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.

but yes an Ironfist is ARMOR a Gauntlet to be exact

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

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

Airmaniac wrote:

but yes an Ironfist is ARMOR a Gauntlet to be exact

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

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

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

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

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

Blah blah, final polite salutations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"counts as _____"
"is _____ "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probably because everyone has been posting the samething as well?

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

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

Then we shall create a new thread