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.

If you read throughout the book, the intent seems fairly clear in all of the phrasing: each Knight has ONE ion shield. Never are is a Knights Ion Shield referred to as Shields. If you read the fluff for Sanctuary its referred to as an upgraded Ion Shield, so one would assume you would be replacing your current Ion Shield with this upgraded one. Throughout the book the term Ion Shield consistently refers to the actual shield itself, whereas the wargear, though it says Ion Shield, should technically say Ion Shield Generator. I can see the confusion the authors created by making "Ion Shield" and "Ion Shield Generator" completely interchangeable, when they actually just aren't.

I think the solution to this is fairly simple: Where Sanctuary states, " Sanctuary counts as an ion shield.", it actually meant to say, "Sanctuary counts as an ion shield generator." This simply didn't occur due to the author constantly interchanging the terms, thus if you simply read Sanctuary RAW without reading the rest of the codex you can easily misinterpret the rule.

I also feel this intent is further shown by the points cost. At 15 points a 6++ to each other facing seems fine, but gaining a directional 4++ and two other 6++ seems severely under costed.

As for the 6++ gaining from the +1 due to formation bonus, the formation clearly states, "saving throws made for its ion shield", and Sanctuary clearly stats, "a 6++ against each facing that is NOT covered by its ion shield". Sanctuary is meant to be an ion shield generator so the 6++ is not from an ion shield.

Would you still feel the same way if it was worded like "A Knight equipped with Sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield, in addition Sanctuary counts as an ion shield." ?

These seem like two different effects, not one being an extension of the first. I can see how you might read it that way but I don't believe the 6+ is intended to be a property of the ion shield.

The fact that you can buy a relic that counts as an ion shield and doesn't replace the original is all the rules you need to justify having a second one.
Unfortunately, i have to concede that the ion shield rules do not allow for two facings to be covered, so having two is moot

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 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

The underlined has no basis in RaW a Sanctuary is an Ion Shield.Taking it gives you 2 Ion Shields this is undeniable RaW.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 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

The underlined has no basis in RaW a Sanctuary is an Ion Shield.Taking it gives you 2 Ion Shields this is undeniable RaW.

Let me post it again, since there seems to be a misconception on what's actually written:

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.

The underlined does not say "is an Ion Shield", it says "counts as an Ion Shield". The part the starts with "In addition" tells us that Sanctuary is the 6++ portion of the rules, which counts as an Ion Shield, yet is not the Ion Shield.

SJ

jeffersonian000, do you really want to go down the counts as=?=is discussion?

Count as is the same as is in every other incidence in the rules. The in addition means in addition to being an Ion Shield. What do you think the in addition is adding to? What rule is the 6+ rule being added to? (Hint look at the sentence immediately preceeding it).

This is getting ridiculous.

So sanctuary counts as an ion shield for the purpose of adding 1 to your invo, but does not count as an ion shield for the purpose of using the ion shield rules.

You trolling right?

None of that matters.

The wording is exactly the same as the old codex. It is not each shield possessed by a knight, it is each knight who possesses a shield(which is all of them).

The old codex had no way of adding a second shield so there was not this level of rc-fail.

You are thinking "Ion Shield = whole package", while I am saying "Ion Shield = set of rules". For you, Sanctuary means "another Ion Shield + more rules", while for me it's "this is how it modifies the existing rules".

You way gets isn't supported in the rules, because no rules exist to support more than one Ion Shield, yet my way is support within the rules for Sanctuary.

SJ

 jokerkd wrote:
This is getting ridiculous.

So sanctuary counts as an ion shield for the purpose of adding 1 to your invo, but does not count as an ion shield for the purpose of using the ion shield rules.

You trolling right?

its scary that the contradiction isnt even acknowledged by some, and that we can have clear rules stating the ion shield isnt in those facings, but have people claim it is in facings that the rules specifically state it is not in.




the actual rules for sanctuary state its an ion sheild, that *in addition* also grants a non ion ++ save in other facings, its borderline trolling to ignore the rules and claim its legal to add +1 to an ion shield roll in a facing where we are explicitly told the ion shield doesnt cover.


its also bad English to treat a statement after the *in addition* part, as not being rules that are *in addition* to the ion shield rules, plain and simple.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You are thinking "Ion Shield = whole package", while I am saying "Ion Shield = set of rules". For you, Sanctuary means "another Ion Shield + more rules", while for me it's "this is how it modifies the existing rules".

You way gets isn't supported in the rules, because no rules exist to support more than one Ion Shield, yet my way is support within the rules for Sanctuary.

SJ

It counts as an Ion Shield. Do you pick a facing for an Ion Shield ans get a 4++ in that facing? If so then you must do that for Sanctuary or you are not counting it as an Ion Shield. Everything that is true for an Ion Shield is true for Sanctuary in addition Sanctuary adds a 6++.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the actual rules for sanctuary state its an ion sheild, that *in addition* also grants a non ion ++ save in other facings, its borderline trolling to ignore the rules and claim its legal to add +1 to an ion shield roll in a facing where we are explicitly told the ion shield doesnt cover.


its also bad English to treat a statement after the *in addition* part, as not being rules that are *in addition* to the ion shield rules, plain and simple.

FTFY


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the +1 which do you get it on:

1) Invuns taken on facings COVERED by an Ion Shield?
2) Invuns taken GRANTED by an Ion Shield?

What do the rules say?

I'll post it again for those that keep asking questions which have already been answered:

Exalted Court
Furthermore, before deployment, nominate one model in this Formation to be High King or Princeps of the knightly house; add 2 to this model’s Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill characteristics and add 1 to any invulnerable saving throw this model makes for its ion shield.

Baronial Court
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.

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.

The parts of Sanctuary that allow it to work with both the Exalted Court High King benefit and the Baronial Court's "Ion Shieldwall" benefit is underlined above. Those two points mean that any benefits triggered by an Ion Shield are also triggered by Sanctuary's granted 6++ save. This is because Sanctuary counts as a 4++ Ion Shield in the main arc and a 6++ Ion Shield not in the main arc. As in, the 6++ portion of Sanctuary "counts as" an Ion Shield.

SJ

Ok flingit; you keep quoting the each knight's ion shield bit, and only taking that fragment of the sentence.

You are taking the fragment out of context and applying the each to the ion shield the knight posseses.

However, the only way to take knights at all is via one if thier detachments or formations. Those consist of 1 or more knights. From what I have gathered the only way to take sanctuary is to take a detachment that has multiple knights.

The rule is that you choose a side to be covered by "each knight's" ion shield; so choose 1 side for each knight, their ion shield(no matter how many they have) will provide that side with the 4++.

Also, the rule is copy-pasted from the previous book where no knight could have more than 1 ion shield which should be very telling of how it is supposed to be read.

Whilst that is one possible interpretation particularly if a Knight only has 1 shield. However the wording is not strong enough to prevent 2 shields choosing 2 facings. Each Knight's Ion Shield allows each shield to choose a facing. Just repeating "it doesn't because I don't want it to" isn't how RaW works.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Whilst that is one possible interpretation particularly if a Knight only has 1 shield. However the wording is not strong enough to prevent 2 shields choosing 2 facings. Each Knight's Ion Shield allows each shield to choose a facing. Just repeating "it doesn't because I don't want it to" isn't how RaW works.

Not having rules to support your position is also not how RAW works. Just saying "it doesn't say I can't have 2" does not mean "I can have 2".

SJ

Nor does "it does work because I want it to"

Take the phrase in context and see that applying the 1 situation where you can have 2 shields invalidates that "possible reading".

Nope "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield" how many Imoerial Knght's Ion Shields do have? That's how many facings I MUST declare.

Yeah, sure it means that.

When you have trouble with reading comprehension and are taking a sentence fragment out of context.

You can do that with anything

Edited by RiTides - Please don't make jokes about racism on Dakka Dakka

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Yeah, sure it means that.

When you have trouble with reading comprehension and are taking a sentence fragment out of context.

You can do that with anything

You guys are also treating the Ion Shield like a special rule the Imperial Knight has. It's not. It's a piece of wargear. You follow its rules in relation to that piece of wargear. If the model ALSO has Sanctuary, you follow Sanctuary's rules in relation to THAT piece of wargear. Two pieces of wargear, two sets of rules.

Ion Shield tells you to pick a facing and give the model a 4++.

Sanctuary tells you to pretend like it's an Ion Shield (so you'd pick a facing and give the model a 4++) and then give all the other facings 6++.

We have to resolve each piece of wargear's rules separate from the others. I don't understand why people are trying to resolve both together or pretend like Sanctuary isn't a second piece of additional wargear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no rule telling us that if a model has two 'ion shields' that the model has to pick the same facing for both.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Yeah, sure it means that.

When you have trouble with reading comprehension and are taking a sentence fragment out of context.

You can do that with anything

I'm not taking the line out of context. Though I don't like that you said "No one would ever believe that Flingit now" I mean first referring to me as That Flingit now and saying no one would ever believe me .

Technically the way the rule is worded you must declare each shield not just when that Knight is deploy but every time a Knight is deployed so if there was some way to DS one you'd have to redeclare all your Knight's shields then.

Look this has been done now. We have 2 separate pieces of wargear that are each an Ion Shield. They both require us to declare facings for them at the start of each enemy shooting phase and whenever an Imperial Knight is deployed. This us undeniable RaW and has been since it was first pointed out on page 1 with quotes of all the relevant rules.

There is no rule telling us that if a model has two 'ion shields' that the model has to pick the same facing for both.

And there are no rules informing us on how to apply two separate Ion Shields on the same Knight. Permissive rule set, you know. People keep saying it is so and that you can, yet all I ask is for the rules covering it to be cited. When I read Sanctuary, I do not read "Knight gains the use of a second 4++ Ion Shield, that you may chose a second facing cover at the start of your opponent's shooting phase". What I do read is, "the Knight now has a 6++ Ion Shield covering all facings not covered by the main 4++ save".

So, I ask again, please support your position with actual rules that cover how to apply two separate Ion Shields on the same Knight. Since you are so adamant it's RAW, cite the RAW. Please.

SJ

I've edited out the inappropriate analogy - please don't joke about racism in YMDC or on Dakka Dakka in general, even as an analogy! Thanks

There is really no logical way you can disagree about the blue highlight part that states. "Not covered by its ion shield". That's a direct quote.

However sanctuary is an ion shield. Sanctuary is the 6++ save on other facings not covered by the original ion shield. There are two parts to this invul an actual ion shield and a sanctuary save. Which both should get benefits from effects that improve ion shields. Since sanctuary (the 6++) is an ion shield.

The double facing ion shield thing is neither rai nor really raw, but I'm sure people will try to argue it.

gungo wrote:
There is really no logical way you can disagree about the blue highlight part that states. "Not covered by its ion shield". That's a direct quote.

However sanctuary is an ion shield. Sanctuary is the 6++ save on other facings not covered by the original ion shield. There are two parts to this invul an actual ion shield and a sanctuary save. Which both should get benefits from effects that improve ion shields. Since sanctuary (the 6++) is an ion shield.

The double facing ion shield thing is neither rai nor really raw, but I'm sure people will try to argue it.

It is RaW Sanctuary is an Ion Shield and thus does everything an Ion Shield does, in addition to this it provides a 6++ on facings not covered by the Ion Shield. That is literally what Sanctuary says.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

There is no rule telling us that if a model has two 'ion shields' that the model has to pick the same facing for both.

And there are no rules informing us on how to apply two separate Ion Shields on the same Knight. Permissive rule set, you know. People keep saying it is so and that you can, yet all I ask is for the rules covering it to be cited. When I read Sanctuary, I do not read "Knight gains the use of a second 4++ Ion Shield, that you may chose a second facing cover at the start of your opponent's shooting phase". What I do read is, "the Knight now has a 6++ Ion Shield covering all facings not covered by the main 4++ save".

So, I ask again, please support your position with actual rules that cover how to apply two separate Ion Shields on the same Knight. Since you are so adamant it's RAW, cite the RAW. Please.

SJ

Please cite RaW that you can use an Ion Shield on a Tuesday. Or when it is sunny outside.

That is not how a permissive ruleset works. Ion Shields tell you to pick a facing for each ion shield. Sanctuary tells you it is an Ion Shield therefore you must pick a facing for it. You also retain your normal Ion Shield so must also pick a facing for that. This is how permissive rulesets work. They give general permissions which you follow unless you have an exception. So now you must show that either you don't get to pick a facing for Sanctuary, taking Sanctuary removes or prevents you from picking a facing for your existing Ion Shield or picking a facing prevents you from picking a different facing on the same Knight. None of the rules talked about so far say any of there above so you're going to have to quote something new. Good luck.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

There is no rule telling us that if a model has two 'ion shields' that the model has to pick the same facing for both.

And there are no rules informing us on how to apply two separate Ion Shields on the same Knight. Permissive rule set, you know. People keep saying it is so and that you can, yet all I ask is for the rules covering it to be cited. When I read Sanctuary, I do not read "Knight gains the use of a second 4++ Ion Shield, that you may chose a second facing cover at the start of your opponent's shooting phase". What I do read is, "the Knight now has a 6++ Ion Shield covering all facings not covered by the main 4++ save".

So, I ask again, please support your position with actual rules that cover how to apply two separate Ion Shields on the same Knight. Since you are so adamant it's RAW, cite the RAW. Please.

SJ

You don't need rules telling you how to use two shields. You needs rules telling you how to use one shield. You simply apply those rules twice as you have two ENTIRELY SEPARATE pieces of wargear. This will, of course, result in two different invulnerable saves on at least one facing, but thankfully we have rules telling us what to do when we have to pick between different saves.

Wargear #1 says pick a facing and give that facing a 4++ save.
Wargear #2 says pick a facing, give that facing a 4++ save and give all other facings a 6++ save.

Rules aren't optional, yet you insist that you don't have to pick a facing for the second piece of wargear. Where is your permission to ignore the wargear's rules? Genuinely curious. Page and paragraph telling you that you can ignore a portion of Sactuary's rules?

RAW: it does look like the model gets 4++ saves on 2 sides. These would both get increased to 3+ by the formation.
HIWPI: Only 1 side would get the save. I don't believe the game designers intended for a knight to be able to protect 2 sides, and sanctuary should replace the shield.

RAW: sanctuary, when effected by the formation, still only provides a 6++ save on all facings not protected by the ion shield. The reasoning can be deduced from the wording:

Formation quote:

and add +1 to any invulnerable saving throw this model makes for its ion shield.

Sanctuary quote

A knight equipped with sanctuary has a 6+ invulnerable save against each facing that is not covered by its ion shield.

The 6++ is not covered by an Ion Shield but it is provided by one...

So it is simply an invulnerable save, as opposed to an ion shield invulnerable save.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
So it is simply an invulnerable save, as opposed to an ion shield invulnerable save.

What provides that invunerable save?