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.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 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.

So, per your interpretation, the 6++ save is a normal invul save, which means it can be used versus melee attacks, rather than a modified Ion Shield that can only be used versus shooting attacks?

SJ

Does anything say the 6++ can only be used vs shooting attacks?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 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.

So, per your interpretation, the 6++ save is a normal invul save, which means it can be used versus melee attacks, rather than a modified Ion Shield that can only be used versus shooting attacks?

SJ

In my local meta, yes, we've been allowing the 6++ save against melee attacks.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Does anything say the 6++ can only be used vs shooting attacks?

The fact that it counts as an Ion Shield.

SJ

 FlingitNow wrote:
Sanctuary is an Ion Shield, Ion Shields give a 4++ in one facing.

The problem lies in this statement. There is nothing that definitively states, one way or the other, that both Ion Shields can cover a different facing from each other.

Ion Shields are allowed to cover one facing. There is nothing that can gainsay this. However, Sanctuary is not given permission to cover a facing that the base Ion Shield is not covering. However, nor is it denied the ability to be declared.

This, like the "Infiltrator" concept, is a situation where a lack of defining the consequences applies a "sandbox" ruling to the situation. Or in other words, consult with your opponent or Tournament Organizer for a defined reading for the game.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Does anything say the 6++ can only be used vs shooting attacks?

Well, the Sanctuary rules state the 6++ cannot be used against Melee Attacks. It's the very last line. So, almost any active offensive action that doesn't involve a Charge would generally qualify as being affected.

I love this argument.

It's obviously a second and entirely separate piece of wargear in that it has a different name.. There is NO wording whatsoever telling us that this second and entirely separate piece of wargear has any impact on an existing piece of wargear. There is NO wording whatsoever telling us that this second and entirely separate piece of wargear replaces an existing piece of wargear.

This new and entirely separate piece of wargear counts as an Ion Shield with some additional rules, but ISN'T an Ion Shield. It's a Relic called Sanctuary.

You have to follow ALL of the rules for your piece of wargear called Ion Shield, which involves picking a facing and getting a 4++.

You have to SEPARATELY follow ALL of the rules for your piece of wargear called Sanctuary, which involves picking a facing, getting a 4++ and getting a 6++ on all other facings.

There is NO wording telling you that you have to pick the same facing for both pieces of wargear.

Upgrade price has NO bearing on what the rules do. We aren't arguing whether or not an upgrade is undercosted, we're debating how the upgrade works.

RAW seems clear that you effectively have 4++ on two facings and 6++ on the other two.

NOW... my interpretation of RAI. I suspect strongly that GW wanted Sanctuary to REPLACE the existing Ion Shield wargear, but added no wording whatsoever to tell us that. If I were to play with Sanctuary, I would pick one facing of 4++ and three of 6++. I would allow opponents to pick two 4++'s, though, as this is what RAW allows.

TLDR - Yes. No. Yes. No. "Let's stay on topic." "Your mom stays on topic." THREAD LOCK

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Does anything say the 6++ can only be used vs shooting attacks?

The fact that it counts as an Ion Shield.

SJ

What counts as an Ion Shield? What do the rules say? What do tge rules say the 6++ can not be used against?

 Kriswall wrote:
You have to SEPARATELY follow ALL of the rules for your piece of wargear called Sanctuary, which involves picking a facing, getting a 4++ and getting a 6++ on all other facings.

Actually, it states that you pick a facing for the Ion Shield (and Sanctuary IS an Ion Shield as far as the game is concerned). It doesn't account for the concept of multiple facings to be considered, much like the Shooting Sequence doesn't account for when a model can have multiple targets. Any interpretation of this situation is as correct as another.

I've always felt that "counts as an ion shield" was meant to tell you that the sanctuary replaced your ion shield but was just written by an ass-hat. Clearly there is a strong opinion that it was meant to be an additional ion shield and that's where this discussion should end. We are both looking at the same rules and drawing different conclusions on what they probably meant. Ever since GW seems to have decided stop making FAQs the best we can ever hope for is a divided community that requires reasonable players to comprise or a TO to sort it all out.

The problem lies in this statement. There is nothing that definitively states, one way or the other, that both Ion Shields can cover a different facing from each other. 

Ion Shields are allowed to cover one facing. There is nothing that can gainsay this. However, Sanctuary is not given permission to cover a facing that the base Ion Shield is not covering. However, nor is it denied the ability to be declared. 

This, like the "Infiltrator" concept, is a situation where a lack of defining the consequences applies a "sandbox" ruling to the situation. Or in other words, consult with your opponent or Tournament Organizer for a defined reading for the game. 

You have general permission to puck a facing for each Ion Shield. You need denial of that permission as each item of wargear forces you through the sentence that results in you picking a facing.

Well, the Sanctuary rules state the 6++ cannot be used against Melee Attacks. It's the very last line. So, almost any active offensive action that doesn't involve a Charge would generally qualify as being affected.

This was the point I was making. You can use the 6++ vs melee attacks as that is specifically called out and has nothing to do with Sanctuary counting as an Ion Shield.

It doesn't matter how many facable 4++ Ion Shields you think your Knight has, the rules only support one facing for the facable Shield, while the remaining facings gain the 6++ Ion Shield save. The fact that you cannot cite a rule allowing more than one facable 4++ Shield points to no such rules support. In the case of this permissive rule set, permission has been granted for only one Facable selection at this time.

SJ

 DJGietzen wrote:
I've always felt that "counts as an ion shield" was meant to tell you that the sanctuary replaced your ion shield but was just written by an ass-hat. Clearly there is a strong opinion that it was meant to be an additional ion shield and that's where this discussion should end. We are both looking at the same rules and drawing different conclusions on what they probably meant. Ever since GW seems to have decided stop making FAQs the best we can ever hope for is a divided community that requires reasonable players to comprise or a TO to sort it all out.

So say I have a Power Maul and I take a weapon that counts as a Power Maul and in addition has the fleshbane rule. How many power mauls do I have? Assuming I have no other melee weapons do I get the +1A for having 2 ccws?

Counts as means is in every other rules situation GW has ever created. Why are you interpreting it differently here? This is absolutely cut and dry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It doesn't matter how many facable 4++ Ion Shields you think your Knight has, the rules only support one facing for the facable Shield, while the remaining facings gain the 6++ Ion Shield save. The fact that you cannot cite a rule allowing more than one facable 4++ Shield points to no such rules support. I. The car of this permissive rule set, permission has been granted for only one Facable selection at this time.

SJ

Right you need to learn how a permissive ruleset works. Where is your permission to use an Ion Shield at 3:37pm on a Tuesday? Where is your permission to use an Ion Shield when it is raining outside? Where is your permission yo use an Ion Shield on an Imperial Knighted painted pink.

We have shown that Ion Shields pick a facing to give a 4++ to. We have shown the Imperial Knight has two Ion Shields. That is all we have to show. Now you need to find denial of that permission.

 FlingitNow wrote:

The problem lies in this statement. There is nothing that definitively states, one way or the other, that both Ion Shields can cover a different facing from each other. 

Ion Shields are allowed to cover one facing. There is nothing that can gainsay this. However, Sanctuary is not given permission to cover a facing that the base Ion Shield is not covering. However, nor is it denied the ability to be declared. 

This, like the "Infiltrator" concept, is a situation where a lack of defining the consequences applies a "sandbox" ruling to the situation. Or in other words, consult with your opponent or Tournament Organizer for a defined reading for the game. 

You have general permission to puck a facing for each Ion Shield. You need denial of that permission as each item of wargear forces you through the sentence that results in you picking a facing.

The problem is that the word "each" is not used in either Ion Shield's rules nor in Sanctuary's.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Well, the Sanctuary rules state the 6++ cannot be used against Melee Attacks. It's the very last line. So, almost any active offensive action that doesn't involve a Charge would generally qualify as being affected.

This was the point I was making. You can use the 6++ vs melee attacks as that is specifically called out and has nothing to do with Sanctuary counting as an Ion Shield.

No, it specifically states that Sanctuary canNOT be used against Melee Attacks. That means ALL of its affects, including the 6++.

The problem is that the word "each" is not used in either Ion Shield's rules nor in Sanctuary's. 

Actually each is in the Ion Shield rule. Not that it particularly needs to be as you have 2 separate items of wargear which each tell you to pick a facing.

No, it specifically states that Sanctuary canNOT be used against Melee Attacks. That means ALL of its affects, including the 6++.

Yes sorry that was an obvious typo it was supposed to read can't be used against melee attacks, so that hopefully makes sense now.

 FlingitNow wrote:

The problem is that the word "each" is not used in either Ion Shield's rules nor in Sanctuary's. 

Actually each is in the Ion Shield rule. Not that it particularly needs to be as you have 2 separate items of wargear which each tell you to pick a facing.

Odd. I could have sworn it didn't say "each". *double checks* I stand corrected, then. It does say "for each Ion Shield", so multiple Ion Shields were anticipated (for once). So, 2 sides with 4++ and 2 sides with 6++ are entirely possible and fit the rules.

I guess I'm just so used to GW's bad proof-reading that I misplaced a word, or remembered a misquote.

Cool we all make mistakes. Some of us fail to type can't when we mean it

Ion Shield
When an Imperial Knight is deployed, and subsequently at the start of each of the opposing side’s Shooting phases before any attacks are carried out, the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering.

The word "each" is being used in context to the Knight, not its Ion Shield. English.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Ion Shield
When an Imperial Knight is deployed, and subsequently at the start of each of the opposing side’s Shooting phases before any attacks are carried out, the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering.

The word "each" is being used in context to the Knight, not its Ion Shield. English.

English would actually could apply it either way. English is very good at muddying things with short-hand.

It could be read as "which facing the ion shield of each Knight is facing", or "which facing each Ion Shield of the Knight is facing". Since we actually HAVE a situation where it is possible for the latter interpretation to occur, it makes more sense to apply it as available. This is a case where context actually can change the meaning. In the case of having one Shield for the Knight, the first makes perfectly fine sense. However, in the case of having two, the latter is perfectly applicable.

each knight can pick its facing, because there is a formation that has multiple knights in an unit.

it never says each ion shield.

because there is an unit of knights as a formation, so you don't have to pick the same facing for all of them.

not because you are allowed to ever have two shields.

if that were the case it would be

"When an imperial knight is deployed, and subsequently at the state of each opposing side's Shooting phases before any attacks are carreid out, the controlling player must declare which facing each ion shield is covering for any imperial knights they have with ion shields."

but it does not say that, the shield is certainly a singular rule in the ion shield rule, and the knight is the thing that is possibly plural.

and to anyone who wants to say you can do singular things multiple times, look at having one relic. one relic and one relic is not singular anymore.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Ion Shield
When an Imperial Knight is deployed, and subsequently at the start of each of the opposing side’s Shooting phases before any attacks are carried out, the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering.

The word "each" is being used in context to the Knight, not its Ion Shield. English.

SJ

Actually in English it could apply to either. Not that it really matters as each Ion Shield has that rule and each invokes it individually. You would need different language to restrict this to a single facing regardless of number of shields (like "If equipped with an Ion Shield the Imperial Knight must pick a facing. That facing gain blah blah blah" thus 1 shield or 1000 shields the if state is true and you pick 1 facing).

So again we know we have 2 entirely separate Ion Shields each with a rule requiring us to puck a facing one of which has an additional effect....

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Ion Shield
When an Imperial Knight is deployed, and subsequently at the start of each of the opposing side’s Shooting phases before any attacks are carried out, the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering.

The word "each" is being used in context to the Knight, not its Ion Shield. English.

SJ

Actually in English it could apply to either. Not that it really matters as each Ion Shield has that rule and each invokes it individually. You would need different language to restrict this to a single facing regardless of number of shields (like "If equipped with an Ion Shield the Imperial Knight must pick a facing. That facing gain blah blah blah" thus 1 shield or 1000 shields the if state is true and you pick 1 facing).

So again we know we have 2 entirely separate Ion Shields each with a rule requiring us to puck a facing one of which has an additional effect....

so other than inferring that there are two shields, can you show written permission which actually clearly states how to face shields if there is more than one shield?

The rules clearly tell us there are 2 shields. Each shield has and thus invokes that rule about choosing a facing. Do you understand how a permissive ruleset works? It doesn't need to give specific permission for how 2 shields work. It jyst needs to tell you how 1 shield works and then tell you how to add 2 shields to its wargear.

Can you please show where in the rule it clearly says there are two shields. Saying it is an ion shield, does not say it is 2 shields or an extra shield.

You have permission to face one shield, not permission to face each shield. DO you understand how a permissive rules set works?

I have permission to have 4 weapons on a model, and I have permission to fire one. Can I fire 4 weapons?

I -might- have permission to have 2 ion shields on a model, and I have permission to face one. Can I face two shields?

blaktoof wrote:
Can you please show where in the rule it clearly says there are two shields. Saying it is an ion shield, does not say it is 2 shields or an extra shield.

You have permission to face one shield, not permission to face each shield. DO you understand how a permissive rules set works?

I have permission to have 4 weapons on a model, and I have permission to fire one. Can I fire 4 weapons?

I -might- have permission to have 2 ion shields on a model, and I have permission to face one. Can I face two shields?

You have 2 ion shields, and a rule which defines what each ion-shield does.

Each shield calls the ion-shield rule.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Can you please show where in the rule it clearly says there are two shields. Saying it is an ion shield, does not say it is 2 shields or an extra shield.

You have permission to face one shield, not permission to face each shield. DO you understand how a permissive rules set works?

I have permission to have 4 weapons on a model, and I have permission to fire one. Can I fire 4 weapons?

I -might- have permission to have 2 ion shields on a model, and I have permission to face one. Can I face two shields?

You have 2 ion shields, and a rule which defines what each ion-shield does.

Each shield calls the ion-shield rule.

unfortunately that has nothing to do with what the ion shield rules say, because they do not tell you what to do for each ion shield. they tell you what to do for each knight and its ion shield[singular].

and your last statement would be the same as saying each weapon calls the firing rule, therefore a model with four weapons can fire all four. which is wrong.

blaktoof wrote:
Can you please show where in the rule it clearly says there are two shields. Saying it is an ion shield, does not say it is 2 shields or an extra shield.

Really again? You have an Ion Shield in your wargear. You can add another Ion Shield to your wargear by purchasing Sanctuary. That means you have 2 Ion Shields.

You have permission to face one shield, not permission to face each shield. DO you understand how a permissive rules set works?

Well actually it says each Imperial Knight's shield picks a facing. Nothing states that you may only ever pick 1 facing per Knight.

I have permission to have 4 weapons on a model, and I have permission to fire one. Can I fire 4 weapons?

It depends on the wording to fire a weapon. Note how the rules have to add a specific restriction to prevent a model firing more than 1 weapon, without that restriction yes you could fire 4 weapons if you had them. So do you have a similar restriction for this case?

I -might- have permission to have 2 ion shields on a model, and I have permission to face one. Can I face two shields?

You absolutely have permission to have 2 Ion Shields. This is undisputed surely? Each has a rule that requires you pick a facing.

pleasure show where it says you have two ion shields, an extra ion shield, an additional ion shield. etc.

and again each does not have a rule that you pick a facing, each knight has a rule that you pick a facing for its[singular ion shield].

can you quote where it says you pick for each shield?

can you quote anywhere where it says you have a second, extra, additional, different ion shield?

blaktoof wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Can you please show where in the rule it clearly says there are two shields. Saying it is an ion shield, does not say it is 2 shields or an extra shield.

You have permission to face one shield, not permission to face each shield. DO you understand how a permissive rules set works?

I have permission to have 4 weapons on a model, and I have permission to fire one. Can I fire 4 weapons?

I -might- have permission to have 2 ion shields on a model, and I have permission to face one. Can I face two shields?

You have 2 ion shields, and a rule which defines what each ion-shield does.

Each shield calls the ion-shield rule.

unfortunately that has nothing to do with what the ion shield rules say, because they do not tell you what to do for each ion shield. they tell you what to do for each knight and its ion shield[singular].

and your last statement would be the same as saying each weapon calls the firing rule, therefore a model with four weapons can fire all four. which is wrong.

Are you claiming that rule isn't trigger by the Ion Shield wargear and applies to all Imperial Knights regardless of whether they have an Ion Shield?

Oh, I can! The 6++ is an extra Ion Shield with its own rules. /wink

SJ

 FlingitNow wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Can you please show where in the rule it clearly says there are two shields. Saying it is an ion shield, does not say it is 2 shields or an extra shield.

You have permission to face one shield, not permission to face each shield. DO you understand how a permissive rules set works?

I have permission to have 4 weapons on a model, and I have permission to fire one. Can I fire 4 weapons?

I -might- have permission to have 2 ion shields on a model, and I have permission to face one. Can I face two shields?

You have 2 ion shields, and a rule which defines what each ion-shield does.

Each shield calls the ion-shield rule.

unfortunately that has nothing to do with what the ion shield rules say, because they do not tell you what to do for each ion shield. they tell you what to do for each knight and its ion shield[singular].

and your last statement would be the same as saying each weapon calls the firing rule, therefore a model with four weapons can fire all four. which is wrong.

Are you claiming that rule isn't trigger by the Ion Shield wargear and applies to all Imperial Knights regardless of whether they have an Ion Shield?

so you think a rule that allows you to take a specific type of model with a specific type of wargear and do something once, means you can do the same thing over and over once each time?