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.

Needless to say I refused to let it be run like that. But I am afraid they are very clearly TFG and will surely try and convince the store run tournaments thats how it works. Now it says very clearly that it gives a 6+ to the non faced sides. But he is trying to say that since its also another ion shield, and that the rules for them say they grant a 4+ to one facing, that there are in fact now two, and that two facings get 3+ and the other two get a 6+.

How do you even come to this conclusion. It seems clear as day.

See the 5 page discussion here.

Well, we recently covered this exact issue in a thread on YMDC, which ended with both sides of the issue going silent before the thread got locked. To sum it up, there is RAW to support 2 Ion Shields, and there is RAW to support no ability to actually use 2 Ion Shields. And that as they say is that.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, we recently covered this exact issue in a thread on YMDC, which ended with both sides of the issue going silent before the thread got locked. To sum it up, there is RAW to support 2 Ion Shields, and there is RAW to support no ability to actually use 2 Ion Shields. And that as they say is that.

SJ

I'd suggest to the OP that he read the thread himself and draw his own conclusions. A Knight with a piece of Wargear called "Ion Shield", as well as a piece of Heirloom Wargear called "Sanctuary", has two separate and distinct pieces of Wargear.

1. "Sanctuary" doesn't replace "Ion Shield".

2. "Ion Shield" tells you to pick a facing and give that facing an invuln save (3++/4++ as applicable).

3. "Sanctuary" tells you that it counts as an "Ion Shield", so you again pick a facing and give that facing an invuln save. In addition, you give the other faces a 6++ save.

There are literally zero rules telling us that the two separate and distinct pieces of wargear have to pick the same facing. Presumably you follow the rules for each and pick a facing for each. Of course, this only comes up for one Knight and only if they've taken the Sanctuary Heirloom item.

 Kriswall wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, we recently covered this exact issue in a thread on YMDC, which ended with both sides of the issue going silent before the thread got locked. To sum it up, there is RAW to support 2 Ion Shields, and there is RAW to support no ability to actually use 2 Ion Shields. And that as they say is that.

SJ

I'd suggest to the OP that he read the thread himself and draw his own conclusions. A Knight with a piece of Wargear called "Ion Shield", as well as a piece of Heirloom Wargear called "Sanctuary", has two separate and distinct pieces of Wargear.

1. "Sanctuary" doesn't replace "Ion Shield".

2. "Ion Shield" tells you to pick a facing and give that facing an invuln save (3++/4++ as applicable).

3. "Sanctuary" tells you that it counts as an "Ion Shield", so you again pick a facing and give that facing an invuln save. In addition, you give the other faces a 6++ save.

There are literally zero rules telling us that the two separate and distinct pieces of wargear have to pick the same facing. Presumably you follow the rules for each and pick a facing for each. Of course, this only comes up for one Knight and only if they've taken the Sanctuary Heirloom item.

The red is RAW, the blue is HYWPI. And you didn't really disagree with anything in my first post; so to sure what you were trying to disagree with.

SJ

Effectively the problem is plurality;

The rules state to pick a facing for "its" Ion Shield, but it has two. It never says "its Ion Shields", but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't say that if a model were to have two Ion Shields. Maybe it should? Maybe it shouldn't? Maybe the wording means you pick just for one Ion Shield, and then it's up to you to choose which one? Maybe it means to say "pick a facing for its Ion Shields" so that both are set to the same facing. Maybe it means "pick a facing for each Ion Shield", which would then allow it to be as how your opponent described it.

Personally, I think you pick one Ion Shield facing, but the rules are so vague that it's really a coin-flip. For casual games, accept that it'll often come down to "hand of fate" rolls if you can't just talk it out. For tourneys, you'll need an answer from the TO.

 Yarium wrote:
Effectively the problem is plurality;

The rules state to pick a facing for "its" Ion Shield, but it has two. It never says "its Ion Shields", but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't say that if a model were to have two Ion Shields. Maybe it should? Maybe it shouldn't? Maybe the wording means you pick just for one Ion Shield, and then it's up to you to choose which one? Maybe it means to say "pick a facing for its Ion Shields" so that both are set to the same facing. Maybe it means "pick a facing for each Ion Shield", which would then allow it to be as how your opponent described it.

Personally, I think you pick one Ion Shield facing, but the rules are so vague that it's really a coin-flip. For casual games, accept that it'll often come down to "hand of fate" rolls if you can't just talk it out. For tourneys, you'll need an answer from the TO.

Best answer right here. Roll a dice or flip a coin each game, to decide if he gets one or two. It switches it up

Can we please not start this argument again.

Everything op needs to know is in the linked thread

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, we recently covered this exact issue in a thread on YMDC, which ended with both sides of the issue going silent before the thread got locked. To sum it up, there is RAW to support 2 Ion Shields, and there is RAW to support no ability to actually use 2 Ion Shields. And that as they say is that.

SJ

I'd suggest to the OP that he read the thread himself and draw his own conclusions. A Knight with a piece of Wargear called "Ion Shield", as well as a piece of Heirloom Wargear called "Sanctuary", has two separate and distinct pieces of Wargear.

1. "Sanctuary" doesn't replace "Ion Shield".

2. "Ion Shield" tells you to pick a facing and give that facing an invuln save (3++/4++ as applicable).

3. "Sanctuary" tells you that it counts as an "Ion Shield", so you again pick a facing and give that facing an invuln save. In addition, you give the other faces a 6++ save.

There are literally zero rules telling us that the two separate and distinct pieces of wargear have to pick the same facing. Presumably you follow the rules for each and pick a facing for each. Of course, this only comes up for one Knight and only if they've taken the Sanctuary Heirloom item.

The red is RAW, the blue is HYWPI. And you didn't really disagree with anything in my first post; so to sure what you were trying to disagree with.

SJ

I still love how you think having to follow Wargear rules isn't RaW. I'm not going to start arguing again. There's no point debating with someone who thinks you only have to follow some of the rules.

 Kriswall wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, we recently covered this exact issue in a thread on YMDC, which ended with both sides of the issue going silent before the thread got locked. To sum it up, there is RAW to support 2 Ion Shields, and there is RAW to support no ability to actually use 2 Ion Shields. And that as they say is that.

SJ

I'd suggest to the OP that he read the thread himself and draw his own conclusions. A Knight with a piece of Wargear called "Ion Shield", as well as a piece of Heirloom Wargear called "Sanctuary", has two separate and distinct pieces of Wargear.

1. "Sanctuary" doesn't replace "Ion Shield".

2. "Ion Shield" tells you to pick a facing and give that facing an invuln save (3++/4++ as applicable).

3. "Sanctuary" tells you that it counts as an "Ion Shield", so you again pick a facing and give that facing an invuln save. In addition, you give the other faces a 6++ save.

There are literally zero rules telling us that the two separate and distinct pieces of wargear have to pick the same facing. Presumably you follow the rules for each and pick a facing for each. Of course, this only comes up for one Knight and only if they've taken the Sanctuary Heirloom item.

The red is RAW, the blue is HYWPI. And you didn't really disagree with anything in my first post; so to sure what you were trying to disagree with.

SJ

I still love how you think having to follow Wargear rules isn't RaW. I'm not going to start arguing again. There's no point debating with someone who thinks you only have to follow some of the rules.

Don't you mean someone who follows the rules, rather than makes up rules?

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, we recently covered this exact issue in a thread on YMDC, which ended with both sides of the issue going silent before the thread got locked. To sum it up, there is RAW to support 2 Ion Shields, and there is RAW to support no ability to actually use 2 Ion Shields. And that as they say is that.

SJ

I'd suggest to the OP that he read the thread himself and draw his own conclusions. A Knight with a piece of Wargear called "Ion Shield", as well as a piece of Heirloom Wargear called "Sanctuary", has two separate and distinct pieces of Wargear.

1. "Sanctuary" doesn't replace "Ion Shield".

2. "Ion Shield" tells you to pick a facing and give that facing an invuln save (3++/4++ as applicable).

3. "Sanctuary" tells you that it counts as an "Ion Shield", so you again pick a facing and give that facing an invuln save. In addition, you give the other faces a 6++ save.

There are literally zero rules telling us that the two separate and distinct pieces of wargear have to pick the same facing. Presumably you follow the rules for each and pick a facing for each. Of course, this only comes up for one Knight and only if they've taken the Sanctuary Heirloom item.

The red is RAW, the blue is HYWPI. And you didn't really disagree with anything in my first post; so to sure what you were trying to disagree with.

SJ

I still love how you think having to follow Wargear rules isn't RaW. I'm not going to start arguing again. There's no point debating with someone who thinks you only have to follow some of the rules.

Don't you mean someone who follows the rules, rather than makes up rules?

SJ

And we again come back to your stance that a person who says "you have to follow all the rules for each distinct piece of wargear your model has" is making up rules. This is why we'll never agree. The fact that a model has an Ion Shield has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the fact that he also has the Sanctuary Heirloom. You somehow want to combine the two. There are no rules to do so, so I assume you don't understand how the rules work. I'm basing my stance off the written word, pulled straight from the Codex and BRB. That stance is well documented in the other thread and led to a stand still, with the majority of people thinking RaW allowed you to pick separate facings. RaI was more split. I think most people felt that Sanctuary should be an 'upgrade' for the built-in Ion Shield, but that GW forgot to add a clause saying it replaced the Ion Shield, leaving RaW to give the Knight two invulns, with 6++ saves on the off faces.

This is easily solved by a simple email to gw, in which they state sanctuary heirloom takes over for the ion shield. The knight does not possess two. However as said above, ignore the two guys fighting man, if you opponent wants to argue the point, do a coin toss every game.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
This is easily solved by a simple email to gw, in which they state sanctuary heirloom takes over for the ion shield. The knight does not possess two. However as said above, ignore the two guys fighting man, if you opponent wants to argue the point, do a coin toss every game.

No this is not "easily solved by a simple email to gw"

If it were there would be no need for the e-mail in the first place...

Also:

"2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on. "

From here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

I think its pretty obviously an upgrade for the existing shield, not an additional shield. This is my own personal HIWPI

 jokerkd wrote:
Can we please not start this argument again.

Everything op needs to know is in the linked thread

The instant this thread was made, it was already too late.

Ooo... That's a tricky one. I would play it as a replacement to the Knight's normal Ion Shield.

This definitely needs an FAQ.

Mallich wrote:
See the 5 page discussion here.

Not weighing in on either side, but if you want to go on the intent, take a look at how much that item costs.
The cost of the item was all it took for my group to decide how we are going to play it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
This is easily solved by a simple email to gw, in which they state sanctuary heirloom takes over for the ion shield. The knight does not possess two. However as said above, ignore the two guys fighting man, if you opponent wants to argue the point, do a coin toss every game.

No this is not "easily solved by a simple email to gw"

If it were there would be no need for the e-mail in the first place...

Also:

"2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on. "

From here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

Yeeaaaahhh... I was informing OP of something he could do. Your answer is... Irrelevant and unneeded to say the least. Unfortunately you seemed a little upset by my post. I'm assuming you want those two shields on that poor little knight? Awe how cute

As noted, this argument has been previously discussed. We're not going to revisit it so quickly.