tell you to refer to the Army books.
If an arcane item provided an armor save, it wouldn't be 'normal' armor, it would be 'magical' armor.


Exclusion does work within the context here. To use your proton example:
We have Protons, neutrons and electrons, all of which are particles.
We're looking at a particle. It is not a proton or a neutron.
What is it?

Your argument is theorizing new particles. Mine is saying that the rules define what particles we have, now find which one our mystery particle fits into.


Turn to page 510.
Look at the heading for Armor saves.
Read all categories in full, then get back to me.

-Matt

CALM DOWN YOU FETHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the discussion is quite calm considering whats at stake here.

Grey Templar wrote:I think its very clear that this is a race specific piece of armor, just like Chaos Armor is a race specific piece of armor.

By your definitions, Chaos Armor isn't armor because it isn't called "light armor, heavy armor, or a shield"

If you take the effort to read the post WAAAAAAY above yours. I.e., 2 posts up. You would see there are 2 requirements to the rule. If they have standard equipment that is armor, it simply has to be "armor." There is no adjective or designation as to what kind or any examples. It simply says armor. Chaos armor is a standard equipment of sorcerers. It doesn't need to be "normal" armor or anything armor according to the rule. It's pretty hard to argue that chaos armor isn't "armor" of some kind.

The other possible exception is if a unit can purchase "normal" armor. It does not say such as ironfists or if the unit has the ability to purchase something that works like "normal" armor. The question is whether an ironfist is

'normal' armor such as light armor, or a shield.

You do know the context of "such as" correct?
The examples that follow "Such As" is not an all inclusive list.

Right. Cuz they left out heavy armor.

What page 43 lists is irrelevant because all those units with those options have them as standard equipment (see above) or can upgrade into them based another standard armor (see above). Butchers aren't in that category, they have no standard armor.

Page 510 is the index...


But we went over a similar situation like this before in this subforum. Someone was asking could ironblasters and scraplaunchers take advantage of the pivot moves of war machines. They have all the rules of war machines. It even says they function like a cannon or a stone thrower. It even says a scraplauncher IS a stone thrower. But they aren't war machines. They are ironblasters and scraplaunchers. They have their own rules.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/396463.page



Automatically Appended Next Post:
added:

Grey Templar wrote:I think the discussion is quite calm considering whats at stake here.

I don't think anyone is pissy. It's just a game

Ok I am at work and have not been active on this forum for a while due to moving house but wanted to share my two cents, sorry if someone has already picked up on this but.....

Scarecrow456 wrote:"As such, an Ogre using an ironfist benefits from all of the rules for shields"

Now from my understanding one of the benefits of the rules for shields is that you can take magic armour, as the one of the benefits for having a shield is fulfilling one of the requirements to take magic armour.

I am not going to argue the whole "works exactly like bit as I think this section of the RAW is more relevant.

On a side note, just wow, I thought the Razor Standard argument was bad

DukeR - So your argument is that "such as" only means "well, heavy armour"?

Impressive. We have ignoring literal RAW, then claiming the a list specifically defined as not being all inclusive (and quite open) is in fact only missing one option.

No. Ironfist works exactly like a shield. One part of working like a shield is buying magical armour.

Grey Templar wrote:I think the discussion is quite calm considering whats at stake here.

O RLY!?

nosferatu1001 wrote: One part of working like a shield is buying magical armour.

This, I am 100% in agreement with nos here, one of the benefits of a shield is being permitted to take magical armour.

The BRB does not list (as far as I am aware) what equipment permits you to take magic armour, If an Ironfist grants all benefits of having a shield then in my opinion access to Magic armour is one of these benefits.

WombleJim wrote:

Scarecrow456 wrote:"As such, an Ogre using an ironfist benefits from all of the rules for shields"

Now from my understanding one of the benefits of the rules for shields is that you can take magic armour, as the one of the benefits for having a shield is fulfilling one of the requirements to take magic armour.

If you would have read the response you would have seen that this is a sentence fragment. It is not the whole thought. It is not the definition of the sentence. No one here has argued it was (except Scarecrow). The third paragraph is only concerned with the user getting benefits from the rules for shields WHILE MOUNTED. If there was a period after the above fragment, and no "as such" it would be a completely different story. But there is not.

DukeRustfield wrote:

WombleJim wrote:

Scarecrow456 wrote:"As such, an Ogre using an ironfist benefits from all of the rules for shields"

Now from my understanding one of the benefits of the rules for shields is that you can take magic armour, as the one of the benefits for having a shield is fulfilling one of the requirements to take magic armour.

If you would have read the response you would have seen that this is a sentence fragment. It is not the whole thought. It is not the definition of the sentence. No one here has argued it was (except Scarecrow). The third paragraph is only concerned with the user getting benefits from the rules for shields WHILE MOUNTED. If there was a period after the above fragment, and no "as such" it would be a completely different story. But there is not.

If this sentance fragment only concerns rules while mounted why is the word ONLY not mentioned at any point during the entire sentance, if the intent of this sentance was to define that the Ironfist grants parry saves while mounted it would simply state that, however the sentance includes what I highlighted in bold which is not limited to just granting parry saves while mounted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is the exact quote provided by scarecrow,

Ogre Kingdoms Army Book wrote:As such, an Ogre using an ironfist benefits from all the rules for shields (including parry save) even if he is mounted.

Now if the only intent of this sentance was only to provide parry saves while mounted then it would say along the lines of "an Ironfist provides a parry save even if mounted" this sentance does not include the rather important parts such as defining an Ogre, not mounted Ogre and that said Ogre (on foot or if mounted) benefits from all the rules for shields.

I swear to you, no one will be mad at you for reading the entire thread before responding.

DukeRustfield wrote:I swear to you, no one will be mad at you for reading the entire thread before responding.

I have read all the thread and my lines of argument have only been touched upon previously, assuming that I have not is not that great of a rebuttal. I just feel that arguing the semantics of "works exactly" is not really getting us anywhere near an answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:I don't think anyone is pissy. It's just a game

Just want to add not trying to ruffle any feathers just don't think the sentence I am trying to argue has not been discussed in depth enough

I'm lost.

Are we arguing that an ironfist is a piece or armor or a shield?

Are we arguing the complaints that slaughtermasters and butchers can wear armor?

Are we arguing whether a S/B can take magic armor if they've taken an ironfist?

We are arguing over if an Ironfist is armor of some description.

Yes, we want to know if they can wear armor.

No, a magic user simply needs the option of mundane armor to take Magic Armor. so the meare presense of the Ironfist in his options is enough.

IMO:

I have to agree that it's armor. "This gauntlet can be used to..." (p. 32 OK AB)

It's a gauntlet (p. 32 OK AB). Gauntlets are pieces of armor.

Also says "works in exactly the same way as a shield".

Isn't 'mundane armor' non magical armor, if so then the Iron fist is mundane armor.

I'm going to stick with: Rulebook says it's a gauntlet, and gauntlets are armor.

I think it's a crappy comic book.

It's very simple! The iron fist is a Thing That Ogres Wear On Their Fists To Smash Other Things Over The Head With And Bash Still More Other Things Away From Their Guts.

Ruleswise, every discussion I've seen online and in person ends up boiled down to two camps typing "Is Not Armor!" "Is too Armor!" at each other. All the same arguments are cycled again and again, and I can see where both sides have valid points. GW needs to make a decision about this, then we'll know. Until then, accept which interpretation your local group accepts, and play on!

I agree with the above.
Locally they can't make a point of it not being armor so until the FAQ comes out locally it will be armor so problem solved.

Still would be nice to know now.

Read the posts since my last.

Hang on... let me get my defibrillator... CLEAR! *zzzaapp!*

So... are there any cogent arguments against Matt's "BRB: Armor is anything that modifies an armor save" and "BRB: wizzies that have the option for normal armor can take..."?

I think that's the last place we left off.

Off-topic: Not one person in 30 at my 2 FLGS's even hint at contesting it's armor-ness. It's interesting there are a handful of die-hard "notarmornotarmornotarmor" folk here. Are the kiddies mad because their local ogre-fanboys can finally field a tier one list? Awwwww....

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:So... are there any cogent arguments against Matt's "BRB: Armor is anything that modifies an armor save" and "BRB: wizzies that have the option for normal armor can take..."?

Yes. Because the "quote" listed does not exist in the BRB as has been pointed out numerous times. Scaly Skin is not armor. A mount is not armor. Nowhere does it say that "Armor is anything that modifies an armor save," because it's simply not true based upon other rules.

Let's stop resurrecting the thread and not adding anything.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Warboss Fugnutz wrote:So... are there any cogent arguments against Matt's "BRB: Armor is anything that modifies an armor save" and "BRB: wizzies that have the option for normal armor can take..."?

Yes. Because the "quote" listed does not exist in the BRB as has been pointed out numerous times. Scaly Skin is not armor. A mount is not armor. Nowhere does it say that "Armor is anything that modifies an armor save," because it's simply not true based upon other rules.

Let's stop resurrecting the thread and not adding anything.

My argument has been miss quoted.
My argument actually said that Scaly Skin is not armor (it's in the special rule section), and that mounts and barding are not armor (as they are listed under properties of unit types).

You cannot argue what does and doesn't count as armor if you can't define armor.

I'm using page 43 in the rule book, where it states:
The value of a models armor save is determined by the equipment it carries, as detailed in its entry in the relevant Warhammer Armies Book. (rule then lists common armors and gives saves).
Some types of special armour, such as (meaning not an all inclusive list) Chaos armor or the Gromril armor of the Dwarfs, grant a formidable 4+ armor save.

If you could provide me with a better explanation of what is armor, then I'd be inclined to believe that an Iron Fist is not armor.
Please include a page number to avoid future claims of "does not exist).

With no other actual reference present, I'll be playing Iron fist = equipment, equipment = armor; until a FAQ, or page reference states otherwise.

-Matt

Yes, you have already stated that you are devising your own rules. And that is awesome for you. Others have stated likewise.

Mounts have some listing under Armor Saves per the FAQ.

Reference Section – Armour Saves
Add “Shield 6+
Mounted + Shield 5+”

An ironfist is clearly not armor. It MAY be a shield. But a Shield is not armor, as it has its own subsection equal (and not under) Armor Saves--and it has its own rules that regular light/heavy/etc armor does not, such as if you swap it out for a GW once close combat starts. An ironfist MAY qualify as "normal" armor per magical interference, as a shield does.

But you have not supplied anything that you haven't already. Nor have I. Nor has anyone else.

So a shield isnt armour, but is?

You're going round in circles

Oddly enough, when they FAQ this, they will rule that something that is EXACTLY a shield will indeed be a shield in all cases.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So a shield isnt armour, but is?

You're going round in circles

Oddly enough, when they FAQ this, they will rule that something that is EXACTLY a shield will indeed be a shield in all cases.

Well it's NOT exactly a shield it "WORKS EXACTLY" like a shield but it is a gauntlet which is armor thou I think it'll be ruled as not counting as armor for list sake per discription it is armor. just read straight out. p.s. I vote not armor but as currently written it is.

Listen up, anti-armor crowd.

--2nd paragraph on p. 32 starts with "An Ironfist works exactly the same way as a shield.."

--3rd paragraph on p. 32 starts with "In addition.."

Does everyone know what "in addition" means? Yes! It means AND! The rulebook literally says it works exactly the same way as a shield, and the extra bonuses ogres get are IN ADDITION TO THIS. For people still having trouble, you can say: In addition to working exactly the same way as a shield, all shield rules apply when the ogre is mounted.

Pro-armor folks. It's fun to debate "what is armor?" with the anti-armor crowd, about as fun as hearing Clinton say "Well, that depends on what your definition of 'is' is.", but there's no reason to take it further. "Works exactly like a shield", and "in addition" are as far as we should have to take it.

Just thought I'd throw my third set of 2 cents on the fire. Now... debate the definition of "in addition" with me, someone... please.

A shield isn't armor. A shield is a shield. No one in any army book can say a shield is armor because it's not. It has its own rules in the BRB that don't match basic armor ala giving you a flat, permanent armor save regardless of whether you are in melee combat or walking or using a 2H weapon. A shield qualifies as "normal" armor under magical interference because they explicitly state it. The only question is whether or not an ironfist is a shield.

"In addition" aka "and" does not have to be a bonus or a positive. It is used in the English language so we don't have run-on sentences. Such as:

An ironfist works exactly like a shield. In addition, if anyone says it's armor, they will die and go to hell.

OR

An ironfist works exactly like a shield. In addition, if the Ogre model ever blocks anything with it, they are instantly slain, because it's made out of radioactive plutonium and it detonates. Dumb Ogres.


Those are totally valid sentences and thoughts.


Again, no one has added one thing that hasn't been brought up copious times in the past to this silly thread. Yes, you are totally free to use what rules you want. IN ADDITION, we are totally free to use what rules we want.

even if a shield isn't armor, the Ironfist is undoubtedly a shield because it functions "exactly like a shield"

part of functioning like a shield is allowing Magic Armor to be taken.

Grey Templar wrote:even if a shield isn't armor, the Ironfist is undoubtedly a shield because it functions "exactly like a shield"

part of functioning like a shield is allowing Magic Armor to be taken.

I agree Ironfist is armor as it's written but functions like a shield doesn't make it a shield just works like a shield. otherwise it'd say is a "shield that also....." You could wet noodle work like a shield doesn't make it a shield justs function in the same way.

DukeRustfield wrote:A shield isn't armor.

p. 502 of the BRB would disagree with you.

p. 43 of the BRB would disagree with you.

I, too, disagree with you.

So, now that we've gotten you to admit that IF shields WERE armor, they would be able to take magic armor - AND now that you can read two pages of the BRB and see that shields ARE armor - does that mean you'll change your mind? Or are you going to recycle some far-reaching anti-armor argument at us yet again?

P. 502 doesn't disagree with me. It separates "magical suits of armor AND shields." Over and over. In fact you can have "only have one suit of armor AND one shield." If they are both armor, you would get either one or the other because they are both armor.

P. 43 of the BRB doesn't disagree with me. The header is:
5. SAVING THROWS <--header
ARMOR SAVES <-sub-header
SHIELDS <-sub-header (this is not subordinate to armor saves, it is a separate item, it is subordinate to Saving Throws)

If you are stating an Ironfist is armor, then they have to give it up if they purchase any magical armor per to top of page 502 as the magical armor would replace their mundane armor (ironfist). I haven't seen anyone state that and that would be rather weird.


An Ironfist isn't armor. This is clear. It MAY be a shield.

You have not gotten me to admit anything except that you can't read what you're referencing.

Now read ALL of p.502 and p.43 and see where the BRB lists shields (in a table on 43 and a list in 502) when defining different pieces of armor. Then get back to me.

Heh.

So okay, here's the quote from the BRB:

"A model can only have one suit of armor and one shield, so if you give a model a magical suit of armor or a magical shield, it replaces any mundane equivalent already worn by the model."

Simple enough, right?

So you're saying that it's armor and not a shield. This is important because of the ^ quote. We need to know what gets replaced when you upgrade to magical. The BRB is really good about calling magical items _______ SHIELD or ARMOR of _________. And/or it says it in the description itself. Ironfist, unfortunately, isn't called a Shield of Ironfist or an Armor of Ironfist. So we have to guess.

You're saying it's armor. It HAS to be one or the other or they cannot under any circumstances get magical equivalents. There is no listing for Ironfists getting magical armor. So it needs to either qualify as armor or shield and we have to know which to see what swaps it out.

So again, you're saying that if a Slaughtermaster bought an Armor of Destiny, heavy armor, he would have to give up his Ironfist, because it is the mundane equivalent that is replaced. Likewise, if he got an Enchanted Shield, he could keep his Ironfist and walk around with 2 parry saves (only 1 of which works, I guess you can choose which equivalent 6+ at time of roll?).


I suppose all this is possible. But I'm more inclined to think an Ironfist is a mount than a suit of armor. He actually rides around on it and that's how he gets the armor save. Again, everyone here (except you) is debating on whether or not an Ironfist is a shield. It's certainly not armor (light armor, heavy armor, chaos armor) or you couldn't possess it and a magical set of armor at the same time but could have a magical shield and an Ironfist. I can't imagine that's really what you mean.

If you mean that it would get lumped under Magical Armor for choices IF it is determined to be a shield...well, sure. But it has to be determined to BE a shield, first. That's the question. Not which category you'd look in. It's certainly not an arcane item.

And.. for every time you can find shields and armor differentiated, I can find a quote that lumps them together.

p. 502 "This section contains enchanted suits of armor - magical breastplates, ensorcelled shields, and so on."

p. 43 on the table, you'll see shield under the "Armor Worn" heading.

Can you stop putting words into my mouth, please? Like the many "references" you have of me calling a shield a suit of armor? That's like calling you a rules guru - it's just ridiculous.

BRB says shields are armor in two different places, but you go ahead and quote all the places they DON'T call it armor. There's what, 530 pages in the BRB or so? Probably at least 527 of them don't call shields armor. So, you've got a lot of quoting to do, yes?

Ah, my bad for misquoting you. Here's your chance to clear things up.

1: If a Slaughtermaster is allowed to get magical armor and he purchases the Armor of Destiny from the BRB, what happens to his purchased Ironfist?
a) he loses it, as it was replaced by the Armor
b) he keeps it, as it was not replaced by the Armor
c) nothing, but he can Fly and gains Killing Blow

2: If a Slaughtermaster is allowed to get magical armor and he purchases an Enchanted Shield from the BRB, what happens to his purchased Ironfist?
a) he loses it, as it was replaced by the Shield
b) he keeps it, as it was not replaced by the Shield
c) nothing, but he can gains 4 spell levels from the Lore of Big Waaagh

Please answer these questions so I won't misquote you again.

You should be able to answer those. It works exactly the same way as a shield (except that it gives it's shield bonus while mounted). That, in an all-inclusive nutshell, is the ironfist.

Repeat after me: works exactly the same way as a shield, except you get the bonus while mounted.

Again: works exactly the same way as a shield, except you get the bonus while mounted.

One more time: works exactly the same way as a shield, except you get the bonus while mounted.

And one more to bring it home, come on, I have faith in you!: works exactly the same way as a shield, except you get the bonus while mounted.

Ahhhh.... that's better. Did we all learn something today? Great. See you next week!

-edit-

Oh, and instead of putting words into my mouth when you "quote" me, how about ACTUALLY quoting me... you know... with the forum's QUOTE function? It's the little button that says QUOTE.

Woops. Despite you editing the post twice, you still didn't answer the questions. I honestly don't know your answer. Because I said what I assumed you believe and you got upset and said I misquoted you and I am putting words in your mouth. So here, let's try this again:


1: If a Slaughtermaster is allowed to get magical armor and he purchases the Armor of Destiny from the BRB, what happens to his purchased Ironfist?
a) he loses it, as it was replaced by the Armor
b) he keeps it, as it was not replaced by the Armor
c) nothing, but he can Fly and gains Killing Blow

2: If a Slaughtermaster is allowed to get magical armor and he purchases an Enchanted Shield from the BRB, what happens to his purchased Ironfist?
a) he loses it, as it was replaced by the Shield
b) he keeps it, as it was not replaced by the Shield
c) nothing, but he can gains 4 spell levels from the Lore of Big Waaagh

Let me answer

DukeRustfield wrote:Woops. Despite you editing the post twice, you still didn't answer the questions. I honestly don't know your answer. Because I said what I assumed you believe and you got upset and said I misquoted you and I am putting words in your mouth. So here, let's try this again:


1: If a Slaughtermaster is allowed to get magical armor and he purchases the Armor of Destiny from the BRB, what happens to his purchased Ironfist?
a) he loses it, as it was replaced by the Armor
b) he keeps it, as it was not replaced by the Armor Since magical armour doesn't replace shields, or things that work exactly like shields, just better
c) nothing, but he can Fly and gains Killing Blow

2: If a Slaughtermaster is allowed to get magical armor and he purchases an Enchanted Shield from the BRB, what happens to his purchased Ironfist?
a) he loses it, as it was replaced by the Shield Since magical shields replace shields, or things that work exactly like shields, just better
b) he keeps it, as it was not replaced by the Shield
c) nothing, but he can gains 4 spell levels from the Lore of Big Waaagh

@DukeBadham
So where in the BRB does it state that Magical Shields replace things that work exactly like shields, but aren't shields?

One of the ways that shields work is that they get replaced by magical shields, so something that works exactly the same, would be replaced

ALSO
why don't all of us (including me) drop this, we are getting nowhere with this. Why don't we drop this, stick with our opinions, and wait for a official ruling.

DukeBadham wrote:One of the ways that shields work is that they get replaced by magical shields, so something that works exactly the same, would be replaced

ALSO
why don't all of us (including me) drop this, we are getting nowhere with this. Why don't we drop this, stick with our opinions, and wait for a official ruling.

Everytime I read the latest on this thread I just want to start chanting, "Fight! Fight! Fight!" school ground style.

Airmaniac wrote:@DukeBadham
So where in the BRB does it state that Magical Shields replace things that work exactly like shields, but aren't shields?

I'll take this one..

If... it works exactly like a shield and one of the ways shields work is that they're replaced by magical shields -> there's your answer.

See? The ironfist works exactly like a shield, except you get the bonus while mounted.

Does it provide a parry save? Yes, IT WORKS EXACTLY LIKE A SHIELD EXCEPT YOU GET ALL SHIELD BONUSES WHILE MOUNTED.

Does it make your armor save one better? Yes, IT WORKS EXACTLY LIKE A SHIELD EXCEPT YOU GET ALL SHIELD BONUSES WHILE MOUNTED.

Does it provide any other bonuses other than shield bonuses on and off a mount? No, IT WORKS EXACTLY LIKE A SHIELD EXCEPT YOU GET ALL SHIELD BONUSES WHILE MOUNTED.

Ta-Daaaaaa!

Unfortunately, Warboss fugnutz, to some, Works Exactly like a Shield and Is Normal Armor don't coincide. And that's what six pages of this argument are about.

It really doesn't matter weather the IF is armor or a shield.

both results will allow the taking of magic armor.

Creon wrote:Unfortunately, Warboss fugnutz, to some, Works Exactly like a Shield and Is Normal Armor don't coincide. And that's what six pages of this argument are about.

Hit it on the head^^^^^^^^^^

I think part of the confusion may arise from there being a difference between the word armor and armor.

armor can mean any item of wargear that increases your armor saves: this includes Light Armor, Heavy Armor, Shields, Chaos Armor, Gromril Plate, Helms, Codpieces of Doom...

armor references pieces of the above wargear that has the word armor in its name, so Light Armor, Heavy Armor, Chaos Armor, Full Plate, Gromril Plate.


GW seems to use the word in 2 different instances.

Yep just like if you had a Sword of Parrying that worked exactly like a shield it would be a shield/ armor too! Its awsome how function makes an Item something it's not. I get your logic. ... but yes an Ironfist is ARMOR a Gauntlet to be exact < thou I hope it gets ruled as just wargear that's not armor cause its lame as hell to put a butcher in armor> Blue "Ogre Player"

but yes an Ironfist is ARMOR a Gauntlet to be exact

In that definition of armor, yes the ironfist is armor. However, as Grey Templar explained, Games Workshop uses two definitions of armor. One that encompasses all armor, which a gauntlet would fall under, and one that only encompasses 'main' pieces of armor (protecting the chest), which all have the word armor in their name.

Purchasing Magic Armour is only allowed if a character can purchase normal armor (such as light armor) OR a shield. This wording leads me to believe that the 'normal' armor GW is referring to is the second definition of armor stated above. Since a gauntlet, such as the ironfist, does not fall under this definition, and a SM cannot take a shield either, SM are, in my opinion, unable to take Magic Armour.

Airmaniac wrote:

but yes an Ironfist is ARMOR a Gauntlet to be exact

In that definition of armor, yes the ironfist is armor. However, as Grey Templar explained, Games Workshop uses two definitions of armor. One that encompasses all armor, which a gauntlet would fall under, and one that only encompasses 'main' pieces of armor (protecting the chest), which all have the word armor in their name.

Purchasing Magic Armour is only allowed if a character can purchase normal armor (such as light armor) OR a shield. This wording leads me to believe that the 'normal' armor GW is referring to is the second definition of armor stated above. Since a gauntlet, such as the ironfist, does not fall under this definition, and a SM cannot take a shield either, SM are, in my opinion, unable to take Magic Armour.

Well like I said at the end of the post you quoted I think its dumb to have a Butcher in armor. Rule as written is it's armor I'm hoping for a FAQ otherwise but til then its RAW land for me. but I won't put my butcher's in armor just FYI

I called their US customer service (because they basically won't give you responses in writing that you can forward around) and it went like this:

ME: Yes, I'm calling to get a ruling on the latest Ogre Kingdoms Ironfist--
CS: I know exactly what you're going to say. You sent the email, right?
ME: Yes.
CS: Well, I can tell you how we play here. We play that the Ironfist's a shield and the Slaughtermaster can take magic armor.
ME: (not quite hearing on cell phone) So the Ironfist IS a shield then?
CS: That's how we play it here.
ME: Do you know if this will be FAQ'd at any point?
CS: Honestly, I can't say.
ME: Okay, well thanks for your assistance.

Blah blah, final polite salutations.

So the US HQ plays it like a shield, so that's official enough for me until I hear otherwise.

I see both sides, but support the "It's a shield, Butchers can get all magical armor they want".

Conversely, I don't put my butchers in armor, cause I acknowledge it's a very debatable point.

Creon wrote:Unfortunately, Warboss fugnutz, to some, Works Exactly like a Shield and Is Normal Armor don't coincide. And that's what six pages of this argument are about.

I know that's half the argument. 1/2 is shield armor and 1/2 Works Exactly.

My shields are armor part is p. 43 BRB (on the table under "armor worn") and p. 502 (first sentence). Twice the BRB puts them in a list of armor, and nowhere says that they're not.

I quote the second and third paragraph under "Ironfists" at the not-armor-folk to make them see it's a shield that gets bonuses while mounted. Then they switch to shields aren't armor. Then I give them the p. 43/p.502 proof. Then it's back to Works Exactly.

A little off topic (and doesn't really matter I just want to throw it in): the two judges and around 10 or so players at the near-local GW store couldn't understand why anyone would even consider that butchers can't take magic armor. They all thought it was one of the big draws of the new Ogres.

Well, in support of myself and others, since...ever, GW has stated:

"counts as _____"
"is _____ "

I mean a particular weapon is a halberd or counts as a halberd or it has its own unique rules.

There were times they didn't do that and it seems to cause some confusion and now with 8th everything looks to be going back to standardized. TK don't have weirdo sorta magic. OK don't have weirdo sorta magic. Everyone has the same magic items. It dumbs it down a bit, but at least we know what everyone has.

From the Stronghold forums someone "said" one of the designers did not intend it to happen but they like the consequences as it adds more character variety. If that's a true statement then they didn't put it on purpose, even if they do keep it.

The fact that every forum has a thread similar shows this isn't local to dakka and it's not as if this forum is only one region of the world.

I dont know why this is a big deal page 32 of the ogre book under Ironfist second paragraph.

"An ironfist works in exactly the same way as a shield" "Ogre using fist benefits from a bonus to his armor save"
"Ogre using an ironfist benefits from all of the rules for shields"

Page 172 (mini rule book).
"The only exception to this is when the wizard has armor as part of his standard equipment OR an option for 'normal' armour, such as light armour, or a shield."

So to me this makes it more than clear that yes ironfist option means slaughter master can take magic armor.

I dont know how one can argue against it not being armor.

Well I don't know why you're reposting the same things over and over and over again.

DukeRustfield wrote:Well I don't know why you're reposting the same things over and over and over again.

Probably because everyone has been posting the samething as well?

Call me a psychic but i assure you it will be posted over and over and over again till FAQ is released.
Or the thread gets locked.

LunaHound wrote:...Or the thread gets locked.

Then we shall create a new thread