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.

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 Imperial Knight player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering.

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 GW FAQ (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.

the game works on permission

Not so sure about that.

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.

And I am in concurrence with Nos, as it's what I've been saying from the beginning.

SJ

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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?

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?

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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?

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.

if you disagree with that, please, rules.

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.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 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

Sigh.... Counts as = is for all rules purposes.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 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?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 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.

I agree with FlingIt here.

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.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
I agree with FlingIt here.

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

blaktoof wrote:

 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.

SJ

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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 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

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

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

Point taken.