When you pay points for sanctuary, does it take over for the current stock ion shield, or is it considered a second ion shield, therefore granting you two sides of your choosing for the equipped knight? My friend and I got into an arguement over this yesterday after I declared both the front and left side of my knight as he had units on both, and my knight was equipped with sanctuary. The ruling for sanctuary states nothing of replacing the current ion shield, just that sanctuary is an ion shield. Leading me to understand I'm purchasing another ion shield on top of the stock one.
You are purchasing a second shield. It doesn't replace the current one. It states ( counts as an ion shield, doesn't say it replaces Wargear like the weapons which explicitly do state that)
However we have no way of knowing whether or not you can declare them on separate facings or if you have to put them both on the same side during the declaration step. Thus people argue about it.
While I thank you for a quick answer, sarcasm isn't needed. Question will be asked multiple times. It is bound to happen and will for the entirity of 40k. Get used to it or quit is what I suggest.
Sorry Pain, but last time I remember this getting brought up it just devolved into a bunch of circular arguments... actually that seems to happen alot on YMDC. Its an iffy topic kinda like the whole IC skyhammer situation. People will probably cry foul even if they let you play it from strict RAW.
Bad memories is all. Meant no offense to you personally.
DoomShakaLaka wrote: Sorry Pain, but last time I remember this getting brought up it just devolved into a bunch of circular arguments... actually that seems to happen alot on YMDC. Its an iffy topic kinda like the whole IC skyhammer situation. People will probably cry foul even if they let you play it from strict RAW.
Bad memories is all. Meant no offense to you personally.
I completely understand and I appreciate it man. I was honestly just curious. I read the entirity of the above posted thread, and pretty much have decided I'll ask my opponents their interpretation for friendly games, maybe ending in a dice roll off, and in tournies ask the TO how they rule it. Thank you guys!
My buddy that takes a baronial court to events lately just makes two lists, one with sanctuary and one with those points elsewhere, and asks about the ruling when he gets there. He doesn't think a 6++ on the 3 other sides is worth those points, and I sorta agree.
I also agree and will probably be doing something similar. Having two 4+ shields on two sides and a 6+ on the other two is worth 15, but 15 for 6+ on 3 sides and no other benefits is not
Having two 4++ and a 6++ on the other two is way too powerful for a 15 point upgrade. 6++ on three sides the use the same rules as Ion Shields actually does fit a 15 point upgrade.
I guess some could see it that way. But knights aren't as durable as everyone seems to think. As the thread link above shows, it does show the upgrade is separate. It's up to friends and tournies to decide from there whether you get two choices or your one works for both
Except that the above link does not show that Sanctuary is a separate upgrade from the standard Ion Shield, as there is an entire 5 page argument over that specific point.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Except that the above link does not show that Sanctuary is a separate upgrade from the standard Ion Shield, as there is an entire 5 page argument over that specific point.
It allows you to choose one knight in your detachment to take relics therefore technically could grant him to be able to take one. I'm not 100% on this, but it seems this way from the wording of the codex. Guys I'm not trying to cheat. I even said I'd go off whatever a TO says. This relic and rules are poorly written, and there are a few ways to take it. I don't want to be thought of as "trying to cheat" as I don't feel that's what's going on.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: It allows you to choose one knight in your detachment to take relics therefore technically could grant him to be able to take one. I'm not 100% on this, but it seems this way from the wording of the codex. Guys I'm not trying to cheat. I even said I'd go off whatever a TO says. This relic and rules are poorly written, and there are a few ways to take it. I don't want to be thought of as "trying to cheat" as I don't feel that's what's going on.
No one said your trying to cheat.
This is a rules DISCUSSION after all, and we should be doing our best to discuss ALL possible interpretations.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Except that the above link does not show that Sanctuary is a separate upgrade from the standard Ion Shield, as there is an entire 5 page argument over that specific point.
SJ
Actually the linked thread absolutely proves that. There is nothing that even suggests Sanctuary is an upgrade to an existing ion shield.
Sanctuary as written gives 2 ion shields that you can pick facings for. 6++ in 3 facings does seem like the type of upgrade GW would charge 15 points for. However it clearly states it count as an additional Ion Shield so the intent seems to follow the RaW in this case.
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.
Some people read that as "you get a second Ion Shield, a 6++ everywhere else", while others read that as "in addition to your Ion Shield, you get a 6++ Ion Shield on the other three facings". One side of the argument is correct. The fact that "Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield" rather "Sanctuary is an Ion Shield" points to used the rules for Ion Shields except .... And that exception is that it grants a 6++ to the faces not covered by the actual Ion Shield. That jives with the 15 point cost, and it jives with a common reading of the rule. The fact that he Ion Shield rules do not cover having more than one facable 4++ shield lends itself to this reading.
On the flip side, getting two 4++ saves for a measly 15 points seems like an exploit the other side really really wishs was the case.
While I agree SJ.. you also have to admit, and actually did admit,neither way is 100% clear. We can say we are pretty sure they meant x or y all day long. They could of really meant z. Fact is no one knows. Not 100% at least.
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.
Some people read that as "you get a second Ion Shield, a 6++ everywhere else", while others read that as "in addition to your Ion Shield, you get a 6++ Ion Shield on the other three facings". One side of the argument is correct. The fact that "Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield" rather "Sanctuary is an Ion Shield" points to used the rules for Ion Shields except .... And that exception is that it grants a 6++ to the faces not covered by the actual Ion Shield. That jives with the 15 point cost, and it jives with a common reading of the rule. The fact that he Ion Shield rules do not cover having more than one facable 4++ shield lends itself to this reading.
On the flip side, getting two 4++ saves for a measly 15 points seems like an exploit the other side really really wishs was the case.
SJ
Counts as and is are identical from a rules perspective. If you are saying that Sanctuary is not an Ion shield in anyway you are not counting it as an Ion. So it is an Ion Shield. Now is the intent for it to supply the 6+ instead of the usual 4+ or in addition to the usual 4+? Again the rules provide a very clear answer by using the wording additionally. So we know both the RaW and the intent say the 6+ is in addition to the 4+ that Sanctuary provides. So does Sanctuary replace your existing Ion Shield? Well nothing in Sanctuary or the Ion Shield rules state or even imply this to be the case. What about the upgrade purchase is that a may take (thus adding to existing equipment) or a may upgrade one item to or may exchange? Well lets look at the Gauntlet we know that needs to replace the existing CCW and guess what it tells you that when you take that upgrade you must replace the relevant weapon. So we know the intent and RaW is that Sanctuary does not replace the existing Ion Shield.
Sanctuary is a 6++ save to all facings that counts as an Ion Shield, which means it cannot be used versus melee attacks, yet can be effected by rules that modify Ion Shields.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Sanctuary is a 6++ save to all facings that counts as an Ion Shield, which means it cannot be used versus melee attacks, yet can be effected by rules that modify Ion Shields.
SJ
Does an Ion Shield provide a 4++ in a facing you choose at the start of each shooting phase?
If you answer yes to that question it is the same as saying:
"Sanctuary counts as providing a 4++ in a facing you choose at the start of each shooting phase"
Also why are you ignoring that the 6++ is in addition to being an Ion Shield?
jeffersonian000 wrote: Sanctuary is a 6++ save to all facings that counts as an Ion Shield, which means it cannot be used versus melee attacks, yet can be effected by rules that modify Ion Shields.
SJ
Does an Ion Shield provide a 4++ in a facing you choose at the start of each shooting phase?
If you answer yes to that question it is the same as saying:
"Sanctuary counts as providing a 4++ in a facing you choose at the start of each shooting phase"
Also why are you ignoring that the 6++ is in addition to being an Ion Shield?
I'm not, I just know what a comma means. Also, I already explained it in the post you quoted. Yay, literacy!
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.
Doesn't seem like something debatable to me...
It count as a ion shield (4++ on a facing you choose) and in addition to that, you have a 6+ invul save againt facing not covered by ion shield, so the 2 other side, or 3 if you choose (for some reason) to place Sanctuary and Ion shield on the same facing.
well, a ion shield make you pick a facing. You now have 2 shield.... so you go though the process of picking a facing twice...
and since nothing says that multiple ion shield must all face the same direction, I don't see why people are making a fuss about that rule (except maybe pure hate lol)
The state pick a facing for each shield, 2 shields means 2 facings. This is the clear RaW and seems the only reasonable RaI so I don't see a reason to play it any other way.
The "each" refers to the Knights, not the Ion Shield
Each Imperial Knight and their singular Ion Shield
You can rewrite as "declare for each Imperial Knight which facing it's Ion shield is covering" and the meaning is unchanged. Meaning Ion Shield is still singular.
FLing - it is reasonable that you get an additional 4++ for 15 points AND 2 6++ saves, when to get a 5++ on all facings and the issues with suddenly being a daemon it costs 50 points for a chaos knight? You sure on that "RAI" claim?
The "each" refers to the Knights, not the Ion Shield
Each Imperial Knight and their singular Ion Shield
You can rewrite as "declare for each Imperial Knight which facing it's Ion shield is covering" and the meaning is unchanged. Meaning Ion Shield is still singular.
I have to say, English is not my first language. So I'm not 100% of the sematic of: the Imperial Knight player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering.
I can see why people are debating, but really, it's a: proove that you can, proove that you can't type of situation. Nothings specify that you can only have 1 shield, and nothing specify that if you have 2 shield, they must face the same way.
Sanctuary rules are clear enought to propose you have 2 shield, with 2 facing covered. I would say that people arguing that are trying hard to make IK less effective (for some reason). I personaly don;t own a knight, but I sure wouldn't keep someone from shielding 2 side with Sanc + Ion shield.
Oh well, I came to this thread with what I though was a imple answer, now that it's not, I will let you guys keep on the debating. It's a no winner situation until GWFAQ (hahahahahahahaha.... haha... haaaaaa.......)
It isnt a prove you cant. Its a prove you can. As in, the game works on permission
I see permission to declare the facing of the ion shield for each Imperial Knight i have.
I do not see permission to declare the facing of EACH ion shield EACH Imperial knight has.
And still, even tho it's not an argument since theres no way to know if it's true, just the simple fact that Ion Shield rule were written before Sanctuary (since Ion was in the first codex), it's probably just a matter that before, there was no way of having more than 1 shield.
And having the rule for 1 shield listed under the shield rule make sense to me (aka, it wont say how to shoot all botler weapon under the rule for bolter weapon, it would only tell you how to shoot a bolter).
Really? So show me the rule saying I cannot win on a 2+, with a +1 modifier
Again: the rule says you can select the face for an Ion Shield, singular. It doe snot permit you to pick all facings. Whether it is an oversight or not - I dont think it is, given I think 15pts is in line for a 6++ save on other facings and NOT in line with giving a 400 points model an extra 4++ save - the rules are as they are.
Each Imperial Knight and their singular Ion Shield
You can rewrite as "declare for each Imperial Knight which facing it's Ion shield is covering" and the meaning is unchanged. Meaning Ion Shield is still singular.
FLing - it is reasonable that you get an additional 4++ for 15 points AND 2 6++ saves, when to get a 5++ on all facings and the issues with suddenly being a daemon it costs 50 points for a chaos knight? You sure on that "RAI" claim?
As for points cost being reasonable look at the Wraith Knight and compare an contrast with a Hierodule so yeah GW pull points out of their ass at times.
What does the rule tell us? It tells us that Sanctuary is an Ion Shield with an additional effect. Why would you assume the additional effect replaces the usual Ion Shield effect? How is that additional?
Each Imperial Knight and their singular Ion Shield
You can rewrite as "declare for each Imperial Knight which facing it's Ion shield is covering" and the meaning is unchanged. Meaning Ion Shield is still singular.
FLing - it is reasonable that you get an additional 4++ for 15 points AND 2 6++ saves, when to get a 5++ on all facings and the issues with suddenly being a daemon it costs 50 points for a chaos knight? You sure on that "RAI" claim?
As for points cost being reasonable look at the Wraith Knight and compare an contrast with a Hierodule so yeah GW pull points out of their ass at times.
What does the rule tell us? It tells us that Sanctuary is an Ion Shield with an additional effect. Why would you assume the additional effect replaces the usual Ion Shield effect? How is that additional?
I have not stated it *replaces*
I am asking you to prove, with rules, that you may pick a side for every Ion Shield a Knight happens to have. With rules for once.
The rule quoted does not satisfy this, as it only allows you to set the facing for the Ion Shield of each knight you have.
Nos, the quoted rule can be read two different ways and both are correct readings. One can easily read the quoted rule as referring to Ion Shields (if you drop Imperial Knight, the rule still makes sense).
nosferatu1001 wrote: Really? So show me the rule saying I cannot win on a 2+, with a +1 modifier
Again: the rule says you can select the face for an Ion Shield, singular. It doe snot permit you to pick all facings. Whether it is an oversight or not - I dont think it is, given I think 15pts is in line for a 6++ save on other facings and NOT in line with giving a 400 points model an extra 4++ save - the rules are as they are.
It doesn't state one per Knight. Yes it uses singular language it does stoll state pick a facing for each Knight's shield. 2 shields two facings. Unless you're claiming that I need specific permission to do thus for two shields or to do this at 3pm on a Tuesday...
Points cost being reasonable or not actually has no bearing on this discussion except in a RAI sense.
(
From a RAI stance that is opposite of the one you proposed nos: Why would they let you purchase a whole second shield, but only let you apply it on the same side that was already covered?)
It is easy to assume that if you have a second Ion shield, that you would simply follow the rules for applying the facing for EACH ion shield separately since it doesn't say pick A (singular) facing for your (plural) shields I don't know why you would ASSUME that they would both be on the same side.
DoomShakaLaka wrote: Points cost being reasonable or not actually has no bearing on this discussion except in a RAI sense.
(
From a RAI stance that is opposite of the one you proposed nos: Why would they let you purchase a whole second shield, but only let you apply it on the same side that was already covered?)
It is easy to assume that if you have a second Ion shield, that you would simply follow the rules for applying the facing for EACH ion shield separately since it doesn't say pick A (singular) facing for your (plural) shields I don't know why you would ASSUME that they would both be on the same side.
Probably because you are not buying a second facable 4++ Ion Shield, you are buying a 6++ Ion Shield that covers the other three sides.
DoomShakaLaka wrote: Points cost being reasonable or not actually has no bearing on this discussion except in a RAI sense.
(
From a RAI stance that is opposite of the one you proposed nos: Why would they let you purchase a whole second shield, but only let you apply it on the same side that was already covered?)
It is easy to assume that if you have a second Ion shield, that you would simply follow the rules for applying the facing for EACH ion shield separately since it doesn't say pick A (singular) facing for your (plural) shields I don't know why you would ASSUME that they would both be on the same side.
Probably because you are not buying a second facable 4++ Ion Shield, you are buying a 6++ Ion Shield that covers the other three sides.
DoomShakaLaka wrote: Points cost being reasonable or not actually has no bearing on this discussion except in a RAI sense.
(
From a RAI stance that is opposite of the one you proposed nos: Why would they let you purchase a whole second shield, but only let you apply it on the same side that was already covered?)
It is easy to assume that if you have a second Ion shield, that you would simply follow the rules for applying the facing for EACH ion shield separately since it doesn't say pick A (singular) facing for your (plural) shields I don't know why you would ASSUME that they would both be on the same side.
Probably because you are not buying a second facable 4++ Ion Shield, you are buying a 6++ Ion Shield that covers the other three sides.
SJ
The rules unequivocally state the opposite that you are certainly buying a second Ion Shield that has an additional effect. Hence them saying the 6++ being in addition to the 4++ it provides. In addition meaning that it is an extra, additional if you will, effect. As in it is added to the 4++ save Sanctuary gives as virtue of being an Ion Shield.
Happyjew wrote: Nos, the quoted rule can be read two different ways and both are correct readings. One can easily read the quoted rule as referring to Ion Shields (if you drop Imperial Knight, the rule still makes sense).
The context of the rule is your army; it is telling you to pick you knights shield facing, for each knight you have. The context matters here.
Fling - again context matters. Try it.
Doom - actually I'm saying 15 points is utterly fair in GW terms for a moderate increase in survivability on what can easily be a 400+ point model.
Cf: price GW charges orks for a 6++ . Suddenly sanctuary is a bargain in comparison.
To think it grants two separate facings a 4++ AND a 6++ on the other sides not only fails the likelifphood test , the sniff test (it's far, far too good for 15 points) but it also thankfully doesn't work raw, as you may only choose A shield facing.
So RaW Wraithknights aren't Gargantuan Creatures according to Nos. There is no way that thing can justify being 295 points so that means that you ignore the written rules and so no right? Like you are doing here?
RaW you you have 2 shields, RaW nothing restricts you from having more than 1 shield, RaW nothing restricts you from pucking a different facing for each shield. RaW you pick a facing for each Knight's shield.
RaI they tell you unequivocally you have 2 Ion Shields and that the 6++ is in addition to the 4++. When GW spell something out this clearly why play it any other way?
DoomShakaLaka wrote: Points cost being reasonable or not actually has no bearing on this discussion except in a RAI sense.
(
From a RAI stance that is opposite of the one you proposed nos: Why would they let you purchase a whole second shield, but only let you apply it on the same side that was already covered?)
It is easy to assume that if you have a second Ion shield, that you would simply follow the rules for applying the facing for EACH ion shield separately since it doesn't say pick A (singular) facing for your (plural) shields I don't know why you would ASSUME that they would both be on the same side.
Probably because you are not buying a second facable 4++ Ion Shield, you are buying a 6++ Ion Shield that covers the other three sides.
SJ
The rules unequivocally state the opposite that you are certainly buying a second Ion Shield that has an additional effect. Hence them saying the 6++ being in addition to the 4++ it provides. In addition meaning that it is an extra, additional if you will, effect. As in it is added to the 4++ save Sanctuary gives as virtue of being an Ion Shield.
the rules do not actually state you are buying a second shield.
they talk about a shield, but never state is in addition to the one the knight already posesses, or that it is a second shield. there is no, as in zero, language that states it is a shield other than the knights current shield, and they get both.
They absolutely tell you it is a shield and that you already have a shield and that this shield is an addition to your wargear thus they absolutely tell you that you have 2 shields. The absolutely state that this is not the same shield. Check the wording on how you take Sanctuary.
FlingitNow wrote: They absolutely tell you it is a shield and that you already have a shield and that this shield is an addition to your wargear thus they absolutely tell you that you have 2 shields. The absolutely state that this is not the same shield. Check the wording on how you take Sanctuary.
they never state it is a second shield, or another shield. They never state that it is not the same shield.
You are inferring that it is different because its an additional cost to a model that already has a shield.
That additional cost has the name "sanctuary" and the rules that go with it.
it states that it is an ion shield, however it does not state it is an ADDITIONAL ion shield, or an EXTRA ion shield, or a SECOND ion shield, or anything of the sort.
so they do not tell you anything about having two shields, despite what you imagine they are saying when they simply say "counts as an ion shield"
they never state it is not the same shield. There is no RAW to support that.
The knight is purchasing a second ion shield that has adittional affects along with the normal ones.
Balance and being "too cheap" are not related to RAW at all.
Those are related to RAI, and can be just as easily explained contrary to your view since it really just comes down to being an opinion.
then you have a situation with two conflicting opinions.
opinion 1- it never says you have a second, extra, or additional shield- so you cant have two shields
opinion 2- Its a wargear item and the model has a ion shield listed so despite there being no rules written about how having more than one shield works, or the sanctuary item saying its a different/additional/extra/second shield we infer that it is a second item.
however RAW shows that the shield is singular when you pick a facing, so it does not matter who is "right" of the opinions if you are worried about the rules as written, as you can only face one shield a turn. "each knight picks a facing for its shield" singular. not anything like "each knight picks a facing for each shield it may have" so the only rules regarding permission limit you to a shield per each knight with one facing picked.
despite there being no rules written about how having more than one shield works, or the sanctuary item saying its a different/additional/extra/second shield we infer that it is a second item.
This second part of this quote is actually wrong. It is AN ION SHIELD and it is definitely one that is not listed in the imperial knights profile.
You dont replace items of Wargear in this game unless it specifically says to. Otherwise it is added in addition to what is already there.
No assumptions necessary for that.
What the issue is here is that you want to make up a rule that says ' place all' ion shields on a (singular) facing when it says place (singular) an ion shield on (singular) a facing.
The logic jump for me is that now you go place(plural) shields on (plural) facings
FlingitNow wrote: They absolutely tell you it is a shield and that you already have a shield and that this shield is an addition to your wargear thus they absolutely tell you that you have 2 shields. The absolutely state that this is not the same shield. Check the wording on how you take Sanctuary.
they never state it is a second shield, or another shield. They never state that it is not the same shield.
You are inferring that it is different because its an additional cost to a model that already has a shield.
That additional cost has the name "sanctuary" and the rules that go with it.
it states that it is an ion shield, however it does not state it is an ADDITIONAL ion shield, or an EXTRA ion shield, or a SECOND ion shield, or anything of the sort.
so they do not tell you anything about having two shields, despite what you imagine they are saying when they simply say "counts as an ion shield"
Correct, it does not. However:
blaktoof wrote: they never state it is not the same shield. There is no RAW to support that.
Taking this from a different perspective, say a Space Marine Captain purchases a Storm Shield, then swaps their Pistol for the Shield Eternal. Do they have two Storm Shields? Yes, they do. If they replace their Chainsword with a Bolt Pistol, do they only have one Bolt Pistol or two? They have two.
Since the Sanctuary Relic does not state that it replaces the Ion Shield, it is purchased in addition to the base Ion Shield. In addition, Knights are not restricted to possessing only one Ion Shield per model.
All this demonstrates that a Knight with Sanctuary has two Ion Shields.
However, the question if you can have the Ion Shield focused in one direction, and Sanctuary in another, is a different story. It is neither permitted, nor denied. The language involved with Sanctuary COULD imply that it just provides the Invul Save to 3 sides (Rear is a side, too) due to the phrase "its Ion Shield" representing a singular Shield. It could also be referencing when a facing is not covered by the Shield system, too.
No one is arguing that Sanctuary isn't an Ion Shield. The argument is whether or not Sanctuary is a second facable 4++ with an additional 6++, or its just the 6++. The rules do not support more than one facable 4++ Ion Shield, but the rules do support the additional 6++ all-around Ion Shield.
And this argument is closer to why Assault Cannons aren't Assault Weapons than it is one on model upgrade priorities.
Each Imperial Knight and their singular Ion Shield
You can rewrite as "declare for each Imperial Knight which facing it's Ion shield is covering" and the meaning is unchanged. Meaning Ion Shield is still singular.
I don't agree with this. I read it as each shield belonging to an IK. Which opens up the possibility of there being multiples on one knight, and facing those multiples seperately.
I think that both your viewpoint and this opposing one COULD be correct, and we're going to have to accept that until the rule is clarified, it is an "ask the TO/opponent" situation.
jeffersonian000 wrote: No one is arguing that Sanctuary isn't an Ion Shield. The argument is whether or not Sanctuary is a second facable 4++ with an additional 6++, or its just the 6++. The rules do not support more than one facable 4++ Ion Shield, but the rules do support the additional 6++ all-around Ion Shield.
And this argument is closer to why Assault Cannons aren't Assault Weapons than it is one on model upgrade priorities.
SJ
The rules clearly state that Sanctuary provides a 4++ in one facing and the 6++ in other facings is in addition to this. The rules clearly state this.
The rules also allow you to pick a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. Therefore we KNOW if you have 2 shields you pick 2 facings.
The rules clearly state that a Knight has an Ion Shield in their wargear. The rules clearly state that Sanctuary when purchased is added to their wargear and they do not tell us this replaces the Ion Shield in their wargear. Therefore we KNOW you have the items Sanctuary and Ion Shield in your wargear and that Sanctuary is also an Ion Shield thus you have 2 Ion Shields.
This has nothing to do with Assault Cannons being assault weapons (or heavy flamers being heavy weapons). We are not taking a name and trying to apply a rule that uses the same word. We are doing what the rules tell us. You believe this is a little strong so therefore the rules are wrong and you're making up a raft of different rules to try to claim this is wrong.
Raw is clear RaI has very strong support for being the same as RaW (use of the word additional). Why play it any other way? If you want to houserule it because you find it too powerful to play against then discuss that houserule with your opponent.
The rules clearly state that Sanctuary provides a 4++ in one facing and the 6++ in other facings is in addition to this. The rules clearly state this.
Please prove this statement.
SJ
Cool look at the Sanctuary rules. Note how it counts as an Ion Shield, as we all know counts as and is are identical in rules terms. Ion Shields provide a 4++ in one facing. Thus the rules have clearly stated that part. What about the 6++? Well the rules clearly state "In addition"...
So we have:
Sanctuary is an Ion Shield, Ion Shields give a 4++ in one facing. In addition Sanctuary gives a 6+ invulnerable save in all facings not covered by the Ion Shield.
it states that it is an ion shield, however it does not state it is an ADDITIONAL ion shield,
Let me get that right... so you buy a Ion shield... but don't equip it? Is that what you are saying?
When it says I can buy a melee weapon from the melee weapon list, it doensn't say: buy an additional melee weapon.
Really? So show me the rule saying I cannot win on a 2+, with a +1 modifier
The rules clearly state that Sanctuary provides a 4++ in one facing and the 6++ in other facings is in addition to this. The rules clearly state this.
Please prove this statement.
SJ
Cool look at the Sanctuary rules. Note how it counts as an Ion Shield, as we all know counts as and is are identical in rules terms. Ion Shields provide a 4++ in one facing. Thus the rules have clearly stated that part. What about the 6++? Well the rules clearly state "In addition"...
So we have:
Sanctuary is an Ion Shield, Ion Shields give a 4++ in one facing. In addition Sanctuary gives a 6+ invulnerable save in all facings not covered by the Ion Shield.
So, per your interpretation, the 6++ save is a normal invul save, which means it can be used versus melee attacks, rather than a modified Ion Shield that can only be used versus shooting attacks?
The rules clearly state that Sanctuary provides a 4++ in one facing and the 6++ in other facings is in addition to this. The rules clearly state this.
Please prove this statement.
SJ
Cool look at the Sanctuary rules. Note how it counts as an Ion Shield, as we all know counts as and is are identical in rules terms. Ion Shields provide a 4++ in one facing. Thus the rules have clearly stated that part. What about the 6++? Well the rules clearly state "In addition"...
So we have:
Sanctuary is an Ion Shield, Ion Shields give a 4++ in one facing. In addition Sanctuary gives a 6+ invulnerable save in all facings not covered by the Ion Shield.
So, per your interpretation, the 6++ save is a normal invul save, which means it can be used versus melee attacks, rather than a modified Ion Shield that can only be used versus shooting attacks?
SJ
In my local meta, yes, we've been allowing the 6++ save against melee attacks.
FlingitNow wrote: Sanctuary is an Ion Shield, Ion Shields give a 4++ in one facing.
The problem lies in this statement. There is nothing that definitively states, one way or the other, that both Ion Shields can cover a different facing from each other.
Ion Shields are allowed to cover one facing. There is nothing that can gainsay this. However, Sanctuary is not given permission to cover a facing that the base Ion Shield is not covering. However, nor is it denied the ability to be declared.
This, like the "Infiltrator" concept, is a situation where a lack of defining the consequences applies a "sandbox" ruling to the situation. Or in other words, consult with your opponent or Tournament Organizer for a defined reading for the game.
FlingitNow wrote: Does anything say the 6++ can only be used vs shooting attacks?
Well, the Sanctuary rules state the 6++ cannot be used against Melee Attacks. It's the very last line. So, almost any active offensive action that doesn't involve a Charge would generally qualify as being affected.
It's obviously a second and entirely separate piece of wargear in that it has a different name.. There is NO wording whatsoever telling us that this second and entirely separate piece of wargear has any impact on an existing piece of wargear. There is NO wording whatsoever telling us that this second and entirely separate piece of wargear replaces an existing piece of wargear.
This new and entirely separate piece of wargear counts as an Ion Shield with some additional rules, but ISN'T an Ion Shield. It's a Relic called Sanctuary.
You have to follow ALL of the rules for your piece of wargear called Ion Shield, which involves picking a facing and getting a 4++.
You have to SEPARATELY follow ALL of the rules for your piece of wargear called Sanctuary, which involves picking a facing, getting a 4++ and getting a 6++ on all other facings.
There is NO wording telling you that you have to pick the same facing for both pieces of wargear.
Upgrade price has NO bearing on what the rules do. We aren't arguing whether or not an upgrade is undercosted, we're debating how the upgrade works.
RAW seems clear that you effectively have 4++ on two facings and 6++ on the other two.
NOW... my interpretation of RAI. I suspect strongly that GW wanted Sanctuary to REPLACE the existing Ion Shield wargear, but added no wording whatsoever to tell us that. If I were to play with Sanctuary, I would pick one facing of 4++ and three of 6++. I would allow opponents to pick two 4++'s, though, as this is what RAW allows.
TLDR - Yes. No. Yes. No. "Let's stay on topic." "Your mom stays on topic." THREAD LOCK
Kriswall wrote: You have to SEPARATELY follow ALL of the rules for your piece of wargear called Sanctuary, which involves picking a facing, getting a 4++ and getting a 6++ on all other facings.
Actually, it states that you pick a facing for the Ion Shield (and Sanctuary IS an Ion Shield as far as the game is concerned). It doesn't account for the concept of multiple facings to be considered, much like the Shooting Sequence doesn't account for when a model can have multiple targets. Any interpretation of this situation is as correct as another.
I've always felt that "counts as an ion shield" was meant to tell you that the sanctuary replaced your ion shield but was just written by an ass-hat. Clearly there is a strong opinion that it was meant to be an additional ion shield and that's where this discussion should end. We are both looking at the same rules and drawing different conclusions on what they probably meant. Ever since GW seems to have decided stop making FAQs the best we can ever hope for is a divided community that requires reasonable players to comprise or a TO to sort it all out.
The problem lies in this statement. There is nothing that definitively states, one way or the other, that both Ion Shields can cover a different facing from each other.Â
Ion Shields are allowed to cover one facing. There is nothing that can gainsay this. However, Sanctuary is not given permission to cover a facing that the base Ion Shield is not covering. However, nor is it denied the ability to be declared.Â
This, like the "Infiltrator" concept, is a situation where a lack of defining the consequences applies a "sandbox" ruling to the situation. Or in other words, consult with your opponent or Tournament Organizer for a defined reading for the game.Â
You have general permission to puck a facing for each Ion Shield. You need denial of that permission as each item of wargear forces you through the sentence that results in you picking a facing.
Well, the Sanctuary rules state the 6++ cannot be used against Melee Attacks. It's the very last line. So, almost any active offensive action that doesn't involve a Charge would generally qualify as being affected.
This was the point I was making. You can use the 6++ vs melee attacks as that is specifically called out and has nothing to do with Sanctuary counting as an Ion Shield.
It doesn't matter how many facable 4++ Ion Shields you think your Knight has, the rules only support one facing for the facable Shield, while the remaining facings gain the 6++ Ion Shield save. The fact that you cannot cite a rule allowing more than one facable 4++ Shield points to no such rules support. In the case of this permissive rule set, permission has been granted for only one Facable selection at this time.
DJGietzen wrote: I've always felt that "counts as an ion shield" was meant to tell you that the sanctuary replaced your ion shield but was just written by an ass-hat. Clearly there is a strong opinion that it was meant to be an additional ion shield and that's where this discussion should end. We are both looking at the same rules and drawing different conclusions on what they probably meant. Ever since GW seems to have decided stop making FAQs the best we can ever hope for is a divided community that requires reasonable players to comprise or a TO to sort it all out.
So say I have a Power Maul and I take a weapon that counts as a Power Maul and in addition has the fleshbane rule. How many power mauls do I have? Assuming I have no other melee weapons do I get the +1A for having 2 ccws?
Counts as means is in every other rules situation GW has ever created. Why are you interpreting it differently here? This is absolutely cut and dry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeffersonian000 wrote: It doesn't matter how many facable 4++ Ion Shields you think your Knight has, the rules only support one facing for the facable Shield, while the remaining facings gain the 6++ Ion Shield save. The fact that you cannot cite a rule allowing more than one facable 4++ Shield points to no such rules support. I. The car of this permissive rule set, permission has been granted for only one Facable selection at this time.
SJ
Right you need to learn how a permissive ruleset works. Where is your permission to use an Ion Shield at 3:37pm on a Tuesday? Where is your permission to use an Ion Shield when it is raining outside? Where is your permission yo use an Ion Shield on an Imperial Knighted painted pink.
We have shown that Ion Shields pick a facing to give a 4++ to. We have shown the Imperial Knight has two Ion Shields. That is all we have to show. Now you need to find denial of that permission.
The problem lies in this statement. There is nothing that definitively states, one way or the other, that both Ion Shields can cover a different facing from each other.Â
Ion Shields are allowed to cover one facing. There is nothing that can gainsay this. However, Sanctuary is not given permission to cover a facing that the base Ion Shield is not covering. However, nor is it denied the ability to be declared.Â
This, like the "Infiltrator" concept, is a situation where a lack of defining the consequences applies a "sandbox" ruling to the situation. Or in other words, consult with your opponent or Tournament Organizer for a defined reading for the game.Â
You have general permission to puck a facing for each Ion Shield. You need denial of that permission as each item of wargear forces you through the sentence that results in you picking a facing.
The problem is that the word "each" is not used in either Ion Shield's rules nor in Sanctuary's.
Well, the Sanctuary rules state the 6++ cannot be used against Melee Attacks. It's the very last line. So, almost any active offensive action that doesn't involve a Charge would generally qualify as being affected.
This was the point I was making. You can use the 6++ vs melee attacks as that is specifically called out and has nothing to do with Sanctuary counting as an Ion Shield.
No, it specifically states that Sanctuary canNOT be used against Melee Attacks. That means ALL of its affects, including the 6++.
The problem is that the word "each" is not used in either Ion Shield's rules nor in Sanctuary's.Â
Actually each is in the Ion Shield rule. Not that it particularly needs to be as you have 2 separate items of wargear which each tell you to pick a facing.
No, it specifically states that Sanctuary canNOT be used against Melee Attacks. That means ALL of its affects, including the 6++.
Yes sorry that was an obvious typo it was supposed to read can't be used against melee attacks, so that hopefully makes sense now.
The problem is that the word "each" is not used in either Ion Shield's rules nor in Sanctuary's.Â
Actually each is in the Ion Shield rule. Not that it particularly needs to be as you have 2 separate items of wargear which each tell you to pick a facing.
Odd. I could have sworn it didn't say "each". *double checks* I stand corrected, then. It does say "for each Ion Shield", so multiple Ion Shields were anticipated (for once). So, 2 sides with 4++ and 2 sides with 6++ are entirely possible and fit the rules.
I guess I'm just so used to GW's bad proof-reading that I misplaced a word, or remembered a misquote.
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 word "each" is being used in context to the Knight, not its Ion Shield. English.
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 word "each" is being used in context to the Knight, not its Ion Shield. English.
English would actually could apply it either way. English is very good at muddying things with short-hand.
It could be read as "which facing the ion shield of each Knight is facing", or "which facing each Ion Shield of the Knight is facing". Since we actually HAVE a situation where it is possible for the latter interpretation to occur, it makes more sense to apply it as available. This is a case where context actually can change the meaning. In the case of having one Shield for the Knight, the first makes perfectly fine sense. However, in the case of having two, the latter is perfectly applicable.
each knight can pick its facing, because there is a formation that has multiple knights in an unit.
it never says each ion shield.
because there is an unit of knights as a formation, so you don't have to pick the same facing for all of them.
not because you are allowed to ever have two shields.
if that were the case it would be
"When an imperial knight is deployed, and subsequently at the state of each opposing side's Shooting phases before any attacks are carreid out, the controlling player must declare which facing each ion shield is covering for any imperial knights they have with ion shields."
but it does not say that, the shield is certainly a singular rule in the ion shield rule, and the knight is the thing that is possibly plural.
and to anyone who wants to say you can do singular things multiple times, look at having one relic. one relic and one relic is not singular anymore.
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 word "each" is being used in context to the Knight, not its Ion Shield. English.
SJ
Actually in English it could apply to either. Not that it really matters as each Ion Shield has that rule and each invokes it individually. You would need different language to restrict this to a single facing regardless of number of shields (like "If equipped with an Ion Shield the Imperial Knight must pick a facing. That facing gain blah blah blah" thus 1 shield or 1000 shields the if state is true and you pick 1 facing).
So again we know we have 2 entirely separate Ion Shields each with a rule requiring us to puck a facing one of which has an additional effect....
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 word "each" is being used in context to the Knight, not its Ion Shield. English.
SJ
Actually in English it could apply to either. Not that it really matters as each Ion Shield has that rule and each invokes it individually. You would need different language to restrict this to a single facing regardless of number of shields (like "If equipped with an Ion Shield the Imperial Knight must pick a facing. That facing gain blah blah blah" thus 1 shield or 1000 shields the if state is true and you pick 1 facing).
So again we know we have 2 entirely separate Ion Shields each with a rule requiring us to puck a facing one of which has an additional effect....
so other than inferring that there are two shields, can you show written permission which actually clearly states how to face shields if there is more than one shield?
The rules clearly tell us there are 2 shields. Each shield has and thus invokes that rule about choosing a facing. Do you understand how a permissive ruleset works? It doesn't need to give specific permission for how 2 shields work. It jyst needs to tell you how 1 shield works and then tell you how to add 2 shields to its wargear.
Can you please show where in the rule it clearly says there are two shields. Saying it is an ion shield, does not say it is 2 shields or an extra shield.
You have permission to face one shield, not permission to face each shield. DO you understand how a permissive rules set works?
I have permission to have 4 weapons on a model, and I have permission to fire one. Can I fire 4 weapons?
I -might- have permission to have 2 ion shields on a model, and I have permission to face one. Can I face two shields?
blaktoof wrote: Can you please show where in the rule it clearly says there are two shields. Saying it is an ion shield, does not say it is 2 shields or an extra shield.
You have permission to face one shield, not permission to face each shield. DO you understand how a permissive rules set works?
I have permission to have 4 weapons on a model, and I have permission to fire one. Can I fire 4 weapons?
I -might- have permission to have 2 ion shields on a model, and I have permission to face one. Can I face two shields?
You have 2 ion shields, and a rule which defines what each ion-shield does.
blaktoof wrote: Can you please show where in the rule it clearly says there are two shields. Saying it is an ion shield, does not say it is 2 shields or an extra shield.
You have permission to face one shield, not permission to face each shield. DO you understand how a permissive rules set works?
I have permission to have 4 weapons on a model, and I have permission to fire one. Can I fire 4 weapons?
I -might- have permission to have 2 ion shields on a model, and I have permission to face one. Can I face two shields?
You have 2 ion shields, and a rule which defines what each ion-shield does.
Each shield calls the ion-shield rule.
unfortunately that has nothing to do with what the ion shield rules say, because they do not tell you what to do for each ion shield. they tell you what to do for each knight and its ion shield[singular].
and your last statement would be the same as saying each weapon calls the firing rule, therefore a model with four weapons can fire all four. which is wrong.
blaktoof wrote: Can you please show where in the rule it clearly says there are two shields. Saying it is an ion shield, does not say it is 2 shields or an extra shield.
Really again? You have an Ion Shield in your wargear. You can add another Ion Shield to your wargear by purchasing Sanctuary. That means you have 2 Ion Shields.
You have permission to face one shield, not permission to face each shield. DO you understand how a permissive rules set works?
Well actually it says each Imperial Knight's shield picks a facing. Nothing states that you may only ever pick 1 facing per Knight.
I have permission to have 4 weapons on a model, and I have permission to fire one. Can I fire 4 weapons?
It depends on the wording to fire a weapon. Note how the rules have to add a specific restriction to prevent a model firing more than 1 weapon, without that restriction yes you could fire 4 weapons if you had them. So do you have a similar restriction for this case?
I -might- have permission to have 2 ion shields on a model, and I have permission to face one. Can I face two shields?
You absolutely have permission to have 2 Ion Shields. This is undisputed surely? Each has a rule that requires you pick a facing.
blaktoof wrote: Can you please show where in the rule it clearly says there are two shields. Saying it is an ion shield, does not say it is 2 shields or an extra shield.
You have permission to face one shield, not permission to face each shield. DO you understand how a permissive rules set works?
I have permission to have 4 weapons on a model, and I have permission to fire one. Can I fire 4 weapons?
I -might- have permission to have 2 ion shields on a model, and I have permission to face one. Can I face two shields?
You have 2 ion shields, and a rule which defines what each ion-shield does.
Each shield calls the ion-shield rule.
unfortunately that has nothing to do with what the ion shield rules say, because they do not tell you what to do for each ion shield. they tell you what to do for each knight and its ion shield[singular].
and your last statement would be the same as saying each weapon calls the firing rule, therefore a model with four weapons can fire all four. which is wrong.
Are you claiming that rule isn't trigger by the Ion Shield wargear and applies to all Imperial Knights regardless of whether they have an Ion Shield?
blaktoof wrote: Can you please show where in the rule it clearly says there are two shields. Saying it is an ion shield, does not say it is 2 shields or an extra shield.
You have permission to face one shield, not permission to face each shield. DO you understand how a permissive rules set works?
I have permission to have 4 weapons on a model, and I have permission to fire one. Can I fire 4 weapons?
I -might- have permission to have 2 ion shields on a model, and I have permission to face one. Can I face two shields?
You have 2 ion shields, and a rule which defines what each ion-shield does.
Each shield calls the ion-shield rule.
unfortunately that has nothing to do with what the ion shield rules say, because they do not tell you what to do for each ion shield. they tell you what to do for each knight and its ion shield[singular].
and your last statement would be the same as saying each weapon calls the firing rule, therefore a model with four weapons can fire all four. which is wrong.
Are you claiming that rule isn't trigger by the Ion Shield wargear and applies to all Imperial Knights regardless of whether they have an Ion Shield?
so you think a rule that allows you to take a specific type of model with a specific type of wargear and do something once, means you can do the same thing over and over once each time?
blaktoof wrote: pleasure show where it says you have two ion shields, an extra ion shield, an additional ion shield. etc.
and again each does not have a rule that you pick a facing, each knight has a rule that you pick a facing for its[singular ion shield].
can you quote where it says you pick for each shield?
can you quote anywhere where it says you have a second, extra, additional, different ion shield?
I have shown where it states clearly you have 2 ion shields. You are clearly trolling on that point.
So back to your claim that Imperial Knights have the rule not the ion Shield wargear? So even IKs without Ion Shields benefit?
As for the quote I have provided that many times each Ion shield has the rule.
And finally back to the troll point. I can only assume this is your concession? If you refuse to admit that there are 2 shields despite the rules explicitly tell us this what basis do we have for a discussion? You refuse to accept the English in the rules as evidence and refuse to accept or argue against points raised just repeating debunked arguments. If you disagree with my arguments then present an argument against my points rather than repeating debunked arguments. This does not move the discussion forward nor add weight to your argument.
You clearly are trolling past your first post, as you have never stated where they clearly have two ion shields.
you have refused to show there are two ion shields, clearly, ever. or answered any question about your lack of logic and reasoning. or backed anything up with a rules quote, other than purposefully moving words around in the quote that someone else present for Ion shield and its rules to support your argument as RAW.
yeah anyone can rearranged words in the rulebook and get new rules, that they are from the rulebook but rearranged does not make them rules as written, or even rules as intended.
arguments have been presented for you, and you ignore them and keep going back to what you claim is clearly stated- when its not. Then you rearrange words in the ion shield rule to support multiple shields being talked about as if it were RAW- when it is not, then dance around all the other issues with ignoring head in the sand type games and go back to "it clearly states they have two shields" when it never does.
so you think a rule that allows you to take a specific type of model with a specific type of wargear and do something once, means you can do the same thing over and over once each time?Â
If you have a piece of wargear that says when X do Y, you do Y once for each piece of wargear you have that has that rule when X occurs. Yes that is exactly how a permissive ruleset works. Unless there is a restriction on how often you can do Y or the wording reads as boolean which becomes true if you have 1 or 1000 pieces of wargear with said rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Right let's deal with the 2 shields issue.
Premise 1: Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield
Premise 2: Counts as and is are interchangeable in rules.
Conclusion 1: Sanctuary is an Ion Shield.
Premise 3: when you purchase Sanctuary it is added to your wargear and does not replace anything.
Premise 4: before you purchase you have an Ion Shield in your wargear.
Conclusion 2: you have an Ion Shield and a Sanctuary in your wargear.
Conclusion 1 + Conclusion 2: You have and Ion Shield and an Ion Shield in your wargear thus you have 2 Ion Shields.
Count 1- "Can a knight possess two shields?"- Without there being something somewhere that states that a knight can only possess one ion shield, which there isn't, the idea that a knight can have two shields seems to fall within the rules.
Count 2- "Is the ion shield listed in such a way that it is an item of wargear possessed by the knight?"- Yes, it is clearly listed as a piece of wargear, further, all the inherent rules for it are attributed to the wargear and NOT the knight itself.
Count 3- "Is Sanctuary an Ion Shield?"- YES, the first line of the entry states the "Sanctuary counts as an Ion shield."
Count 4- "Does Sanctuary replace the existing Ion Shield?"- Unlike items in other codexes which specifically state when a piece of wargear replaces another, Sanctuary says nothing about it replacing the currently possessed shield. Also, as stated before, if a model possesses an item of wargear such as a CCW and then purchases a second CCW, would it replace the first. The answer is of course no, you would purchase a second weapons and then gain an additional attack from the addition.
So... It would seem by the RAW that the first ion shield would cover one facing and the second another. You could even declare them on the same facing though it would be a waste. Anything otherwise would seem to be insinuated by the reader...
You are following a flawed line of reason, much like claiming an Asssult Cannon is an Assault Weapon because it has Assault in its name. Yes, the Ion Shield is an Ion Shield, and yes, Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. One is a 4++ facable, while the other is a 6++ all-around, yet both are still Ion Shields.
so you think a rule that allows you to take a specific type of model with a specific type of wargear and do something once, means you can do the same thing over and over once each time?Â
If you have a piece of wargear that says when X do Y, you do Y once for each piece of wargear you have that has that rule when X occurs. Yes that is exactly how a permissive ruleset works. Unless there is a restriction on how often you can do Y or the wording reads as boolean which becomes true if you have 1 or 1000 pieces of wargear with said rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Right let's deal with the 2 shields issue.
Premise 1: Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield
Premise 2: Counts as and is are interchangeable in rules.
Conclusion 1: Sanctuary is an Ion Shield.
Premise 3: when you purchase Sanctuary it is added to your wargear and does not replace anything.
Premise 4: before you purchase you have an Ion Shield in your wargear.
Conclusion 2: you have an Ion Shield and a Sanctuary in your wargear.
Conclusion 1 + Conclusion 2: You have and Ion Shield and an Ion Shield in your wargear thus you have 2 Ion Shields.
jeffersonian000 wrote: You are following a flawed line of reason, much like claiming an Asssult Cannon is an Assault Weapon because it has Assault in its name. Yes, the Ion Shield is an Ion Shield, and yes, Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. One is a 4++ facable, while the other is a 6++ all-around, yet both are still Ion Shields.
SJ
A Sanctuary isn't called an Ion Shield in name it is called a Sanctuary (clue is in the title). It is an Ion Shield in the rules. Does an Ion Shield provide a 4++ in a facing? Then Sanctuary counts as providing a 4++ in a facing. So rules wise everything that is true for an Ion Shield is true for Sanctuary unless there is a specific exception like the fact Sanctuary additionally provides a 6++ in all other facings.
jeffersonian000 wrote: You are following a flawed line of reason, much like claiming an Asssult Cannon is an Assault Weapon because it has Assault in its name. Yes, the Ion Shield is an Ion Shield, and yes, Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. One is a 4++ facable, while the other is a 6++ all-around, yet both are still Ion Shields.
SJ
A Sanctuary isn't called an Ion Shield in name it is called a Sanctuary (clue is in the title). It is an Ion Shield in the rules. Does an Ion Shield provide a 4++ in a facing? Then Sanctuary counts as providing a 4++ in a facing. So rules wise everything that is true for an Ion Shield is true for Sanctuary unless there is a specific exception like the fact Sanctuary additionally provides a 6++ in all other facings.
I get the feeling you think you are preaching to the choir, when in fact the choir left a long time ago.
jeffersonian000 wrote: You are following a flawed line of reason, much like claiming an Asssult Cannon is an Assault Weapon because it has Assault in its name. Yes, the Ion Shield is an Ion Shield, and yes, Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. One is a 4++ facable, while the other is a 6++ all-around, yet both are still Ion Shields.
SJ
A Sanctuary isn't called an Ion Shield in name it is called a Sanctuary (clue is in the title). It is an Ion Shield in the rules. Does an Ion Shield provide a 4++ in a facing? Then Sanctuary counts as providing a 4++ in a facing. So rules wise everything that is true for an Ion Shield is true for Sanctuary unless there is a specific exception like the fact Sanctuary additionally provides a 6++ in all other facings.
I get the feeling you think you are preaching to the choir, when in fact the choir left a long time ago.
SJ
From the codex:
"Sanctuary counts as an ion shield. IN ADDITION, a knight equipped with sanctuary has a 6+ unvulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by the ion shield. Sanctuary can not be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks."
Sanctuary counts as a flat out ion shield with all the rules accorded to a normal ion shield in the codex. It gets the 6++ IN ADDITION to the whatever it would normally get by being an ion shield.
Since it clearly states that it is an ion shield with a 6++ in addition and we know that it doesnt replace the ion shield we already have, we know that we now have a 6++ on non-ion shield covered facing in addition to two normal ion shields.
Right. It is clear that the 6++ isn't from an Ion Shield (and in fact the entire Ion Shield rule would have to be rewritten - as I read it, an Ion Shield is not a 6++ on every facing!).
The 6++ is from Sanctuary, which in addition counts-as an Ion Shield.
It's obviously a second and entirely separate piece of wargear in that it has a different name.. There is NO wording whatsoever telling us that this second and entirely separate piece of wargear has any impact on an existing piece of wargear. There is NO wording whatsoever telling us that this second and entirely separate piece of wargear replaces an existing piece of wargear.
This new and entirely separate piece of wargear counts as an Ion Shield with some additional rules, but ISN'T an Ion Shield. It's a Relic called Sanctuary.
You have to follow ALL of the rules for your piece of wargear called Ion Shield, which involves picking a facing and getting a 4++.
You have to SEPARATELY follow ALL of the rules for your piece of wargear called Sanctuary, which involves picking a facing, getting a 4++ and getting a 6++ on all other facings.
There is NO wording telling you that you have to pick the same facing for both pieces of wargear.
Upgrade price has NO bearing on what the rules do. We aren't arguing whether or not an upgrade is undercosted, we're debating how the upgrade works.
RAW seems clear that you effectively have 4++ on two facings and 6++ on the other two.
NOW... my interpretation of RAI. I suspect strongly that GW wanted Sanctuary to REPLACE the existing Ion Shield wargear, but added no wording whatsoever to tell us that. If I were to play with Sanctuary, I would pick one facing of 4++ and three of 6++. I would allow opponents to pick two 4++'s, though, as this is what RAW allows.
TLDR - Yes. No. Yes. No. "Let's stay on topic." "Your mom stays on topic." THREAD LOCK
There has never been a disagreement over how many Ion Shields a Knight with Sanctuary has, we all agree it's two. However, we are not in agreement on how many facable 4++ Shields there are. One camp says it's two facable Ion Shields plus an additional non-Ion Shield all-rounder, while the other camp says it's one facable Ion Shield plus the all-rounder Ion Shield. The argument occurs over grammar and English.
The best example I can think of that we have not fully covered far is how many weapons can a model shoot? The answer is only one, unless you have permission to shoot more, such as a Monstrous Creature shooting two, or a vehicle shooting all. In the same context, a Knight has permission to face one Ion Shield, and Sanctuary does not include language that adds another facing.
jeffersonian000 wrote: There has never been a disagreement over how many Ion Shields a Knight with Sanctuary has, we all agree it's two. However, we are not in agreement on how many facable 4++ Shields there are. One camp says it's two facable Ion Shields plus an additional non-Ion Shield all-rounder, while the other camp says it's one facable Ion Shield plus the all-rounder Ion Shield. The argument occurs over grammar and English.
The best example I can think of that we have not fully covered far is how many weapons can a model shoot? The answer is only one, unless you have permission to shoot more, such as a Monstrous Creature shooting two, or a vehicle shooting all. In the same context, a Knight has permission to face one Ion Shield, and Sanctuary does not include language that adds another facing.
SJ
You are correct firing weapons is a great example. Permission to fire a weapon is permission to fire 2 weapons if you have them. Hence they had to write the specific restriction that models with more weapons can only fire one per phase. I assume this is you conceding?
jeffersonian000 wrote: There has never been a disagreement over how many Ion Shields a Knight with Sanctuary has, we all agree it's two.
Actually, Blacktoof has been asking for a demonstration of there being two shields. You must have him on ignore.
jeffersonian000 wrote: However, we are not in agreement on how many facable 4++ Shields there are. One camp says it's two facable Ion Shields plus an additional non-Ion Shield all-rounder, while the other camp says it's one facable Ion Shield plus the all-rounder Ion Shield. The argument occurs over grammar and English.
The best example I can think of that we have not fully covered far is how many weapons can a model shoot? The answer is only one, unless you have permission to shoot more, such as a Monstrous Creature shooting two, or a vehicle shooting all. In the same context, a Knight has permission to face one Ion Shield, and Sanctuary does not include language that adds another facing.
Except there is no rule forbidding the Sanctuary from facing its Shield in a different facing from the Ion Shield, nor a rule specifying that every Ion Shield's 4++ on a Knight be facing the same way. You choose a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. That's it.
jeffersonian000 wrote: There has never been a disagreement over how many Ion Shields a Knight with Sanctuary has, we all agree it's two.
Actually, Blacktoof has been asking for a demonstration of there being two shields. You must have him on ignore.
jeffersonian000 wrote: However, we are not in agreement on how many facable 4++ Shields there are. One camp says it's two facable Ion Shields plus an additional non-Ion Shield all-rounder, while the other camp says it's one facable Ion Shield plus the all-rounder Ion Shield. The argument occurs over grammar and English.
The best example I can think of that we have not fully covered far is how many weapons can a model shoot? The answer is only one, unless you have permission to shoot more, such as a Monstrous Creature shooting two, or a vehicle shooting all. In the same context, a Knight has permission to face one Ion Shield, and Sanctuary does not include language that adds another facing.
Except there is no rule forbidding the Sanctuary from facing its Shield in a different facing from the Ion Shield, nor a rule specifying that every Ion Shield's 4++ on a Knight be facing the same way. You choose a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. That's it.
yeah I do not believe the RAW state sanctuary is a second, or extra shield.
"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 the ion shield. Sanctuary can not be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks."
the thing sanctuary gives is the after "in addition" part.
sanctuary = knights ion shield and in addition sanctuary gives it a 6+ save on the non 4+ ion shield facing.
we aren't told "sanctuary counts as an ADDITIONAL ion shield, a knight equipped with sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by the ion shield. Sanctuary can not be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks."
sanctuary counts as an ion shield = the knights ion shield. not another ion shield. there is no language saying its a second ion shield, and the rules for ion shield further show there is no support for having more than one shield as they are singular in which facing the shield ends up on.
further from the wording of sanctuary it shows "a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by the ion shield."
the ion shield is again singular, it does not call out "the sanctuary" or "the ion shields" or "this ion shield". there is only one ion shield, even if you have sanctuary.
jeffersonian000 wrote: There has never been a disagreement over how many Ion Shields a Knight with Sanctuary has, we all agree it's two.
Actually, Blacktoof has been asking for a demonstration of there being two shields. You must have him on ignore.
jeffersonian000 wrote: However, we are not in agreement on how many facable 4++ Shields there are. One camp says it's two facable Ion Shields plus an additional non-Ion Shield all-rounder, while the other camp says it's one facable Ion Shield plus the all-rounder Ion Shield. The argument occurs over grammar and English.
The best example I can think of that we have not fully covered far is how many weapons can a model shoot? The answer is only one, unless you have permission to shoot more, such as a Monstrous Creature shooting two, or a vehicle shooting all. In the same context, a Knight has permission to face one Ion Shield, and Sanctuary does not include language that adds another facing.
Except there is no rule forbidding the Sanctuary from facing its Shield in a different facing from the Ion Shield, nor a rule specifying that every Ion Shield's 4++ on a Knight be facing the same way. You choose a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. That's it.
yeah I do not believe the RAW state sanctuary is a second, or extra shield.
"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 the ion shield. Sanctuary can not be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks."
the thing sanctuary gives is the after "in addition" part.
sanctuary = knights ion shield and in addition sanctuary gives it a 6+ save on the non 4+ ion shield facing.
we aren't told "sanctuary counts as an ADDITIONAL ion shield, a knight equipped with sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by the ion shield. Sanctuary can not be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks."
sanctuary counts as an ion shield = the knights ion shield. not another ion shield. there is no language saying its a second ion shield, and the rules for ion shield further show there is no support for having more than one shield as they are singular in which facing the shield ends up on.
further from the wording of sanctuary it shows "a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by the ion shield."
the ion shield is again singular, it does not call out "the sanctuary" or "the ion shields" or "this ion shield". there is only one ion shield, even if you have sanctuary.
there are not multiple ion shields on a knight.
Definitely trolling now then? Again I ask you disprove oneof my premises.
Premise 1: Sanctuary counts as an Ion ShieldÂ
Premise 2: Counts as and is are interchangeable in rules.Â
Conclusion 1: Sanctuary is an Ion Shield.Â
Premise 3: when you purchase Sanctuary it is added to your wargear and does not replace anything.Â
Premise 4: before you purchase you have an Ion Shield in your wargear.Â
Conclusion 2: you have an Ion Shield and a Sanctuary in your wargear.Â
Conclusion 1 + Conclusion 2: You have and Ion Shield and an Ion Shield in your wargear thus you have 2 Ion Shields.Â
Please point to the Premise that is incorrect? Your blank refusal to accept that the rules aren't lying is hilarious and illustrates that the only 1 facing argument has absolutely no support and you know it.
so you are unable to reconcile that the RAW for ion shields is singular for a knight having a shield and facing, and the rules for sanctuary are also singular for how many ion shields a knight has.
So is there permission to select more than one facing for ion shield? Is there a rule that gives you permission to set ion shield on more than one facing? thats the only real counter argument i see here
blaktoof wrote:so you are unable to reconcile that the RAW for ion shields is singular for a knight having a shield and facing, and the rules for sanctuary are also singular for how many ion shields a knight has.
Sanctuary says nothing about a Knight having only one shield, or that Sanctuary replaces a Shield. Ion Shields do not say they can only have one Ion Shield.
Can you demonstrate or quote the rule that either limits a model to one copy of a Wargear, even if one is a Relic? Or failing that, where this specific Wargear looses itself when replaced or only one version of it may exist?
If a Relic Pistol exists and is purchased, does the model lose access to all Pistols, or even prevent the purchase of a similar non-Relic version of Pistol? If a Captain purchases the Armour Indomitous, he doesn't lose his Power Armour, he actually keeps it (not that it actually DOES much of anything for the Captain, though).
Unless, of course, you can provide the quote to prove me wrong?
Whacked wrote:So is there permission to select more than one facing for ion shield? Is there a rule that gives you permission to set ion shield on more than one facing? thats the only real counter argument i see here
It says, "...{T}he controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's ion shield is covering."
So, each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield will cover one facing. Nothing about this restricts it to one facing if it has access to two Shields. But then, Sanctuary is the only way to GET two Ion Shields.
After going through all the arguments again, I will concede that a Knight with Sanctuary only has one Ion Shield, ever. The point made that Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield does coinside with the rules for Ion Shields (singular), rather than opening the possibility for having Ion Shields (multiple). In this I will admit that the additional 6++ all-around save is not in and of itself an Ion Shield, and therefore would not benefit from modifiers to Ion Shields, such as the Baronial front facing +1.
jeffersonian000 wrote: After going through all the arguments again, I will concede that a Knight with Sanctuary only has one Ion Shield, ever. The point made that Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield does coinside with the rules for Ion Shields (singular), rather than opening the possibility for having Ion Shields (multiple). In this I will admit that the additional 6++ all-around save is not in and of itself an Ion Shield, and therefore would not benefit from modifiers to Ion Shields, such as the Baronial front facing +1.
SJ
So going back to claiming 1 shield and still refusing to argue against ANY of the premises that prove the Knight has 2. So you refuse to support your argument and just state stuff you know is not true ad nauseam. Your insistence on repeatedly stating things you know to be untrue does not help the discussion nor further your argument. I think we all know how this works now and I thank you for your concession though for your own sake I wish you had been more mature about it.
jeffersonian000 wrote: After going through all the arguments again, I will concede that a Knight with Sanctuary only has one Ion Shield, ever. The point made that Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield does coinside with the rules for Ion Shields (singular), rather than opening the possibility for having Ion Shields (multiple). In this I will admit that the additional 6++ all-around save is not in and of itself an Ion Shield, and therefore would not benefit from modifiers to Ion Shields, such as the Baronial front facing +1.
SJ
So going back to claiming 1 shield and still refusing to argue against ANY of the premises that prove the Knight has 2. So you refuse to support your argument and just state stuff you know is not true ad nauseam. Your insistence on repeatedly stating things you know to be untrue does not help the discussion nor further your argument. I think we all know how this works now and I thank you for your concession though for your own sake I wish you had been more mature about it.
I already stated your premises follows a flawed logic argument, the flaws of which have already been pointed out a number of times.
So again with intentionally saying stuff you know to be untrue. As no one here as actually even attempted to arhue against either my premises or conclusions. So which of my premises is flawed. Or which conclusion foes not follow from the premise?
Premise 1: Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield Â
Premise 2: Counts as and is are interchangeable in rules. Â
Conclusion 1: Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. Â
Premise 3: when you purchase Sanctuary it is added to your wargear and does not replace anything. Â
Premise 4: before you purchase you have an Ion Shield in your wargear. Â
Conclusion 2: you have an Ion Shield and a Sanctuary in your wargear. Â
Conclusion 1 + Conclusion 2: You have and Ion Shield and an Ion Shield in your wargear thus you have 2 Ion Shields. Â
Please point to the Premise that is incorrect? Your blank refusal to accept that the rules aren't lying is hilarious and illustrates that the only 1 facing argument has absolutely no support and you know it.
Charistoph , I'm totally going to model a warboss straddling Gazbags Blitzbike and a second bike just for you.
"...has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by ITS ION SHIELD."-
Did we notice the rule for Sanctuary itself refers to there being only 1 ion shield? Not ion SHIELDS which is generally how we pluralize in English. So if the rule itself only refers to one ion shield... And it tells you it counts as an ion shield (meaning 1)... How many ion shields did the writer think were present?
Btw, I agree that wraith knights should cost more to exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But yall who said that were pushing a silly straw man down the street.
FratHammer wrote: Charistoph , I'm totally going to model a warboss straddling Gazbags Blitzbike and a second bike just for you.
"...has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by ITS ION SHIELD."-
Did we notice the rule for Sanctuary itself refers to there being only 1 ion shield? Not ion SHIELDS which is generally how we pluralize in English. So if the rule itself only refers to one ion shield... And it tells you it counts as an ion shield (meaning 1)... How many ion shields did the writer think were present?
Btw, I agree that wraith knights should cost more to exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But yall who said that were pushing a silly straw man down the street.
Yes it is singular shield because the Sanctuary provides a singular shield. The fact that the knight that takes it may already have another shield isn't the concern of Sanctuary. It is at this point undisputed that you have 2 shields. Even the other side fully accepts that.
Your premise is an "Affirming the Consequence" fallacy, because you assert that Sanctuary is a seperate feature from the base Ion Shiekd every Knight has, there by affirming that "counts as" equals "the same as", you attempt to create a consequence that ignores the fact that there is never more than one Ion Shield. The language of the Ion Shield rules concern only one shield being present, while the language of Sanctuary tells us that the relic is that Ion Shield plus more rules. By attempting the separate the base Ion Shield from the relic Sanctuary, you are implying that two states exist when only one exists.
My error was reading Sanctuary to imply that the 6++ save was also treated as an Ion Shield, which I now see was an incorrect assumption. Your error is in assuming that Sanctary as a separate piece of wargear rather than an upgrade to the existing wargear.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Your premise is an "Affirming the Consequence" fallacy, because you assert that Sanctuary is a seperate feature from the base Ion Shiekd every Knight has, there by affirming that "counts as" equals "the same as", you attempt to create a consequence that ignores the fact that there is never more than one Ion Shield. The language of the Ion Shield rules concern only one shield being present, while the language of Sanctuary tells us that the relic is that Ion Shield plus more rules. By attempting the separate the base Ion Shield from the relic Sanctuary, you are implying that two states exist when only one exists.
My error was reading Sanctuary to imply that the 6++ save was also treated as an Ion Shield, which I now see was an incorrect assumption. Your error is in assuming that Sanctary as a separate piece of wargear rather than an upgrade to the existing wargear.
SJ
Who is assuming a consequence fallacy?
Simple facts are:
Every Knight carries one Ion Shield.
The only restriction that exists for carrying multiple base Ion Shields is there is no option to purchase another, aside from Relics.
Sanctuary is an Ion Shield and is never stated to replace the base Shield.
So, of course we consider Sanctuary a separate piece of Wargear. This is no different than a Chaplain taking the Shield Eternal. He doesn't lose his Rosarius when taking it, even though the Shield is better. So, the Chaplain then has a base 3+/3++/4++ Save group to work with.
You are assuming a consequence and basing a ruling on that more than applying what is written rather clearly.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Your premise is an "Affirming the Consequence" fallacy, because you assert that Sanctuary is a seperate feature from the base Ion Shiekd every Knight has, there by affirming that "counts as" equals "the same as", you attempt to create a consequence that ignores the fact that there is never more than one Ion Shield. The language of the Ion Shield rules concern only one shield being present, while the language of Sanctuary tells us that the relic is that Ion Shield plus more rules. By attempting the separate the base Ion Shield from the relic Sanctuary, you are implying that two states exist when only one exists.
My error was reading Sanctuary to imply that the 6++ save was also treated as an Ion Shield, which I now see was an incorrect assumption. Your error is in assuming that Sanctary as a separate piece of wargear rather than an upgrade to the existing wargear.
SJ
Lol. I've not assumed anything. I have proven every step take. You have committed the logical fallacy you accuse.
The premise that "counts as an Ion Shield" means "counts as your Ion Shield" isn't a premise as those two things don't have the same meaning. Thus you must present so premises that lead to that conclusion. I await those premises.
Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield with extra rules, and all Knights have an Ion Shield. The rules support the use of only one Ion Shield per Knight. Therefore, Sanctuary effectively replaces the standard Ion Shield, rather than adding a second.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield with extra rules, and all Knights have an Ion Shield. The rules support the use of only one Ion Shield per Knight. Therefore, Sanctuary effectively replaces the standard Ion Shield, rather than adding a second.
SJ
Umm.. Where does it state a Knight may only have one Shield? What in the rules only support one Shield exclusively?
jeffersonian000 wrote: Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield with extra rules, and all Knights have an Ion Shield. The rules support the use of only one Ion Shield per Knight. Therefore, Sanctuary effectively replaces the standard Ion Shield, rather than adding a second.
SJ
Umm.. Where does it state a Knight may only have one Shield? What in the rules only support one Shield exclusively?
It doesn't say it anywhere, they are simply inferring it because the rules for ion shield refer to it as a singular item. When it would make absolutely no sense for it to refer to it as ion shields since the knight only comes stock with one.
SJ, by your logic, a model could only ever take one assault weapon because the rules for it refer to it as a singular item and not as a plural.
If anything, the only think you could say about Sanctuary is that the singular nature of it, as in "all facings not cover by the ion shield" simply supports the idea that the facings not covered by THAT PARTICULAR ion shield recieve the 6++, which would in effect mean that the facing covered by the knights stock ion shield receives the 4++ for the shield as well as the 6++ for sanctuary. The 4++ is simply the better save and is therefore used. This would even open the option that if something were able to take away a specific invul save, like removing the 4++, the the 6++ would still be present in its absence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's another thing to think about. If there was a special weapon called "Fire Hands" and in its rules, it said "Fire Hands counts as a bolt pistol. When firing the pistol the user may reroll to hit." and I then purchased that weapon for a model with a pistol. WOuld that model have one weapon or two. WOuld it have the bolt pistol AND Fire Hands, or would Fire Hands automatically replace the bolt pistol? And which weapons would have the ability to reroll to hit?
If you would say that the model would have 2 weapons, then how is that different than this situation? Obviously we know that you would only be able to fire one pistol, so you might try to argue that, but we only know that because the rules specifically tell us so. If they didn't, it would be assumed that a model can fire all it's weapons, as it was before that rule was added.
If you believe that only FireHands would get to reroll, then it follows the exact same logic that the initial shield would continue to function normally and the new shield would work normally as well.
Dramagod2 wrote: It doesn't say it anywhere, they are simply inferring it because the rules for ion shield refer to it as a singular item. When it would make absolutely no sense for it to refer to it as ion shields since the knight only comes stock with one.
Well, I can't find it, and you can't find it, but if they have any idea where it is, it would be helpful to present it instead of just declaring it. After all, they have offered nothing as proof for their claims, so the question if for them.
Dramagod2 wrote: ...Obviously we know that you would only be able to fire one pistol...
Um, Gunslinger rule....
But still, by their argument, it wouldn't apply, since they are both the same type of Wargear, never mind that they have two of them, and never mind that Gunslinger specifically allows for firing both Pistols and do not make a distinction against it if they are the same type of Wargear, i.e. two Bolt Pistols.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield with extra rules, and all Knights have an Ion Shield.
Correct you've started well and stated things that the rules say.
The rules support the use of only one Ion Shield per Knight.
The rules say no such thing unless you can say where this rule is found.
Therefore, Sanctuary effectively replaces the standard Ion Shield, rather than adding a second.
SJ
Again the rules say no such thing. Even if the rules state all Knights only ever have 1 Ion shield the more specific nature of Sanctuary and how it is added to your wargear means it would still result in 2 Ion Shuelds (and you don't even have a rule as remotely explicit as that just a rule talking about an item using singular language). So for this claim you again need rules support that states what you are claiming.
So you have a premise at the start which is correct. Then you have 2 conclusions based on nothing. What premises are those conclusions based on?
jeffersonian000 wrote: Your premise is an "Affirming the Consequence" fallacy, because you assert that Sanctuary is a seperate feature from the base Ion Shiekd every Knight has, there by affirming that "counts as" equals "the same as", you attempt to create a consequence that ignores the fact that there is never more than one Ion Shield. The language of the Ion Shield rules concern only one shield being present, while the language of Sanctuary tells us that the relic is that Ion Shield plus more rules. By attempting the separate the base Ion Shield from the relic Sanctuary, you are implying that two states exist when only one exists.
My error was reading Sanctuary to imply that the 6++ save was also treated as an Ion Shield, which I now see was an incorrect assumption. Your error is in assuming that Sanctary as a separate piece of wargear rather than an upgrade to the existing wargear.
SJ
The text for Sanctuary in no way, shape or form tells us that it replaces the Ion Shield. We're told that it counts as an Ion Shield, but we're never told that the Knight who takes Sanctuary loses the Ion Shield it started with.
I also agree that there is never more than one ION SHIELD. No Knight has the option to take a second ION SHIELD. Knights do have the option to take an ION SHIELD and a SANCTUARY (which just so happens to count as an Ion Shield with extra rules).
Can you provide the wording telling me that Sanctuary is an upgrade to the Ion Shield and not a separate piece of wargear? It doesn't seem to be in the rules anywhere that I can find.
Can you show me a single piece of Knight wargear other than the Stubber you can have more than one of?
The Rapid Fire Battle Cannon replaces the Thermal Cannon
The Gauntlet replaces the Reaper. The Relic Gauntlet replaces the Reaper, and replaces the Gauntlet on a Gallant. The relic Sword replaces the Reaper.
The Meltgun replaces the hull Stubber
The relic helmet replace the non-stat piece of armor covering the head.
The relic Banner replaces the non-stat banner
Knights has an Ion Shield. Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. The rules only support one Ion Shield per Knight, just like every other piece of wargear other than the Stubber.
You cannot prove that it is legal to take two Ion Shields without implied permission based on the Sanctuary language, the exact same language that implies the relic replaces the standard piece.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Can you show me a single piece of Knight wargear other than the Stubber you can have more than one of?
The Rapid Fire Battle Cannon replaces the Thermal Cannon
The Gauntlet replaces the Reaper. The Relic Gauntlet replaces the Reaper, and replaces the Gauntlet on a Crusader. The relic Sword replaces the Reaper.
The Meltgun replaces the hull Stubber
The relic helmet replace the non-stat piece of armor coveting the head.
The relic Banner replaces the non-stat banner
Knights has an Ion Shield. Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. The rules only support one Ion Shield per Knight, just like every other piece of wargear other than the Stubber.
You cannot prove that it is legal to take two Ion Shields without implied permission based on the Sanctuary language, the exact same language that implies the relic replaces the standard piece.
SJ
Cool so there is a bunch of stuff that replaces stuff for a Knight. Does all that stuff explicitly state is replaces stuff? Oh yes it does.
The last point just shows you still don't understand how a permissive ruleset works. Where is permission to use your Ion Shield on a Tuesday?
We have general permission to have wargear. We have specific permission to start with an Ion Shield. We have specific permission to add Sanctuary (which is an Ion Shield) to our wargear. We have proven all of this. Show denial of that permission or anything that supports your stance at all.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Can you show me a single piece of Knight wargear other than the Stubber you can have more than one of?
The Rapid Fire Battle Cannon replaces the Thermal Cannon
The Gauntlet replaces the Reaper. The Relic Gauntlet replaces the Reaper, and replaces the Gauntlet on a Gallant. The relic Sword replaces the Reaper.
The Meltgun replaces the hull Stubber
The relic helmet replace the non-stat piece of armor covering the head.
The relic Banner replaces the non-stat banner
Knights has an Ion Shield. Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. The rules only support one Ion Shield per Knight, just like every other piece of wargear other than the Stubber.
You cannot prove that it is legal to take two Ion Shields without implied permission based on the Sanctuary language, the exact same language that implies the relic replaces the standard piece.
SJ
How is any of that even remotely relevant? All of those examples have wording around replacement. Sanctuary does not. Apples and Oranges my friend. It's a different situation.
And again. Nobody is saying a Knight Titan can take two pieces of wargear called Ion Shield. They come standard with a piece of wargear called Ion Shield and potentially have the option to take a second piece of wargear called Sanctuary that we are never told replaces the first piece.
Your argument seems to be "all of these other things are replacements, so this thing must also be a replacement despite not saying it's a replacement". Have I understood you correctly?
I still believe the fact that Sanctuary itself only allows for wording as of you only had 1 ion shield, when by the time you take it you must have 2, means you only have 1.
Btw, we do all agree that GW couldn't write a proper rule if their lives depended on it right?
Why does Sanctuary only allow for 1 Ion Shield. When it uses singular in context that could be (and most likely is) referring to the Ion Shield provided by Sanctuary. Thus a Knight with Sanctuary has both a 4++ and an irrelevant 6++ in one facing.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Can you show me a single piece of Knight wargear other than the Stubber you can have more than one of?
Your point? Unless you can demonstrate where it says that a Knight can only have only one piece of any type of Wargear, you may as well be talking about Chinese Tea for the purposes of this conversation.
The Gauntlet replaces the Reaper. The Relic Gauntlet replaces the Reaper, and replaces the Gauntlet on a Gallant. The relic Sword replaces the Reaper.
The Meltgun replaces the hull Stubber
And the word "replace" is used in those instances where a replacement occurs in the Wargear Lists.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The relic helmet replace the non-stat piece of armor covering the head.
The relic Banner replaces the non-stat banner
Incorrect. The Relics never say they replace them. The Wargear Lists which provide for the opportunity only say, "A model may take one of the following", not "replace a non-existant piece of Wargear". There are no head armour or banner to replace.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Knights has an Ion Shield. Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. The rules only support one Ion Shield per Knight, just like every other piece of wargear other than the Stubber.
So, if a Dreadnought replaces their weapons with two Twin-Linked Autocannons, they can only fire one? Can a Knight only fire one of their two equipped Stubbers? Can they not use the Carapace Weapons they can purchase because it is not replacing a Weapon?
All of these are concepts which you are proposing exist, yet, have yet to provide any reference, either in codex or rulebook, to support them.
jeffersonian000 wrote: You cannot prove that it is legal to take two Ion Shields without implied permission based on the Sanctuary language, the exact same language that implies the relic replaces the standard piece.
Actually, it is very easy to prove that it is legal for an Imperial Knight to have two Ion Shields, one MUST be a Relic, though. It has been demonstrated several times: 1) An Imperial Knight, no matter its form or version, comes with one Ion Shield. 2) Where it has access to the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses, it may purchase the Sanctuary. 3) Neither the Heirlooms Wargear List nor the Sanctuary state that it replaces the base Ion Shield, it is just purchased, just as the Carapace Weapon, Helmet, or Banner. 4) Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield. 5) The ability to carry two Ion Shields is not forbidden, nor does one necessarily focus nor interfere with the other's use.
Therefore: A Knight which purchases Sanctuary carries an alternative form of Ion Shield while at the same time still carries the base Ion Shield. Each piece of Wargear only addresses its use, and does not address the use of any other Wargear, save for the 6++ that Sanctuary applies not covering the Facing the Ion Shield covers.
If you can prove me wrong, please provide a reference point instead of just a judgement.
it falls down to a previous example used. You have a chapalin. He has a 4++ save with his rosarius. If you give him a storm sheild he now has a 3++. Did he lose the rosarius. No. He has both. When you make a save you can technically make a save with the rosarius if wanted but why not take the better save. You choose the equipment to make the save with.
Now with sanctuary do you have it and a regular ion shield. Yes. Is sanctuary an ion shied. Yes.. Can you make a save with both. No. Can the chaplain make a 4+ save with rosarus then a 3+ with storm shield. No. You have to declaire what is taking the save. This is the same with the ion shield problem.
you have 2 ion shield on your knight now. You need to decide what is going to be used for an upcoming save when ion shield placement is chosen. Do I take the regular ion 4++ shield or the 4++ with the extra 6++ saves.
Its not whether or not it has 2 ion shields because it does. You need to declaire what is going to be used.
There are abilites in the game that allow you to break relics. If sanctuary is broken then you would have your normal ion shield.
The problem arries when people assume that equipment stacks and unless stated it does not. The chappies inv save dosent change to a 2+ because he bas a 4++ and a 3++ and ion shields dont get extra 4++ sides because they have an ion shield and sanctuary
I think you've misunderstood the issue. An Ion Shield only gives you a 4++ in one facing. Thus having 2 gives you the benefit of having that 4++ in 2 facings. It is not that anyone is claiming you get 2 sequential 4++ saves but that you get double the coverage of that 4++.
worldwrekka wrote: you have 2 ion shield on your knight now. You need to decide what is going to be used for an upcoming save when ion shield placement is chosen. Do I take the regular ion 4++ shield or the 4++ with the extra 6++ saves.
Its not whether or not it has 2 ion shields because it does. You need to declaire what is going to be used.
...
The problem arries when people assume that equipment stacks and unless stated it does not. The chappies inv save dosent change to a 2+ because he bas a 4++ and a 3++ and ion shields dont get extra 4++ sides because they have an ion shield and sanctuary
This isn't a question of Wargear stacking, exactly. No one is arguing that the Knight will be able to use both Saves on the same Hit. This has never been referenced or suggested. It would be counter to the rules regarding Saves that everyone is familiar with where only one Save is allowed.
What we have here are two pieces of Wargear that do a similar job, but it is one that is focused on a specific area, instead of all around. Now, if a person can focus one Wargear on one area, and has two of them, why would they have to focus on the same spot? A Vehicle, like the Knight is, has 4 different sides that can be affected, and an Ion Shield (Relic or base) can focus on one of three of them.
For the sake of argument, if the Ion Shield is facing on Left, and Sanctuary on the Right, one would not have to choose between which 4++ Save would matter, they would never be applied at the same time, any more than a Cover Save that applied to fire from the Right would not be accounted for when determining Cover Saves from the Left.
Now, in the same situation, the 6++ would not even be in play for consideration when dealing with the base Ion Shield because it doesn't work where an Ion Shield is focused.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Can you show me a single piece of Knight wargear other than the Stubber you can have more than one of?
The Rapid Fire Battle Cannon replaces the Thermal Cannon
The Gauntlet replaces the Reaper. The Relic Gauntlet replaces the Reaper, and replaces the Gauntlet on a Crusader. The relic Sword replaces the Reaper.
The Meltgun replaces the hull Stubber
The relic helmet replace the non-stat piece of armor coveting the head.
The relic Banner replaces the non-stat banner
Knights has an Ion Shield. Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. The rules only support one Ion Shield per Knight, just like every other piece of wargear other than the Stubber.
You cannot prove that it is legal to take two Ion Shields without implied permission based on the Sanctuary language, the exact same language that implies the relic replaces the standard piece.
SJ
Cool so there is a bunch of stuff that replaces stuff for a Knight. Does all that stuff explicitly state is replaces stuff? Oh yes it does.
The last point just shows you still don't understand how a permissive ruleset works. Where is permission to use your Ion Shield on a Tuesday?
We have general permission to have wargear. We have specific permission to start with an Ion Shield. We have specific permission to add Sanctuary (which is an Ion Shield) to our wargear. We have proven all of this. Show denial of that permission or anything that supports your stance at all.
You reply to my post shows you have a complete lack of understanding on how the rules in 7th Ed 40k interact. I pointed out how wargear for Knights interact, which is no different from how wargear for other units in the game interact. The example above of a Chaplin with a Storm Shield is spot on, because there is no ability for the Chaplin to choose his 4++ save, ever, while the 3++ save is present. Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield; how many Ion Shields does a Knight-class Titan have? One, just one. Buying a relic Ion Shield for your Knight does not add a second Ion Shield, it adds extra rules to your Ion Shield. The rules for Ion Shields tell you to pick one facing, the rules for Sanctuary do not contradict this, yet adds that the other facings not covered by the Ion Shield are granted 6++ save versus ranged attacks. As has been mentioned before, even if you have two Ion Shields, only one could be faced per the rules. Your attempts to point out ways that two Shields could be faced are house rules, not RAW.
The rules say that you can only roll one save (armor, cover, invul) against a single wound or pen, They say nothing about limiting the saves you have.
Each ion shield lets you pick a facing for a 4++. That makes one facing for ion shield, one facing for sanctuary which is an ion shield.
If you have the shield on the front and side and the side gets penned or glanced, you get one 4++ save, because the first shield let you put one there, if you get hit on the front, you get one 4++ save, from sanctuary. for each hp inflicted, you're still only getting one save which follows the rules completely;
The idea of the the chaplains save doesn't pertain to this since as an infantry model, he can only ever take one save since all of his wounds get applied to the same place.However, knights are different, as vehicles, they have facings, each of which is targetted and rolled against seperately. The ion shield gives an invul to a side, not to the model overall, hence two of them gives invuls to two sides, however, the model still only gets one save at a time, it just depends on which side was targeted. I can never take my front ion shield save against an attack from the side, so the saves don't interfere with eachother in the same having two invuls on an infantry model would.
jeffersonian000 wrote: You reply to my post shows you have a complete lack of understanding on how the rules in 7th Ed 40k interact.
And you are showing an even smaller understanding.
jeffersonian000 wrote: I pointed out how wargear for Knights interact, which is no different from how wargear for other units in the game interact.
Yeah, misquoting does change how the rules work. You mentioned several pieces of Wargear being replaced, except that in those cases, the word "replaced" is never used, they are just purchased.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The example above of a Chaplin with a Storm Shield is spot on, because there is no ability for the Chaplin to choose his 4++ save, ever, while the 3++ save is present.
Want to bet? A model always has the advantage of taking the Best Save, true. A model with a choice of Cover Saves must always take the best Save, true. Nothing about always having to take the best Invul Save or Armour Save, even when it is better than Cover.
It's also not that good of an example, because Ion Shield's only protect 1/4 of a model with the full 4++, while the Storm Shield and Rosarius cover the entire model.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield; how many Ion Shields does a Knight-class Titan have? One, just one.
Has? Yes, one. Allowed to have? Prove it's only one.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Buying a relic Ion Shield for your Knight does not add a second Ion Shield, it adds extra rules to your Ion Shield.
Except for the fact that it never says any of this. Replacing an Ion Shield is never stated. It never states that you use Sanctuary instead of an Ion Shield.
What it does say is that you purchase it for the model. That it is an Ion Shield, or at least counts as one. That is its own piece of Wargear and never mentions being an upgrade to the Ion Shield. It IS its own Ion Shield, period.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The rules for Ion Shields tell you to pick one facing, the rules for Sanctuary do not contradict this, yet adds that the other facings not covered by the Ion Shield are granted 6++ save versus ranged attacks. As has been mentioned before, even if you have two Ion Shields, only one could be faced per the rules. Your attempts to point out ways that two Shields could be faced are house rules, not RAW.
Nope, nothing states only one facing for ALL Shields. It says each Knight's Shield covers one of three possible facings. Put in the context of having two Ion Shields, the "each" can apply easily to "Shield" rather than just the "Knight".
So, reference the actual rules you are working from, please.
Dramagod2 wrote: The rules say that you can only roll one save (armor, cover, invul) against a single wound or pen, They say nothing about limiting the saves you have.
Each ion shield lets you pick a facing for a 4++. That makes one facing for ion shield, one facing for sanctuary which is an ion shield.
If you have the shield on the front and side and the side gets penned or glanced, you get one 4++ save, because the first shield let you put one there, if you get hit on the front, you get one 4++ save, from sanctuary. for each hp inflicted, you're still only getting one save which follows the rules completely;
The idea of the the chaplains save doesn't pertain to this since as an infantry model, he can only ever take one save since all of his wounds get applied to the same place.However, knights are different, as vehicles, they have facings, each of which is targetted and rolled against seperately. The ion shield gives an invul to a side, not to the model overall, hence two of them gives invuls to two sides, however, the model still only gets one save at a time, it just depends on which side was targeted. I can never take my front ion shield save against an attack from the side, so the saves don't interfere with eachother in the same having two invuls on an infantry model would.
Pretty much. A Space Marine Captain comes with the Iron Halo, a 4++. He can purchase a Storm Shield, a 3++. He can purchase either Terminator Armour (5++) or Armour Indomitous (6++). Then he can replace a Weapon with a Shield Eternal for another 3++. Never mind the fact that taking a Storm Shield and Shield Eternal is quite redundant and therefore stupid, it IS quite possible and legal to do so, and so possess 1-2 Armour Saves (Armour Indomitus doesn't replace Power Armour) and 4 Invulnerable Saves, and that's not including Cover Saves obtained through other means.
And no, one is not required to use the best Save, it's just usually smart to do so.
Models with more than one save In these cases, a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.
So, I guess you can choose to not use your best available save, despite the BRB saying you do.
Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses A model may take one of the following:
- Banner of Macharius Triumphant…
- The Paragon Gauntlet 1…
- Sanctuary…
- Ravager 2 …
- Helm of the Nameless Warrior…
- Mark of the Omnissiah…
1 May not be taken by a Knight Crusader. Replaces reaper chainsword. If taken by a Knight Gallant, replaces thunderstrike gauntlet.
2 May not be taken by a Knight Crusader. Replaces reaper chainsword.
You are absolutely right! The word "replace" is never mentioned at all, except for the three places I cited.
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.
Only references facing a single 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.
Does not say it is an additional Ion Shield, nor does it list permission to chose more than one facing. It does tell you that it covers the facings not selected with an additional 6++ save, though.
After my local players reading the points on this thread, and some friendly discussion, we have decided the two shields at the same time on two facings is the way the rules work until otherwise FAQ. Thanks all for your input.
Iget what you sre trying to get at guys. I actually have a knight house and would love to have sanctuary give you 2 shields. Lets be honest here. It comes down to a matter of interpretation and who wants to use it that way. It says nothing abut stacked effect. It says nothing about having 2 ion shields that can be used at the sametime. All it say is that it is to be considered an ion shield and that the sides that the ion shield is not on get a 6++save.
The knight is not a vehicle it is a low and a walker. It can also take relics which is a piece of war gear. The ion shield is a piece of war gear. What happens when you have 2 pices of the same war gear ( ion shield) even if they have a diferent name or ability, you get to pick the one being used. Give me the rule that allows it as I have never seen it. I just wantthe straight rule without personal interpretation
Ithink it is pretty simple. No matter what I can say will change the minds that want it to have 2 ions at the same time so if the tournament you go to allows it, take it and run but dont be upset if they dont allow it, which it will be 8/10 times. If having a fun game then explain it to your opponent but again they have the right to refuse.
All I say is have a fun game
It's funny you say tourney won't allow it 8/10 as I've been doing research and asking questions and this hasn't come up a lot, but when it has it has been ruled in favor of. Please only state something if you've done research, not your opinion of what a tourney would do.
What happens when you have 2 pices of the same war gear ( ion shield) even if they have a diferent name or ability, you get to pick the one being used.
Sanctuary and the Ion shield are not the same piece of wargear.
@ pain4pleasure. I think you need to take your own advice, I can only state on things that I know. The tourney in my 500km area havent allowed it.The local meta I play in dosent allow it that way. It is what it is. Please take your hypocrisy and trolling elsewhere. This is just a friendly rule discussion
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again, deathreaper, you see it one way I see it another. It is a matter of interpretation. There is nothing to say it is to be used that way or not. It is how you want to play.
worldwrekka wrote: @ pain4pleasure. I think you need to take your own advice, I can only state on things that I know. The tourney in my 500km area havent allowed it.The local meta I play in dosent allow it that way. It is what it is. Please take your hypocrisy and trolling elsewhere. This is just a friendly rule discussion
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again, deathreaper, you see it one way I see it another. It is a matter of interpretation. There is nothing to say it is to be used that way or not. It is how you want to play.
I created this thread. I know what it's for. I'm sorry you play it wrong. We are just trying to help you play it right. Unless you're on the opposite end, and just want to nerf the knights
Models with more than one save In these cases, a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.
So, I guess you can choose to not use your best available save, despite the BRB saying you do.
Having an advantage of always doing something does not translate must always do something.
jeffersonian000 wrote:
Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses A model may take one of the following:
- Banner of Macharius Triumphant…
- The Paragon Gauntlet 1…
- Sanctuary…
- Ravager 2 …
- Helm of the Nameless Warrior…
- Mark of the Omnissiah…
1 May not be taken by a Knight Crusader. Replaces reaper chainsword. If taken by a Knight Gallant, replaces thunderstrike gauntlet.
2 May not be taken by a Knight Crusader. Replaces reaper chainsword.
You are absolutely right! The word "replace" is never mentioned at all, except for the three places I cited.
Really?
jeffersonian000 wrote:The relic helmet replace the non-stat piece of armor covering the head.
The relic Banner replaces the non-stat banner
Knights has an Ion Shield. Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. The rules only support one Ion Shield per Knight, just like every other piece of wargear other than the Stubber.
Sure looks like you mentioned replacing in places that don't have it to me.
jeffersonian000 wrote:
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.
Only references facing a single Ion Shield.
That could be argued. "...{T}he controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering" could easily be multiple choices if multiple are available. Context is important.
Also, this is describing what one Ion Shield does. Having two does not limit to one facing for all Ion Shields. In fact, each Knight's Ion Shield facing must be chosen.
jeffersonian000 wrote:
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.
Does not say it is an additional Ion Shield, nor does it list permission to chose more than one facing. It does tell you that it covers the facings not selected with an additional 6++ save, though.
Yes, it does. By virtue of the fact that any model purchasing it already has one, you purchase it in addition to the base one currently on the Knight, and this does not replace nor upgrade the basic Ion Shield. So, purchasing Sanctuary provides a Second Ion Shield just the same as purchasing Shield Eternal and a Storm Shield gives a Space Marine Captain Two Storm Shields. The only difference is that having two Storm Shields provides zero benefit to the Captain (unless the Relic is destroyed) while having two Ion Shields allows for a facing to be chosen for each.
What's illegal with having two Ion Shields? Aside from piss-poor pricing for such a benefit being the only thing wrong with it?
Again, deathreaper, you see it one way I see it another. It is a matter of interpretation. There is nothing to say it is to be used that way or not. It is how you want to play.
Which part of my post are you referring to specifically?
Except that just like the Storm Shield example, there are no rules that tell us how two Ion Shields are used. You are assuming that if you had two of them, then you make up a rule that allows you to use two of them. That's called a house rule.
worldwrekka wrote: Iget what you sre trying to get at guys. I actually have a knight house and would love to have sanctuary give you 2 shields. Lets be honest here. It comes down to a matter of interpretation and who wants to use it that way.
The discussion has largely been focussed on RaW rather than interpretation. What we have been saying is 100% RaW and has absolute iron cast RaI support.
It says nothing abut stacked effect. It says nothing about having 2 ion shields that can be used at the sametime.
It says nothing about using Ion Shields at 3:25pm on a Tuesday either. That is not how a permissive ruleset works. It gives permission to have an Ion Shield and permission to add another piece of wargear which is also an Ion Shield. Thus you have 2.
All it say is that it is to be considered an ion shield and that the sides that the ion shield is not on get a 6++save.
Correct it is an Ion Shield that has an additional effect (note the use of "in addition" in the actual rule).
The knight is not a vehicle it is a low and a walker.
Battlefield role and unit type have no connection and Walkers are vehicles so this sentence shows a complete lack of understanding the basic rules.
It can also take relics which is a piece of war gear. The ion shield is a piece of war gear. What happens when you have 2 pices of the same war gear ( ion shield) even if they have a diferent name or ability, you get to pick the one being used. Give me the rule that allows it as I have never seen it. I just wantthe straight rule without personal interpretation
Check gunslinger and a guy with 2 Bolt Pistols. Or if you want an example even more closely aligned a guy with a pistol and a ccw. Now when you hit combat the pistol becomes a CCW so in effect it is a CCW with an additional effect. Does a model armed thus get the +1A for having 2 weapons? Nothing states the ccw doesn't replace your existing CCW and nothing states it is an additional ccw.
Ithink it is pretty simple. No matter what I can say will change the minds that want it to have 2 ions at the same time so if the tournament you go to allows it, take it and run but dont be upset if they dont allow it, which it will be 8/10 times. If having a fun game then explain it to your opponent but again they have the right to refuse.
All I say is have a fun game
It is not that our minds are made up it is that the RaW is absolutely 100% clear and RaI appears to match so why would you play it any other way?
jeffersonian000 wrote: Except that just like the Storm Shield example, there are no rules that tell us how two Ion Shields are used. You are assuming that if you had two of them, then you make up a rule that allows you to use two of them. That's called a house rule.
You could look at it that way, I suppose, but only if you want to be severely self-limiting. If you cannot figure out how two Storm Shields interact, that may indicate why you are having so much trouble here.
I am not making up no rule, though, I am using one you have quoted several times, and I even referenced it multiple times. Each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield must have a facing chosen. It's simple so long as you change the emphasis of the target of "each". This is a simple contextual change when a model is carrying two pieces of Wargear, and easily justifiable in the English language.
There is no rule against a model benefiting from multiple Wargear at the same time. Their interactions may have rules preventing it, such as a Captain carrying a Power Sword and the Blinding Blade and they can only use one Weapon, or the limit to using only one Save for an Allocated Wound, even when you have an Armour Save, 3 Invul Saves and a Cover Save.
Special Rules may also not stack with themselves, but while Wargear provide Special Rules, they are not Special Rules themselves. And that may be part of where your confusion is coming from.
Can you find in the rulebook or codex where it states otherwise to these last two statements?
jeffersonian000 wrote: Except that just like the Storm Shield example, there are no rules that tell us how two Ion Shields are used. You are assuming that if you had two of them, then you make up a rule that allows you to use two of them. That's called a house rule.
SJ
Again that is not how a permissive ruleset works. If you have 2 tactical squads can you move them both? Nothing tells you how to even move specifically a tactical squad.
We have instructions on how to use an Ion Shield. If we have multiple Ion Shields we follow those rules multiple times (once for each shield) unless instructed otherwise. So are you now accepting that a Knight can have an Ion Shield and a Sanctuary as 2 separate distinct items of wargear?
Jeffersion's just grasping at straws. Just because x of the entries have a replacement effect doesn't automatically make Sanctuary a replacement effect too. I think the topic has been thoroughly discussed at this point and is mostly in favor for, rather than against.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The Shield of Each Imperial Knight must have a facing chosen
The context of the rule is talking about the Knights being plural, as it is a rule that requires you to look at all Knights you have
It is not making alo9owance for more than one shield.
So, once you pick the facing for the shield, you have no permission to rerun the rule; you have satisfied the permission gained from this rule
It doesn't have to make allowance for more than 1 shield as each shield has the rule. You have permission to rerun the rule by having it on each wargear. In effect you must pick a facing for each Ion Shueld and each Sanctuary. The wording is not indicative of a restriction to 1 shield it uses singluar language but that in itself isn't enough particularly due to the strength of the language.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The Shield of Each Imperial Knight must have a facing chosen
The context of the rule is talking about the Knights being plural, as it is a rule that requires you to look at all Knights you have
It is not making alo9owance for more than one shield.
So, once you pick the facing for the shield, you have no permission to rerun the rule; you have satisfied the permission gained from this rule
It doesn't have to make allowance for more than 1 shield as each shield has the rule. You have permission to rerun the rule by having it on each wargear. In effect you must pick a facing for each Ion Shueld and each Sanctuary. The wording is not indicative of a restriction to 1 shield it uses singluar language but that in itself isn't enough particularly due to the strength of the language.
The rule refers to a player decision you make once for each Knight. Each Knight may pick a facing for their shield, singular
The context on this one is utterly clear, and normally youre really hot on context. Why changing your tune here? Inconvenience?
You'll make me blush Nos thanks for tell me how hot I am in context
I'd say each Ion shield has a rule that talks about you making a decision once per knight. The wording not near strict enough to restrict multiple Shields from working (if a Knight has a shield, boolean type wording). It talks in singular terms written under the assumption of a single shield (not surprising as Knights start with 1 shield, when the rule was written could never have more than 1 shield and even currently a maximum of 1 Knight can have 2).
As has been explain "each Knight's Ion Shield" can also equally mean "each, Knight's Ion Shield" as well as your "each Knight's, Ion Shield". There's nothing preventing the 2 shields from working beyond what people want to be the case.
Two Storm Shields > no rules, although the More Than One Save rules requires than you can only ever use one save
Two Ion Shields > no rules
Levels in Ruins > no rules, although quite a few can be found in the 6th Ed BRB
I'd ask if you can see where I'm going with this, but based on previous posts, the concept that no rules means no rules might still remain a stumbling point for many that really really want to have two seoerate facing Ion Shields on their expensive Knight-Titan models.
Right, there are no rules for resolving two ion shields. Fortunately, there is never a situation where we're resolving two ion shields.
We're resolving an ion shield and a sanctuary. We have rules for resolving ion shield AND we have rules for resolving sanctuary.
I'm still not sure why you think the model has two identical pieces of wargear. The rules don't support that position at all.
Imagine that the Imperial Knight comes stock with an "Ion Shield Module" that mounts to the hull and is able to swivel, pointing a 4++ shield in one direction at a time. The "Sanctuary Module" is effectively a second piece of equipment that would also mount to the hull, be able to swivel, point a 4++ shield in one direction and a 6++ shield in all other directions. There is nothing in the rules telling us that the Tech Priests have to uninstall the "Ion Shield Module" to install the "Sanctuary Module", i.e. this is not a replacement situation. There is nothing in the rules telling us that the "Ion Shield Module" and the "Sanctuary Module" have to swivel and point in the same direction.
In the absence of specific wording telling us otherwise, we resolve each effect independently, which results in the option to pick different facings for each piece of wargear.
You have yet to show any wording requiring you to resolve the effects simultaneously OR that Sanctuary replaces the existing Ion Shield. You've shown lots of anecdotal evidence that could show GW intended for it to be a replacement, but failed to write that intention into the rules.
Not really caring to much but I play 4 knights and it not 2 ion shields its one ion shield and a counts as ion shield that's 2,different shields each war gear has to be used no where does it say you can't use 2 war gear items there not staking its one side gets a 4+ 3 sides get a 6+ then you place ion shield giving another side 4+ 6+ use best save
Two Storm Shields > no rules, although the More Than One Save rules requires than you can only ever use one save
Each with explicit restrictions on or benefits for using two or more at the same time based on their interactions. Where is that restriction for the Ion Shield?
Incorrect. There are rules that pertain to operating an Ion Shield. This operation doesn't prevent the use of a second Ion Shield much like a second Storm Shield's use is prevented or a Storm Bolter and Pistol prevents the other's use on a regular Infantry model. Simply put, you keep claiming a restriction, but have yet to provide the actual rules for the restriction. You give examples where restrictions are explicit for their situation, but you cannot bring one where two Ion Shields are prevented from operating on two different facings. If there was a stated limit per Imperial Knight, that would work, but the only limitation is a phrase which states "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield", which can be used as either referring to a single Knight's shield or each Shield of an Imperial Knight, depending on the context of the situation.
jeffersonian000 wrote: I'd ask if you can see where I'm going with this, but based on previous posts, the concept that no rules means no rules might still remain a stumbling point for many that really really want to have two seoerate facing Ion Shields on their expensive Knight-Titan models.
This isn't a case of "no rules", though, this is a case of you adding rules in to the situation without written justification. You have referenced other rules which are limiting, but those limits are explicit in their use and application, and have zero bearing on Wargear providing Invulnerability Saves on a Vehicle's facings.
Kriswall wrote: Right, there are no rules for resolving two ion shields. Fortunately, there is never a situation where we're resolving two ion shields.
We're resolving an ion shield and a sanctuary. We have rules for resolving ion shield AND we have rules for resolving sanctuary.
I'm still not sure why you think the model has two identical pieces of wargear. The rules don't support that position at all.
It's the Ion Shield in Sanctuary that is the problem here. And it's the Ion Shield portion of Sanctuary's rules which would provide a second facing of 4++. If Sanctuary did not carry the "counts as Ion Shield" in it, this wouldn't even be a discussion.
Kriswall, try imagining that the Ion Shield is distributed over the Knight's frame, and occasionally there's this one Knight with a tweaked Ion Shield that is so legendary, people call it Sanctuary. It's still an Ion Shield, it just covers the Knight a little bit better. Knight's mount only one Ion Shield, but that Ion Shield's coverage is based on the skill of the Noble pilot to use effectively. Sanctuary is a tweaked Ion Shield.
Deathmachine wrote: Not really caring to much but I play 4 knights and it not 2 ion shields its one ion shield and a counts as ion shield that's 2,different shields each war gear has to be used no where does it say you can't use 2 war gear items there not staking its one side gets a 4+ 3 sides get a 6+ then you place ion shield giving another side 4+ 6+ use best save
Two Storm Shields > no rules, although the More Than One Save rules requires than you can only ever use one save
Each with explicit restrictions on or benefits for using two or more at the same time based on their interactions. Where is that restriction for the Ion Shield?
Exactly. Where is the restriction? Where is the text in the rules that covers this situation? We see such text almost everywhere else, and I even cited two other examples on where the text is missing from other similar situations. It's a permissive rule set, no permission equals a restriction.
Incorrect. There are rules that pertain to operating an Ion Shield. This operation doesn't prevent the use of a second Ion Shield much like a second Storm Shield's use is prevented or a Storm Bolter and Pistol prevents the other's use on a regular Infantry model. Simply put, you keep claiming a restriction, but have yet to provide the actual rules for the restriction. You give examples where restrictions are explicit for their situation, but you cannot bring one where two Ion Shields are prevented from operating on two different facings. If there was a stated limit per Imperial Knight, that would work, but the only limitation is a phrase which states "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield", which can be used as either referring to a single Knight's shield or each Shield of an Imperial Knight, depending on the context of the situation.
Simply put, post the rules that cover how to use two Ion Shields on the same Knight, or concede the point. I've already cite the Ion Shield rules and Sanctuary's rules, neither of which covers have more than one Ion Shield in play. You are creating a rule to allow you to face two separate 4++ saves, because that rule does not exist in the current rule set. So cite this made up rule of yours, or concede the point.
jeffersonian000 wrote: I'd ask if you can see where I'm going with this, but based on previous posts, the concept that no rules means no rules might still remain a stumbling point for many that really really want to have two seoerate facing Ion Shields on their expensive Knight-Titan models.
This isn't a case of "no rules", though, this is a case of you adding rules in to the situation without written justification. You have referenced other rules which are limiting, but those limits are explicit in their use and application, and have zero bearing on Wargear providing Invulnerability Saves on a Vehicle's facings.
You are the one creating rules, not I. Where is the permission? Where is the language that tells us what we can do? I cited direct counters you previously posted arguments, such as which rules grant permission to use two pieces of the same wargear. You now have to prove with rules that don't exist how you feel two Ion Shields work, or concede the point. Without explicit permission, you have an explicit restriction. Prove your position, or concede the point.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Kriswall, try imagining that the Ion Shield is distributed over the Knight's frame, and occasionally there's this one Knight with a tweaked Ion Shield that is so legendary, people call it Sanctuary. It's still an Ion Shield, it just covers the Knight a little bit better. Knight's mount only one Ion Shield, but that Ion Shield's coverage is based on the skill of the Noble pilot to use effectively. Sanctuary is a tweaked Ion Shield.
Jeffersonian, try imagining that this Knight is so influential he was able to install a second Ion Shield, and this one is tweaked to provide full coverage on a low power scale as well as providing a full power to one facing just like the base one. That is how the rules say it is installed.
The concept of "Knight's mount only one Ion Shield" is just as true as saying a Rhino only mounts one Storm Bolter. They both come with them as default, but have an option to purchase another.
Sanctuary is not listed as an upgrade to the Ion Shield. It is not listed as replacing the Ion Shield. It states that it counts as an Ion Shield all on its own. If the term "upgrade" or "replaced" was used in Sanctuary's rules, or if the "counts as Ion Shield" were not present, you would be correct, and this wouldn't even be a discussion. But such is not the case. You are placing rules and limitations where they are not written.
Two Storm Shields > no rules, although the More Than One Save rules requires than you can only ever use one save
Each with explicit restrictions on or benefits for using two or more at the same time based on their interactions. Where is that restriction for the Ion Shield?
Exactly. Where is the restriction? Where is the text in the rules that covers this situation? We see such text almost everywhere else, and I even cited two other examples on where the text is missing from other similar situations. It's a permissive rule set, no permission equals a restriction.
Yeah, but you're coming across as no restriction means no permission in this case. And I do have permission. I've stated it several times.
Incorrect. There are rules that pertain to operating an Ion Shield. This operation doesn't prevent the use of a second Ion Shield much like a second Storm Shield's use is prevented or a Storm Bolter and Pistol prevents the other's use on a regular Infantry model. Simply put, you keep claiming a restriction, but have yet to provide the actual rules for the restriction. You give examples where restrictions are explicit for their situation, but you cannot bring one where two Ion Shields are prevented from operating on two different facings. If there was a stated limit per Imperial Knight, that would work, but the only limitation is a phrase which states "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield", which can be used as either referring to a single Knight's shield or each Shield of an Imperial Knight, depending on the context of the situation.
Simply put, post the rules that cover how to use two Ion Shields on the same Knight, or concede the point. I've already cite the Ion Shield rules and Sanctuary's rules, neither of which covers have more than one Ion Shield in play. You are creating a rule to slow you to face two separate 4++ saves, because that rule does not exist in the current rule set. So cute this made up rule f yours, or concede the point.
I am not creating a rule. I am using the rules that are present. I have two pieces of Wargear (something to which you won't even acknowledge despite the evidence). I am not restricted in using them at the same time. Does or does not the Wargear in question state that we are to choose each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield facing?
jeffersonian000 wrote: I'd ask if you can see where I'm going with this, but based on previous posts, the concept that no rules means no rules might still remain a stumbling point for many that really really want to have two seoerate facing Ion Shields on their expensive Knight-Titan models.
This isn't a case of "no rules", though, this is a case of you adding rules in to the situation without written justification. You have referenced other rules which are limiting, but those limits are explicit in their use and application, and have zero bearing on Wargear providing Invulnerability Saves on a Vehicle's facings.
You are the one creating rules, not I. Where is the permission? Where is the language that tells us what we can do? I cited direct counters you previously posted arguments, such as which rules grant permission to use two pieces of the same wargear. You now have to prove with rules that don't exist how you feel two Ion Shields work, or concede the point. Without explicit permission, you have an explicit restriction. Prove your position, or concede the point.
The permission is the Wargear themselves. The language is in the Wargear themselves. You treat each Wargear as independent Wargear unless told otherwise, and neither the Ion Shield nor Sanctuary state otherwise.
You have provided nothing to adequately counter any of the arguments provided. You have yet to demonstrate that either Sanctuary is an upgrade or a replacement, which is what most of your case is predicated on. You have yet to demonstrate a blanket rule that prevents the use of two pieces of wargear, you have only provided the specific cases where they are not allowed (Weapon Use, Saves) which do not cover every situation, much less this one.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Kriswall, try imagining that the Ion Shield is distributed over the Knight's frame, and occasionally there's this one Knight with a tweaked Ion Shield that is so legendary, people call it Sanctuary. It's still an Ion Shield, it just covers the Knight a little bit better. Knight's mount only one Ion Shield, but that Ion Shield's coverage is based on the skill of the Noble pilot to use effectively. Sanctuary is a tweaked Ion Shield.
Jeffersonian, try imagining that this Knight is so influential he was able to install a second Ion Shield, and this one is tweaked to provide full coverage on a low power scale as well as providing a full power to one facing just like the base one. That is how the rules say it is installed.
The concept of "Knight's mount only one Ion Shield" is just as true as saying a Rhino only mounts one Storm Bolter. They both come with them as default, but have an option to purchase another.
Sanctuary is not listed as an upgrade to the Ion Shield. It is not listed as replacing the Ion Shield. It states that it counts as an Ion Shield all on its own. If the term "upgrade" or "replaced" was used in Sanctuary's rules, or if the "counts as Ion Shield" were not present, you would be correct, and this wouldn't even be a discussion. But such is not the case. You are placing rules and limitations where they are not written.
Two Storm Shields > no rules, although the More Than One Save rules requires than you can only ever use one save
Two Ion Shields > no rules
Levels in Ruins > no rules, although quite a few can be found in the 6th Ed BRB
I'd ask if you can see where I'm going with this, but based on previous posts, the concept that no rules means no rules might still remain a stumbling point for many that really really want to have two seoerate facing Ion Shields on their expensive Knight-Titan models.
SJ
Please quote the movement rule that specifically covers 2 tactical squads. There are rules for an Ion Shield and there are rules for a Sanctuary, we follow each item's rules and that results in 2 facings receiving a 4++.
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit.
Deathmachine wrote: English dude I'm on a tiny phone. So I forgot some periods. Its english. Holy crap Jeff go jump off a cliff...how's that for English?
Instead of getting pissed, how about reposting your post in a readable format. I too am posting from a phone. There is no excuses for posting unreadable posts as the forum tenets specifically forbid posting unintelligible posts.
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit.
Deathmachine wrote: English dude I'm on a tiny phone. So I forgot some periods. Its english. Holy crap Jeff go jump off a cliff...how's that for English?
Instead of getting pissed, how about reposting your post in a readable format. I too am posting from a phone. There is no excuses for posting unreadable posts as the forum tenets specifically forbid posting unintelligible posts.
SH
Nothing there even mentions 1 tactical squad let alone 2. I want specific instructions that tell me how to move 2 tactical squads. Just like you want rules that specifically mention 2 Ion Shields. Following a process that allows you to do an action more than once is apparently not enough it needs to call out the specific example and number of occasions.
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit.
Deathmachine wrote: English dude I'm on a tiny phone. So I forgot some periods. Its english. Holy crap Jeff go jump off a cliff...how's that for English?
Instead of getting pissed, how about reposting your post in a readable format. I too am posting from a phone. There is no excuses for posting unreadable posts as the forum tenets specifically forbid posting unintelligible posts.
SH
Nothing there even mentions 1 tactical squad let alone 2. I want specific instructions that tell me how to move 2 tactical squads. Just like you want rules that specifically mention 2 Ion Shields. Following a process that allows you to do an action more than once is apparently not enough it needs to call out the specific example and number of occasions.
Cool, I accept your concession. You can't proved rules to support your claim, so you attack the ones requesting you support your claim.
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit.
Deathmachine wrote: English dude I'm on a tiny phone. So I forgot some periods. Its english. Holy crap Jeff go jump off a cliff...how's that for English?
Instead of getting pissed, how about reposting your post in a readable format. I too am posting from a phone. There is no excuses for posting unreadable posts as the forum tenets specifically forbid posting unintelligible posts.
SH
Nothing there even mentions 1 tactical squad let alone 2. I want specific instructions that tell me how to move 2 tactical squads. Just like you want rules that specifically mention 2 Ion Shields. Following a process that allows you to do an action more than once is apparently not enough it needs to call out the specific example and number of occasions.
Flingit.... although I do agree with your interpretation of the Sanctuary being a separate 4+ shield you do realize that your comparing apples to oranges here.
This just comes across as antagonist and dumb. Obviously the rules support moving multiple units of tactical squads as it says you can move any and all units. Remember that the wording for ion shields is for a singular ion save, and a singular facing. The language is not really comparable.
The assumption on our side is that you are simply following all of the ion shield rules twice because there are two separate pieces of Wargear that have the rules and both must follow them despite one being a relic, and the other one being the wargear item ion shield.
It's a nice assumption, but there are not rules to support that assumption. To do as you assume, you have to create rules to do so, which is a house rule, not RAW.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Kriswall, try imagining that the Ion Shield is distributed over the Knight's frame, and occasionally there's this one Knight with a tweaked Ion Shield that is so legendary, people call it Sanctuary. It's still an Ion Shield, it just covers the Knight a little bit better. Knight's mount only one Ion Shield, but that Ion Shield's coverage is based on the skill of the Noble pilot to use effectively. Sanctuary is a tweaked Ion Shield.
I totally understand what you're saying. Sanctuary is most certainly A tweaked Ion Shield. We know this. It counts as an Ion Shield, but with extra rules. The issue is that while we both agree that Sanctuary is A tweaked Ion Shield, we disagree on what happens to the original Ion Shield when Sanctuary is purchased for the Knight. I say that nothing happens to it. The player still resolves its rules as per normal. You seem to think that Sanctuary somehow replaces or modifies the original Ion Shield. The rules simply don't support this. Sanctuary is an extra thing. It's not a replacement thing and it's not a modifying thing.
It's so hard to argue with you on this because you won't post any rules backing up your position and I can't because they're not there. I can simply refer you separately to the rules for "Ion Shield" and "Sanctuary" and show you how they work. I can tell you that this is a permissive rule set and that Ion Shield tells me to pick a facing for Ion Shield and Sanctuary tells me to pick a facing for Sanctuary. I can't provide any citations saying that they should be handled separately, just as you can't provide any citations saying they should be handled together. The reason is that the rules don't address this. Instead, the rules give us a piece of wargear and tell us to resolve it's rules text. The rules then give us a second piece of wargear and tell us to resolve it's rules text.
I'm pretty sure you're being caught up when we're told to treat Sanctuary as AN Ion Shield. We're not told to treat it as THE Ion Shield. That's a distinct difference. How many pieces of wargear does a Knight with Sanctuary have that are or count as being Ion Shields? The answer is two. The answer can only be two. If you're not resolving each, including choosing a facing, you are ignoring rules... which you're not allowed to do.
jeffersonian000 wrote: It's a nice assumption, but there are not rules to support that assumption. To do as you assume, you have to create rules to do so, which is a house rule, not RAW.
What rules do we have to create?
Unit has one piece of Wargear and can purchase a special version of that Wargear in addition to what he already has. This special Wargear is not noted for being a replacement or an upgrade, but a version of that one Wargear. Therefore, when the special Wargear is purchased, you have two pieces of the Wargear, one normal, one special. This is how Wargear is purchased.
Each Wargear states that "the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering."
What do we have to create to get this to work?
A paradigm shift to cover context, sure, but that's the case for almost any Relic that counts as something else.
Whereas, in order for yours to work, "A Relic must replace something, even if it doesn't say it replaces it", "A Relic that counts as another piece of Wargear replaces that Wargear or prevents the function of that Wargear", and/or "If two pieces of Wargear do the same job, but are focussed to cover only one case, they cannot be used to cover any more than one of those cases". Those are the rules you have created for your paradigm.
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit.
Deathmachine wrote: English dude I'm on a tiny phone. So I forgot some periods. Its english. Holy crap Jeff go jump off a cliff...how's that for English?
Instead of getting pissed, how about reposting your post in a readable format. I too am posting from a phone. There is no excuses for posting unreadable posts as the forum tenets specifically forbid posting unintelligible posts.
SH
Nothing there even mentions 1 tactical squad let alone 2. I want specific instructions that tell me how to move 2 tactical squads. Just like you want rules that specifically mention 2 Ion Shields. Following a process that allows you to do an action more than once is apparently not enough it needs to call out the specific example and number of occasions.
Flingit.... although I do agree with your interpretation of the Sanctuary being a separate 4+ shield you do realize that your comparing apples to oranges here.
This just comes across as antagonist and dumb. Obviously the rules support moving multiple units of tactical squads as it says you can move any and all units. Remember that the wording for ion shields is for a singular ion save, and a singular facing. The language is not really comparable.
The assumption on our side is that you are simply following all of the ion shield rules twice because there are two separate pieces of Wargear that have the rules and both must follow them despite one being a relic, and the other one being the wargear item ion shield.
No... Fling is absolutely correct. My rule book has rules telling me how to move ONE unit. It also has rules telling me to follow the ONE unit movement process once for each unit I want to move. If there are rules telling us how to move TWO units, I'd like some citations. I don't want rules telling me how to fully move one unit before moving to the next. I want these rules showing me how to move TWO units.
Obviously, I'm not serious. You can't provide rules telling me how to move TWO units because they don't exist... much in the same way that rules on how to resolve TWO pieces of wargear don't exist. Instead, we're told how to resolve ONE instance (of movement or wargear rules) and then told to do this for each time we need to figure out what happens (how many units are moving or how many pieces of wargear a model has).
It says nothing about using Ion Shields at 3:25pm on a Tuesday either. That is not how a permissive ruleset works. It gives permission to have an Ion Shield and permission to add another piece of wargear which is also an Ion Shield. Thus you have 2.Â
There is also no rule stating that I cant hit you in the face with a toaster. Again so me the rule where it states you can use both ion shield clearly.I cant find it. Thoug it clearly states how other shield work like void shields. Like the bolt pistol reference of course you get 2 cc attacks but in shooting you get 1 unless you have gun slinger. Like wise if each pistol has an ability , ie bolt pistol 1 has rend and 2 has shred you do not get both abilities. You have 1 ion shield and sanctuary( which counts ans an ion shield) 2 ion shield pieces of wargear. Make you choice. Just because you have 2 dosent mean that both are used at the same time. If it was to be stackable or used at the same time,the rules would say so specifically. The raw does state that you decide on what piece of war gear you use.
I know that tthis will be argued and that is ok because everyone is allowed an oppinion. No side will be happy. Just dont be close minded and difinitive that your opinion is the only one correct when there is a level of vagueness because last time I checked I know I dont write the official rules. Neither does anyone else here I would bet.
Lets be honest. Even if you are correct and it has multiple ion shield it dosent really make a big difference. It defenitly doe not break the game. Ik still die to many things.
Now, let the knit picking begin.
Happy gaming all. Me boys are awaiting a good ruckus on the battlefield.
It's tragic when my opponents make statements about me not posting rules, when I'm the one posting the rules. Repeatedly. Over the course of the multi-page thread.
Yet, when I ask you otters to cite the rule they think supports their claims, they post logical chains, false premises, opinion, and the occasional personal attacks.
Now, I realize you really really want to cover two different facings with 4++ saves, but all I want from you is to support how this occurs with actual rules backing your claim. Like I did.
So far we have had examples of two Storm Shields, which is debunked by the More Than One Save rules. We have had the two Pistols example which is debunked by the Gunslinger rules, Monstrous Creature rules, and vehicle rules. We have had the multiple CCW example which is debunked by the More Than One Weapon rules. I have demonstrated how Imperial Knight upgrades replace existing items, preventing you from ever taking mor than one of any option (exceptions being the Stubber, because the RFBC comes with one, and the carapace options, which are addons). Sanctuary does not include language that states it is an additional Ion Shield. It only states that it counts as on Ion Shield with addition rules, the additional rules of which do not address having two facable 4++ saves, but does give the Knight a 6++ on the facings not covered by THE Ion Shield.
As a permissive rule set, lack of permission equals a restriction. A specific exception will override a general restriction. Sanctuary does not provide a specific exception to the lack of permission. An example of language that would solve this issue in the favor of two facable Ion Shields is Sanctuary stating it is an additional Ion Shield that may be positioned on a different facing that the standard Ion Shield. But Sanctuary does not state nor imply that. Sanctuary states that it counts as an Ion Shield, and Knights only have one Ion Shield, which means if a Knight has Sanctuary, Sanctuary counts as that Knight's Ion Shield.
I'm not arguing about your house rule that Sanctuary works as a second Ion Shield, I'm arguing that per RAW your house rule is a house rule.
Honestly, this issue isn't going to be settled until there's an faq and until then, this is just meaningless back and forth. I will continue to play it as I believe it should be played and everyone else should do the same. Individual events will have to make their own calls and I'll be ready to make my arguments for 2 facings, but other than that, I think this thread has served its purpose and should probably be closed. It's beginning to become an Internet stereotype.
Dramagod2 wrote: Honestly, this issue isn't going to be settled until there's an faq and until then, this is just meaningless back and forth. I will continue to play it as I believe it should be played and everyone else should do the same. Individual events will have to make their own calls and I'll be ready to make my arguments for 2 facings, but other than that, I think this thread has served its purpose and should probably be closed. It's beginning to become an Internet stereotype.
It has to be an internet stereotype for 10-14 pages before mods close it, unless a mod is also posting in the thread then it closes at p.4-7
worldwrekka wrote: It says nothing about using Ion Shields at 3:25pm on a Tuesday either. That is not how a permissive ruleset works. It gives permission to have an Ion Shield and permission to add another piece of wargear which is also an Ion Shield. Thus you have 2.Â
There is also no rule stating that I cant hit you in the face with a toaster. Again so me the rule where it states you can use both ion shield clearly.I cant find it. Thoug it clearly states how other shield work like void shields. Like the bolt pistol reference of course you get 2 cc attacks but in shooting you get 1 unless you have gun slinger. Like wise if each pistol has an ability , ie bolt pistol 1 has rend and 2 has shred you do not get both abilities. You have 1 ion shield and sanctuary( which counts ans an ion shield) 2 ion shield pieces of wargear. Make you choice. Just because you have 2 dosent mean that both are used at the same time. If it was to be stackable or used at the same time,the rules would say so specifically. The raw does state that you decide on what piece of war gear you use.
I know that tthis will be argued and that is ok because everyone is allowed an oppinion. No side will be happy. Just dont be close minded and difinitive that your opinion is the only one correct when there is a level of vagueness because last time I checked I know I dont write the official rules. Neither does anyone else here I would bet.
Lets be honest. Even if you are correct and it has multiple ion shield it dosent really make a big difference. It defenitly doe not break the game. Ik still die to many things.
Now, let the knit picking begin.
Happy gaming all. Me boys are awaiting a good ruckus on the battlefield.
Sigh.
This isn't an either/or situation. This isn't a scenario where you have a Boltgun and a Bolt Pistol and you're told to choose one or the other when making a shooting attack. This isn't a scenario where you have Terminator Armor (5++) and an Iron Halo (4++) and you're told you have the advantage of making the best saving throw (4++). This is a scenario where you have two distinct pieces of Wargear.
Yes, both pieces grant invulnerable saves.
Yes, you have to pick ONE invulnerable save when making a saving throw.
No, you are not permitted to ignore the rules associated with a piece of Wargear. Rules aren't optional. This includes Wargear rules. You can't just say "I have Sanctuary, so I won't be following the rules for Ion Shield". This is what you're doing. You're somehow conflating the two and deciding that by following the rules for one, you no longer have the option of following the rules for the other. The core rules don't support this action.
I don't know how the name Drama God has not lead to being banned on its own. It's obvious by even his user name, he's only here to riel people up.
Point is, the argument is my Warboss can ride both Gazbags Blitzbike and a Warbike at the same time if it's sensuous to me according to the KnightRider's in this thread.
Jeff and I are on the, you can't ride 2 bikes without rules for straddling two bikes while screaming at the top of your lungs how awesome Waaaaggghhh! is.
Especially since those shields claim to fill the same slot, have no rules governing having multiples and are written to only give permission to use 1 ion shield.
jeffersonian000 wrote:It's tragic when my opponents make statements about me not posting rules, when I'm the one posting the rules. Repeatedly. Over the course of the multi-page thread.
Are you talking about the rules in which Sanctuary replaces the Ion Shield? Still waiting on that one.
Are you talking about the rule where you can only ever use one piece of Wargear at a time? Still waiting on that one. Not the specific instances like Weapons or rolling Saves, just the general rule.
Yet, when I ask you otters to cite the rule they think supports their claims, they post logical chains, false premises, opinion, and the occasional personal attacks.
Well I have quoted a few, but you still either reply with random made up rule or ignore it.
Now, I realize you really really want to cover two different facings with 4++ saves, but all I want from you is to support how this occurs with actual rules backing your claim.
You mean like I just referenced and you have not properly addressed at all? Hi Pot, I'm obsidium.
Like I did.
So far we have had examples of two Storm Shields, which is debunked by the More Than One Save rules. We have had the two Pistols example which is debunked by the Gunslinger rules, Monstrous Creature rules, and vehicle rules. We have had the multiple CCW example which is debunked by the More Than One Weapon rules. I have demonstrated how Imperial Knight upgrades replace existing items, preventing you from ever taking mor than one of any option (exceptions being the Stubber, because the RFBC comes with one, and the carapace options, which are addons).
All debunked as being pertinent to your case, actually.
Only using One Save does not mean any other Wargear that provides a similar type of Save disappears. The Storm Shield does not replace the Iron Halo, it just makes it less useful.
There is a general limit preventing the use of more than one Weapon, Gunslinger allows permission to go beyond this, as do a few others.
Replacing equipment is replacing equipment. Carapace Weapons are not listed as Replacing anything. Only the Weapon Relics are listed as Replacing anything. The Banner and Sanctuary are just listed as purchase options like the Carapace Weapons. You replace when you are told to replace, and add on when told you may take one. Sanctuary never lists "replace", " exchange", or "upgrade" in the Wargear List nor in its own rules.
So, if everything is replaced, what Wargear is replaced by the following for a Space Marine Captain?
Meltabomb?
Bike?
Jump Pack?
Storm Shield?
Sanctuary does not include language that states it is an additional Ion Shield. It only states that it counts as on Ion Shield with addition rules, the additional rules of which do not address having two facable 4++ saves, but does give the Knight a 6++ on the facings not covered by THE Ion Shield.
It doesn't need to say "this is an additional Ion Shield". Everything else tells you it is. Every Knight comes with one. Sanctuary is purchased out right and is not ever stated to replace or upgrade anything. Sanctuary tells you to treat it like one. This is basic math here.
So the 6++ doesn't cover the 4++ of the Ion Shield. So what? This does not mean that this express exclusion for Sanctuary to be a standard Ion Shield. It never is stated as such from what I've read nor from what you've posted.
As a permissive rule set, lack of permission equals a restriction. A specific exception will override a general restriction. Sanctuary does not provide a specific exception to the lack of permission. An example of language that would solve this issue in the favor of two facable Ion Shields is Sanctuary stating it is an additional Ion Shield that may be positioned on a different facing that the standard Ion Shield. But Sanctuary does not state nor imply that. Sanctuary states that it counts as an Ion Shield, and Knights only have one Ion Shield, which means if a Knight has Sanctuary, Sanctuary counts as that Knight's Ion Shield.
I'm not arguing about your house rule that Sanctuary works as a second Ion Shield, I'm arguing that per RAW your house rule is a house rule.
Except I've quoted the rule that gives permission for each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield. Where is this disproven or restricted to one facing for all?
FratHammer wrote:Jeff and I are on the, you can't ride 2 bikes without rules for straddling two bikes while screaming at the top of your lungs how awesome Waaaaggghhh! is.
For proper reference, which codex/supplement is this from? I've had examples misquoted and misreferenced enough in this thread and others that I would like to look it up.
Especially since those shields claim to fill the same slot, have no rules governing having multiples and are written to only give permission to use 1 ion shield.
Same slot? Why haven't either you or Jeffersonian ever quoted or told us where to look it up before?. I know I've asked for it or similar many times in this thread I didn't know Imperial Knight's worked on a slot system. Is it like Tau Crisis Suits? Or is it a completely different system?
FratHammer wrote: I don't know how the name Drama God has not lead to being banned on its own. It's obvious by even his user name, he's only here to riel people up.
Point is, the argument is my Warboss can ride both Gazbags Blitzbike and a Warbike at the same time if it's sensuous to me according to the KnightRider's in this thread.
Jeff and I are on the, you can't ride 2 bikes without rules for straddling two bikes while screaming at the top of your lungs how awesome Waaaaggghhh! is.
Especially since those shields claim to fill the same slot, have no rules governing having multiples and are written to only give permission to use 1 ion shield.
Can you provide more information on this 'shield slot' you're talking about? I can't seem to find any reference to it in my rules. My rule book doesn't have 'wargear slots'. It just has wargear.
And yes, unless there is specific wording saying that they can't be taken together (like Space Marine Terminator Armor and Jump Packs) or that one replaces the other (I don't have the codex on me), an Ork Warboss can take Gazbags Blitzbike and a normal Warbike at the same time. I'm not sure why you'd want to, but it should be possible. You'd just resolve the rules for the first and then resolve the rules for the second. You don't need rules for how to resolve both simultaneously. You just resolve one and then the other. I feel like this is your sticking point. Sure, some of the rules are redundant, but you follow all of them.
The rules sometimes create scenarios that don't make sense unless you use your imagination. What would a Warboss with two bikes look like? I'm imagining the two bikes, racing side by side with the Warboss standing astride each seat. A team of Grots is desperately trying to control the handlebars, but occassionally fall off. See... it turns out the rules are representing a potentially real situation, after all. It's not my issue you can't 'forge that narrative' well enough. The Ion Shield/Sanctuary thing is even easier. Two pieces of equipment are mounted to the hull/installed into the chassis. Done.
So, you can image an Ork standing astride two warbikes, but you can't wrap your head around a Knight having only one Ion Shield. Here's question for you: where is the Ion Shirld on a Knight? How do you WYSIWYG it?
FratHammer wrote: I don't know how the name Drama God has not lead to being banned on its own. It's obvious by even his user name, he's only here to riel people up.
Actually I am a professor of theatre and drama god is a colloquialism for Dionysus or Bacchus, the mythological God of theatre, wine and dance.
And as for riling people up, we have provided numerous quotes and passages for what the rules say can happen, you and Jeff continually say things like, "the rules states you can't have two ion shields" or "the rules say one replaces the others, yet after continued requests by
fling, myself and others, neither of you have been able to do anything but post the normal rules which you then disregard portions of or misquote rules from other places the you don't even have the text to back up.
Further, through some of the things said earlier, it is very clear that Jeff is not actually very familiar with the Knights army or codex, since he says things like the knight helm relic replaces the normal head gear when a normal knight doesn't even have a piece of wargear like that to replace. Or how the banner replaces the normal one when Knights don't even have a normal banner. You guys know nothing about this faction and continue to argue just to get people going. I'm half convinced fling might be on it just to keep it going and drag the rest of us in to help him.
No offense fling, but they either have a hook in you deep and are dragging you along, or you've got to be in on it. It's just too much of the exact same back and forth over and over and over. Literally every page of this thread has the same arguments just repeated in different ways.
I play Knights and I truly to believe that sanctuary is a second shield giving you a second facing. I have a good and balanced argument for it and I can cite sources to back it up, as many have posted here. If you think you have a great argument to the contrary, that's great, argue it with the next knight player you play but it probably won't be me(since the world is big and the odds are low), but don't be surprised when you end up rolling off for it since people seem to be pretty immovable on their side of this issue. But other than that. No one is going to concede, and to just sit here and rehash the same points over and over is numbing to the mind, no matter which side of the fence you may fall on.
jeffersonian000 wrote: So, you can image an Ork standing astride two warbikes, but you can't wrap your head around a Knight having only one Ion Shield. Here's question for you: where is the Ion Shirld on a Knight? How do you WYSIWYG it?
SJ
Couldn't tell you. I failed my entrance exam when I applied to Mechanicus University. Also, it's completely and totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If it makes you feel better, I imagine the field generators are under the carapace where you can't see them. Sanctuary's field generators also go under the carapace. You can't see them either. There's plenty of space under there. You do lose a couple of cup holders and about 3 inches of leg room though when they install the extra field generators.
In reality, I don't WYSIWYG certain pieces of wargear because I don't have to. There is no published GW material showing what plastic bit represents the Ion Shield wargear, so I assume there isn't one. I assume you knew this though, and are just trying to be difficult.
I can absolutely wrap my head around a Knight only having one piece of wargear called Ion Shield. There is no mechanism in the game currently for a Knight to have more than on piece of wargear called Ion Shield. My contention remains that the Knight has a piece of wargear called Ion Shield (which does stuff) and a piece of wargear called Sanctuary (which also does stuff).
I turn the question back on you. Why can't you wrap your head around a model having two different pieces of wargear and have both of them do something?
jeffersonian000 wrote: So, you can image an Ork standing astride two warbikes, but you can't wrap your head around a Knight having only one Ion Shield. Here's question for you: where is the Ion Shield on a Knight? How do you WYSIWYG it?
I can wrap my mind around it pretty easily. It's what they come with, isn't it?
So, why can't you wrap your mind around this concept?
I have One Ion Shield. I purchase Sanctuary and install it, and also acts like an Ion Shield, which would then give me the equivalent of two Ion Shields. Each Ion Shield has a facing it covers. Simple.
What I can't get my head wrapped around is the concept that the Sanctuary is replacing a piece of Wargear that is not limited to only one per model of, that is not stated to be replacing, upgrading, or any other variant which would have Sanctuary take the place of the base Ion Shield when the rules never tell me to do so in the first place. Why are you trying to put restrictions in that are never mentioned nor stated and run counter to how everything else works in the game?
I not only wrap my head around two pieces of the same wargear with different names, I can point out where the Ion Shield generators are are mounted on the Knight chassis. Now, I've only been playing Knights few two decades, do I can't claim to be an expert, but there are four Shield projectors on each Knight Titan model, one on either side of the waist and one on either side of the cockpit hatch. So, which ones of those are the Ion Shield, and which ones are Sanctuary? The answer is both none of them and all of them. The Ion Shield is a piece of hardware mounted to the chassis. Sanctuary is a tweaked Ion Shield. In order to use Sanctuary, you physicall have to mount it to your Knight.
So, where does the Banner go? Does you mount a second Banner, or just swap out the one that's already there?
You are confusing the aesthetics of the model and wysiwyg with the RAW. They have nothing to do with each other. Those items are not pieces of wargear being replaced and that is the issue being discussed.
Dramagod2 wrote: You are confusing the aesthetics of the model and wysiwyg with the RAW. They have nothing to do with each other. Those items are not pieces of wargear being replaced and that is the issue being discussed.
Well, you are the expert, after all. My meager understanding of the 40k universe bows to your unerring greatness on all things not rules related.
Dramagod2 wrote: You are confusing the aesthetics of the model and wysiwyg with the RAW. They have nothing to do with each other. Those items are not pieces of wargear being replaced and that is the issue being discussed.
Well, you are the expert, after all. My meager understanding of the 40k universe bows to your unerring greatness on all things not rules related.
jeffersonian000 wrote: So, you can image an Ork standing astride two warbikes, but you can't wrap your head around a Knight having only one Ion Shield. Here's question for you: where is the Ion Shield on a Knight? How do you WYSIWYG it?
I can wrap my mind around it pretty easily. It's what they come with, isn't it?
So, why can't you wrap your mind around this concept?
I have One Ion Shield. I purchase Sanctuary and install it, and also acts like an Ion Shield, which would then give me the equivalent of two Ion Shields. Each Ion Shield has a facing it covers. Simple.
What I can't get my head wrapped around is the concept that the Sanctuary is replacing a piece of Wargear that is not limited to only one per model of, that is not stated to be replacing, upgrading, or any other variant which would have Sanctuary take the place of the base Ion Shield when the rules never tell me to do so in the first place. Why are you trying to put restrictions in that are never mentioned nor stated and run counter to how everything else works in the game?
Well I think Jeff is wrong that you can only have one shield.
You have an Ion Shield, and you purchase Sanctuary which is also an Ion shield. Now you have 2 Ion Shields. You can stick it on the Knight's other shoulder, or on its arm, or on its head, or on its ankle. Still WYSIWYG.
The problem is that the rules for Ion Shields only allow you to use one Ion shield. You pick a Knight, you pick a facing, you move on to the next knight. The other just kind of hangs out and looks cool. You aren't given permission to pick a different facing for each ion shield: you are told to pick one facing for the Knight's shield (singular).
Now you can say that, well, now a Knight has 2 shields we need a context change in the Ion Shield rules to deal with that. Sure, you're probably right. But that's not RAW, its a house rule, and when we start making house rules we can just as easily say it the context shift is to explicitly say that you can only use one shield.
I really didn't mean for this thread to turn into an arguement of circles.. unfortunately both sides have made every point they could possibly make. You either read the rules for or against two. Personally I believe it's two.. I do believe it's due to poor rules writing. But still believe it is two shields you get to select two facings for.
Dramagod2 wrote: You are confusing the aesthetics of the model and wysiwyg with the RAW. They have nothing to do with each other. Those items are not pieces of wargear being replaced and that is the issue being discussed.
Well, you are the expert, after all. My meager understanding of the 40k universe bows to your unerring greatness on all things not rules related.
Dramagod2 wrote: You are confusing the aesthetics of the model and wysiwyg with the RAW. They have nothing to do with each other. Those items are not pieces of wargear being replaced and that is the issue being discussed.
Well, you are the expert, after all. My meager understanding of the 40k universe bows to your unerring greatness on all things not rules related.
Trasvi wrote:The problem is that the rules for Ion Shields only allow you to use one Ion shield. You pick a Knight, you pick a facing, you move on to the next knight. The other just kind of hangs out and looks cool. You aren't given permission to pick a different facing for each ion shield: you are told to pick one facing for the Knight's shield (singular).
Now you can say that, well, now a Knight has 2 shields we need a context change in the Ion Shield rules to deal with that. Sure, you're probably right. But that's not RAW, its a house rule, and when we start making house rules we can just as easily say it the context shift is to explicitly say that you can only use one shield.
I'm sorry, but this incorrect. This "context change" comes when having two Ion Shields. Noway else. Which means that it is contained in the RAW. It requires a paradigm shift, true, which is more trying to determine the RAI from the RAW, but it IS in there.
Trasvi wrote:The problem is that the rules for Ion Shields only allow you to use one Ion shield. You pick a Knight, you pick a facing, you move on to the next knight. The other just kind of hangs out and looks cool. You aren't given permission to pick a different facing for each ion shield: you are told to pick one facing for the Knight's shield (singular).
Now you can say that, well, now a Knight has 2 shields we need a context change in the Ion Shield rules to deal with that. Sure, you're probably right. But that's not RAW, its a house rule, and when we start making house rules we can just as easily say it the context shift is to explicitly say that you can only use one shield.
I'm sorry, but this incorrect. This "context change" comes when having two Ion Shields. Noway else. Which means that it is contained in the RAW. It requires a paradigm shift, true, which is more trying to determine the RAI from the RAW, but it IS in there.
The rules tell you how to choose the facing for the Ion Shields in your army. At deployment and at the start of the enemy's shooting phase, you pick a Knight, and choose the facing for its shield.
It refers to shield in the singular. It doesn't give you permission to choose for each ion shield. Pick one knight, choose one facing, move on to the next knight.
Thus there is no RAW way to determine how to use multiple Ion Shields.
(And 15pts to more than double the durability and counter the greatest weakness of a 3-500pt model is pretty ridiculous; the points cost alone should give away the intent of Sanctuary if we're going to start down the RAI road)
Trasvi wrote: The rules tell you how to choose the facing for the Ion Shields in your army. At deployment and at the start of the enemy's shooting phase, you pick a Knight, and choose the facing for its shield.
It refers to shield in the singular. It doesn't give you permission to choose for each ion shield. Pick one knight, choose one facing, move on to the next knight.
Thus there is no RAW way to determine how to use multiple Ion Shields.
Misquoting the rule is a poor way to prove your point. The full pertinent statement (not including timing) is, "...{T}he controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering." It is not listed as "Chose a Knight, chose one facing, move on to the next Knight". That is only an interpretation.
This is where the context of having two Ion Shields comes in to play. If all Knights only had one Shield, than treating it as the interpretation is fine. When a Knight carries two Shields, though, putting it as "declare which facing each Ion Shield is covering" is a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase.
So, the context is there. The words are there. The only thing missing is the paradigm to recognize them.
Trasvi wrote: (And 15pts to more than double the durability and counter the greatest weakness of a 3-500pt model is pretty ridiculous; the points cost alone should give away the intent of Sanctuary if we're going to start down the RAI road)
This is not a discussion about balance. That's what the next forum down is for, or if you want to declare it as HYWPI, that's fine, too. But to use balance as deciding RAW is like peeing on the leg and shouting about rain.
Trasvi wrote: The rules tell you how to choose the facing for the Ion Shields in your army. At deployment and at the start of the enemy's shooting phase, you pick a Knight, and choose the facing for its shield.
It refers to shield in the singular. It doesn't give you permission to choose for each ion shield. Pick one knight, choose one facing, move on to the next knight.
Thus there is no RAW way to determine how to use multiple Ion Shields.
This is where the context of having two Ion Shields comes in to play. If all Knights only had one Shield, than treating it as the interpretation is fine. When a Knight carries two Shields, though, putting it as "declare which facing each Ion Shield is covering" is a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase.
So, the context is there. The words are there. The only thing missing is the paradigm to recognize them.
The words (EACH Ion Shield) are not there.
'The only thing missing is the paradigm to recognize them' == 'Not RAW'.
You need to insert words to make your reading of the rules correct. Those words are not written. As in, rules as written.
Your interpretation adds words that are not written. My interpretation does not add words that are not written - and is also a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase 'declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering.'. In a Rules as Written argument.... pretty easy to see which side wins.
Trying to say points cost is a reason it can't be possible is not a valid arguement period. That's been proven throughout 40k .Tbh if you can't deal with with a knight with two facings in your army.. maybe 40k isn't the game for you
This thread really needs to be locked. We've gone back and forth on this several times now. Each time, the general consensus is that per RaW you'll get two facings at 4++ with 6++ on the other two facings.
Those arguing against this tend to be a vocal minority arguing about fluff, model aesthetics or 'what makes sense' and persistently refuse to cite any rules text to back up their positions.
To the OP, or anyone reading... Currently, from a Rules as Written standpoint, you can purchase the Sanctuary Relic for certain Imperial Knights. This does not replace the Knight's existing Ion Shield as there is no replacement wording. Since wargear rules are not optional, you must resolve the rules for both the Ion Shield and Sanctuary. For the Ion Shield, you pick a facing and give it a 4++ save. For Sanctuary, you pick a facing, give it a 4++ and give the other facings 6++. There is no wording in the Sanctuary rules telling us that we have to choose the same facing as the Ion Shield. The confusion for many people seems to be manyfold... Firstly, Sanctuary in the fluff is an upgraded Ion Shield. The rules don't call it a replacement, though. Secondly, Sanctuary is 'only' 15 points, which seems high for a second 4++ facing and two 6++ facings. The rules don't care about points values and what is perceived as undercosted. Thirdly, the Knight Titan models supposedly have one set of 'shield projectors' on the model. The rules never identify the shield projectors, so there is no issue of WYSIWYG. The rules also don't tell us what Sanctuary looks like, so we wouldn't know what we have to add. Lastly, the Ion Shield rules tell us to pick a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. This is being misinterpreted to cover both the Ion Shield and Sanctuary. The Ion Shield rules don't tell us to pick Sanctuary's facing. Sanctuary's rules tell us to pick Sanctuary's facing. Not picking one of the two facings is ignoring wargear rules and therefore isn't allowed. You do have the option of picking the same facing for both pieces of wargear, which adds an extra wrinkle, as the opposition's contention that a Knight with Sanctuary should have a 4++ on one facing with 6++ on the other three is one of the valid configurations. It is possible to choose the same facing for both, which would result in that configuration. It is not required to choose the same facing for both.
Trasvi wrote: The rules tell you how to choose the facing for the Ion Shields in your army. At deployment and at the start of the enemy's shooting phase, you pick a Knight, and choose the facing for its shield.
It refers to shield in the singular. It doesn't give you permission to choose for each ion shield. Pick one knight, choose one facing, move on to the next knight.
Thus there is no RAW way to determine how to use multiple Ion Shields.
This is where the context of having two Ion Shields comes in to play. If all Knights only had one Shield, than treating it as the interpretation is fine. When a Knight carries two Shields, though, putting it as "declare which facing each Ion Shield is covering" is a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase.
So, the context is there. The words are there. The only thing missing is the paradigm to recognize them.
The words (EACH Ion Shield) are not there.
'The only thing missing is the paradigm to recognize them' == 'Not RAW'.
You need to insert words to make your reading of the rules correct. Those words are not written. As in, rules as written.
Your interpretation adds words that are not written. My interpretation does not add words that are not written - and is also a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase 'declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering.'. In a Rules as Written argument.... pretty easy to see which side wins.
Sanctuary COUNTS AS an Ion Shield, but isn't 'each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield'. When are you picking the facing for Sanctuary? It's not an optional step. If you don't pick a facing, you're ignoring rules, which isn't an option.
Kriswall wrote: This thread really needs to be locked. We've gone back and forth on this several times now. Each time, the general consensus is that per RaW you'll get two facings at 4++ with 6++ on the other two facings.
Those arguing against this tend to be a vocal minority arguing about fluff, model aesthetics or 'what makes sense' and persistently refuse to cite any rules text to back up their positions.
I won't argue fluff, aesthetics, balance, or what makes sense. I'll quote the rules:
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.
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.
Under the Ion Shield rules, the Knight is given permission to declare the facing of its Ion Shield. The singular form is used, and the rest of the paragraph similarly refers to facing in the singular. You are not given permission to declare facings for multiple ion shields per Knight.
Sanctuary likewise refers to Ion Shield in the singular.
In fact, it seems clear now that you are never given permission to declare the facing of the 'shield' from Sanctuary. The Knight only has permission to declare facings for its Ion Shield (singular), (presumably the Ion Shield that all Knights come equipped with). You fully satisfy the rules by picking the facing for ONE Ion Shield and not for sanctuary.
(three things that don't matter at all and...) Lastly, the Ion Shield rules tell us to pick a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. This is being misinterpreted to cover both the Ion Shield and Sanctuary. The Ion Shield rules don't tell us to pick Sanctuary's facing. Sanctuary's rules tell us to pick Sanctuary's facing. Not picking one of the two facings is ignoring wargear rules and therefore isn't allowed. You do have the option of picking the same facing for both pieces of wargear, which adds an extra wrinkle, as the opposition's contention that a Knight with Sanctuary should have a 4++ on one facing with 6++ on the other three is one of the valid configurations. It is possible to choose the same facing for both, which would result in that configuration. It is not required to choose the same facing for both.
Rules quotes are above: Sanctuary's rules don't tell us to pick its facing. Picking the facing for Sanctuary is not compulsory, and in fact you are never given permission to do so, so it is not allowed.
You fully satisfy the rules by picking the facing for ONE Ion Shield and not for sanctuary.
Essentially you end up with your Ion Shield which you pick a facing for, and Sanctuary which you don't pick a facing for, but provides a passive 6+ invulnerable save benefit.
Even if you don't believe the rules are satisfied by picking only one facing, if you want to use two ion shields on one knight, you have to house rule in permission to declare two facings: ie, neither position is correct RAW.
Trasvi wrote: Your interpretation adds words that are not written. My interpretation does not add words that are not written - and is also a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase 'declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering.'. In a Rules as Written argument.... pretty easy to see which side wins.
Sanctuary COUNTS AS an Ion Shield, but isn't 'each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield'. When are you picking the facing for Sanctuary? It's not an optional step. If you don't pick a facing, you're ignoring rules, which isn't an option.
If you do pick a facing, you're going against the rules (by picking 2 different facings / one facing twice) for your Ion Shield(s), which is not an option.
Just because the rules break both ways, doesn't mean breaking them the way you want to correct. Given the nature of GW's rule writing it is entirely possible for all interpretations to be wrong.
Kriswall wrote: This thread really needs to be locked. We've gone back and forth on this several times now. Each time, the general consensus is that per RaW you'll get two facings at 4++ with 6++ on the other two facings.
Those arguing against this tend to be a vocal minority arguing about fluff, model aesthetics or 'what makes sense' and persistently refuse to cite any rules text to back up their positions.
I won't argue fluff, aesthetics, balance, or what makes sense. I'll quote the rules:
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.
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.
Under the Ion Shield rules, the Knight is given permission to declare the facing of its Ion Shield. The singular form is used, and the rest of the paragraph similarly refers to facing in the singular. You are not given permission to declare facings for multiple ion shields per Knight.
Sanctuary likewise refers to Ion Shield in the singular.
In fact, it seems clear now that you are never given permission to declare the facing of the 'shield' from Sanctuary. The Knight only has permission to declare facings for its Ion Shield (singular), (presumably the Ion Shield that all Knights come equipped with). You fully satisfy the rules by picking the facing for ONE Ion Shield and not for sanctuary.
(three things that don't matter at all and...) Lastly, the Ion Shield rules tell us to pick a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. This is being misinterpreted to cover both the Ion Shield and Sanctuary. The Ion Shield rules don't tell us to pick Sanctuary's facing. Sanctuary's rules tell us to pick Sanctuary's facing. Not picking one of the two facings is ignoring wargear rules and therefore isn't allowed. You do have the option of picking the same facing for both pieces of wargear, which adds an extra wrinkle, as the opposition's contention that a Knight with Sanctuary should have a 4++ on one facing with 6++ on the other three is one of the valid configurations. It is possible to choose the same facing for both, which would result in that configuration. It is not required to choose the same facing for both.
Rules quotes are above: Sanctuary's rules don't tell us to pick its facing. Picking the facing for Sanctuary is not compulsory, and in fact you are never given permission to do so, so it is not allowed.
You fully satisfy the rules by picking the facing for ONE Ion Shield and not for sanctuary.
Essentially you end up with your Ion Shield which you pick a facing for, and Sanctuary which you don't pick a facing for, but provides a passive 6+ invulnerable save benefit.
Even if you don't believe the rules are satisfied by picking only one facing, if you want to use two ion shields on one knight, you have to house rule in permission to declare two facings: ie, neither position is correct RAW.
Trasvi wrote: Your interpretation adds words that are not written. My interpretation does not add words that are not written - and is also a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase 'declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering.'. In a Rules as Written argument.... pretty easy to see which side wins.
Sanctuary COUNTS AS an Ion Shield, but isn't 'each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield'. When are you picking the facing for Sanctuary? It's not an optional step. If you don't pick a facing, you're ignoring rules, which isn't an option.
If you do pick a facing, you're going against the rules (by picking 2 different facings / one facing twice) for your Ion Shield(s), which is not an option.
Just because the rules break both ways, doesn't mean breaking them the way you want to correct. Given the nature of GW's rule writing it is entirely possible for all interpretations to be wrong.
I appreciated the well thought out and reasoned interpretation. I still disagree. I still think you're ignoring the rules for Sanctuary. It counts as an Ion Shield, but you're not treating it like an Ion Shield when resolving its rules.
Ultimately, this is why the thread needs to be locked. We have opponents who are reasonable and rational, without name calling who can't convince each other.
Ask your TO before attending an event or talk to your opponent directly and dice off if you can't agree.
Trasvi wrote: The rules tell you how to choose the facing for the Ion Shields in your army. At deployment and at the start of the enemy's shooting phase, you pick a Knight, and choose the facing for its shield.
It refers to shield in the singular. It doesn't give you permission to choose for each ion shield. Pick one knight, choose one facing, move on to the next knight.
Thus there is no RAW way to determine how to use multiple Ion Shields.
This is where the context of having two Ion Shields comes in to play. If all Knights only had one Shield, than treating it as the interpretation is fine. When a Knight carries two Shields, though, putting it as "declare which facing each Ion Shield is covering" is a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase.
So, the context is there. The words are there. The only thing missing is the paradigm to recognize them.
The words (EACH Ion Shield) are not there.
'The only thing missing is the paradigm to recognize them' == 'Not RAW'.
You need to insert words to make your reading of the rules correct. Those words are not written. As in, rules as written.
Your interpretation adds words that are not written. My interpretation does not add words that are not written - and is also a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase 'declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering.'. In a Rules as Written argument.... pretty easy to see which side wins.
How fascinating that you deleted the actual rule quoted in order to support your position...
Here is the important part you left out: "...{T}he controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering."
So, "each Ion Shield" IS in there. There is a term of "Imperial Knight's" in the middle there, but when dealing with multiple objects, a possessive noun isn't as necessary as you seem to think, especially if it does not change the flow of the sentence. Leaving out "Imperial Knight's" does change the focus of the statement from meaning either "each Imperial Knight" or "each Ion Shield", to being just "each Ion Shield" which means that for every one Ion Shield, a facing is chosen.
And that is what I mean about missing a paradigm. The words are there, and in proper order. But this goes back to the concept of the rabbit/duck picture.
You see what you choose to see. Can you see both rabbit and duck in this picture, or just one? With the Ion Shield and Sanctuary concept, you are only seeing one.
Dramagod2 wrote: You are confusing the aesthetics of the model and wysiwyg with the RAW. They have nothing to do with each other. Those items are not pieces of wargear being replaced and that is the issue being discussed.
Well, you are the expert, after all. My meager understanding of the 40k universe bows to your unerring greatness on all things not rules related.
SJ
I'm glad to see you're finally seeing reason.
The irony is outstanding.
SJ
tell me about it.
Ok, I'll tell you. I was pointing out that your rules interpretations are so flawed, your views on the fluff are also suspect. The irony is that you missed it, like you miss it when you interpret rules or fluff.
Dramagod2 wrote: You are confusing the aesthetics of the model and wysiwyg with the RAW. They have nothing to do with each other. Those items are not pieces of wargear being replaced and that is the issue being discussed.
Well, you are the expert, after all. My meager understanding of the 40k universe bows to your unerring greatness on all things not rules related.
SJ
I'm glad to see you're finally seeing reason.
The irony is outstanding.
SJ
tell me about it.
Ok, I'll tell you. I was pointing out that your rules interpretations are so flawed, your views on the fluff are also suspect. The irony is that you missed it, like you miss it when you interpret rules or fluff.
SJ
All I can say is thank you for proving your obliviousness....
Dramagod2 wrote: You are confusing the aesthetics of the model and wysiwyg with the RAW. They have nothing to do with each other. Those items are not pieces of wargear being replaced and that is the issue being discussed.
Well, you are the expert, after all. My meager understanding of the 40k universe bows to your unerring greatness on all things not rules related.
SJ
I'm glad to see you're finally seeing reason.
The irony is outstanding.
SJ
tell me about it.
Ok, I'll tell you. I was pointing out that your rules interpretations are so flawed, your views on the fluff are also suspect. The irony is that you missed it, like you miss it when you interpret rules or fluff.
SJ
All I can say is thank you for proving your obliviousness....
Dramagod2 wrote: You are confusing the aesthetics of the model and wysiwyg with the RAW. They have nothing to do with each other. Those items are not pieces of wargear being replaced and that is the issue being discussed.
Well, you are the expert, after all. My meager understanding of the 40k universe bows to your unerring greatness on all things not rules related.
SJ
I'm glad to see you're finally seeing reason.
The irony is outstanding.
SJ
tell me about it.
Ok, I'll tell you. I was pointing out that your rules interpretations are so flawed, your views on the fluff are also suspect. The irony is that you missed it, like you miss it when you interpret rules or fluff.
SJ
All I can say is thank you for proving your obliviousness....
There's that irony, again.
SJ
Are you sure you see it? Because I don't think you do friend....
All lol's aside, though, at least we can agree on checking with your opponent or TO first, and have all your Rabbit-Ducks in a row if you need to justify whichever position you want in the sure to occur argument.
All lol's aside, though, at least we can agree on checking with your opponent or TO first, and have all your Rabbit-Ducks in a row if you need to justify whichever position you want in the sure to occur argument.
Actually, if you are the Knight player and think you can only pick one facing, you don't have to ask anyone. Both positions support choosing the same facing for both pieces of wargear. Only one position requires it.
Kriswall wrote: Actually, if you are the Knight player and think you can only pick one facing, you don't have to ask anyone. Both positions support choosing the same facing for both pieces of wargear. Only one position requires it.
I actually am a Knight player, and my position is based on how the rules are written. Not what I want the rules to mean, just what the rules are written to convey.
jeffersonian000 wrote: I actually am a Knight player, and my position is based on how the rules are written. Not what I want the rules to mean, just what the rules are written to convey.
Says the person who thinks that he has to replace a piece of Wargear when he's not told to replace it....
jeffersonian000 wrote: I actually am a Knight player, and my position is based on how the rules are written. Not what I want the rules to mean, just what the rules are written to convey.
Says the person who thinks that he has to replace a piece of Wargear when he's not told to replace it....
I play Knights, I'm just not a douche bag about it. Save the exploits for other lists, Knights need to be above reproach if they are to be accepted.
Kriswall wrote: Actually, if you are the Knight player and think you can only pick one facing, you don't have to ask anyone. Both positions support choosing the same facing for both pieces of wargear. Only one position requires it.
I actually am a Knight player, and my position is based on how the rules are written. Not what I want the rules to mean, just what the rules are written to convey.
SJ
Your position is based on how you interpret the written rules, just as mine is based on how I interpret the written rules. I am entirely impartial and have no feelings one way or the other in terms of 'what I want the rules to mean'. I don't want them to mean anything.
You're making it sound like you're completely impartial and that the opposing side has some sort of hidden agenda and is trying to twist the rules to make them match that agenda. I don't think that's happening at all. I do think you might have some confirmation bias going on though. I'm basing this on how you bring up things like how Knight models don't have multiple shield generators so the rules must have meant Sanctuary to be a replacement or how most of the other wargear for Knights is replacement based, so Sanctuary must be also.
jeffersonian000 wrote: I actually am a Knight player, and my position is based on how the rules are written. Not what I want the rules to mean, just what the rules are written to convey.
Says the person who thinks that he has to replace a piece of Wargear when he's not told to replace it....
I play Knights, I'm just not a douche bag about it. Save the exploits for other lists, Knights need to be above reproach if they are to be accepted.
SJ
No one said you were a d-bag. I applaud you avoiding what you believe to be an exploit. We aren't really debating HIWPI though. We're debating RaW. I would also tend to play as one facing only because I believe it was GW's intent for it to work that way. I don't believe this is what they wrote though. Had they intended for Sanctuary to replace the Ion Shield, they could have simply said so. They didn't. At best, this is confusing. At worst, it requires an Errata or FAQ.
I am impartial, and I go by RAW. You might have noted at a point earlier in this thread when I realize my position was flawed, and made a correction? It's about following the rules as written.
Question:
Ion shield facing stays the same until you change it.
The main camp against double shielding says there ARE 2 shields but you are only allowed to face a single one per knight.
So I start my deployment, and choose to face my ion shield on the front arc.
Then I get to my opponent's first shooting phase. I now select sanctuary to face say...the left, and do not select the ion shield to change, assuming that I'm not allowed to reface both in the same turn.
It sounds like this is a legal way to adhere to what the "two shields but only face one" crowd's idea but still get two facings covered. Am I wrong?
jeffersonian000 wrote: I am impartial, and I go by RAW. You might have noted at a point earlier in this thread when I realize my position was flawed, and made a correction? It's about following the rules as written.
Considering the ironic lovefest you and another made with that statement, it's hard to see it.
And when discussing the RAW of the argument, using "I'm not going to be a douche-bag with it" as a reason is not RAW and is quote counter-productive. That is the definition of HYWPI. I have no problem with how you may choose to play it so long as you acknowledge it as such. Just don't tell me the words are saying something they don't.
RAW is that purchasing Sanctuary grants the Knight a second Ion Shield and you must choose a Facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. If you don't want to give a newbie an easier time or make Knights easier to accept, have them be on the same facing, there is nothing stopping you. If the other guy is being an a-hole, have them be on different facings.
niv-mizzet wrote: Question:
Ion shield facing stays the same until you change it.
The main camp against double shielding says there ARE 2 shields but you are only allowed to face a single one per knight.
So I start my deployment, and choose to face my ion shield on the front arc.
Then I get to my opponent's first shooting phase. I now select sanctuary to face say...the left, and do not select the ion shield to change, assuming that I'm not allowed to reface both in the same turn.
It sounds like this is a legal way to adhere to what the "two shields but only face one" crowd's idea but still get two facings covered. Am I wrong?
This is a very interesting observation.
SJ, Im curious to hear what your side of the fence would think of this interpretation. It still seems to hold true with your idea of only being able to pick on shield per phase. And since there doesnt seem to be as much argument about the fact that you have two shield, and it seems to be more centered over whether or not you can choose two facings, this seems like an interesting workaround which falls within both RaW interpretations.
All the arguments have been made, and neither side will come to a consensus.
Talk to your TO and opponent about it before the game.
I actually have an open question a couple posts above yours that presents a new angle. Accepting the idea from the "you can't face two shields" viewpoint that you can only face one shield per turn, and simply facing one of them to front on deployment and leaving it there, and using the other to move around during enemy shooting phases.
jeffersonian000 wrote: I am impartial, and I go by RAW. You might have noted at a point earlier in this thread when I realize my position was flawed, and made a correction? It's about following the rules as written.
Considering the ironic lovefest you and another made with that statement, it's hard to see it.
And when discussing the RAW of the argument, using "I'm not going to be a douche-bag with it" as a reason is not RAW and is quote counter-productive. That is the definition of HYWPI. I have no problem with how you may choose to play it so long as you acknowledge it as such. Just don't tell me the words are saying something they don't.
RAW is that purchasing Sanctuary grants the Knight a second Ion Shield and you must choose a Facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. If you don't want to give a newbie an easier time or make Knights easier to accept, have them be on the same facing, there is nothing stopping you. If the other guy is being an a-hole, have them be on different facings.
Until you prove your claims, it's a house rule, not RAW. As to my statement from on not being a douche bag while playing my Knights, it means I play by RAW, not house rules.
niv-mizzet wrote: Question:
Ion shield facing stays the same until you change it.
The main camp against double shielding says there ARE 2 shields but you are only allowed to face a single one per knight.
So I start my deployment, and choose to face my ion shield on the front arc.
Then I get to my opponent's first shooting phase. I now select sanctuary to face say...the left, and do not select the ion shield to change, assuming that I'm not allowed to reface both in the same turn.
It sounds like this is a legal way to adhere to what the "two shields but only face one" crowd's idea but still get two facings covered. Am I wrong?
This is a very interesting observation.
SJ, Im curious to hear what your side of the fence would think of this interpretation. It still seems to hold true with your idea of only being able to pick on shield per phase. And since there doesnt seem to be as much argument about the fact that you have two shield, and it seems to be more centered over whether or not you can choose two facings, this seems like an interesting workaround which falls within both RaW interpretations.
If it could be proven that two Ion Shields can exist on the same Knight, your question does pose an interesting question. Since it hasn't been prove, and the rules already only support one Ion Shield, no new rules need to be created in order to handle your question.
jeffersonian000 wrote: I am impartial, and I go by RAW. You might have noted at a point earlier in this thread when I realize my position was flawed, and made a correction? It's about following the rules as written.
Considering the ironic lovefest you and another made with that statement, it's hard to see it.
And when discussing the RAW of the argument, using "I'm not going to be a douche-bag with it" as a reason is not RAW and is quote counter-productive. That is the definition of HYWPI. I have no problem with how you may choose to play it so long as you acknowledge it as such. Just don't tell me the words are saying something they don't.
RAW is that purchasing Sanctuary grants the Knight a second Ion Shield and you must choose a Facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. If you don't want to give a newbie an easier time or make Knights easier to accept, have them be on the same facing, there is nothing stopping you. If the other guy is being an a-hole, have them be on different facings.
Until you prove your claims, it's a house rule, not RAW. As to my statement from on not being a douche bag while playing my Knights, it means I play by RAW, not house rules.
niv-mizzet wrote: Question:
Ion shield facing stays the same until you change it.
The main camp against double shielding says there ARE 2 shields but you are only allowed to face a single one per knight.
So I start my deployment, and choose to face my ion shield on the front arc.
Then I get to my opponent's first shooting phase. I now select sanctuary to face say...the left, and do not select the ion shield to change, assuming that I'm not allowed to reface both in the same turn.
It sounds like this is a legal way to adhere to what the "two shields but only face one" crowd's idea but still get two facings covered. Am I wrong?
This is a very interesting observation.
SJ, Im curious to hear what your side of the fence would think of this interpretation. It still seems to hold true with your idea of only being able to pick on shield per phase. And since there doesnt seem to be as much argument about the fact that you have two shield, and it seems to be more centered over whether or not you can choose two facings, this seems like an interesting workaround which falls within both RaW interpretations.
If it could be proven that two Ion Shields can exist on the same Knight, your question does pose an interesting question. Since it hasn't been prove, and the rules already only support one Ion Shield, no new rules need to be created in order to handle your question.
SJ
I can see that you are dead set on thinking that there is only one shield despite it being pointed out numerous times that the relic doesn't replace the already equipped shield, so my question is not aimed at you. It's more for the crowd that believes you DO have two shields but are only given permission to face one at any given opportunity.
jeffersonian000 wrote: I am impartial, and I go by RAW. You might have noted at a point earlier in this thread when I realize my position was flawed, and made a correction? It's about following the rules as written.
Considering the ironic lovefest you and another made with that statement, it's hard to see it.
And when discussing the RAW of the argument, using "I'm not going to be a douche-bag with it" as a reason is not RAW and is quote counter-productive. That is the definition of HYWPI. I have no problem with how you may choose to play it so long as you acknowledge it as such. Just don't tell me the words are saying something they don't.
RAW is that purchasing Sanctuary grants the Knight a second Ion Shield and you must choose a Facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. If you don't want to give a newbie an easier time or make Knights easier to accept, have them be on the same facing, there is nothing stopping you. If the other guy is being an a-hole, have them be on different facings.
Until you prove your claims, it's a house rule, not RAW. As to my statement from on not being a douche bag while playing my Knights, it means I play by RAW, not house rules.
But I have proven them, and no one has provided evidence otherwise.
The Knight starts with one Ion Shield. Correct?
It purchases Sanctuary as its own Wargear, which counts as an Ion Shield. Correct?
At certain points, the controller player must choose a facing for each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield. Correct?
jeffersonian000 wrote: I am impartial, and I go by RAW. You might have noted at a point earlier in this thread when I realize my position was flawed, and made a correction? It's about following the rules as written.
Considering the ironic lovefest you and another made with that statement, it's hard to see it.
And when discussing the RAW of the argument, using "I'm not going to be a douche-bag with it" as a reason is not RAW and is quote counter-productive. That is the definition of HYWPI. I have no problem with how you may choose to play it so long as you acknowledge it as such. Just don't tell me the words are saying something they don't.
RAW is that purchasing Sanctuary grants the Knight a second Ion Shield and you must choose a Facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. If you don't want to give a newbie an easier time or make Knights easier to accept, have them be on the same facing, there is nothing stopping you. If the other guy is being an a-hole, have them be on different facings.
Until you prove your claims, it's a house rule, not RAW. As to my statement from on not being a douche bag while playing my Knights, it means I play by RAW, not house rules.
niv-mizzet wrote: Question:
Ion shield facing stays the same until you change it.
The main camp against double shielding says there ARE 2 shields but you are only allowed to face a single one per knight.
So I start my deployment, and choose to face my ion shield on the front arc.
Then I get to my opponent's first shooting phase. I now select sanctuary to face say...the left, and do not select the ion shield to change, assuming that I'm not allowed to reface both in the same turn.
It sounds like this is a legal way to adhere to what the "two shields but only face one" crowd's idea but still get two facings covered. Am I wrong?
This is a very interesting observation.
SJ, Im curious to hear what your side of the fence would think of this interpretation. It still seems to hold true with your idea of only being able to pick on shield per phase. And since there doesnt seem to be as much argument about the fact that you have two shield, and it seems to be more centered over whether or not you can choose two facings, this seems like an interesting workaround which falls within both RaW interpretations.
If it could be proven that two Ion Shields can exist on the same Knight, your question does pose an interesting question. Since it hasn't been prove, and the rules already only support one Ion Shield, no new rules need to be created in order to handle your question.
SJ
But since we know that each knight comes with a shield, and the character can then purchase sanctuary which counts as a shield and doesn't say that it replaces anything, like the other relics specifically state, wouldn;t that mean that the knight at least possesses two shields? Even in the scenario of the RaW as you interpret it?
Just a quick note on your idea of house rules. Taking rules that read a certain way and taking them as they are stated is following the RaW. If people have different interpretations of the same rule, that doesn't make it a house rule, it makes it their interpretation of the rules as written. Usually rules are written in such a waythat they are clear and everyone has the same clear interpretation, but occasionally, as in this case, they are not as clear. That doesn't make either of our interpretations right or wrong nor does it make either of them house rules, just two different interpretations of the RaW.
Now taking a rule or upgrade that you don't think is right, or fair, or costed correctly, or plays the right way, and changing it for no other reason than you don't like it or "think it's right", that's the text book definition of a house rule.
We're debating the RaW. But neither interpretation is really a house rule. Changing the D table, or limiting scatbike to 1 in 3 is a house rule. This is just a rules debate.
Changing the rules in the book to suit your interpretation on how those rules should work is not "Rules as Written", nor is it "Rules as Intended". Some might argue that it is "How I Would Play It". However, in the end, if you are creating rules to support your claim, you are creating a house rule.
The idea that when purchasing Sanctuary, you are purchasing a second Ion Shield only has merit if the rules support a Knight having two Ion Shields. The rules do not support this, therefore a Knight with Sanctuary does not have a second Ion Shield. Yes, Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, with extra rules. The rules support that when you purchase Sanctuary, you are giving your Knight an Ion Shield with those extra rules. That is rules as written. No new rules are created.
If on the other hand, Sanctuary is a second Ion Shield, an FAQ would be needed to Errata the existing Ion Shield rules to cover situations where a knight might have more than one Ion Shield. Again, as no new rules have been created, two Ion Shields cannot exist on the same Knight.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Changing the rules in the book to suit your interpretation on how those rules should work is not "Rules as Written", nor is it "Rules as Intended". Some might argue that it is "How I Would Play It". However, in the end, if you are creating rules to support your claim, you are creating a house rule.
And what have I changed? I applied the written word and had to change nothing. I restated, but did the restates actually misquote anything at all?
jeffersonian000 wrote: The idea that when purchasing Sanctuary, you are purchasing a second Ion Shield only has merit if the rules support a Knight having two Ion Shields. The rules do not support this, therefore a Knight with Sanctuary does not have a second Ion Shield. Yes, Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, with extra rules. The rules support that when you purchase Sanctuary, you are giving your Knight an Ion Shield with those extra rules. That is rules as written. No new rules are created.
Still going on about it being a replacement without ever actually quoting any of the rules that explicitly state as such?
What in the purchasing rules do not support the purchase of Sanctuary as its own piece of Wargear?
What in the purchasing rules indicate that Sanctuary is a replacement or an upgrade?
Where in Sanctuary's rules does it state that it upgrades or replaces the Ion Shield?
Where in the Ion Shield's rules does it state an Imperial Knight may only have one Ion Shield?
Rules as Written state: You may purchase one of the following. Sanctuary is on that list without a footnote, so it is purchased straight out just as if I was purchasing a Carapace Weapon for the Knight or a Meltabomb for a Space Marine.
Sanctuary's rules state that it counts as an Ion Shield, not THE Ion Shield, just AN Ion Shield, as in one of a possible many and not the only one. No mention of replacement or upgrade or any other phrase to indicate that the base Ion Shield is no longer present or is subsumed into Sanctuary exists.
Therefore, Sanctuary can only be purchased as a second Ion Shield (with additional benefits) for the Imperial Knight in question, and in no way else.
jeffersonian000 wrote: If on the other hand, Sanctuary is a second Ion Shield, an FAQ would be needed to Errata the existing Ion Shield rules to cover situations where a knight might have more than one Ion Shield. Again, as no new rules have been created, two Ion Shields cannot exist on the same Knight.
Not so. The controlling player selects a facing for each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield. No new rule is needed for this to apply to two shields, as each Ion Shield would need to have a facing selected.
Can you demonstrate where the Ion Shield rules are exclusive to being just for one Shield per Knight? You have yet to.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Changing the rules in the book to suit your interpretation on how those rules should work is not "Rules as Written", nor is it "Rules as Intended". Some might argue that it is "How I Would Play It". However, in the end, if you are creating rules to support your claim, you are creating a house rule.
The fact is that I haven't changed any rules, My belief is based entirely on the exact wording of the rules. As is yours. The only difference is in our interpretation of those words.
After the last time we had this discussion (or maybe the time before the time before that) I asked several english scholars with varying levels of expertise.
Every one of them told me that; if the name of the wargear is "imperial knight's ion shield" then the sentence allows for more than one, as the "each" would modify the ion shield.
If however, the name of the owner is "imperial knight" and the wargear is simply named "ion shield" then the "each" modifies the knights and the ion shield remains singular
jokerkd wrote: After the last time we had this discussion (or maybe the time before the time before that) I asked several english scholars with varying levels of expertise.
Every one of them told me that; if the name of the wargear is "imperial knight's ion shield" then the sentence allows for more than one, as the "each" would modify the ion shield.
If however, the name of the owner is "imperial knight" and the wargear is simply named "ion shield" then the "each" modifies the knights and the ion shield remains singular
But that doesn't really clarify anything. The rule being written in the singular makes sense since it is referring to a singular piece of wargear. The fact that sanctuary counts as an ion shield and therefore should follow the same rules is what is at issue, simply because it refers to the facing in the singular for a single item doesnt mean that mulltiple items that have the same or similar function wouldn't be able to work in tandem.
I find myself continually asking why they would bother to even say that it counts as an ion shield if it doesn't provide the additional 4++. The only other thing sanctuary does is supply the 6++ to the other sides and it says specifically that it only provides it to sides not covered by its ion shield. Becuase that is all the item does, what possible reason is there for saying that it counts as an ion shield. The words would mean absolutely nothing and have zero impact on anything.
As I see it, there it can be only one of two reasons
1. They intended it to be a fully functioning second shield in addition to the 6++ - regardless or not of whether it was intended, I do believe that this is the way the rules currently read. It is my interpretation of the RaW
2. They simply forgot to put that it replaces the knights ion shield - In all honesty, this is very possible and would make a lot of sense. They would need to clarify that Sanctuary is an ion shield so that the knight would still receive the 4++ and be able to utilize the original shield, otherwise, it could be misinterpreted to be a simple all around 6++ negating the knights ion shield (i.e. never worth taking).
The problem is that, mistake or not, the rules are written the way they are and we have to accept them at print value. As players it is our right to argue our interpretation of them, so long as our reasoning stays grounded in the text of the rules. This one is obviously unclear and therefore there is strong debate as to what is the proper way to deal with it. My reasoning comes down to the fact that they are two separate and distinct pieces of wargear which activate individually as do most pieces of wargear. Unlike those other items such as pistols as mentioned earlier in the thread. There is no rule saying they can't work together. As evidenced in these other cases, when they want to impose a restriction, they put it in print. This allows them to then provide exception to it with special rules like gunslinger. The argument has been made that there is no rule that says two ion shield can work together and this is true, but as evidenced with pistols, the precedent is that if a restriciton is being put in place, it is stated explicitly. Allowing the designers to then introduce other rules to provide exception to the restirictions.
This is why I believe the RaW allows for two shield facings. They are two separate pieces of wargear who share the same rules, each of which is simply written to apply to that singular piece of wargear. And since there is nowhere in the rules that it actually states that sanctuary replaces the ion shield, or that a knight can only possess one ion shield, I am forced to conclude that it can, because as the precedent states, if they werent allowed to work together, the rules would explicitly state it.
jokerkd wrote: After the last time we had this discussion (or maybe the time before the time before that) I asked several english scholars with varying levels of expertise.
Every one of them told me that; if the name of the wargear is "imperial knight's ion shield" then the sentence allows for more than one, as the "each" would modify the ion shield.
If however, the name of the owner is "imperial knight" and the wargear is simply named "ion shield" then the "each" modifies the knights and the ion shield remains singular
At no point has anyone said that any Imperial Knight will have two pieces of wargear called Ion Shield. At best, they have one Ion Shield and one Sanctuary. Ion Shield =/= Sanctuary.
jokerkd wrote: After the last time we had this discussion (or maybe the time before the time before that) I asked several english scholars with varying levels of expertise.
Every one of them told me that; if the name of the wargear is "imperial knight's ion shield" then the sentence allows for more than one, as the "each" would modify the ion shield.
If however, the name of the owner is "imperial knight" and the wargear is simply named "ion shield" then the "each" modifies the knights and the ion shield remains singular
At no point has anyone said that any Imperial Knight will have two pieces of wargear called Ion Shield. At best, they have one Ion Shield and one Sanctuary. Ion Shield =/= Sanctuary.
Sanctuary works or counts as an Ion Shield, though. So the Knight does get two Ion Shields, functionally speaking. One does more than just cover one facing, though.
Dramagod2 wrote: Honestly, this issue isn't going to be settled until there's an faq and until then, this is just meaningless back and forth. I will continue to play it as I believe it should be played and everyone else should do the same. Individual events will have to make their own calls and I'll be ready to make my arguments for 2 facings, but other than that, I think this thread has served its purpose and should probably be closed. It's beginning to become an Internet stereotype.
It has to be an internet stereotype for 10-14 pages before mods close it, unless a mod is also posting in the thread then it closes at p.4-7
Actually, these days we try to lock things down around 4-5 pages regardless, as there's rarely anything new getting brought up by that point and things just get circular and/or grumpy... Clearly, though, someone wasn't paying attention here.
So, this seems to have been fairly thoroughly thrashed out by now, so let's give it a rest. As usual, discuss with your opponent if in doubt.
it falls down to a previous example used. You have a chapalin. He has a 4++ save with his rosarius. If you give him a storm sheild he now has a 3++. Did he lose the rosarius. No. He has both. When you make a save you can technically make a save with the rosarius if wanted but why not take the better save. You choose the equipment to make the save with.
Iget what you sre trying to get at guys. I actually have a knight house and would love to have sanctuary give you 2 shields. Lets be honest here. It comes down to a matter of interpretation and who wants to use it that way. It says nothing abut stacked effect. It says nothing about having 2 ion shields that can be used at the sametime. All it say is that it is to be considered an ion shield and that the sides that the ion shield is not on get a 6++save.
