What is the ironfist?

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.

**HoverBoy**

There was a small argument in our group lately.
I said the ironfist is a shield and thus slaughtermasters and butchers can use magic armour.
He said it's a weapon that functions as a shield so they have no common armor to use magical with.

Whos right, and why?

**Cerebrium**

You are. In the old book it was a weapon that could be used as a shield. Now it's nothing but a shield.

**HoverBoy**

I was sorta hoping for some quote help.
I never doubted im right

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dunno if this helps but his whole argument was based on army builder not letting said characters use magic armor.
I OTOH have on multyple occassions stated my dislike for that thing.

**Revenent Reiko**

Well Army Builder isnt an Army Book......so it cant really be the basis for a rules discussion....

Otherwise, they are just shields.

**HoverBoy**

I knew it AB does suck.

**Revenent Reiko**

HoverBoy wrote:I knew it AB does suck.

Sometimes....

But definitely in a rules discussion, AB has no reason to be brought up (or used, in this case). Tell them to read the rules and not AB.

**Davall**

HoverBoy wrote:I knew it AB does suck.

I know the guy who maintains those AB files face to face. Be nice

I agree it is a shield and thus Slaughtermasters/Butchers can take magic armor. The AB 2.2 maintainer doesn't. /shrug

**lixulana**

"An iron fist works exactly the same way as a shield - an ogre using an iron fist benefits from a bonus to its armor save, and may be eligible to make a parry save as described in the warhammer rulebook"

as it is referencing the shield rules in the main book that makes it follow all of the rules for a shield.

**HoverBoy**

Davall wrote:
HoverBoy wrote:I knew it AB does suck.

I know the guy who maintains those AB files face to face. Be nice

It's not his fault, the whole idea is flawed since its based on people having to translate GW's incomprehencible rules to a medium that the company barely acknowledges.

**Crom**

I thought it counted as both a shield and a hand weapon now? I left my book at home so I cannot verify this

**Davall**

No, those were the old rules (additional hand weapon or a psuedo shield). The ironfist is only a shield now.

**Saldiven**

Actually, it's a little better than "only" a shield now. It allows mounted units with the Ironfist to get a parry save, which shields do not allow.

**Davall**

The "only" part was in response to "I thought it counted as both a shield and a hand weapon now?", meaning it is only the shield part of it.

Considering Mournfangs and a mounted Hunter on a Stonehorn (Huge. Waste. Of. Points.) can take advantage of the mounted parry save, that part, while neat, isn't overly OMFGAWESOMESAUCE or anything

**HawaiiMatt**

On the page with ogre special rules, (page 32), you get the entry on ogre charge, then Iron Fist, then Look out gnoblars.
At the head of the Next column is titled Special Ogre Weapons, and under that section it has Chain Trap, Harpoon Launcher and Ogre Pistols.

If the Ironfist was a weapon, it would be listed under the weapons, not sandwiched between the ogre charge and the look out gnoblar.

-Matt

**HoverBoy**

O hell thanks Matt thats the kind of logical argument i needed.

**Scarecrow456**

I don't know if AB has put an update out that has the new OK rules, so until that changes, AB may not be a good place to find rule logic.

The ironfist is indeed a shield, and no longer able to be considered a weapon, despite the fact that they look like weapons with their spikes and whatnot.

**HoverBoy**

Naah the one they found had the new rules, still it's fresh and apparently wrong.

**DukeRustfield**

I saw this debated on Ogre Stronghold.

I think it's pretty douchey to try and give them magic armor. Butchers are the ONLY Ogres to not wear guttplates.

"No, we don't believe in covering our sacred bellies...except with super awesome magic platemail."

There aren't many casters in the game who can use magic armor and they kind of go out of their way to point it out when they can. You're forced here to deduce Ironfist=shield, Ironfist=option, option=magic armor. That's a bit of deducing for such a big anomaly in the game world.

I think it was an oversight and they're probably seeing how it plays out. But Slaughtermasters in Armor of Destiny is just silly. I'll bet 5 spacebucks it will eventually get FAQ'd to say they can't wear it.

**LunaHound**

HoverBoy wrote:
Davall wrote:
HoverBoy wrote:I knew it AB does suck.

I know the guy who maintains those AB files face to face. Be nice

It's not his fault, the whole idea is flawed since its based on people having to translate GW's incomprehencible rules to a medium that the company barely acknowledges.

Exactly, i think its GW's hindsight and we'll be seeing an errata for it.

**TiB**

"works exactly the same way as a shield" ≠ "shield"

**nosferatu1001**

Yes it is - otherwise it isnt working exactly the same way as a shield. It is also, by definition, armour

**Airmaniac**

TiB wrote:"works exactly the same way as a shield" ≠ "shield"

I agree with this. If something is a shield, it should say it is. Since the Ironfist doesn't say it is a shield, it is not a shield, it just functions like a shield (and not even exactly, as like someone mentioned above, shields don't grant parry saves while mounted and the ironfist does).

**nosferatu1001**

It works exactly the same as a shield, and has an additional allowance for parry while mounted

If you say it isnt a shield in terms of being armour, then it isnt "exactly the same as" a shield

**Davall**

Yep, exactly is a pretty strong word.

**Grey Templar**

Even if it isn't a shield, it is still armor.

So you can give Butchers and SMs magic armor.

**streamdragon**

Where is the option listed in the army choice section of the book? I only ask because I know the Beastmen books splits it out into armor and weapon sections.

Not that that is actually indicative of anything concrete I suppose.

**Grey Templar**

its under the Ogre Special Rules section.

It is NOT under the weapon section which tells us it most certaintly isn't a weapon. It isn't under any special section.

But it improves armor saves, which tells us that it is armor. So anything that can get one is allowed to take magic armor.

**DukeRustfield**

Oooh, I'd also like to point out that any unit with an ironfist entry can take it OR a weapon. You can't even take a single pistol and an ironfist. And the sections for upgrading to armor is separate. I.e., it's certainly under the weapon selections.

**Grey Templar**

DukeRustfield wrote:Oooh, I'd also like to point out that any unit with an ironfist entry can take it OR a weapon. You can't even take a single pistol and an ironfist. And the sections for upgrading to armor is separate. I.e., it's certainly under the weapon selections.

So?

most units that can take shields have it in the "weapon" section.

**Davall**

To stop this silly "It's under weapons so it's a weapon" line of thinking, please show us how it's a weapon. Meaning, what effect does it have in hand to hand, or shooting when used to attack. It can't be done, because in its description and rules, it never even mentions it is a weapon. At the bare minimum, it should have said something along the lines of "Hand Weapon", but it doesn't.

It is a piece of armor, that works exactly like a shield with an additional rule of giving a parry save while mounted.