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.

you are free to disagree, but the rules do state those facings are *not covered by the ion shield*

yet your argument contradicts that by treating those facings as if they were behind the ion shield, its a contradiction, but its pointless to discuss further if you dont see it.

lets agree to disagree

This makes the 6++ portion still an Ion Shield (Sanctuary), while the 4++ portion is the original Ion Shield. Therefore, any bonuses to Ion Shield saves apply to the 6++ portion as well as the 4++, of which there is only one 4++ portion part of the Sanctuary Ion Shield and another 4++ from your regular Ion Shield.

FTFY

 easysauce wrote:
you are free to disagree, but the rules do state those facings are *not covered by the ion shield*

yet your argument contradicts that by treating those facings as if they were behind the ion shield, its a contradiction, but its pointless to discuss further if you dont see it.

lets agree to disagree

Yeah...... until an FAQ comes out, we're going to get nowhere with this one

Don't think SJ is arguing that the facings are covered by an Ion Shield - rather that the origin of those invulnerable saves is a piece of wargear that counts as an Ion Shield. Since the invul bonus is to saves made by an Ion Shield - and the invulnerable saves originate from an Ion Shield (albeit one which covers one face only) those portions are boosted to 5++.

Not that I agree, but that's the argument I read.

 obsidiankatana wrote:
Don't think SJ is arguing that the facings are covered by an Ion Shield - rather that the origin of those invulnerable saves is a piece of wargear that counts as an Ion Shield. Since the invul bonus is to saves made by an Ion Shield - and the invulnerable saves originate from an Ion Shield (albeit one which covers one face only) those portions are boosted to 5++.

Not that I agree, but that's the argument I read.

Yes, that is what I am saying.

SJ

Yeah, we get it. But if read like that, it dooms itself into a paradox where it doesnt get the 6++ at all because if it did, those facings would be covered by its "counts as" ion shield

 jokerkd wrote:
Yeah, we get it. But if read like that, it dooms itself into a paradox where it doesnt get the 6++ at all because if it did, those facings would be covered by its "counts as" ion shield

That makes no sense. A Knight with Sanctuary has a normal 4++ Ion Shield and a 6++ Sanctuary, which counts as an Ion Shield. There is no paradox.

SJ

 jokerkd wrote:
Yeah, we get it. But if read like that, it dooms itself into a paradox where it doesnt get the 6++ at all because if it did, those facings would be covered by its "counts as" ion shield

I don't think you do get it. There's no argument that all facings are covered. The argument is that the source of the invul is wargear which counts as an ion shield, and the formation benefits boost invulnerable saves granted by an ion shield. Not that the invul upon the facing is placed - but any and all invuls granted by an ion shield. Traditionally, this is one facing. For the sake of this debate, there is an invulnerable save present (but not an ion shield) upon all facings due to the mere ownership of an ion shield.

It doesn't doom itself because you never declared a facing for the 6+ as you do for ion shields. The 6+ is granted by the rule sanctuary not the shield itself. At least that's how I read it

the rules for the court, also say *add 1 to any invulnerable saving throw this model makes for its ion shield.” *


ok so sayyou got hit in the facing where the rules specifically have stated your ion shield is not in.

you have permission to add +1 to ion shield rolls,

and are hit in a facing you cannot make an ion shield roll on, because as stated in the rules the ion shield does not cover that facing or you would not have the 6++ in the first place


so people like SJ claim the following is true:

the facing the rules state is not covered by the ion shield so it receives a 6++ for not being covered by the ion shield.

It also receives +1 to its ion shield save throws because its covered by the ION shield.

then act like its not a paradox... they state that sanctuary IS an ion shield so its ok! right? no... its not, because then the 6++ facing IS covered by the ION shield, so wont grant the 6++ because its covering itself.


As soon as you try to claim that facing *not covered by the ion shield*(rules in **'s) you have a paradox, because only a facing NOT in the ion shield gets a 6++, and ONLY saving throws made on the ion shields facing get the +1. the ION shield is never stated to be on more then ONE facing by RAW and we specifically know its not on the 6++'s facing, so to contend its an NOT an ion shield roll to get the 6++ in the first place, then contend that it IS an ion shield to add +1 to your rolls, is a paradox, and by RAW illegal.

SJ, paradoxes dont make sense. Thats why i used that word

Katana, if sanctuary is an ion shield, then any save it grants are from an ion shield, meaning there are no facings that are not covered by an ion shield.

Paradox:
a statement or proposition which, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable or self-contradictory.

The sanctuary is an ion shield, so any saves it grants are considered ion shield saves. GW just put some more stupid wording in that causes this confusion.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The sanctuary is an ion shield, so any saves it grants are considered ion shield saves. GW just put some more stupid wording in that causes this confusion.

This is correct. Sanctuary is considered an Ion Shield, that also covers all sides. Any invul save made with Sanctuary is by the rules an Ion Shield save.

No paradox.

SJ

But you dont get 6++ on sides covered by the ion shield

Paradox

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
The sanctuary is an ion shield, so any saves it grants are considered ion shield saves. GW just put some more stupid wording in that causes this confusion.

This is correct. Sanctuary is considered an Ion Shield, that also covers all sides. Any invul save made with Sanctuary is by the rules an Ion Shield save.

No paradox.

SJ

no you are ignoring part of the rules, and making illogical leaps that are not actual RAW.

you claim the ion shield covers all sides in one breath, despite the actual rules stating factually that the ion shield only covers ONE facing, and also stating that it DOES NOT cover the facings that gain a 6++. (which is proven by the fact we are told to put it in one facing, and we are also told it is NOT in the other facings)

and say there is no paradox.


Sanctuary by raw grants two saves, one save from the ion shield, and 3 saves in the non ion shield facings of a 6++


its an ion shield, in addition, its another save as well explicitly stated as not being an ion shield, thats what the rules state.

the rules do not state that its an ion shield that covers all facings, it just states it gets an invul in the other facings and states this invul is not from the ion shield..

you claim the ion shield covers all sides in one breath,

No he's saying it covers 1 side but provides the others with a 6++.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Sanctuary is considered an Ion Shield, that also covers all sides.

SJ

Pretty sure this is exactly what he said........

Fair enough. However what the rules say is that Sanctuary is an Ion Shield that covers 1 facing (like all other Ion shields) and provides a 6++ in the 2 other facings not covered by either Ion Shield. That 6++ is undeniably provided by an Ion Shield.

If the RaW is correctly copied: "add 1 to any invulnerable saving throw this model makes for its ion shield"
by easysauce, then i'd agree with "does not apply to the 6++"

That 6++ is undeniably provided by an Ion Shield, yes, but would you say with certainty that rolling the 6++ is a saving throw you make "for its ion shield"?

I can just relate to the thinking that:
Save provided by X rule
=/=
Save rolled for the X rule

So if we need another approximate example:
Rolling 3D6 because you have move through cover is indeed a Roll due to terrain.
But any rule saying "you can re-roll Terrain rolls" might not *definitely* apply to the Move through cover Rule, such as if you are affected by Strikedown.

Let me try and clear this up.

Sanctuary is an ion shield, so let's work through the rules.

First as you have an ion shield you choose a side to receive a 4++. Now you have 3 sides that are not covered by the ion shield, they receive a 6++. You do not need to check the sides on a constant basis, only when you first choose the side, thus no paradox(you select the ion shield side exactly 1 time and it is at that time sanctuary's rules kick in to provide the other sides with a different ion shield)

 FlingitNow wrote:

Drager wrote:
" the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's ion shield is cover"

So you declare one facing per knight, two Ion shields still only cover the one facing declared for the Knight as declarations are per Knight not per Ion Shield.

I think.

Nope you declare 1 facing for each Knight's Ion Shield.

Rules quote for that? The above quoted rule says its per Knight. Although I may have missed another rule somewhere.

Sanctuary reads that the heirloom counts as an Ion Shield that in addition covers the facings not covered by the Ion Shield with a 6++ invul save. This means that the 6++ save is the Sanctuary Ion Shield, which is an Ion Shield, that exists in addition to the normal Ion Shield the Knight already mounts. So, you do not gain a second 4++ Ion Shield on one facing, you do gain a 6++ Ion Shield to the other three facings. Any benefits (or penalties) that generically apply to the 4++ normal save will also apply to the 6++ save.

An example of on odd interaction would be the Baronial Court benefit "Ionic Shieldwall":

Ionic Shieldwall: As long as an Imperial Knight from this Formation is within 6" of one or more other Imperial Knights from this Formation, it adds 1 to any invulnerable saving throw it makes for its ion shield on the front arc.

If a Sanctuary equipped Baronial Knight has it's Ion Shield covering it's side while within 6" of another Baronial Knight, it's front facing would be 5++, not 6++.

SJ

Drager wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Drager wrote:
" the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's ion shield is cover"

So you declare one facing per knight, two Ion shields still only cover the one facing declared for the Knight as declarations are per Knight not per Ion Shield.

I think.

Nope you declare 1 facing for each Knight's Ion Shield.

Rules quote for that? The above quoted rule says its per Knight. Although I may have missed another rule somewhere.

Your own quote? I literally repeated the words from it (dropping the unnecessary Imperial)...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Let me try and clear this up.

Sanctuary is an ion shield, so let's work through the rules.

First as you have an ion shield you choose a side to receive a 4++. Now you have 3 sides that are not covered by the ion shield, they receive a 6++. You do not need to check the sides on a constant basis, only when you first choose the side, thus no paradox(you select the ion shield side exactly 1 time and it is at that time sanctuary's rules kick in to provide the other sides with a different ion shield)

Nope you select a facing for each Imperial Knight's ion shield, not just 1 facing. The other 2 facings have a 6++ not covered by an Ion shield but granted by an Ion Shield...

Well then I misparsed what you said. You declare a facing for "each Knight's Ion Shield" so one facing declared per knight. So two Ion shields still cover one facing.

The each we are talking about is not "Each Ion Shield", its "Each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield" so one selection per Knight.

If I choose Front for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield. I can't then choose Rear for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield as well.

Flingit; As Sanctuary is a relic(right? Don't have the book yet; not that matters it is still gear on 1 knight per instance), it is only on 1 knight. As it is only on 1 knight then trying to parse out the "each knights ion shield" is pointless as there is only 1 knight with the ion shield.

Now we get to timing. The sanctuary 6++ does not kick in until after you have chosen your facing for the Ion Shield. Once you choose a facing you have 3 other facings that are not covered by ion shields. Those 3 facings then get covered by (lesser) ion shields as they meet the requirements. There is no paradox, no problem, no issue.

Drager wrote:
Well then I misparsed what you said. You declare a facing for "each Knight's Ion Shield" so one facing declared per knight. So two Ion shields still cover one facing.

The each we are talking about is not "Each Ion Shield", its "Each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield" so one selection per Knight.

If I choose Front for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield. I can't then choose Rear for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield as well.

I have Imperial Knight A with Ion Shields 1 & 2. I pick a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. I pick front for A1 right for A2. How have I broken that rule?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Drager wrote:
Well then I misparsed what you said. You declare a facing for "each Knight's Ion Shield" so one facing declared per knight. So two Ion shields still cover one facing.

The each we are talking about is not "Each Ion Shield", its "Each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield" so one selection per Knight.

If I choose Front for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield. I can't then choose Rear for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield as well.

I have Imperial Knight A with Ion Shields 1 & 2. I pick a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. I pick front for A1 right for A2. How have I broken that rule?

Please cite the rules that prove you can have Knight A with Ion Shields 1& 2.

SJ

Knight A has an Ion Shield listed in its Wargear.
Knight A takes Sanctuary.
Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield.
Sanctuary does not replace anything.
Knight A now has Ion Shield 1 (Ion Shield) and Ion Shield 2 (Sanctuary).

 FlingitNow wrote:

Drager wrote:
Well then I misparsed what you said. You declare a facing for "each Knight's Ion Shield" so one facing declared per knight. So two Ion shields still cover one facing.

The each we are talking about is not "Each Ion Shield", its "Each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield" so one selection per Knight.

If I choose Front for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield. I can't then choose Rear for Imperial Knight A's Ion Shield as well.

I have Imperial Knight A with Ion Shields 1 & 2. I pick a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. I pick front for A1 right for A2. How have I broken that rule?

I can guess that the argument is "each Knight's Ion Shield".

You have Knights A, B and C. So the Rule "each Knight's Ion Shield" is "Knight A's Ion Shield" + "Knight B's Ion Shield" + "Knight C's Ion Shield". If you select "Knight A's Ion Shield" to be at the front, then his Ion shield is at the front, even if he has 2.

IIRC though, when i read the Knight's rule, i thought i agreed with you (FlingIt) by RaW.

[EDIT]: Just had a look at the WD Warden rules, and i remember why i agreed: The "Ion Shield" rule is singular ( "When an imperial Knight is deployed...")

 Happyjew wrote:
Knight A has an Ion Shield listed in its Wargear.
Knight A takes Sanctuary.
Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield.
Sanctuary does not replace anything.
Knight A now has Ion Shield 1 (Ion Shield) and Ion Shield 2 (Sanctuary).

While in can be argued that way, it can also be argued that Sanctuary is the 6++ Ion Shield covering the rest of the facings, not an addition 4++ Ion Shield. So again, I ask you to cite the rules that state a Knight can have more than one Ion Shield, and please include the rules that give you permission to use this additional Ion Shield to cover a second facing.

SJ