22508
Post by: FlingitNow
So the Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield and gives you a 6++ in other facings. Taking a Sanctuary does NOT replace your Ion Shield. So my questions are;
1) As I have 2 Ion Shields do I get to pick 2 facings for my 4++?
2) How does this interact with Council of Lords and Ionic Shield wall? Do the +1 invuns on Ion Shield saves improve the 6++ to a 5++ in relevant facing(s) as the Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield any save you get from it would be buffed. Or as the 6++ covers "each facing that is NOT coveted by its ion shield" mean the 6++ is not an Ion Shield save and therefore not eligible?
What do you think people?
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
If you're referring to the psychic power "Sanctuary", then it only buffs your Ion Shield by +1, it doesn't ALSO give you a 6+, unless there is a FAQ I don't know about. The wording of sanctuary is: "Improves your invuln save by 1. If you don't have an invuln save, it gives you a 6+."
An Ion shield is an invuln save that only effects 1 facing? Well, that's still an invuln save, so the second part of the rule wouldn't apply.
14
Post by: Ghaz
He's not. He's talking about the Heirloom of the Knightly Houses Sanctuary.
76717
Post by: CrownAxe
 BetrayTheWorld wrote:If you're referring to the psychic power "Sanctuary", then it only buffs your Ion Shield by +1, it doesn't ALSO give you a 6+, unless there is a FAQ I don't know about. The wording of sanctuary is: "Improves your invuln save by 1. If you don't have an invuln save, it gives you a 6+."
An Ion shield is an invuln save that only effects 1 facing? Well, that's still an invuln save, so the second part of the rule wouldn't apply.
How could he be talking about the Sanctuary psychic power when that power can only target the psyker himself and no IKs are psykers?
71519
Post by: BetrayTheWorld
 CrownAxe wrote: BetrayTheWorld wrote:If you're referring to the psychic power "Sanctuary", then it only buffs your Ion Shield by +1, it doesn't ALSO give you a 6+, unless there is a FAQ I don't know about. The wording of sanctuary is: "Improves your invuln save by 1. If you don't have an invuln save, it gives you a 6+."
An Ion shield is an invuln save that only effects 1 facing? Well, that's still an invuln save, so the second part of the rule wouldn't apply.
How could he be talking about the Sanctuary psychic power when that power can only target the psyker himself and no IKs are psykers?
I'm not terribly familiar with IKs, and IKs are supposed to be coming up soon, so I wasn't sure if perhaps he was referring to a rumor of a new psyker IK or something. So At least I qualified my statement by saying what I -thought- he meant. 
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Imperial Knights are out got Codex yesterday. I am talking about the Heirloom. Not sure where you got that the Psychic Powr counted as an Ion Shield from?
88012
Post by: locarno24
Shield wall boosting the save is definitely a no-no; by definition it's 'each facing not protected by the ion shield' as you state - so something improving the ion shield save can't really improve it.
The 6+ save is a byproduct of an additional special rule. Imagine an army-wide rule (a formation command benefit for the sake of the argument) that all plasma weapons gain the Instant Death rule; would you expect to outright kill your captain if his plasma pistol triggered the Gets Hot rule?
The second facing.....If it adds the save and doesn't say it replaces or improves your ion shield, then I guess you have two ion shields. The question is whether the rules for the ion shield allow you to pick more than one facing, no matter how many shields you have - over to the man with the codex, here.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
locarno24 wrote:Shield wall boosting the save is definitely a no-no; by definition it's 'each facing not protected by the ion shield' as you state - so something improving the ion shield save can't really improve it.
The 6+ save is a byproduct of an additional special rule. Imagine an army-wide rule (a formation command benefit for the sake of the argument) that all plasma weapons gain the Instant Death rule; would you expect to outright kill your captain if his plasma pistol triggered the Gets Hot rule?
The second facing.....If it adds the save and doesn't say it replaces or improves your ion shield, then I guess you have two ion shields. The question is whether the rules for the ion shield allow you to pick more than one facing, no matter how many shields you have - over to the man with the codex, here.
Whilst I agree that the 6+ covers facings not covered by your Ion Shield. Shield wall boosts your Ion saves correct? Does the 6++ come from an Ion Shield? Irrefutably yes.
Going back to you plasma example if the rule instead stated "any wounds caused by plasma weapons gain Instant Death" then I would argue yes that would effect the Gets Hot rule.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
I'm pretty sure that when stacked correctly, the heirloom + benefits can net a Knight a 3++ Ion Shield with 5++ on the other 3 facings due to how the individual rules are worded.
Sanctuary
“Sanctuary counts as an ion shield. In addition, a Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield. Sanctuary cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks.”
Exalted Court
“Furthermore, before deployment, nominate one model in this Formation to be High King or Princeps of the knightly house; add 2 to this model’s Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics and add 1 to any invulnerable saving throw this model makes for its ion shield.”
Excerpts From: Workshop, Games. “Codex: Imperial Knights (eBook Edition).
SJ
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Surely a 3++ on 2 sides? With a 5++ on the other two?
61964
Post by: Fragile
Contradictory wording on the rule itself is going to make this argumentative.
""Sanctuary counts as an ion shield. In addition, a Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield. Sanctuary cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks""
It appears that they are making a separation between the Ion Shield and the 6+ Invuln generated by the rule.
Hard to say how that will go.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Fragile wrote:Contradictory wording on the rule itself is going to make this argumentative.
""Sanctuary counts as an ion shield. In addition, a Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield. Sanctuary cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks""
It appears that they are making a separation between the Ion Shield and the 6+ Invuln generated by the rule.
Hard to say how that will go.
That is pretty much my take on it. Getting 2 facings with a 4++ seems less debatable and a given RaW.
68355
Post by: easysauce
 jeffersonian000 wrote:I'm pretty sure that when stacked correctly, the heirloom + benefits can net a Knight a 3++ Ion Shield with 5++ on the other 3 facings due to how the individual rules are worded.
Sanctuary
“Sanctuary counts as an ion shield. In addition, a Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield. Sanctuary cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks.”
Exalted Court
“Furthermore, before deployment, nominate one model in this Formation to be High King or Princeps of the knightly house; add 2 to this model’s Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics and add 1 to any invulnerable saving throw this model makes for its ion shield.”
Excerpts From: Workshop, Games. “Codex: Imperial Knights (eBook Edition).
SJ
actually, by the rules you quoted, the other facings "not covered by its ion shield" 100% do *not* benefit from the +1 to their invul save, as the +1 is only for saves on ion shields.
how can a facing, not covered by the sanctuary/ion shield, receive a benefit of +1 that only affects saving throws made on its ion shield?
as for the model having two 4++s, due to having both the ion shield and sanctuary, depends on how its worded, if there is nothing to the effect that sanctuary replaces the ion shield, while RAI might not be so, RAW yes... sigh, you get two facings to choose a 4++ on.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
Because the Sanctuary Ion Shield is 4++/6++, as in, the 6++ is a product of the Ion Shield, and works the same as the Ion Shield except the it coves the rest of the facings rather than the one selected. It's right there in the rule.
On the other point, I see no rules of language indicating a second facing can be covered by the 4++. It reads that Sanctuary replaces the regular Ion Shield, not exists in addition to the regular Shield.
SJ
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Sanctuary does not replace Ion Shield and is an Ion shield. Nothing in Ion shield wording prevents multiples from working on a Knight. Automatically Appended Next Post: jeffersonian000 wrote:Because the Sanctuary Ion Shield is 4++/6++, as in, the 6++ is a product of the Ion Shield, and works the same as the Ion Shield except the it coves the rest of the facings rather than the one selected. It's right there in the rule.
On the other point, I see no rules of language indicating a second facing can be covered by the 4++. It reads that Sanctuary replaces the regular Ion Shield, not exists in addition to the regular Shield.
SJ
Where are you getting the replace wording?
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
 FlingitNow wrote:Sanctuary does not replace Ion Shield and is an Ion shield. Nothing in Ion shield wording prevents multiples from working on a Knight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeffersonian000 wrote:Because the Sanctuary Ion Shield is 4++/6++, as in, the 6++ is a product of the Ion Shield, and works the same as the Ion Shield except the it coves the rest of the facings rather than the one selected. It's right there in the rule.
On the other point, I see no rules of language indicating a second facing can be covered by the 4++. It reads that Sanctuary replaces the regular Ion Shield, not exists in addition to the regular Shield.
SJ
Where are you getting the replace wording?
Please cite a rule that says you can have more than one Ion Shield, and include the part where they tell us how that works. I'd really like to know where it is you think you can have more than one.
SJ
68355
Post by: easysauce
jeffersonian000 wrote:Because the Sanctuary Ion Shield is 4++/6++, as in, the 6++ is a product of the Ion Shield, and works the same as the Ion Shield except the it coves the rest of the facings rather than the one selected. It's right there in the rule.
On the other point, I see no rules of language indicating a second facing can be covered by the 4++. It reads that Sanctuary replaces the regular Ion Shield, not exists in addition to the regular Shield.
SJ
the +1 is to the ion sheild,
the 6++ is on a facing and im quoting the rule here *not covered by its ion sheild*
so, since the ion sheild doesnt cover the non chosen facing, and ONLY facings *not covered by the ion sheild* get a 6++, why would a +1 that *only* applies to the ion sheild, apply to a facing that is explicitly stated as not being covered by the ion sheild
the rules state the other facings are not covered by the ion sheilds save, yet you are applying an ion sheild *only* bonus to those facings that are not covered by the ion sheild.
76273
Post by: Eihnlazer
ignore.
93621
Post by: jokerkd
jeffersonian000 wrote: FlingitNow wrote:Sanctuary does not replace Ion Shield and is an Ion shield. Nothing in Ion shield wording prevents multiples from working on a Knight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeffersonian000 wrote:Because the Sanctuary Ion Shield is 4++/6++, as in, the 6++ is a product of the Ion Shield, and works the same as the Ion Shield except the it coves the rest of the facings rather than the one selected. It's right there in the rule.
On the other point, I see no rules of language indicating a second facing can be covered by the 4++. It reads that Sanctuary replaces the regular Ion Shield, not exists in addition to the regular Shield.
SJ
Where are you getting the replace wording?
Please cite a rule that says you can have more than one Ion Shield, and include the part where they tell us how that works. I'd really like to know where it is you think you can have more than one.
SJ
If the codex gives you an option to take another ion shield, (I'll be checking the wording when i get home) then that is the rule that says you can have two.......
As for how it works, the rules for ion shields in the codex are all you need to explain how to use them
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
 jokerkd wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote: FlingitNow wrote:Sanctuary does not replace Ion Shield and is an Ion shield. Nothing in Ion shield wording prevents multiples from working on a Knight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeffersonian000 wrote:Because the Sanctuary Ion Shield is 4++/6++, as in, the 6++ is a product of the Ion Shield, and works the same as the Ion Shield except the it coves the rest of the facings rather than the one selected. It's right there in the rule.
On the other point, I see no rules of language indicating a second facing can be covered by the 4++. It reads that Sanctuary replaces the regular Ion Shield, not exists in addition to the regular Shield.
SJ
Where are you getting the replace wording?
Please cite a rule that says you can have more than one Ion Shield, and include the part where they tell us how that works. I'd really like to know where it is you think you can have more than one.
SJ
If the codex gives you an option to take another ion shield, (I'll be checking the wording when i get home) then that is the rule that says you can have two.......
As for how it works, the rules for ion shields in the codex are all you need to explain how to use them
So, you have nothing you can cite that tells us that two Ion Shields can be taken, and how to use the second Ion Shield. Cool.
SJ Automatically Appended Next Post:  easysauce wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:Because the Sanctuary Ion Shield is 4++/6++, as in, the 6++ is a product of the Ion Shield, and works the same as the Ion Shield except the it coves the rest of the facings rather than the one selected. It's right there in the rule.
On the other point, I see no rules of language indicating a second facing can be covered by the 4++. It reads that Sanctuary replaces the regular Ion Shield, not exists in addition to the regular Shield.
SJ
the +1 is to the ion sheild,
the 6++ is on a facing and im quoting the rule here *not covered by its ion sheild*
so, since the ion sheild doesnt cover the non chosen facing, and ONLY facings *not covered by the ion sheild* get a 6++, why would a +1 that *only* applies to the ion sheild, apply to a facing that is explicitly stated as not being covered by the ion sheild
the rules state the other facings are not covered by the ion sheilds save, yet you are applying an ion sheild *only* bonus to those facings that are not covered by the ion sheild.
I cited the rules in question. Not sure why you didn't read them before posting.
SJ
93621
Post by: jokerkd
Every imperial knight has wargear "ion shield"
Option to take an heirloom on character model is stated in primary detachment and certain formation detachments.
If the heirloom is a shield that does not replace the standard wargear, you have two shields. Simples
How are the codex instructions on how to use an ion shield not able to cover using two?
You pick a facing for a shield. You pick a facing for a shield
68355
Post by: easysauce
SJ please explain how those facings (quoting rules here so dont try to argue im not) *that are not covered by the ION shield* somehow at the same time are covered by the ion shield and therefore receive the benefits an ion shield would get. Because Its a straight cut and simple contradiction with what RAW says to treat things *not covered by the ion shield* as being covered by the ion shield.
jokerkd wrote:Every imperial knight has wargear "ion shield"
Option to take an heirloom on character model is stated in primary detachment and certain formation detachments.
If the heirloom is a shield that does not replace the standard wargear, you have two shields. Simples
How are the codex instructions on how to use an ion shield not able to cover using two?
You pick a facing for a shield. You pick a facing for a shield
this is unfortunately, RAW in this case, not RAI i would gather, but technically you have two sheilds and there is no reason why both could not be used,
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Permission for 2 Ion Shields is simple: pages 102-106 Wargear Ion Shield list for every Knight. So we know they start with 1. Pages 107, 108 & 98 give permission to select Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses to 1 or more knight in the Detachment. Page 101 lists Sanctuary as an Heirloom for 15 points it does not state it replaces anything so it doesn't. Page 118 "Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield". So we know you have 2 Ion Shields. This seems like intent to me as there was no other reason to have the Sanctuary count as an Ion Shield.
So what does having 2 shields do? Page 117
"When an Imperial Knight is... blah blah blah... the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's ion shield is cover". So we pick a facing for each shield.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the 6+, what is the source of that save? Remembering if you say Sanctuary that is the same as saying an Ion Shield.
93621
Post by: jokerkd
FlingitNow wrote:
As for the 6+, what is the source of that save? Remembering if you say Sanctuary that is the same as saying an Ion Shield.
Sanctuary is not just an ion shield. "Counts as" is not the same as "is".
the rule says "any invulnerable save this model makes for it's ion shield"
the rule for sanctuary specifically states you only get a 6++ on facings that are "not covered by it's ion shield" that seems less debatable to me.
the obvious problem here is, it probably was meant to only be one shield. poorly written rules (too common lately) are what let you take both. this explains why both mentioned rules are written as if you only have one. because they probably were intended that way
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Consistently GW has ruled "counts as" being the same as "is".
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
easysauce wrote:
SJ please explain how those facings (quoting rules here so dont try to argue im not) *that are not covered by the ION shield* somehow at the same time are covered by the ion shield and therefore receive the benefits an ion shield would get. Because Its a straight cut and simple contradiction with what RAW says to treat things *not covered by the ion shield* as being covered by the ion shield.
jokerkd wrote:Every imperial knight has wargear "ion shield"
Option to take an heirloom on character model is stated in primary detachment and certain formation detachments.
If the heirloom is a shield that does not replace the standard wargear, you have two shields. Simples
How are the codex instructions on how to use an ion shield not able to cover using two?
You pick a facing for a shield. You pick a facing for a shield
this is unfortunately, RAW in this case, not RAI i would gather, but technically you have two sheilds and there is no reason why both could not be used,
I'll respond to your request by quoting the post you failed to read:
jeffersonian000 wrote:I'm pretty sure that when stacked correctly, the heirloom + benefits can net a Knight a 3++ Ion Shield with 5++ on the other 3 facings due to how the individual rules are worded.
Sanctuary
“Sanctuary counts as an ion shield. In addition, a Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield. Sanctuary cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks.”
Exalted Court
“Furthermore, before deployment, nominate one model in this Formation to be High King or Princeps of the knightly house; add 2 to this model’s Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics and add 1 to any invulnerable saving throw this model makes for its ion shield.”
Excerpts From: Workshop, Games. “Codex: Imperial Knights (eBook Edition).
SJ
60684
Post by: Drager
" the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's ion shield is cover"
So you declare one facing per knight, two Ion shields still only cover the one facing declared for the Knight as declarations are per Knight not per Ion Shield.
I think.
68355
Post by: easysauce
SJ come on man, you are being obtuse, I told you I read it, and that you were missing what the rules quoted actually say... im being polite and straight forward here man, at least read it objectively as you are completely ignoring the 2nd part of the rules for sanctuary. Sanctuary is and ION shield AND it provides and invul from a rule that is 100% not ion shield. rules that affect ion shield, would not affect invuls that come from other sources.
sanctuary has two parts, it counts as an ion shield, then *IN ADDITION* to counting as an ion shield, it has other rules that are not counted as an ion shield, and are explicitly stated as counting as *not covered by the ion shield*.. you seem to not be reading that second part for some reason.
note the red bit says it counts as ion shield, note the yellow bit specifically says its NOT counted as being covered by an ion shield... its just an invul covering the other sides as the rulse actuall state... ion shields only cover ONE side, not all sides, its a totally different rule then ion shield that covers the other facings... and the rules back me up to this effect when they state the *facing *NOT* covered by its ion shield*
red is ion sheild, orange is clearly something else rules that are in addition to, and separate from, ion sheild. after all, check the ion shield rules, do they talk about ++'s in other facings? no? thats because those other facings are not in the ion shield rules, and are not part of the ion shield.
Sanctuary
“Sanctuary counts as an ion shield. In addition, a Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield. Sanctuary cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks.”
Exalted Court
“Furthermore, before deployment, nominate one model in this Formation to be High King or Princeps of the knightly house; add 2 to this model’s Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics and add 1 to any invulnerable saving throw this model makes for its ion shield.”
Excerpts From: Workshop, Games. “Codex: Imperial Knights (eBook Edition).
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Drager wrote:" the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's ion shield is cover"
So you declare one facing per knight, two Ion shields still only cover the one facing declared for the Knight as declarations are per Knight not per Ion Shield.
I think.
Nope you declare 1 facing for each Knight's Ion Shield.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
easysauce wrote:SJ come on man, you are being obtuse, I told you I read it, and that you were missing what the rules quoted actually say... im being polite and straight forward here man, at least read it objectively as you are completely ignoring the 2nd part of the rules for sanctuary. Sanctuary is and ION shield AND it provides and invul from a rule that is 100% not ion shield. rules that affect ion shield, would not affect invuls that come from other sources.
sanctuary has two parts, it counts as an ion shield, then *IN ADDITION* to counting as an ion shield, it has other rules that are not counted as an ion shield, and are explicitly stated as counting as *not covered by the ion shield*.. you seem to not be reading that second part for some reason.
note the red bit says it counts as ion shield, note the yellow bit specifically says its NOT counted as being covered by an ion shield... its just an invul covering the other sides as the rulse actuall state... ion shields only cover ONE side, not all sides, its a totally different rule then ion shield that covers the other facings... and the rules back me up to this effect when they state the *facing *NOT* covered by its ion shield*
red is ion sheild, orange is clearly something else rules that are in addition to, and separate from, ion sheild. after all, check the ion shield rules, do they talk about ++'s in other facings? no? thats because those other facings are not in the ion shield rules, and are not part of the ion shield.
Sanctuary
“Sanctuary counts as an ion shield. In addition, a Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield. Sanctuary cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks.”
Exalted Court
“Furthermore, before deployment, nominate one model in this Formation to be High King or Princeps of the knightly house; add 2 to this model’s Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics and add 1 to any invulnerable saving throw this model makes for its ion shield.”
Excerpts From: Workshop, Games. “Codex: Imperial Knights (eBook Edition).
I blued the part where we disagree. Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield with an addition 6++ save covering the facings the main Ion Shield is not. This makes the 6++ portion still an Ion Shield (Sanctuary), while the 4++ portion is the original Ion Shield. Therefore, any bonuses to Ion Shield saves apply to the 6++ portion as well as the 4++, of which there is only one 4++ portion.
SJ
68355
Post by: easysauce
you are free to disagree, but the rules do state those facings are *not covered by the ion shield*
yet your argument contradicts that by treating those facings as if they were behind the ion shield, its a contradiction, but its pointless to discuss further if you dont see it.
lets agree to disagree
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
This makes the 6++ portion still an Ion Shield (Sanctuary), while the 4++ portion is the original Ion Shield. Therefore, any bonuses to Ion Shield saves apply to the 6++ portion as well as the 4++, of which there is only one 4++ portion part of the Sanctuary Ion Shield and another 4++ from your regular Ion Shield.
FTFY
93621
Post by: jokerkd
easysauce wrote:you are free to disagree, but the rules do state those facings are *not covered by the ion shield*
yet your argument contradicts that by treating those facings as if they were behind the ion shield, its a contradiction, but its pointless to discuss further if you dont see it.
lets agree to disagree
Yeah...... until an FAQ comes out, we're going to get nowhere with this one
63734
Post by: obsidiankatana
Don't think SJ is arguing that the facings are covered by an Ion Shield - rather that the origin of those invulnerable saves is a piece of wargear that counts as an Ion Shield. Since the invul bonus is to saves made by an Ion Shield - and the invulnerable saves originate from an Ion Shield (albeit one which covers one face only) those portions are boosted to 5++.
Not that I agree, but that's the argument I read.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
 obsidiankatana wrote:Don't think SJ is arguing that the facings are covered by an Ion Shield - rather that the origin of those invulnerable saves is a piece of wargear that counts as an Ion Shield. Since the invul bonus is to saves made by an Ion Shield - and the invulnerable saves originate from an Ion Shield (albeit one which covers one face only) those portions are boosted to 5++.
Not that I agree, but that's the argument I read.
Yes, that is what I am saying.
SJ
93621
Post by: jokerkd
Yeah, we get it. But if read like that, it dooms itself into a paradox where it doesnt get the 6++ at all because if it did, those facings would be covered by its "counts as" ion shield
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
jokerkd wrote:Yeah, we get it. But if read like that, it dooms itself into a paradox where it doesnt get the 6++ at all because if it did, those facings would be covered by its "counts as" ion shield
That makes no sense. A Knight with Sanctuary has a normal 4++ Ion Shield and a 6++ Sanctuary, which counts as an Ion Shield. There is no paradox.
SJ
63734
Post by: obsidiankatana
jokerkd wrote:Yeah, we get it. But if read like that, it dooms itself into a paradox where it doesnt get the 6++ at all because if it did, those facings would be covered by its "counts as" ion shield
I don't think you do get it. There's no argument that all facings are covered. The argument is that the source of the invul is wargear which counts as an ion shield, and the formation benefits boost invulnerable saves granted by an ion shield. Not that the invul upon the facing is placed - but any and all invuls granted by an ion shield. Traditionally, this is one facing. For the sake of this debate, there is an invulnerable save present (but not an ion shield) upon all facings due to the mere ownership of an ion shield.
91541
Post by: DoomShakaLaka
It doesn't doom itself because you never declared a facing for the 6+ as you do for ion shields. The 6+ is granted by the rule sanctuary not the shield itself. At least that's how I read it
68355
Post by: easysauce
the rules for the court, also say *add 1 to any invulnerable saving throw this model makes for its ion shield.” *
ok so sayyou got hit in the facing where the rules specifically have stated your ion shield is not in.
you have permission to add +1 to ion shield rolls,
and are hit in a facing you cannot make an ion shield roll on, because as stated in the rules the ion shield does not cover that facing or you would not have the 6++ in the first place
so people like SJ claim the following is true:
the facing the rules state is not covered by the ion shield so it receives a 6++ for not being covered by the ion shield.
It also receives +1 to its ion shield save throws because its covered by the ION shield.
then act like its not a paradox... they state that sanctuary IS an ion shield so its ok! right? no... its not, because then the 6++ facing IS covered by the ION shield, so wont grant the 6++ because its covering itself.
As soon as you try to claim that facing *not covered by the ion shield*(rules in **'s) you have a paradox, because only a facing NOT in the ion shield gets a 6++, and ONLY saving throws made on the ion shields facing get the +1. the ION shield is never stated to be on more then ONE facing by RAW and we specifically know its not on the 6++'s facing, so to contend its an NOT an ion shield roll to get the 6++ in the first place, then contend that it IS an ion shield to add +1 to your rolls, is a paradox, and by RAW illegal.
93621
Post by: jokerkd
SJ, paradoxes dont make sense. Thats why i used that word
Katana, if sanctuary is an ion shield, then any save it grants are from an ion shield, meaning there are no facings that are not covered by an ion shield.
Paradox:
a statement or proposition which, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable or self-contradictory.
76273
Post by: Eihnlazer
The sanctuary is an ion shield, so any saves it grants are considered ion shield saves. GW just put some more stupid wording in that causes this confusion.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
 Eihnlazer wrote:The sanctuary is an ion shield, so any saves it grants are considered ion shield saves. GW just put some more stupid wording in that causes this confusion.
This is correct. Sanctuary is considered an Ion Shield, that also covers all sides. Any invul save made with Sanctuary is by the rules an Ion Shield save.
No paradox.
SJ
93621
Post by: jokerkd
But you dont get 6++ on sides covered by the ion shield
Paradox
68355
Post by: easysauce
jeffersonian000 wrote: Eihnlazer wrote:The sanctuary is an ion shield, so any saves it grants are considered ion shield saves. GW just put some more stupid wording in that causes this confusion.
This is correct. Sanctuary is considered an Ion Shield, that also covers all sides. Any invul save made with Sanctuary is by the rules an Ion Shield save.
No paradox.
SJ
no you are ignoring part of the rules, and making illogical leaps that are not actual RAW.
you claim the ion shield covers all sides in one breath, despite the actual rules stating factually that the ion shield only covers ONE facing, and also stating that it DOES NOT cover the facings that gain a 6++. (which is proven by the fact we are told to put it in one facing, and we are also told it is NOT in the other facings)
and say there is no paradox.
Sanctuary by raw grants two saves, one save from the ion shield, and 3 saves in the non ion shield facings of a 6++
its an ion shield, in addition, its another save as well explicitly stated as not being an ion shield, thats what the rules state.
the rules do not state that its an ion shield that covers all facings, it just states it gets an invul in the other facings and states this invul is not from the ion shield..
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
you claim the ion shield covers all sides in one breath,
No he's saying it covers 1 side but provides the others with a 6++.
93621
Post by: jokerkd
Pretty sure this is exactly what he said........
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Fair enough. However what the rules say is that Sanctuary is an Ion Shield that covers 1 facing (like all other Ion shields) and provides a 6++ in the 2 other facings not covered by either Ion Shield. That 6++ is undeniably provided by an Ion Shield.
81346
Post by: BlackTalos
If the RaW is correctly copied: "add 1 to any invulnerable saving throw this model makes for its ion shield"
by easysauce, then i'd agree with "does not apply to the 6++"
That 6++ is undeniably provided by an Ion Shield, yes, but would you say with certainty that rolling the 6++ is a saving throw you make "for its ion shield"?
I can just relate to the thinking that:
Save provided by X rule
=/=
Save rolled for the X rule
So if we need another approximate example:
Rolling 3D6 because you have move through cover is indeed a Roll due to terrain.
But any rule saying "you can re-roll Terrain rolls" might not *definitely* apply to the Move through cover Rule, such as if you are affected by Strikedown.
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
Let me try and clear this up.
Sanctuary is an ion shield, so let's work through the rules.
First as you have an ion shield you choose a side to receive a 4++. Now you have 3 sides that are not covered by the ion shield, they receive a 6++. You do not need to check the sides on a constant basis, only when you first choose the side, thus no paradox(you select the ion shield side exactly 1 time and it is at that time sanctuary's rules kick in to provide the other sides with a different ion shield)
60684
Post by: Drager
FlingitNow wrote:Drager wrote:" the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's ion shield is cover"
So you declare one facing per knight, two Ion shields still only cover the one facing declared for the Knight as declarations are per Knight not per Ion Shield.
I think.
Nope you declare 1 facing for each Knight's Ion Shield.
Rules quote for that? The above quoted rule says its per Knight. Although I may have missed another rule somewhere.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
Sanctuary reads that the heirloom counts as an Ion Shield that in addition covers the facings not covered by the Ion Shield with a 6++ invul save. This means that the 6++ save is the Sanctuary Ion Shield, which is an Ion Shield, that exists in addition to the normal Ion Shield the Knight already mounts. So, you do not gain a second 4++ Ion Shield on one facing, you do gain a 6++ Ion Shield to the other three facings. Any benefits (or penalties) that generically apply to the 4++ normal save will also apply to the 6++ save.
An example of on odd interaction would be the Baronial Court benefit "Ionic Shieldwall":
Ionic Shieldwall: As long as an Imperial Knight from this Formation is within 6" of one or more other Imperial Knights from this Formation, it adds 1 to any invulnerable saving throw it makes for its ion shield on the front arc.
If a Sanctuary equipped Baronial Knight has it's Ion Shield covering it's side while within 6" of another Baronial Knight, it's front facing would be 5++, not 6++.
SJ
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Drager wrote: FlingitNow wrote:Drager wrote:" the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's ion shield is cover"
So you declare one facing per knight, two Ion shields still only cover the one facing declared for the Knight as declarations are per Knight not per Ion Shield.
I think.
Nope you declare 1 facing for each Knight's Ion Shield.
Rules quote for that? The above quoted rule says its per Knight. Although I may have missed another rule somewhere.
Your own quote? I literally repeated the words from it (dropping the unnecessary Imperial)... Automatically Appended Next Post:  Kommissar Kel wrote:Let me try and clear this up.
Sanctuary is an ion shield, so let's work through the rules.
First as you have an ion shield you choose a side to receive a 4++. Now you have 3 sides that are not covered by the ion shield, they receive a 6++. You do not need to check the sides on a constant basis, only when you first choose the side, thus no paradox(you select the ion shield side exactly 1 time and it is at that time sanctuary's rules kick in to provide the other sides with a different ion shield)
Nope you select a facing for each Imperial Knight's ion shield, not just 1 facing. The other 2 facings have a 6++ not covered by an Ion shield but granted by an Ion Shield...
60684
Post by: Drager
Well then I misparsed what you said. You declare a facing for "each Knight's Ion Shield" so one facing declared per knight. So two Ion shields still cover one facing.
The each we are talking about is not "Each Ion Shield", its "Each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield" so one selection per Knight.
If I choose Front for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield. I can't then choose Rear for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield as well.
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
Flingit; As Sanctuary is a relic(right? Don't have the book yet; not that matters it is still gear on 1 knight per instance), it is only on 1 knight. As it is only on 1 knight then trying to parse out the "each knights ion shield" is pointless as there is only 1 knight with the ion shield.
Now we get to timing. The sanctuary 6++ does not kick in until after you have chosen your facing for the Ion Shield. Once you choose a facing you have 3 other facings that are not covered by ion shields. Those 3 facings then get covered by (lesser) ion shields as they meet the requirements. There is no paradox, no problem, no issue.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Drager wrote:Well then I misparsed what you said. You declare a facing for "each Knight's Ion Shield" so one facing declared per knight. So two Ion shields still cover one facing.
The each we are talking about is not "Each Ion Shield", its "Each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield" so one selection per Knight.
If I choose Front for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield. I can't then choose Rear for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield as well.
I have Imperial Knight A with Ion Shields 1 & 2. I pick a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. I pick front for A1 right for A2. How have I broken that rule?
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
FlingitNow wrote:Drager wrote:Well then I misparsed what you said. You declare a facing for "each Knight's Ion Shield" so one facing declared per knight. So two Ion shields still cover one facing.
The each we are talking about is not "Each Ion Shield", its "Each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield" so one selection per Knight.
If I choose Front for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield. I can't then choose Rear for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield as well.
I have Imperial Knight A with Ion Shields 1 & 2. I pick a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. I pick front for A1 right for A2. How have I broken that rule?
Please cite the rules that prove you can have Knight A with Ion Shields 1& 2.
SJ
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Knight A has an Ion Shield listed in its Wargear.
Knight A takes Sanctuary.
Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield.
Sanctuary does not replace anything.
Knight A now has Ion Shield 1 (Ion Shield) and Ion Shield 2 (Sanctuary).
81346
Post by: BlackTalos
FlingitNow wrote:Drager wrote:Well then I misparsed what you said. You declare a facing for "each Knight's Ion Shield" so one facing declared per knight. So two Ion shields still cover one facing. The each we are talking about is not "Each Ion Shield", its "Each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield" so one selection per Knight. If I choose Front for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield. I can't then choose Rear for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield as well.
I have Imperial Knight A with Ion Shields 1 & 2. I pick a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. I pick front for A1 right for A2. How have I broken that rule?
I can guess that the argument is " each Knight's Ion Shield". You have Knights A, B and C. So the Rule "each Knight's Ion Shield" is "Knight A's Ion Shield" + "Knight B's Ion Shield" + "Knight C's Ion Shield". If you select "Knight A's Ion Shield" to be at the front, then his Ion shield is at the front, even if he has 2. IIRC though, when i read the Knight's rule, i thought i agreed with you (FlingIt) by RaW. [EDIT]: Just had a look at the WD Warden rules, and i remember why i agreed: The "Ion Shield" rule is singular ( "When an imperial Knight is deployed...")
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
 Happyjew wrote:Knight A has an Ion Shield listed in its Wargear.
Knight A takes Sanctuary.
Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield.
Sanctuary does not replace anything.
Knight A now has Ion Shield 1 (Ion Shield) and Ion Shield 2 (Sanctuary).
While in can be argued that way, it can also be argued that Sanctuary is the 6++ Ion Shield covering the rest of the facings, not an addition 4++ Ion Shield. So again, I ask you to cite the rules that state a Knight can have more than one Ion Shield, and please include the rules that give you permission to use this additional Ion Shield to cover a second facing.
SJ
35689
Post by: SilverSaint
If you read throughout the book, the intent seems fairly clear in all of the phrasing: each Knight has ONE ion shield. Never are is a Knights Ion Shield referred to as Shields. If you read the fluff for Sanctuary its referred to as an upgraded Ion Shield, so one would assume you would be replacing your current Ion Shield with this upgraded one. Throughout the book the term Ion Shield consistently refers to the actual shield itself, whereas the wargear, though it says Ion Shield, should technically say Ion Shield Generator. I can see the confusion the authors created by making "Ion Shield" and "Ion Shield Generator" completely interchangeable, when they actually just aren't.
I think the solution to this is fairly simple: Where Sanctuary states, " Sanctuary counts as an ion shield.", it actually meant to say, "Sanctuary counts as an ion shield generator." This simply didn't occur due to the author constantly interchanging the terms, thus if you simply read Sanctuary RAW without reading the rest of the codex you can easily misinterpret the rule.
I also feel this intent is further shown by the points cost. At 15 points a 6++ to each other facing seems fine, but gaining a directional 4++ and two other 6++ seems severely under costed.
As for the 6++ gaining from the +1 due to formation bonus, the formation clearly states, "saving throws made for its ion shield", and Sanctuary clearly stats, "a 6++ against each facing that is NOT covered by its ion shield". Sanctuary is meant to be an ion shield generator so the 6++ is not from an ion shield.
70326
Post by: DJGietzen
Would you still feel the same way if it was worded like "A Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield, in addition Sanctuary counts as an ion shield." ?
These seem like two different effects, not one being an extension of the first. I can see how you might read it that way but I don't believe the 6+ is intended to be a property of the ion shield.
93621
Post by: jokerkd
The fact that you can buy a relic that counts as an ion shield and doesn't replace the original is all the rules you need to justify having a second one.
Unfortunately, i have to concede that the ion shield rules do not allow for two facings to be covered, so having two is moot
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
jeffersonian000 wrote: Happyjew wrote:Knight A has an Ion Shield listed in its Wargear.
Knight A takes Sanctuary.
Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield.
Sanctuary does not replace anything.
Knight A now has Ion Shield 1 (Ion Shield) and Ion Shield 2 (Sanctuary).
While in can be argued that way, it can also be argued that Sanctuary is the 6++ Ion Shield covering the rest of the facings, not an addition 4++ Ion Shield. So again, I ask you to cite the rules that state a Knight can have more than one Ion Shield, and please include the rules that give you permission to use this additional Ion Shield to cover a second facing.
SJ
The underlined has no basis in RaW a Sanctuary is an Ion Shield.Taking it gives you 2 Ion Shields this is undeniable RaW.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
FlingitNow wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote: Happyjew wrote:Knight A has an Ion Shield listed in its Wargear.
Knight A takes Sanctuary.
Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield.
Sanctuary does not replace anything.
Knight A now has Ion Shield 1 (Ion Shield) and Ion Shield 2 (Sanctuary).
While in can be argued that way, it can also be argued that Sanctuary is the 6++ Ion Shield covering the rest of the facings, not an addition 4++ Ion Shield. So again, I ask you to cite the rules that state a Knight can have more than one Ion Shield, and please include the rules that give you permission to use this additional Ion Shield to cover a second facing.
SJ
The underlined has no basis in RaW a Sanctuary is an Ion Shield.Taking it gives you 2 Ion Shields this is undeniable RaW.
Let me post it again, since there seems to be a misconception on what's actually written:
Sanctuary
Sanctuary counts as an ion shield. In addition, a Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield. Sanctuary cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks.
The underlined does not say "is an Ion Shield", it says "counts as an Ion Shield". The part the starts with "In addition" tells us that Sanctuary is the 6++ portion of the rules, which counts as an Ion Shield, yet is not the Ion Shield.
SJ
46128
Post by: Happyjew
jeffersonian000, do you really want to go down the counts as=?=is discussion?
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Count as is the same as is in every other incidence in the rules. The in addition means in addition to being an Ion Shield. What do you think the in addition is adding to? What rule is the 6+ rule being added to? (Hint look at the sentence immediately preceeding it).
93621
Post by: jokerkd
This is getting ridiculous.
So sanctuary counts as an ion shield for the purpose of adding 1 to your invo, but does not count as an ion shield for the purpose of using the ion shield rules.
You trolling right?
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
None of that matters.
The wording is exactly the same as the old codex. It is not each shield possessed by a knight, it is each knight who possesses a shield(which is all of them).
The old codex had no way of adding a second shield so there was not this level of rc-fail.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
You are thinking "Ion Shield = whole package", while I am saying "Ion Shield = set of rules". For you, Sanctuary means "another Ion Shield + more rules", while for me it's "this is how it modifies the existing rules".
You way gets isn't supported in the rules, because no rules exist to support more than one Ion Shield, yet my way is support within the rules for Sanctuary.
SJ
68355
Post by: easysauce
jokerkd wrote:This is getting ridiculous.
So sanctuary counts as an ion shield for the purpose of adding 1 to your invo, but does not count as an ion shield for the purpose of using the ion shield rules.
You trolling right?
its scary that the contradiction isnt even acknowledged by some, and that we can have clear rules stating the ion shield isnt in those facings, but have people claim it is in facings that the rules specifically state it is not in.
the actual rules for sanctuary state its an ion sheild, that *in addition* also grants a non ion ++ save in other facings, its borderline trolling to ignore the rules and claim its legal to add +1 to an ion shield roll in a facing where we are explicitly told the ion shield doesnt cover.
its also bad English to treat a statement after the *in addition* part, as not being rules that are *in addition* to the ion shield rules, plain and simple.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
jeffersonian000 wrote:You are thinking "Ion Shield = whole package", while I am saying "Ion Shield = set of rules". For you, Sanctuary means "another Ion Shield + more rules", while for me it's "this is how it modifies the existing rules".
You way gets isn't supported in the rules, because no rules exist to support more than one Ion Shield, yet my way is support within the rules for Sanctuary.
SJ
It counts as an Ion Shield. Do you pick a facing for an Ion Shield ans get a 4++ in that facing? If so then you must do that for Sanctuary or you are not counting it as an Ion Shield. Everything that is true for an Ion Shield is true for Sanctuary in addition Sanctuary adds a 6++. Automatically Appended Next Post:
the actual rules for sanctuary state its an ion sheild, that *in addition* also grants a non ion ++ save in other facings, its borderline trolling to ignore the rules and claim its legal to add +1 to an ion shield roll in a facing where we are explicitly told the ion shield doesnt cover.
its also bad English to treat a statement after the *in addition* part, as not being rules that are *in addition* to the ion shield rules, plain and simple.
FTFY Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the +1 which do you get it on:
1) Invuns taken on facings COVERED by an Ion Shield?
2) Invuns taken GRANTED by an Ion Shield?
What do the rules say?
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
I'll post it again for those that keep asking questions which have already been answered:
Exalted Court
Furthermore, before deployment, nominate one model in this Formation to be High King or Princeps of the knightly house; add 2 to this model’s Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics and add 1 to any invulnerable saving throw this model makes for its ion shield.
Baronial Court
Ionic Shieldwall: As long as an Imperial Knight from this Formation is within 6" of one or more other Imperial Knights from this Formation, it adds 1 to any invulnerable saving throw it makes for its ion shield on the front arc.
Sanctuary
Sanctuary counts as an ion shield. In addition, a Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield. Sanctuary cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks.
The parts of Sanctuary that allow it to work with both the Exalted Court High King benefit and the Baronial Court's "Ion Shieldwall" benefit is underlined above. Those two points mean that any benefits triggered by an Ion Shield are also triggered by Sanctuary's granted 6++ save. This is because Sanctuary counts as a 4++ Ion Shield in the main arc and a 6++ Ion Shield not in the main arc. As in, the 6++ portion of Sanctuary "counts as" an Ion Shield.
SJ
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
Ok flingit; you keep quoting the each knight's ion shield bit, and only taking that fragment of the sentence.
You are taking the fragment out of context and applying the each to the ion shield the knight posseses.
However, the only way to take knights at all is via one if thier detachments or formations. Those consist of 1 or more knights. From what I have gathered the only way to take sanctuary is to take a detachment that has multiple knights.
The rule is that you choose a side to be covered by "each knight's" ion shield; so choose 1 side for each knight, their ion shield(no matter how many they have) will provide that side with the 4++.
Also, the rule is copy-pasted from the previous book where no knight could have more than 1 ion shield which should be very telling of how it is supposed to be read.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Whilst that is one possible interpretation particularly if a Knight only has 1 shield. However the wording is not strong enough to prevent 2 shields choosing 2 facings. Each Knight's Ion Shield allows each shield to choose a facing. Just repeating "it doesn't because I don't want it to" isn't how RaW works.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
FlingitNow wrote:Whilst that is one possible interpretation particularly if a Knight only has 1 shield. However the wording is not strong enough to prevent 2 shields choosing 2 facings. Each Knight's Ion Shield allows each shield to choose a facing. Just repeating "it doesn't because I don't want it to" isn't how RaW works.
Not having rules to support your position is also not how RAW works. Just saying "it doesn't say I can't have 2" does not mean "I can have 2".
SJ
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
Nor does "it does work because I want it to"
Take the phrase in context and see that applying the 1 situation where you can have 2 shields invalidates that "possible reading".
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Nope "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield" how many Imoerial Knght's Ion Shields do have? That's how many facings I MUST declare.
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
Yeah, sure it means that.
When you have trouble with reading comprehension and are taking a sentence fragment out of context.
You can do that with anything
Edited by RiTides - Please don't make jokes about racism on Dakka Dakka
37809
Post by: Kriswall
Kommissar Kel wrote:Yeah, sure it means that.
When you have trouble with reading comprehension and are taking a sentence fragment out of context.
You can do that with anything
You guys are also treating the Ion Shield like a special rule the Imperial Knight has. It's not. It's a piece of wargear. You follow its rules in relation to that piece of wargear. If the model ALSO has Sanctuary, you follow Sanctuary's rules in relation to THAT piece of wargear. Two pieces of wargear, two sets of rules.
Ion Shield tells you to pick a facing and give the model a 4++.
Sanctuary tells you to pretend like it's an Ion Shield (so you'd pick a facing and give the model a 4++) and then give all the other facings 6++.
We have to resolve each piece of wargear's rules separate from the others. I don't understand why people are trying to resolve both together or pretend like Sanctuary isn't a second piece of additional wargear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no rule telling us that if a model has two 'ion shields' that the model has to pick the same facing for both.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Kommissar Kel wrote:Yeah, sure it means that.
When you have trouble with reading comprehension and are taking a sentence fragment out of context.
You can do that with anything
I'm not taking the line out of context. Though I don't like that you said "No one would ever believe that Flingit now" I mean first referring to me as That Flingit now and saying no one would ever believe me .
Technically the way the rule is worded you must declare each shield not just when that Knight is deploy but every time a Knight is deployed so if there was some way to DS one you'd have to redeclare all your Knight's shields then.
Look this has been done now. We have 2 separate pieces of wargear that are each an Ion Shield. They both require us to declare facings for them at the start of each enemy shooting phase and whenever an Imperial Knight is deployed. This us undeniable RaW and has been since it was first pointed out on page 1 with quotes of all the relevant rules.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
There is no rule telling us that if a model has two 'ion shields' that the model has to pick the same facing for both.
And there are no rules informing us on how to apply two separate Ion Shields on the same Knight. Permissive rule set, you know. People keep saying it is so and that you can, yet all I ask is for the rules covering it to be cited. When I read Sanctuary, I do not read "Knight gains the use of a second 4++ Ion Shield, that you may chose a second facing cover at the start of your opponent's shooting phase". What I do read is, "the Knight now has a 6++ Ion Shield covering all facings not covered by the main 4++ save".
So, I ask again, please support your position with actual rules that cover how to apply two separate Ion Shields on the same Knight. Since you are so adamant it's RAW, cite the RAW. Please.
SJ
9594
Post by: RiTides
I've edited out the inappropriate analogy - please don't joke about racism in YMDC or on Dakka Dakka in general, even as an analogy! Thanks
83742
Post by: gungo
There is really no logical way you can disagree about the blue highlight part that states. "Not covered by its ion shield". That's a direct quote.
However sanctuary is an ion shield. Sanctuary is the 6++ save on other facings not covered by the original ion shield. There are two parts to this invul an actual ion shield and a sanctuary save. Which both should get benefits from effects that improve ion shields. Since sanctuary (the 6++) is an ion shield.
The double facing ion shield thing is neither rai nor really raw, but I'm sure people will try to argue it.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
gungo wrote:There is really no logical way you can disagree about the blue highlight part that states. "Not covered by its ion shield". That's a direct quote.
However sanctuary is an ion shield. Sanctuary is the 6++ save on other facings not covered by the original ion shield. There are two parts to this invul an actual ion shield and a sanctuary save. Which both should get benefits from effects that improve ion shields. Since sanctuary (the 6++) is an ion shield.
The double facing ion shield thing is neither rai nor really raw, but I'm sure people will try to argue it.
It is RaW Sanctuary is an Ion Shield and thus does everything an Ion Shield does, in addition to this it provides a 6++ on facings not covered by the Ion Shield. That is literally what Sanctuary says. Automatically Appended Next Post: jeffersonian000 wrote:There is no rule telling us that if a model has two 'ion shields' that the model has to pick the same facing for both.
And there are no rules informing us on how to apply two separate Ion Shields on the same Knight. Permissive rule set, you know. People keep saying it is so and that you can, yet all I ask is for the rules covering it to be cited. When I read Sanctuary, I do not read "Knight gains the use of a second 4++ Ion Shield, that you may chose a second facing cover at the start of your opponent's shooting phase". What I do read is, "the Knight now has a 6++ Ion Shield covering all facings not covered by the main 4++ save".
So, I ask again, please support your position with actual rules that cover how to apply two separate Ion Shields on the same Knight. Since you are so adamant it's RAW, cite the RAW. Please.
SJ
Please cite RaW that you can use an Ion Shield on a Tuesday. Or when it is sunny outside.
That is not how a permissive ruleset works. Ion Shields tell you to pick a facing for each ion shield. Sanctuary tells you it is an Ion Shield therefore you must pick a facing for it. You also retain your normal Ion Shield so must also pick a facing for that. This is how permissive rulesets work. They give general permissions which you follow unless you have an exception. So now you must show that either you don't get to pick a facing for Sanctuary, taking Sanctuary removes or prevents you from picking a facing for your existing Ion Shield or picking a facing prevents you from picking a different facing on the same Knight. None of the rules talked about so far say any of there above so you're going to have to quote something new. Good luck.
37809
Post by: Kriswall
jeffersonian000 wrote:There is no rule telling us that if a model has two 'ion shields' that the model has to pick the same facing for both.
And there are no rules informing us on how to apply two separate Ion Shields on the same Knight. Permissive rule set, you know. People keep saying it is so and that you can, yet all I ask is for the rules covering it to be cited. When I read Sanctuary, I do not read "Knight gains the use of a second 4++ Ion Shield, that you may chose a second facing cover at the start of your opponent's shooting phase". What I do read is, "the Knight now has a 6++ Ion Shield covering all facings not covered by the main 4++ save".
So, I ask again, please support your position with actual rules that cover how to apply two separate Ion Shields on the same Knight. Since you are so adamant it's RAW, cite the RAW. Please.
SJ
You don't need rules telling you how to use two shields. You needs rules telling you how to use one shield. You simply apply those rules twice as you have two ENTIRELY SEPARATE pieces of wargear. This will, of course, result in two different invulnerable saves on at least one facing, but thankfully we have rules telling us what to do when we have to pick between different saves.
Wargear #1 says pick a facing and give that facing a 4++ save.
Wargear #2 says pick a facing, give that facing a 4++ save and give all other facings a 6++ save.
Rules aren't optional, yet you insist that you don't have to pick a facing for the second piece of wargear. Where is your permission to ignore the wargear's rules? Genuinely curious. Page and paragraph telling you that you can ignore a portion of Sactuary's rules?
70451
Post by: Big Blind Bill
RAW: it does look like the model gets 4++ saves on 2 sides. These would both get increased to 3+ by the formation.
HIWPI: Only 1 side would get the save. I don't believe the game designers intended for a knight to be able to protect 2 sides, and sanctuary should replace the shield.
RAW: sanctuary, when effected by the formation, still only provides a 6++ save on all facings not protected by the ion shield. The reasoning can be deduced from the wording:
Formation quote:
and add +1 to any invulnerable saving throw this model makes for its ion shield.
Sanctuary quote
A knight equipped with sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
The 6++ is not covered by an Ion Shield but it is provided by one...
70451
Post by: Big Blind Bill
So it is simply an invulnerable save, as opposed to an ion shield invulnerable save.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
 Big Blind Bill wrote:So it is simply an invulnerable save, as opposed to an ion shield invulnerable save.
What provides that invunerable save?
70451
Post by: Big Blind Bill
Irrelevant. The invulnerable save is not an ion shield save as defined by the codex.
The 6++ effect is in addition to the normal effects of an ion shield.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Big Blind Bill wrote:
Irrelevant. The invulnerable save is not an ion shield save as defined by the codex.
The 6++ effect is in addition to the normal effects of an ion shield.
Where does the codex define an Ion Shield save?
70451
Post by: Big Blind Bill
Page 117.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Where exactly? I do not see the term Ion Shield Save on that page?
70451
Post by: Big Blind Bill
Formation quote:
and add +1 to any invulnerable saving throw this model makes for its ion shield.
Sanctuary quote
In addition, a knight equipped with sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield.
I'm not discussing this further. You evidently can't or don't want to read.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Yes the 6+ is not covered by the Ion Shield. It is however undeniably provided by an Ion Shield.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
Posting it again, because some posters don't seem to understand what they are arguing about:
Exalted Court
Furthermore, before deployment, nominate one model in this Formation to be High King or Princeps of the knightly house; add 2 to this model’s Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics and add 1 to any invulnerable saving throw this model makes for its ion shield.[/quote
Baronial Court
Ionic Shieldwall: As long as an Imperial Knight from this Formation is within 6" of one or more other Imperial Knights from this Formation, it adds 1 to any invulnerable saving throw it makes for its ion shield on the front arc.
Sanctuary
Sanctuary counts as an ion shield. In addition, a Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield. Sanctuary cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks.
As has been posted numerous times, Sanctuary provides a 6++ Ion Shield to each facing not covered by the actual 4++ Ion Shield. At no point is it stated that Sanctuary provides a second 4++ Ion Shield that can be faced differently to the main Ion Shield. Rule do not exist to cover facing more than one single-facing Ion Shield. Rules do exist to cover the 6++ Ion Shield, as seem under Sanctuary.
Stating that a Knight with Sanctuary has two separate 4++ Ion Shields and a 6++ power field is not indicated, although a single 4++ Ion Shield and an 360-degree 6++ Ion Shield is.
So, I again ask for you to cite actual rules to support your claim.
SJ
46128
Post by: Happyjew
jeffersonian000,
True or False: An Imperial Knight comes standard with an Ion Shield.
True or False: Sanctuary does not replace an Ion Shield.
True or False: The rules for Sanctuary specifically say that it's an Ion Shield (remembering that "Counts As" = "Is").
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
And again the rules;
So every Knight starts with an Ion Shield pages 102-106
Ion Shield - "When an Imperial Knight is deployed, and subsequently at the start of each of the opposing side’s Shooting phases before any attacks are carried out, the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering. The choices are: front, left side, right side or rear. The Knight has a 4+ invulnerable save against all hits on that facing until the start of your opponent’s next Shooting phase. Ion shields are repositioned before any attacks are carried out in the Shooting phase. Ion shields cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks."
Here we see if you have an Ion Shield you MUST pick a facing for it whenever an Imperial is deployed and at the start of each of your opponents shooting phases. This is not and option.
Sanctuary - "Sanctuary counts as an ion shield."
This tells us Sanctuary is an Ion Shield so everything that is true for an Ion Shield is true for Sanctuary unless Sanctuary tells us otherwise. It continues:
"In addition,"
This means in addition to the above so the rule that follows are extra in addition to being an Ion Shield and thus do not over write the Ion Shield rules.
"a Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield. Sanctuary cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks."
Cool I think we all agree this gives 6++ saves to facings not covered by the Ion Shield.
Then we go to page 101 and see "A model may take one of the following" so you take Sanctuary and it adds to your wargear. So you have an Ion Shield AND Sanctuary RaW. You MUST pick a facing for each of these whenever an Imperial Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases. Sanctuary in addition to being an Ion Shield also provides a 6++ in other facings. This is RaW.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
Then we go to page 101 and see "A model may take one of the following" so you take Sanctuary and it adds to your wargear. So you have an Ion Shield AND Sanctuary RaW. You MUST pick a facing for each of these whenever an Imperial Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases. Sanctuary in addition to being an Ion Shield also provides a 6++ in other facings. This is RaW.
Except for the underlined part, you are correct. There are no rules for more than one facable Ion Shield. You can assume how it works, which is HYWPI, not RAW.
SJ
37809
Post by: Kriswall
jeffersonian000 wrote:Then we go to page 101 and see "A model may take one of the following" so you take Sanctuary and it adds to your wargear. So you have an Ion Shield AND Sanctuary RaW. You MUST pick a facing for each of these whenever an Imperial Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases. Sanctuary in addition to being an Ion Shield also provides a 6++ in other facings. This is RaW.
Except for the underlined part, you are correct. There are no rules for more than one facable Ion Shield. You can assume how it works, which is HYWPI, not RAW.
SJ
Nobody is arguing that a single Ion Shield has multiple facings. I'm not sure why you keep saying this.
Ion Shield #1 - the default "Ion Shield", picks a facing. Single shield, single facing.
Counts As Ion Shield #2 - the Heirloom "Sanctuary", picks a facing. Single shield, single facing.
There are TWO ion shields in play. Each one faces in a SINGLE direction. Nothing says they both have to face the same direction.
Do you disagree that there are TWO ion shields in play? If so, why? There are two distinct pieces of wargear requiring a facing selection.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
jeffersonian, will you please address my points above?
37809
Post by: Kriswall
He can't. He has no rules backup. His posts are all based on flawed readings combined with a belief that a model with two ion shields somehow only has one ion shield.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
jeffersonian000 wrote:Then we go to page 101 and see "A model may take one of the following" so you take Sanctuary and it adds to your wargear. So you have an Ion Shield AND Sanctuary RaW. You MUST pick a facing for each of these whenever an Imperial Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases. Sanctuary in addition to being an Ion Shield also provides a 6++ in other facings. This is RaW.
Except for the underlined part, you are correct. There are no rules for more than one facable Ion Shield. You can assume how it works, which is HYWPI, not RAW.
SJ
I've never said you puck more than one facing for an Ion Shield only that you must pick a facing for each Ion Shield as the rules quoted prove. Can you actually come up with any rules to support your position?
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
I agree that there are two Ion Shields in play, one covering a single facing at 4++, and the other covering the remaining facings at 6++.
SJ Automatically Appended Next Post:
I already did.
 Kriswall wrote:
He can't. He has no rules backup. His posts are all based on flawed readings combined with a belief that a model with two ion shields somehow only has one ion shield.
I've posted the rules supporting my point of view on each page of this thread. Still waiting on you to do the same.
FlingitNow wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:Then we go to page 101 and see "A model may take one of the following" so you take Sanctuary and it adds to your wargear. So you have an Ion Shield AND Sanctuary RaW. You MUST pick a facing for each of these whenever an Imperial Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases. Sanctuary in addition to being an Ion Shield also provides a 6++ in other facings. This is RaW.
Except for the underlined part, you are correct. There are no rules for more than one facable Ion Shield. You can assume how it works, which is HYWPI, not RAW.
SJ
I've never said you puck more than one facing for an Ion Shield only that you must pick a facing for each Ion Shield as the rules quoted prove. Can you actually come up with any rules to support your position?
You post makes no sense. Please restate your point.
SJ
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
I've never said you pick more than one facing for an Ion Shield only that you must pick a facing for each Ion Shield as the rules quoted prove. Can you actually come up with any rules to support your position?
True or False: An Imperial Knight comes standard with an Ion Shield.
True or False: Sanctuary does not replace an Ion Shield.
True or False: The rules for Sanctuary specifically say that it's an Ion Shield (remembering that "Counts As" = "Is").
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
FlingitNow wrote:I've never said you pick more than one facing for an Ion Shield only that you must pick a facing for each Ion Shield as the rules quoted prove. Can you actually come up with any rules to support your position?
True or False: An Imperial Knight comes standard with an Ion Shield.
True or False: Sanctuary does not replace an Ion Shield.
True or False: The rules for Sanctuary specifically say that it's an Ion Shield (remembering that "Counts As" = "Is").
I've supported my position on each page of the thread with the rules in question. Have you?
As to your questions, the first two are True, while the second is worded incorrectly. Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, yet Sanctuary is not an actual Ion Shield. Rules that modify Ion Shields will modify Sanctuary, because Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield. Sanctuary does not provide a second 4++ save, it does provide an addition 6++ save.
SJ
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, yet Sanctuary is not an actual Ion Shield.
So Sanctuary only counts as an Ion Shield for certain rules? Not for instance for the ion shield rules? That is your stance correct? If so please provide the rule that defines when Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield and when it doesn't?
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
FlingitNow wrote: Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, yet Sanctuary is not an actual Ion Shield.
So Sanctuary only counts as an Ion Shield for certain rules? Not for instance for the ion shield rules? That is your stance correct? If so please provide the rule that defines when Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield and when it doesn't?
I've posted the rules for Sanctuary on each page of this thread. Please keep up.
SJ
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
jeffersonian000 wrote: FlingitNow wrote: Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, yet Sanctuary is not an actual Ion Shield.
So Sanctuary only counts as an Ion Shield for certain rules? Not for instance for the ion shield rules? That is your stance correct? If so please provide the rule that defines when Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield and when it doesn't?
I've posted the rules for Sanctuary on each page of this thread. Please keep up.
SJ
Cool point to the part that states Sanctuary does not count as an Ion Shield for the Ion Shield rules because I'm not seeing that part.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
FlingitNow wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote: FlingitNow wrote: Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, yet Sanctuary is not an actual Ion Shield.
So Sanctuary only counts as an Ion Shield for certain rules? Not for instance for the ion shield rules? That is your stance correct? If so please provide the rule that defines when Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield and when it doesn't?
I've posted the rules for Sanctuary on each page of this thread. Please keep up.
SJ
Cool point to the part that states Sanctuary does not count as an Ion Shield for the Ion Shield rules because I'm not seeing that part.
Nice how you changed your argument in an attempt to prove me wrong. I have always posted that Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, as seen in the rules for Sanctuary that I have posted on each page of this thread. So I'm going to assume that's a typo on your part, and ask that you restate your point.
SJ
46128
Post by: Happyjew
jeffersonian000 wrote:Nice how you changed your argument in an attempt to prove me wrong. I have always posted that Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, as seen in the rules for Sanctuary that I have posted on each page of this thread. So I'm going to assume that's a typo on your part, and ask that you restate your point.
SJ
If Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, then it counts as providing a 4+ invulnerable save on one facing. Yet you have made claims that all it does is provide a 6+ invulnerable save to all facings.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
jeffersonian000 wrote: FlingitNow wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote: FlingitNow wrote: Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, yet Sanctuary is not an actual Ion Shield.
So Sanctuary only counts as an Ion Shield for certain rules? Not for instance for the ion shield rules? That is your stance correct? If so please provide the rule that defines when Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield and when it doesn't?
I've posted the rules for Sanctuary on each page of this thread. Please keep up.
SJ
Cool point to the part that states Sanctuary does not count as an Ion Shield for the Ion Shield rules because I'm not seeing that part.
Nice how you changed your argument in an attempt to prove me wrong. I have always posted that Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, as seen in the rules for Sanctuary that I have posted on each page of this thread. So I'm going to assume that's a typo on your part, and ask that you restate your point.
SJ
I haven't changed argument at all. Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield. Therefore anything true for an Ion Shield is true for Sanctuary. An Ion Shield requires you to pick a facing to receive a 4++.
Which of those statements is incorrect?
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
Happyjew wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:Nice how you changed your argument in an attempt to prove me wrong. I have always posted that Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, as seen in the rules for Sanctuary that I have posted on each page of this thread. So I'm going to assume that's a typo on your part, and ask that you restate your point.
SJ
If Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, then it counts as providing a 4+ invulnerable save on one facing. Yet you have made claims that all it does is provide a 6+ invulnerable save to all facings.
And again you provide either you have not bothered to read my posts, or you fail to understand what I posted. To reiterate, I am saying that that are no rules to support multiple 4++ Ion Shields on a single Knight, but there are rules supporting one 4++ Ion Shield that also covers the remaining facings with a 6++ save. Please cite actual rules to support your position beyond HYWPI.
I haven't changed argument at all. Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield. Therefore anything true for an Ion Shield is true for Sanctuary. An Ion Shield requires you to pick a facing to receive a 4++.
Which of those statements is incorrect?
Which of what statements? I'm still waiting for you to cite actual rules that support two 4++ savings
SJ
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
1) Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield for all rules purposes yes or no?
2) Therefore anything that is true from an Ion Shield is true for sanctuary.
3) An Ion shield must choose a facing to gain a 4++ whenever a Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases.
Which of those 3 statements is incorrect?
37809
Post by: Kriswall
jeffersonian000 wrote: Happyjew wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:Nice how you changed your argument in an attempt to prove me wrong. I have always posted that Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, as seen in the rules for Sanctuary that I have posted on each page of this thread. So I'm going to assume that's a typo on your part, and ask that you restate your point.
SJ
If Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, then it counts as providing a 4+ invulnerable save on one facing. Yet you have made claims that all it does is provide a 6+ invulnerable save to all facings.
And again you provide either you have not bothered to read my posts, or you fail to understand what I posted. To reiterate, I am saying that that are no rules to support multiple 4++ Ion Shields on a single Knight, but there are rules supporting one 4++ Ion Shield that also covers the remaining facings with a 6++ save. Please cite actual rules to support your position beyond HYWPI.
I haven't changed argument at all. Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield. Therefore anything true for an Ion Shield is true for Sanctuary. An Ion Shield requires you to pick a facing to receive a 4++.
Which of those statements is incorrect?
Which of what statements? I'm still waiting for you to cite actual rules that support two 4++ savings
SJ
And we're still waiting for rules as to why you're only following PART of the Sanctuary rules. Sanctuary requires you to choose a facing and give it a 4++. You have yet to post any sort of compelling reason as to why you're arbitrarily ignoring part of the rules. Following wargear rules isn't optional.
The fact that everyone disagrees with you should probably be an indicator that maybe you're missing a key point.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
I'm not following part of the rules, I'm following all of them. But unlike you, I'm not making up rules.
Also, that are other posters on this and the other thread that share the same position I do.
SJ
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
1) Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield for all rules purposes yes or no?
2) Therefore anything that is true from an Ion Shield is true for sanctuary.
3) An Ion shield must choose a facing to gain a 4++ whenever a Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases.
Which of those 3 statements is incorrect?
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
FlingitNow wrote:1) Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield for all rules purposes yes or no?
2) Therefore anything that is true from an Ion Shield is true for sanctuary.
3) An Ion shield must choose a facing to gain a 4++ whenever a Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases.
Which of those 3 statements is incorrect?
You can keep posting your attempt to affirm the consequent, to which I have already answered. Since I'm now sure you are just trolling, I be moving you to my ignore list.
SJ
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
jeffersonian000 wrote: FlingitNow wrote:1) Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield for all rules purposes yes or no?
2) Therefore anything that is true from an Ion Shield is true for sanctuary.
3) An Ion shield must choose a facing to gain a 4++ whenever a Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases.
Which of those 3 statements is incorrect?
You can keep posting your attempt to affirm the consequent, to which I have already answered. Since I'm now sure you are just trolling, I be moving you to my ignore list.
SJ
So which of those statements is untrue? I'm guessing you can't answer as all those things are directly in the rules and admitting that is admitting to our interpretation. That is always going to be the case when you're arguing against clear RaW. Your concession is accepted please clearly mark all future posts as HYWPI.
93621
Post by: jokerkd
FlingitNow wrote:1) Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield for all rules purposes yes or no?
2) Therefore anything that is true from an Ion Shield is true for sanctuary.
3) An Ion shield must choose a facing to gain a 4++ whenever a Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases.
Which of those 3 statements is incorrect?
the third statement.
the rules do not say each shield picks a facing. they say each knight must pick A facing.
RAW you may have two, but RAW you can only pick one facing.
the way JC is explaining it is ( imo) clearly RAI, and due to the contradiction above the end result is the same. you will only get get one 4++ facing.
as for the 6++, the sanctuary rule does seem to contradict itself. so RAI is just as unclear as RAW, especially if RAI sanctuary is supposed to replace the standard ion shield. which seems the most likely intention
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
jokerkd wrote: FlingitNow wrote:1) Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield for all rules purposes yes or no?
2) Therefore anything that is true from an Ion Shield is true for sanctuary.
3) An Ion shield must choose a facing to gain a 4++ whenever a Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases.
Which of those 3 statements is incorrect?
the third statement.
the rules do not say each shield picks a facing. they say each knight must pick A facing.
RAW you may have two, but RAW you can only pick one facing.
the way JC is explaining it is ( imo) clearly RAI, and due to the contradiction above the end result is the same. you will only get get one 4++ facing.
as for the 6++, the sanctuary rule does seem to contradict itself. so RAI is just as unclear as RAW, especially if RAI sanctuary is supposed to replace the standard ion shield. which seems the most likely intention
Cool so the rules don't say "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield"? Is that your claim?
93621
Post by: jokerkd
FlingitNow wrote: jokerkd wrote: FlingitNow wrote:1) Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield for all rules purposes yes or no?
2) Therefore anything that is true from an Ion Shield is true for sanctuary.
3) An Ion shield must choose a facing to gain a 4++ whenever a Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases.
Which of those 3 statements is incorrect?
the third statement.
the rules do not say each shield picks a facing. they say each knight must pick A facing.
RAW you may have two, but RAW you can only pick one facing.
the way JC is explaining it is ( imo) clearly RAI, and due to the contradiction above the end result is the same. you will only get get one 4++ facing.
as for the 6++, the sanctuary rule does seem to contradict itself. so RAI is just as unclear as RAW, especially if RAI sanctuary is supposed to replace the standard ion shield. which seems the most likely intention
Cool so the rules don't say "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield"? Is that your claim?
No. I am well aware of what the rules say. over the course of this thread, i have read them many times
you are not recognizing the fact that the wargear is not named "Imperial knights ion shield" it is named "Ion shield". for any native english speaker, it should be clear that "imperial knight's" is plural, and "Ion shield" is singular. "Imperial knight's Ion shield" is NOT singular
46128
Post by: Happyjew
jokerkd wrote:No. I am well aware of what the rules say. over the course of this thread, i have read them many times
you are not recognizing the fact that the wargear is not named "Imperial knights ion shield" it is named "Ion shield". for any native english speaker, it should be clear that "imperial knight's" is plural, and "Ion shield" is singular. "Imperial knight's Ion shield" is NOT singular
I didn't do to well in HS English, so I might be off, but I read it as "Imperial Knight's" being possessive. In other words, the subject is the Ion Shield "owned" by the Imperial Knight, instead of say an Ion Shield owned by Guardsman Bob.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
No. I am well aware of what the rules say. over the course of this thread, i have read them many times
you are not recognizing the fact that the wargear is not named "Imperial knights ion shield" it is named "Ion shield". for any native english speaker, it should be clear that "imperial knight's" is plural, and "Ion shield" is singular. "Imperial knight's Ion shield" is NOT singular
Yet I'm a native English speaker and you have a foreign flag on your tag. Imperial Knight's is possessive, Ion Shield being the subject.
We have 2 pieces of warhead both require the following:
When an Imperial Knight is deployed, and subsequently at the start of each of the opposing side’s Shooting phases before any attacks are carried out, the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering.
If you are only doing that for 1 piece of war gear why? Where is your permission to ignore the other piece of wargear?
93621
Post by: jokerkd
Happyjew wrote: jokerkd wrote:No. I am well aware of what the rules say. over the course of this thread, i have read them many times
you are not recognizing the fact that the wargear is not named "Imperial knights ion shield" it is named "Ion shield". for any native english speaker, it should be clear that "imperial knight's" is plural, and "Ion shield" is singular. "Imperial knight's Ion shield" is NOT singular
I didn't do to well in HS English, so I might be off, but I read it as "Imperial Knight's" being possessive. In other words, the subject is the Ion Shield "owned" by the Imperial Knight, instead of say an Ion Shield owned by Guardsman Bob.
it is possessive. i miswrote my explanation. actually, if it wasn't possessive, eg: "Imperial knights Ion shield" you would have a better argument
"each" refers to a singular subject
"Each model's ion shield" is the equivalent of how it should be read
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does my Australian flag suggest i am not a native English speaker?
37809
Post by: Kriswall
jokerkd wrote: Happyjew wrote: jokerkd wrote:No. I am well aware of what the rules say. over the course of this thread, i have read them many times
you are not recognizing the fact that the wargear is not named "Imperial knights ion shield" it is named "Ion shield". for any native english speaker, it should be clear that "imperial knight's" is plural, and "Ion shield" is singular. "Imperial knight's Ion shield" is NOT singular
I didn't do to well in HS English, so I might be off, but I read it as "Imperial Knight's" being possessive. In other words, the subject is the Ion Shield "owned" by the Imperial Knight, instead of say an Ion Shield owned by Guardsman Bob.
it is possessive. i miswrote my explanation. actually, if it wasn't possessive, eg: "Imperial knights Ion shield" you would have a better argument
"each" refers to a singular subject
"Each model's ion shield" is the equivalent of how it should be read
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does my Australian flag suggest i am not a native English speaker?????
Brits love to lord the Queen's English over us colonists.
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
This colonist read it under proper English, why can't you?
Also GW is English English, all their rules should be read as such(and they all make sense in this manner as well)
70451
Post by: Big Blind Bill
One issue I really have about YMDC is that it often devolves to arguing rules for arguing's sake.
I wish OPs would provide a poll of HIWPI to make it more clear on how people actually play the game, as well as the having an actual discussion over the exact wording.
Glancing at YDMC so often gives the impression of dakka being filled with WAAC players trying to twist an interpretation to their advantage, which is of course not the case.
Do people really think they should gain a second ion shield and a 6++ save on the other sides for only 15 points?
Sure, nowhere does it state that Sanctuary replaces the ion shield, but do people honestly believe it was the designers intention to give a knight 2 of them?
Do people honestly believe that the 6++ save of sanctuary, which effects the area not covered by the ion shield, still counts as an ion shield?
I think it would be nice to see how everyone plays it, rather than only being able to see the hardline rule lawyers and WAAC players battling it out.
84070
Post by: Kaela_Mensha_Khaine
Big Blind Bill wrote:Do people really think they should gain a second ion shield and a 6++ save on the other sides for only 15 points?
Sure, nowhere does it state that Sanctuary replaces the ion shield, but do people honestly believe it was the designers intention to give a knight 2 of them?
Well they made the Wraithknight only 295 points so giving a 350+ points model an extra 4++ in one arc and 6++ in the other two is not far from the imagination of what the designers intention could be.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Do people really think they should gain a second ion shield and a 6++ save on the other sides for only 15 points?
Sure, nowhere does it state that Sanctuary replaces the ion shield, but do people honestly believe it was the designers intention to give a knight 2 of them?
To be honest I don't really see an intent argument against it. They tell us it is an Ion Shield. Perhaps they didn't understand what that meant is the intent argument. Yet they then say "in addition" this seems to clear as day tell us they know the first part has a rules meaning and the second part adds rules to that. So we KNOW (as much as you can) that they are aware that Sanctuary is a full Ion Shield with extra rules. Then in the Heirlooms section they go to great lengths explaining exactly what replaces what so they also know that to stop you having two of something you need to replace the old item when taking the Heirloom. Thus is appears they absolutely know how this rule interaction works due to clear choices they have made. Therefore it seems clear that the only reasonable assumption on their intent is that the Sanctuary gives you two facings for your shield.
Do people honestly believe that the 6++ save of sanctuary, which effects the area not covered by the ion shield, still counts as an ion shield?
Well it is still undeniably a save granted by an Ion Shield. However it appears the intent is less clear here as there is no obviously deliberate wording used to force this interpretation, and there is wording that at at least a casual glance implies this shouldn't work. I would say the intent here is not clear and thus would play RaW if my opponent had the item but discuss with my opponent for his opinion if I had it.
21942
Post by: StarHunter25
Rather than start a new thead, I figured I'd put this here.
I'm making the assumption that the wording of the Knight Lancer allows it to be fielded in the new Codex without issue.(if you disagree please discuss this part elsewhere) How does Sanctuary interact with the ion gauntlet? Neither are Ion Shields (the wargear), but both "count as" ion shields with specific addendums. The gauntlet cannot cover the rear facing but works in close combat. Sanctuary covers any facing but doesnt work in CC. Thoughts?
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
StarHunter25 wrote:Rather than start a new thead, I figured I'd put this here.
I'm making the assumption that the wording of the Knight Lancer allows it to be fielded in the new Codex without issue.(if you disagree please discuss this part elsewhere) How does Sanctuary interact with the ion gauntlet? Neither are Ion Shields (the wargear), but both "count as" ion shields with specific addendums. The gauntlet cannot cover the rear facing but works in close combat. Sanctuary covers any facing but doesnt work in CC. Thoughts?
Sanctuary can cover any facing and gives a 6++ in all the other facings. Gauntlet covers another facing but can't be rear and gives you theCC invun.
|
|
