Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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


Matt, that's very wacky logic indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, here's my take on the argument.

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

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

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

DukeRustfield wrote:

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

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


Matt, that's very wacky logic indeed.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


-Matt

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

Pssh i lost track ages ago

DukeRustfield wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually 3!=6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is some mighty fine hair splitting right there

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

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

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

DukeRustfield wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

-Matt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right. Cuz they left out heavy armor.

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

Page 510 is the index...


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

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



Automatically Appended Next Post:
added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O RLY!?

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

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

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

WombleJim wrote:

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

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

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

DukeRustfield wrote:

WombleJim wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

I'm lost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMO:

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

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

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

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

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

I think it's a crappy comic book.