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.
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?
If not, where am I wrong?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/15 21:42:12
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
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.
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/15 23:04:17
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/16 00:36:28
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
"If you wait a few months, they'll pick one of the worst codexes and they'll nerf almost everything, its an abstract sort of balance, but it's the sort of balance gw likes... "
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/16 01:06:37
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.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
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.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
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.
20000+ points
"
