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.

do we really have to have this debate over two different threads?

 jokerkd wrote:
do we really have to have this debate over two different threads?

No. I'm just trying to understand jeffersonian's argument.

 Happyjew wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
do we really have to have this debate over two different threads?

No. I'm just trying to understand jeffersonian's argument.

In my defense, I did try to redirect this line back to the other thread. I have also made my statement, supported it with rules, and have asked others to support their claims with rules. And yes, I'm done reposting my argument every page on two threads because the same people fail to read. Frankly, it's on them.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
do we really have to have this debate over two different threads?

No. I'm just trying to understand jeffersonian's argument.

In my defense, I did try to redirect this line back to the other thread. I have also made my statement, supported it with rules, and have asked others to support their claims with rules. And yes, I'm done reposting my argument every page on two threads because the same people fail to read. Frankly, it's on them.

SJ

I don't think you know what supporting with rules means. You stated your position and posted rules that contradicted it. We pointed this out you ignored and reposted your position and the contradictory rules. We asked you questions about your interpretation that highlight how they contradict the rules. You half answered them we pushed for a full answer you claimed we were changing our arguments and started this pointless claim that we haven't read your posts. When the truth is that either you haven't read our posts or you haven't read the rules, most likely that you haven't read either (assuming you can indeed understand English).

I say we just call it. The general consensus (barring one particularly vocal individual) is that Sanctuary counts as a second ion shield with an additional benefit. As such, a Knight with both his default Ion Shield and the chosen Heirloom, Sanctuary, would effectively have a 4++ on two facings with 6++ saves on the other two. This consensus is completely supported by RaW.

To accept the viewpoint that Sanctuary is somehow just a modification of the existing Ion Shield requires us to ignore the RaW ideas that Ion Shield and Sanctuary are two separate pieces of Wargear AND that Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield with additional benefits. The Knight effectively has two Ion Shields. Resolving each shield's rules requires two facings to be chosen. They can be the same facing, but there is more advantage to making them different.

Well I was asking how the ' Forgotten Knight' rule interacted with Sanctuary but the thread changed into "do you get two shields from sanctuary" it states Gerantius' ion shield has a 3+ instead of a 4+. Would this include sanctuary? How do we determine if it is HIS shield or not.

If he has it then it is undeniably HIS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think there is an argument that with Sanctuary Gerantius gets a 3++ in all facings. Do you have the exact wording for Gerantius not sure where my WD is...

I'm fairly certain it says it replaces his 4+ save so the 6+ sides won't benefit.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
I'm fairly certain it says it replaces his 4+ save so the 6+ sides won't benefit.

If it says that he just gets two 3++ saves but I don't have the wording on me.

Grenaticus's Forgotten Knight rule states that his Ion Shield has 3++ save instead of a 4++.

SJ

 FlingitNow wrote:
If he has it then it is undeniably HIS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think there is an argument that with Sanctuary Gerantius gets a 3++ in all facings. Do you have the exact wording for Gerantius not sure where my WD is...

“Gerantius’s ion shield confers a 3+ invulnerable save instead of the normal 4+.”

Excerpt From: Dwarf, White. “White Dwarf Issue 24: 12 July 2014.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/2_-D1.l"

Then yes he gets two 3++ saves. No it does not effect the 6++ in other facings.

On a related Gerantius note - has anyone else noticed that you can only run him in a couple of formations now and nothing else?

He is not a LOW and can't occupy a FOC slot because of this. The only way he can even be used is in a knight formation that allows any knight.

 Massaen wrote:
On a related Gerantius note - has anyone else noticed that you can only run him in a couple of formations now and nothing else?

He is not a LOW and can't occupy a FOC slot because of this. The only way he can even be used is in a knight formation that allows any knight.

Correct.

Or him can be taken unbound.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Or him can be taken unbound.

SJ

Jeffersonian000 is correct. There are three current ways to field him...

1. IK Exalted Court Formation
2. IK Baronial Court Formation
3. Any Unbound Army

Note that #3 is the only way to field him without at least two other Knight present.