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.

When you pay points for sanctuary, does it take over for the current stock ion shield, or is it considered a second ion shield, therefore granting you two sides of your choosing for the equipped knight? My friend and I got into an arguement over this yesterday after I declared both the front and left side of my knight as he had units on both, and my knight was equipped with sanctuary. The ruling for sanctuary states nothing of replacing the current ion shield, just that sanctuary is an ion shield. Leading me to understand I'm purchasing another ion shield on top of the stock one.

5 page discussion on it here.

Oh yay this again.


You are purchasing a second shield. It doesn't replace the current one. It states ( counts as an ion shield, doesn't say it replaces Wargear like the weapons which explicitly do state that)

However we have no way of knowing whether or not you can declare them on separate facings or if you have to put them both on the same side during the declaration step. Thus people argue about it.

 Happyjew wrote:
5 page discussion on it here.

Ah thank you very much good sir.

Oh yay this again

While I thank you for a quick answer, sarcasm isn't needed. Question will be asked multiple times. It is bound to happen and will for the entirity of 40k. Get used to it or quit is what I suggest.

Sorry Pain, but last time I remember this getting brought up it just devolved into a bunch of circular arguments... actually that seems to happen alot on YMDC. Its an iffy topic kinda like the whole IC skyhammer situation. People will probably cry foul even if they let you play it from strict RAW.

Bad memories is all. Meant no offense to you personally.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Sorry Pain, but last time I remember this getting brought up it just devolved into a bunch of circular arguments... actually that seems to happen alot on YMDC. Its an iffy topic kinda like the whole IC skyhammer situation. People will probably cry foul even if they let you play it from strict RAW.

Bad memories is all. Meant no offense to you personally.

I completely understand and I appreciate it man. I was honestly just curious. I read the entirity of the above posted thread, and pretty much have decided I'll ask my opponents their interpretation for friendly games, maybe ending in a dice roll off, and in tournies ask the TO how they rule it. Thank you guys!

My buddy that takes a baronial court to events lately just makes two lists, one with sanctuary and one with those points elsewhere, and asks about the ruling when he gets there. He doesn't think a 6++ on the 3 other sides is worth those points, and I sorta agree.

I also agree and will probably be doing something similar. Having two 4+ shields on two sides and a 6+ on the other two is worth 15, but 15 for 6+ on 3 sides and no other benefits is not

Having two 4++ and a 6++ on the other two is way too powerful for a 15 point upgrade. 6++ on three sides the use the same rules as Ion Shields actually does fit a 15 point upgrade.

SJ

I guess some could see it that way. But knights aren't as durable as everyone seems to think. As the thread link above shows, it does show the upgrade is separate. It's up to friends and tournies to decide from there whether you get two choices or your one works for both

Except that the above link does not show that Sanctuary is a separate upgrade from the standard Ion Shield, as there is an entire 5 page argument over that specific point.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Except that the above link does not show that Sanctuary is a separate upgrade from the standard Ion Shield, as there is an entire 5 page argument over that specific point.

SJ

As stated..m up to friends and TO to decide....

It could be worse you know jeffersonian....

He could be trying to get it as a second 3+ invul on gerantius.

That was discussed, thankfully Grenaticus cannot take relics, although he can lead a Baronial Court.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
That was discussed, thankfully Grenaticus cannot take relics, although he can lead a Baronial Court.

SJ

He can't?

Ok. I was under the impression that he could if he was included in an Exalted Court that he could take one.

Also doesn't the Lord Baron rule let you take herilooms?

(if you can, please just link the discussion)

It allows you to choose one knight in your detachment to take relics therefore technically could grant him to be able to take one. I'm not 100% on this, but it seems this way from the wording of the codex. Guys I'm not trying to cheat. I even said I'd go off whatever a TO says. This relic and rules are poorly written, and there are a few ways to take it. I don't want to be thought of as "trying to cheat" as I don't feel that's what's going on.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
It allows you to choose one knight in your detachment to take relics therefore technically could grant him to be able to take one. I'm not 100% on this, but it seems this way from the wording of the codex. Guys I'm not trying to cheat. I even said I'd go off whatever a TO says. This relic and rules are poorly written, and there are a few ways to take it. I don't want to be thought of as "trying to cheat" as I don't feel that's what's going on.

No one said your trying to cheat.


This is a rules DISCUSSION after all, and we should be doing our best to discuss ALL possible interpretations.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Except that the above link does not show that Sanctuary is a separate upgrade from the standard Ion Shield, as there is an entire 5 page argument over that specific point.

SJ

Actually the linked thread absolutely proves that. There is nothing that even suggests Sanctuary is an upgrade to an existing ion shield.

Sanctuary as written gives 2 ion shields that you can pick facings for. 6++ in 3 facings does seem like the type of upgrade GW would charge 15 points for. However it clearly states it count as an additional Ion Shield so the intent seems to follow the RaW in this case.

Sanctuary
Sanctuary counts as an ion shield. In addition, a Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield. Sanctuary cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks.

Some people read that as "you get a second Ion Shield, a 6++ everywhere else", while others read that as "in addition to your Ion Shield, you get a 6++ Ion Shield on the other three facings". One side of the argument is correct. The fact that "Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield" rather "Sanctuary is an Ion Shield" points to used the rules for Ion Shields except .... And that exception is that it grants a 6++ to the faces not covered by the actual Ion Shield. That jives with the 15 point cost, and it jives with a common reading of the rule. The fact that he Ion Shield rules do not cover having more than one facable 4++ shield lends itself to this reading.

On the flip side, getting two 4++ saves for a measly 15 points seems like an exploit the other side really really wishs was the case.

SJ

While I agree SJ.. you also have to admit, and actually did admit,neither way is 100% clear. We can say we are pretty sure they meant x or y all day long. They could of really meant z. Fact is no one knows. Not 100% at least.

That is correct.

SJ

Ion Shields do not grant a 6++; Ion Shields grant a 4++ that must pick a facing.

Sanctuary is an Ion Shield that does some other stuff too.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Sanctuary
Sanctuary counts as an ion shield. In addition, a Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield. Sanctuary cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks.

Some people read that as "you get a second Ion Shield, a 6++ everywhere else", while others read that as "in addition to your Ion Shield, you get a 6++ Ion Shield on the other three facings". One side of the argument is correct. The fact that "Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield" rather "Sanctuary is an Ion Shield" points to used the rules for Ion Shields except .... And that exception is that it grants a 6++ to the faces not covered by the actual Ion Shield. That jives with the 15 point cost, and it jives with a common reading of the rule. The fact that he Ion Shield rules do not cover having more than one facable 4++ shield lends itself to this reading.

On the flip side, getting two 4++ saves for a measly 15 points seems like an exploit the other side really really wishs was the case.

SJ

Counts as and is are identical from a rules perspective. If you are saying that Sanctuary is not an Ion shield in anyway you are not counting it as an Ion. So it is an Ion Shield. Now is the intent for it to supply the 6+ instead of the usual 4+ or in addition to the usual 4+? Again the rules provide a very clear answer by using the wording additionally. So we know both the RaW and the intent say the 6+ is in addition to the 4+ that Sanctuary provides. So does Sanctuary replace your existing Ion Shield? Well nothing in Sanctuary or the Ion Shield rules state or even imply this to be the case. What about the upgrade purchase is that a may take (thus adding to existing equipment) or a may upgrade one item to or may exchange? Well lets look at the Gauntlet we know that needs to replace the existing CCW and guess what it tells you that when you take that upgrade you must replace the relevant weapon. So we know the intent and RaW is that Sanctuary does not replace the existing Ion Shield.

Sanctuary is a 6++ save to all facings that counts as an Ion Shield, which means it cannot be used versus melee attacks, yet can be effected by rules that modify Ion Shields.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Sanctuary is a 6++ save to all facings that counts as an Ion Shield, which means it cannot be used versus melee attacks, yet can be effected by rules that modify Ion Shields.

SJ

Does an Ion Shield provide a 4++ in a facing you choose at the start of each shooting phase?

If you answer yes to that question it is the same as saying:

"Sanctuary counts as providing a 4++ in a facing you choose at the start of each shooting phase"

Also why are you ignoring that the 6++ is in addition to being an Ion Shield?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Sanctuary is a 6++ save to all facings that counts as an Ion Shield, which means it cannot be used versus melee attacks, yet can be effected by rules that modify Ion Shields.

SJ

Does an Ion Shield provide a 4++ in a facing you choose at the start of each shooting phase?

If you answer yes to that question it is the same as saying:

"Sanctuary counts as providing a 4++ in a facing you choose at the start of each shooting phase"

Also why are you ignoring that the 6++ is in addition to being an Ion Shield?

I'm not, I just know what a comma means. Also, I already explained it in the post you quoted. Yay, literacy!

SJ

Sanctuary counts as an ion shield. In addition, a Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield. Sanctuary cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks.

Doesn't seem like something debatable to me...

It count as a ion shield (4++ on a facing you choose) and in addition to that, you have a 6+ invul save againt facing not covered by ion shield, so the 2 other side, or 3 if you choose (for some reason) to place Sanctuary and Ion shield on the same facing.

Please explain where you may choose two facings. Rules required for that allowance, as the ion shield rule gives non such that I can see.

well, a ion shield make you pick a facing. You now have 2 shield.... so you go though the process of picking a facing twice...

and since nothing says that multiple ion shield must all face the same direction, I don't see why people are making a fuss about that rule (except maybe pure hate lol)

It states you must pick a facing for the Ion Shield. State wher you may pick a facing for EACH ion shield.