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.

I understand wanting more. But I also understand what the game decides is protection. T6 W6 is about the upper limit for 200-300pt MONSTERS let alone spell casters.

If someone was debating that a giant or ghorgon should be able to take 100pts of magic armor I'd also be saying that was way overpowered.

IMO DukeRustfield is right. Sorry about the pointless post but I accidently posted a comment based a page 1 post. lol soz

Duke - so youre now arguing "RAI"? Sorry, but thats irrelevant. RAW you can take magical armour as you can take something that works exactly like a shield.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Duke - so youre now arguing "RAI"? Sorry, but thats irrelevant. RAW you can take magical armour as you can take something that works exactly like a shield.

Taking some that "works exactly like a shield" is not the same as actually having access to a shield though. RAW, the "Shield" option is not available to a SM. If the description of the ironfist had said "this is a special sort of shield", then it would be fairly cut and dry: it doesn't. The Ironfist is listed under special rules, not equipment. Most items that contain the special rules of another mundane item are described along the lines of:

Ironfist
Shield; a model with an Ironfist can break the normal rules of not getting parries while mounted because you're a super special fat ass butterfly.

The fact that the Ironfist takes up a weapon slot is also telling. Taking an Ironfist on a Tyrant, for instance, prevents him from taking some other sort of weapon like an AHW or a GW. The fact that he is "armed" with an ironfist also leans away from it being armor; it becomes a weapon that has the rules of a shield plus its own special rules about applying those bonuses while mounted. Your argument that an Ironfist is a shield is actually more RAI than RAW. The fact that it works like a shield is immaterial to the fact that it is not, in fact, ever actually called one.

I think we have proven shields on other units also take up what you call "a weapon slot".

Fair enough.

HoverBoy wrote:I think we have proven shields on other units also take up what you call "a weapon slot".

We proved it was inconsistent. Even within the same army on the same page. GO GW!

When you add a shield to a model, is it under the armor or weapons section? It is under the armor. Shields mitigate damage, which is what armor does. They improve your saving throw and give you a parry in hand to hand.

Crom wrote:When you add a shield to a model, is it under the armor or weapons section? It is under the armor. Shields mitigate damage, which is what armor does. They improve your saving throw and give you a parry in hand to hand.

I know it's rough, but you have to go ALL the way up to the post above yours to realize that shields are added in both weapons and armor sections in army books. They are not consistent.

Scaly skin mitigates damage.
A horse (mount) mitigates damage.

Lots of things give saving throws including arcane items.

So... does that mean that if you have Scaley Skin you can take magic armor? That functions just like armor. That would make a few Beastmen players happy. (Lizardment? I dunno if Skinkpriests or Slaan have Scaley skin...)

Skinks and Slann don't have scaly skin.

I have to agree with Rustfield.

It is NOT a shield. Nowhere, in exact text, does it say "The Ironfist is a shield." It acts "like" a shield, but because it uses the rules for shields does not make it a shield.

Because it is not a shield, more importantly, we cannot say that it is "mundane armor" because it does not fit the category of shield or light/heavy armor.

Make what you will.

As has been said, it doesn't work "like" a shield. It "works in exactly the same way as a shield", a pretty big difference in quoting. Exactly is a very strong word.

It is clear a FAQ will be in order. Hopefully, a quick FAQ at that.

I may just be a recent refugee from the GarageHammer forums but its a shield, it give an armor save. It's armor. It's not the same as a shield ... it's better b/c you can parry while mounted.

Also, it's not a weapon. Does not give an extra attack, have any attack bonus or attack capability whatsoever.

It's armor. (Not saying it won't get FAQ'd)

I think DukeRustField has made this one pretty clear:
-It is not a shield, it just works like a shield.
-Not everything that grants an armour save bonus counts as armour (mounts for example).
-The ironfist doesn't say it is armour.

If we sum all that up, according to RaW, the ironfist just isn't armour.

It works exctly like a shield. A shield is armour. An ironfist works exactly like something that is armour. An ironfist is armour.

RAW it is mundane armour

Stop dropping the "exactly", as it changes a whole lot of meaning.

TBH mounts arent armour because they "improve" armor saves rather than grant them. The ironfist still grants one "exactly like a shield".

@Hoverboy
So if a model had no other armour saves, but was mounted, the model would still have no armour save?

@nosferatu
It's exactly, except... not just exactly. Additionally, if something works exactly like something, that doesn't make it something. A bread slicing machine works exactly like you slicing bread. That doesn't make you a bread slicing machine...

Airmaniac wrote:@Hoverboy
So if a model had no other armour saves, but was mounted, the model would still have no armour save?

It would if the book didn't specifically say otherwise in the armour save chart at the end (page 179 of the small BRB).

Sounds an aweful lot like mounts granting armour saves to me then...

Ok great my skink priest can wear armor too

As I'm sure you already understood, the points was that being able to take something that grants armour saves doesn't necessarily allow you to take Magic Armour.

But yes, if your Ogre Kingdoms opponent feels like his ironfist granting an armour save allows him to take Magic Armour, then feel free to take Magic Armour on your Skink Priest as well.

Whatever i've seen the same things repeated for the last two pages. The rest of you have fun without me.

Wow, people read the rule. and stop with the "like a shield"

focus on where it says to use the shield rules from the main rule book.

thus that makes it a shield.

Air - So its a shield, but isnt one because you say so?

No, it works exactly like a piece of mundane armour, unlike a mount. COmparing apples to monkeys isnt productive.

No it isn't a shield because the Armybook doesn't say it is... Show me a passage in the Armybook where it says the Ironfist IS a shield and I'll gladly admit it is. Notice the word is though, not works exactly as, because that does not mean it is one, as has been pointed out by multiple posters.

So you dont use the shield rules, because it isnt one?

"works exactly like" a piece of mundane armour makes it a piece of mundane armour, because otherwise it isnt working exactly like a piece of mundane armour

I can see both points here, and I've had extensive discussions about this with people who have made rulings left and right of this issue.

1) It is written poorly. This argument would be obviated if they had phrased it either "It is a weapon choice that acts exactly like a shield..." or "It is a piece of mundane armor that acts...".

2) It will be FAQ'd. Guess we all just have to wait. Currently I don't armor my Slaughtermaster, as he's got other things to spend magic points on rather than armor.

3) I think it's been done to death that one group is convinced "Exactly like a shield" means it is a shield, and the other group is convinced since it's in the section on "weapons Choice" it's a weapon. Agree to disagree, most of these arguments boil down to "I read the rules and interpret my way" and both ways have valid points supporting them.

4) I know the AB maintainer personally, and he's a good guy, and working to find a middle ground as a volunteer. Agree with him, or don't, but don't say anything personal or derogatory. He's doing a thankless job very well.

Creon wrote:4) I know the AB maintainer personally, and he's a good guy, and working to find a middle ground as a volunteer. Agree with him, or don't, but don't say anything personal or derogatory. He's doing a thankless job very well.

At this point i return to point out my jabs where aimed at GW, i help maintain a vassal module and know how he must feel.

So if it isn't a shield, then I can take a shield with my tyrant/bruiser?
I guess it doesn't take up a hand either, so great weapon + iron-fist should be fine.

-Matt