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:

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

What provides that invunerable save?

Irrelevant. The invulnerable save is not an ion shield save as defined by the codex.

The 6++ effect is in addition to the normal effects of an ion shield.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

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

What provides that invunerable save?

Irrelevant. The invulnerable save is not an ion shield save as defined by the codex.

The 6++ effect is in addition to the normal effects of an ion shield.

Where does the codex define an Ion Shield save?

Page 117.

Where exactly? I do not see the term Ion Shield Save on that page?

Formation quote:

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

Sanctuary quote

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

I'm not discussing this further. You evidently can't or don't want to read.

Yes the 6+ is not covered by the Ion Shield. It is however undeniably provided by an Ion Shield.

Posting it again, because some posters don't seem to understand what they are arguing about:

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.[/quote

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.

As has been posted numerous times, Sanctuary provides a 6++ Ion Shield to each facing not covered by the actual 4++ Ion Shield. At no point is it stated that Sanctuary provides a second 4++ Ion Shield that can be faced differently to the main Ion Shield. Rule do not exist to cover facing more than one single-facing Ion Shield. Rules do exist to cover the 6++ Ion Shield, as seem under Sanctuary.

Stating that a Knight with Sanctuary has two separate 4++ Ion Shields and a 6++ power field is not indicated, although a single 4++ Ion Shield and an 360-degree 6++ Ion Shield is.

So, I again ask for you to cite actual rules to support your claim.

SJ

jeffersonian000,

True or False: An Imperial Knight comes standard with an Ion Shield.
True or False: Sanctuary does not replace an Ion Shield.
True or False: The rules for Sanctuary specifically say that it's an Ion Shield (remembering that "Counts As" = "Is").

And again the rules;

So every Knight starts with an Ion Shield pages 102-106

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 choices are: front, left side, right side or rear. The Knight has a 4+ invulnerable save against all hits on that facing until the start of your opponent’s next Shooting phase. Ion shields are repositioned before any attacks are carried out in the Shooting phase. Ion shields cannot be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks."

Here we see if you have an Ion Shield you MUST pick a facing for it whenever an Imperial is deployed and at the start of each of your opponents shooting phases. This is not and option.

Sanctuary - "Sanctuary counts as an ion shield."

This tells us Sanctuary is an Ion Shield so everything that is true for an Ion Shield is true for Sanctuary unless Sanctuary tells us otherwise. It continues:

"In addition,"

This means in addition to the above so the rule that follows are extra in addition to being an Ion Shield and thus do not over write the Ion Shield rules.

"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."

Cool I think we all agree this gives 6++ saves to facings not covered by the Ion Shield.

Then we go to page 101 and see "A model may take one of the following" so you take Sanctuary and it adds to your wargear. So you have an Ion Shield AND Sanctuary RaW. You MUST pick a facing for each of these whenever an Imperial Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases. Sanctuary in addition to being an Ion Shield also provides a 6++ in other facings. This is RaW.

Then we go to page 101 and see "A model may take one of the following" so you take Sanctuary and it adds to your wargear. So you have an Ion Shield AND Sanctuary RaW. You MUST pick a facing for each of these whenever an Imperial Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases. Sanctuary in addition to being an Ion Shield also provides a 6++ in other facings. This is RaW.

Except for the underlined part, you are correct. There are no rules for more than one facable Ion Shield. You can assume how it works, which is HYWPI, not RAW.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Then we go to page 101 and see "A model may take one of the following" so you take Sanctuary and it adds to your wargear. So you have an Ion Shield AND Sanctuary RaW. You MUST pick a facing for each of these whenever an Imperial Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases. Sanctuary in addition to being an Ion Shield also provides a 6++ in other facings. This is RaW.

Except for the underlined part, you are correct. There are no rules for more than one facable Ion Shield. You can assume how it works, which is HYWPI, not RAW.

SJ

Nobody is arguing that a single Ion Shield has multiple facings. I'm not sure why you keep saying this.

Ion Shield #1 - the default "Ion Shield", picks a facing. Single shield, single facing.
Counts As Ion Shield #2 - the Heirloom "Sanctuary", picks a facing. Single shield, single facing.

There are TWO ion shields in play. Each one faces in a SINGLE direction. Nothing says they both have to face the same direction.

Do you disagree that there are TWO ion shields in play? If so, why? There are two distinct pieces of wargear requiring a facing selection.

jeffersonian, will you please address my points above?

 Happyjew wrote:
jeffersonian, will you please address my points above?

He can't. He has no rules backup. His posts are all based on flawed readings combined with a belief that a model with two ion shields somehow only has one ion shield.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Then we go to page 101 and see "A model may take one of the following" so you take Sanctuary and it adds to your wargear. So you have an Ion Shield AND Sanctuary RaW. You MUST pick a facing for each of these whenever an Imperial Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases. Sanctuary in addition to being an Ion Shield also provides a 6++ in other facings. This is RaW.

Except for the underlined part, you are correct. There are no rules for more than one facable Ion Shield. You can assume how it works, which is HYWPI, not RAW.

SJ

I've never said you puck more than one facing for an Ion Shield only that you must pick a facing for each Ion Shield as the rules quoted prove. Can you actually come up with any rules to support your position?

I agree that there are two Ion Shields in play, one covering a single facing at 4++, and the other covering the remaining facings at 6++.

SJ


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
jeffersonian, will you please address my points above?

I already did.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
jeffersonian, will you please address my points above?

He can't. He has no rules backup. His posts are all based on flawed readings combined with a belief that a model with two ion shields somehow only has one ion shield.

I've posted the rules supporting my point of view on each page of this thread. Still waiting on you to do the same.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Then we go to page 101 and see "A model may take one of the following" so you take Sanctuary and it adds to your wargear. So you have an Ion Shield AND Sanctuary RaW. You MUST pick a facing for each of these whenever an Imperial Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases. Sanctuary in addition to being an Ion Shield also provides a 6++ in other facings. This is RaW.

Except for the underlined part, you are correct. There are no rules for more than one facable Ion Shield. You can assume how it works, which is HYWPI, not RAW.

SJ

I've never said you puck more than one facing for an Ion Shield only that you must pick a facing for each Ion Shield as the rules quoted prove. Can you actually come up with any rules to support your position?

You post makes no sense. Please restate your point.

SJ

I've never said you pick more than one facing for an Ion Shield only that you must pick a facing for each Ion Shield as the rules quoted prove. Can you actually come up with any rules to support your position?

True or False: An Imperial Knight comes standard with an Ion Shield.
True or False: Sanctuary does not replace an Ion Shield.
True or False: The rules for Sanctuary specifically say that it's an Ion Shield (remembering that "Counts As" = "Is").

 FlingitNow wrote:
I've never said you pick more than one facing for an Ion Shield only that you must pick a facing for each Ion Shield as the rules quoted prove. Can you actually come up with any rules to support your position?

True or False: An Imperial Knight comes standard with an Ion Shield.
True or False: Sanctuary does not replace an Ion Shield.
True or False: The rules for Sanctuary specifically say that it's an Ion Shield (remembering that "Counts As" = "Is").

I've supported my position on each page of the thread with the rules in question. Have you?

As to your questions, the first two are True, while the second is worded incorrectly. Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, yet Sanctuary is not an actual Ion Shield. Rules that modify Ion Shields will modify Sanctuary, because Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield. Sanctuary does not provide a second 4++ save, it does provide an addition 6++ save.

SJ

Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, yet Sanctuary is not an actual Ion Shield.

So Sanctuary only counts as an Ion Shield for certain rules? Not for instance for the ion shield rules? That is your stance correct? If so please provide the rule that defines when Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield and when it doesn't?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, yet Sanctuary is not an actual Ion Shield.

So Sanctuary only counts as an Ion Shield for certain rules? Not for instance for the ion shield rules? That is your stance correct? If so please provide the rule that defines when Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield and when it doesn't?

I've posted the rules for Sanctuary on each page of this thread. Please keep up.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, yet Sanctuary is not an actual Ion Shield.

So Sanctuary only counts as an Ion Shield for certain rules? Not for instance for the ion shield rules? That is your stance correct? If so please provide the rule that defines when Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield and when it doesn't?

I've posted the rules for Sanctuary on each page of this thread. Please keep up.

SJ

Cool point to the part that states Sanctuary does not count as an Ion Shield for the Ion Shield rules because I'm not seeing that part.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, yet Sanctuary is not an actual Ion Shield.

So Sanctuary only counts as an Ion Shield for certain rules? Not for instance for the ion shield rules? That is your stance correct? If so please provide the rule that defines when Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield and when it doesn't?

I've posted the rules for Sanctuary on each page of this thread. Please keep up.

SJ

Cool point to the part that states Sanctuary does not count as an Ion Shield for the Ion Shield rules because I'm not seeing that part.

Nice how you changed your argument in an attempt to prove me wrong. I have always posted that Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, as seen in the rules for Sanctuary that I have posted on each page of this thread. So I'm going to assume that's a typo on your part, and ask that you restate your point.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nice how you changed your argument in an attempt to prove me wrong. I have always posted that Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, as seen in the rules for Sanctuary that I have posted on each page of this thread. So I'm going to assume that's a typo on your part, and ask that you restate your point.

SJ

If Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, then it counts as providing a 4+ invulnerable save on one facing. Yet you have made claims that all it does is provide a 6+ invulnerable save to all facings.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, yet Sanctuary is not an actual Ion Shield.

So Sanctuary only counts as an Ion Shield for certain rules? Not for instance for the ion shield rules? That is your stance correct? If so please provide the rule that defines when Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield and when it doesn't?

I've posted the rules for Sanctuary on each page of this thread. Please keep up.

SJ

Cool point to the part that states Sanctuary does not count as an Ion Shield for the Ion Shield rules because I'm not seeing that part.

Nice how you changed your argument in an attempt to prove me wrong. I have always posted that Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, as seen in the rules for Sanctuary that I have posted on each page of this thread. So I'm going to assume that's a typo on your part, and ask that you restate your point.

SJ

I haven't changed argument at all. Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield. Therefore anything true for an Ion Shield is true for Sanctuary. An Ion Shield requires you to pick a facing to receive a 4++.

Which of those statements is incorrect?

 Happyjew wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nice how you changed your argument in an attempt to prove me wrong. I have always posted that Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, as seen in the rules for Sanctuary that I have posted on each page of this thread. So I'm going to assume that's a typo on your part, and ask that you restate your point.

SJ

If Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, then it counts as providing a 4+ invulnerable save on one facing. Yet you have made claims that all it does is provide a 6+ invulnerable save to all facings.

And again you provide either you have not bothered to read my posts, or you fail to understand what I posted. To reiterate, I am saying that that are no rules to support multiple 4++ Ion Shields on a single Knight, but there are rules supporting one 4++ Ion Shield that also covers the remaining facings with a 6++ save. Please cite actual rules to support your position beyond HYWPI.

I haven't changed argument at all. Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield. Therefore anything true for an Ion Shield is true for Sanctuary. An Ion Shield requires you to pick a facing to receive a 4++.

Which of those statements is incorrect?

Which of what statements? I'm still waiting for you to cite actual rules that support two 4++ savings

SJ

1) Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield for all rules purposes yes or no?
2) Therefore anything that is true from an Ion Shield is true for sanctuary.
3) An Ion shield must choose a facing to gain a 4++ whenever a Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases.

Which of those 3 statements is incorrect?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nice how you changed your argument in an attempt to prove me wrong. I have always posted that Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, as seen in the rules for Sanctuary that I have posted on each page of this thread. So I'm going to assume that's a typo on your part, and ask that you restate your point.

SJ

If Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield, then it counts as providing a 4+ invulnerable save on one facing. Yet you have made claims that all it does is provide a 6+ invulnerable save to all facings.

And again you provide either you have not bothered to read my posts, or you fail to understand what I posted. To reiterate, I am saying that that are no rules to support multiple 4++ Ion Shields on a single Knight, but there are rules supporting one 4++ Ion Shield that also covers the remaining facings with a 6++ save. Please cite actual rules to support your position beyond HYWPI.

I haven't changed argument at all. Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield. Therefore anything true for an Ion Shield is true for Sanctuary. An Ion Shield requires you to pick a facing to receive a 4++.

Which of those statements is incorrect?

Which of what statements? I'm still waiting for you to cite actual rules that support two 4++ savings

SJ

And we're still waiting for rules as to why you're only following PART of the Sanctuary rules. Sanctuary requires you to choose a facing and give it a 4++. You have yet to post any sort of compelling reason as to why you're arbitrarily ignoring part of the rules. Following wargear rules isn't optional.

The fact that everyone disagrees with you should probably be an indicator that maybe you're missing a key point.

I'm not following part of the rules, I'm following all of them. But unlike you, I'm not making up rules.

Also, that are other posters on this and the other thread that share the same position I do.

SJ

1) Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield for all rules purposes yes or no?
2) Therefore anything that is true from an Ion Shield is true for sanctuary.
3) An Ion shield must choose a facing to gain a 4++ whenever a Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases.

Which of those 3 statements is incorrect?

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield for all rules purposes yes or no?
2) Therefore anything that is true from an Ion Shield is true for sanctuary.
3) An Ion shield must choose a facing to gain a 4++ whenever a Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases.

Which of those 3 statements is incorrect?

You can keep posting your attempt to affirm the consequent, to which I have already answered. Since I'm now sure you are just trolling, I be moving you to my ignore list.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
1) Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield for all rules purposes yes or no?
2) Therefore anything that is true from an Ion Shield is true for sanctuary.
3) An Ion shield must choose a facing to gain a 4++ whenever a Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases.

Which of those 3 statements is incorrect?

You can keep posting your attempt to affirm the consequent, to which I have already answered. Since I'm now sure you are just trolling, I be moving you to my ignore list.

SJ

So which of those statements is untrue? I'm guessing you can't answer as all those things are directly in the rules and admitting that is admitting to our interpretation. That is always going to be the case when you're arguing against clear RaW. Your concession is accepted please clearly mark all future posts as HYWPI.