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:
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?

the third statement.

the rules do not say each shield picks a facing. they say each knight must pick A facing.

RAW you may have two, but RAW you can only pick one facing.

the way JC is explaining it is (imo) clearly RAI, and due to the contradiction above the end result is the same. you will only get get one 4++ facing.

as for the 6++, the sanctuary rule does seem to contradict itself. so RAI is just as unclear as RAW, especially if RAI sanctuary is supposed to replace the standard ion shield. which seems the most likely intention

 jokerkd 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?

the third statement.

the rules do not say each shield picks a facing. they say each knight must pick A facing.

RAW you may have two, but RAW you can only pick one facing.

the way JC is explaining it is (imo) clearly RAI, and due to the contradiction above the end result is the same. you will only get get one 4++ facing.

as for the 6++, the sanctuary rule does seem to contradict itself. so RAI is just as unclear as RAW, especially if RAI sanctuary is supposed to replace the standard ion shield. which seems the most likely intention

Cool so the rules don't say "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield"? Is that your claim?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jokerkd 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?

the third statement.

the rules do not say each shield picks a facing. they say each knight must pick A facing.

RAW you may have two, but RAW you can only pick one facing.

the way JC is explaining it is (imo) clearly RAI, and due to the contradiction above the end result is the same. you will only get get one 4++ facing.

as for the 6++, the sanctuary rule does seem to contradict itself. so RAI is just as unclear as RAW, especially if RAI sanctuary is supposed to replace the standard ion shield. which seems the most likely intention

Cool so the rules don't say "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield"? Is that your claim?

No. I am well aware of what the rules say. over the course of this thread, i have read them many times

you are not recognizing the fact that the wargear is not named "Imperial knights ion shield" it is named "Ion shield". for any native english speaker, it should be clear that "imperial knight's" is plural, and "Ion shield" is singular. "Imperial knight's Ion shield" is NOT singular

 jokerkd wrote:
No. I am well aware of what the rules say. over the course of this thread, i have read them many times

you are not recognizing the fact that the wargear is not named "Imperial knights ion shield" it is named "Ion shield". for any native english speaker, it should be clear that "imperial knight's" is plural, and "Ion shield" is singular. "Imperial knight's Ion shield" is NOT singular

I didn't do to well in HS English, so I might be off, but I read it as "Imperial Knight's" being possessive. In other words, the subject is the Ion Shield "owned" by the Imperial Knight, instead of say an Ion Shield owned by Guardsman Bob.

No. I am well aware of what the rules say. over the course of this thread, i have read them many times

you are not recognizing the fact that the wargear is not named "Imperial knights ion shield" it is named "Ion shield". for any native english speaker, it should be clear that "imperial knight's" is plural, and "Ion shield" is singular. "Imperial knight's Ion shield" is NOT singular

Yet I'm a native English speaker and you have a foreign flag on your tag. Imperial Knight's is possessive, Ion Shield being the subject.

We have 2 pieces of warhead both require the following:

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.

If you are only doing that for 1 piece of war gear why? Where is your permission to ignore the other piece of wargear?

 Happyjew wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
No. I am well aware of what the rules say. over the course of this thread, i have read them many times

you are not recognizing the fact that the wargear is not named "Imperial knights ion shield" it is named "Ion shield". for any native english speaker, it should be clear that "imperial knight's" is plural, and "Ion shield" is singular. "Imperial knight's Ion shield" is NOT singular

I didn't do to well in HS English, so I might be off, but I read it as "Imperial Knight's" being possessive. In other words, the subject is the Ion Shield "owned" by the Imperial Knight, instead of say an Ion Shield owned by Guardsman Bob.

it is possessive. i miswrote my explanation. actually, if it wasn't possessive, eg: "Imperial knights Ion shield" you would have a better argument

"each" refers to a singular subject

"Each model's ion shield" is the equivalent of how it should be read


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does my Australian flag suggest i am not a native English speaker?

 jokerkd wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:
No. I am well aware of what the rules say. over the course of this thread, i have read them many times

you are not recognizing the fact that the wargear is not named "Imperial knights ion shield" it is named "Ion shield". for any native english speaker, it should be clear that "imperial knight's" is plural, and "Ion shield" is singular. "Imperial knight's Ion shield" is NOT singular

I didn't do to well in HS English, so I might be off, but I read it as "Imperial Knight's" being possessive. In other words, the subject is the Ion Shield "owned" by the Imperial Knight, instead of say an Ion Shield owned by Guardsman Bob.

it is possessive. i miswrote my explanation. actually, if it wasn't possessive, eg: "Imperial knights Ion shield" you would have a better argument

"each" refers to a singular subject

"Each model's ion shield" is the equivalent of how it should be read


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does my Australian flag suggest i am not a native English speaker?????

Brits love to lord the Queen's English over us colonists.

This colonist read it under proper English, why can't you?

Also GW is English English, all their rules should be read as such(and they all make sense in this manner as well)

One issue I really have about YMDC is that it often devolves to arguing rules for arguing's sake.

I wish OPs would provide a poll of HIWPI to make it more clear on how people actually play the game, as well as the having an actual discussion over the exact wording.
Glancing at YDMC so often gives the impression of dakka being filled with WAAC players trying to twist an interpretation to their advantage, which is of course not the case.

Do people really think they should gain a second ion shield and a 6++ save on the other sides for only 15 points?
Sure, nowhere does it state that Sanctuary replaces the ion shield, but do people honestly believe it was the designers intention to give a knight 2 of them?

Do people honestly believe that the 6++ save of sanctuary, which effects the area not covered by the ion shield, still counts as an ion shield?

I think it would be nice to see how everyone plays it, rather than only being able to see the hardline rule lawyers and WAAC players battling it out.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Do people really think they should gain a second ion shield and a 6++ save on the other sides for only 15 points?
Sure, nowhere does it state that Sanctuary replaces the ion shield, but do people honestly believe it was the designers intention to give a knight 2 of them?

Well they made the Wraithknight only 295 points so giving a 350+ points model an extra 4++ in one arc and 6++ in the other two is not far from the imagination of what the designers intention could be.

Do people really think they should gain a second ion shield and a 6++ save on the other sides for only 15 points? 
Sure, nowhere does it state that Sanctuary replaces the ion shield, but do people honestly believe it was the designers intention to give a knight 2 of them? 

To be honest I don't really see an intent argument against it. They tell us it is an Ion Shield. Perhaps they didn't understand what that meant is the intent argument. Yet they then say "in addition" this seems to clear as day tell us they know the first part has a rules meaning and the second part adds rules to that. So we KNOW (as much as you can) that they are aware that Sanctuary is a full Ion Shield with extra rules. Then in the Heirlooms section they go to great lengths explaining exactly what replaces what so they also know that to stop you having two of something you need to replace the old item when taking the Heirloom. Thus is appears they absolutely know how this rule interaction works due to clear choices they have made. Therefore it seems clear that the only reasonable assumption on their intent is that the Sanctuary gives you two facings for your shield.

Do people honestly believe that the 6++ save of sanctuary, which effects the area not covered by the ion shield, still counts as an ion shield? 

Well it is still undeniably a save granted by an Ion Shield. However it appears the intent is less clear here as there is no obviously deliberate wording used to force this interpretation, and there is wording that at at least a casual glance implies this shouldn't work. I would say the intent here is not clear and thus would play RaW if my opponent had the item but discuss with my opponent for his opinion if I had it.

Rather than start a new thead, I figured I'd put this here.
I'm making the assumption that the wording of the Knight Lancer allows it to be fielded in the new Codex without issue.(if you disagree please discuss this part elsewhere) How does Sanctuary interact with the ion gauntlet? Neither are Ion Shields (the wargear), but both "count as" ion shields with specific addendums. The gauntlet cannot cover the rear facing but works in close combat. Sanctuary covers any facing but doesnt work in CC. Thoughts?

StarHunter25 wrote:
Rather than start a new thead, I figured I'd put this here.
I'm making the assumption that the wording of the Knight Lancer allows it to be fielded in the new Codex without issue.(if you disagree please discuss this part elsewhere) How does Sanctuary interact with the ion gauntlet? Neither are Ion Shields (the wargear), but both "count as" ion shields with specific addendums. The gauntlet cannot cover the rear facing but works in close combat. Sanctuary covers any facing but doesnt work in CC. Thoughts?

Sanctuary can cover any facing and gives a 6++ in all the other facings. Gauntlet covers another facing but can't be rear and gives you theCC invun.