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.

The forgotten knight rule states that Gerantius treats his ion shield as 3+ instead of the regular 4+ invulnerable save granted by an ion shield.


Here's some possible interpretations I came up with

Section 1: Sanctuary replaces Gerantius' shield
A- the sanctuary ion shield remains a 4+, because its not 'his' ion shield.
B- you treat sanctuary as a 3+ save as there is no definition of how having a piece of Wargear does not make it 'his'.

Section 2: Sanctuary counts as an extra shield in addition to his original one.
A- Gerantius retains his original 3+ ion shield, but treats sanctuary as a4+ . Same reasoning as A above.
B- Gerantius treats both his original ion shield as 3+ saves. Same reasoning as B above.

Which of these, if any, is correct?

I think the rule on Gerantius is "Don't push your luck or people won't let you play him."

At 500pts for an Errant with a specific paint job, are already paying to push your luck. If you take Grenaticus, take him in a Baronial Court for the 2++ save.

SJ

My personal theory is that RAW it is section 2 option B, but that most people will want you to play section 1 option B

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I think the rule on Gerantius is "Don't push your luck or people won't let you play him."

Not useful.

I take the rule to mean that he has a 3+ Ion Shield. If he takes Sanctuary, he now has two different, overlapping pieces of wargear that offer an invuln save. He'd take a 3+ on the primary facing due to his better than average ion shield and then take Sanctuary for the off facings.

Neither. Geranattus has 2 ion shields, picks 1 facing for the shield to cover(wording is the same in the old codex, facing is for each knight, not each shield) and has a 4++ and a 3++ in that facing, using only his best available save per the rules.

Then of course the other 3 facings get a 6++ per sanctuary.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Neither. Geranattus has 2 ion shields, picks 1 facing for the shield to cover(wording is the same in the old codex, facing is for each knight, not each shield) and has a 4++ and a 3++ in that facing, using only his best available save per the rules.

Then of course the other 3 facings get a 6++ per sanctuary.

Yes, this is what I was trying to say. I agree.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Neither. Geranattus has 2 ion shields, picks 1 facing for the shield to cover(wording is the same in the old codex, facing is for each knight, not each shield) and has a 4++ and a 3++ in that facing, using only his best available save per the rules.

Then of course the other 3 facings get a 6++ per sanctuary.

quoted for truth. RAW The 4+ ion shield granted by sanctuary is redundant and immaterial when sanctuary is equipped to a knight that already has a 4++ or better ion shield.

To be honest, I could easily back the argument allowing you to pick different facings for each shield.

Gerantius can potentially have an Ion Shield AND Sanctuary, which is just an Ion shield with an additional special rule.

The rules for the Ion Shield tell us to pick a facing and apply a 4+ to that facing. It's a little more involved than that, but that's the summary. There is nothing in the rules to say that if you have two Ion Shields (or one Ion Shield and something else that counts as an Ion Shield) that you have to pick the same facing for both.

Realistically, I think it would go like this...

When deployed and again at the start of your opponent's shooting phase...
1. Work out your Ion Shield
1a. Pick a facing, that facing gets a 4+ invuln.
2. Work out your Sanctuary
2a. Pick a facing, that facing gets a 3+ invuln. All other facings get a 6+ invuln.

So, if I pick the front arc for my Sanctuary and the rear arc for my Ion Shield, I'd have a 3+ on the front, 6+ on either side and both 4+ and 6+ on the rear. Naturally, the 4+ would be the better rear save, so I'd take that.

I feel this is probably the correct way of doing things as the rules for picking a facing are within the Ion Shield description and not at the higher, overall Knight level. If you have an Ion Shield AND Sanctuary, you are effectively parsing the Ion Shield rules TWICE, which should let you pick two different facings.

I suspect GW intended for Sanctuary to replace the standard Ion Shield, but didn't put in such a note... as they did with The Paragon Guantlet and Ravager. Sanctuary is an extra piece of Wargear and not a replacement. As such, the Knight has two distinctly separate "Ion Shields" that it should be able to point in different directions.

We already have a thread dealing with Sanctuary, so I won't continue that argument here. As to whether or not Grenaticus can even take upgrades like Sanctuary, that is a more debatable topic. Btw, I think Grenaticus can if taken as Warlord.

SJ

I was going to ask about his ability to take extra gear(don't have the new book yet).

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Neither. Geranattus has 2 ion shields, picks 1 facing for the shield to cover(wording is the same in the old codex, facing is for each knight, not each shield) and has a 4++ and a 3++ in that facing, using only his best available save per the rules.

Then of course the other 3 facings get a 6++ per sanctuary.

Nope his wording says his Ion Shield both his starting Ion Shield and Sanctuary fulfill this requirement (of being an Ion Shield and being his). Also the wording on Ion Shield is the same as last codex so you pck a facing for "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield", two shields two facings. Potentially with 2++ in two facings and 5++ in the others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I was going to ask about his ability to take extra gear(don't have the new book yet).

No Knights can take Heirlooms as standard instead certain detachments grant that ability to one or more Knights in the Detachment.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I was going to ask about his ability to take extra gear(don't have the new book yet).

Its a Command Benefit of the Household Detachment (3 compulsory/2 optional Lords of War). If the Household Detachment is your Primary Detachment, then the Warlord has the Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker, Character) unit type and can choose one item from the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses list and has a buff to his WS and BS.

Is it me, or does this mean you can never choose a Household Detachment as your Primary Detachment if you have any other characters in your army at all? You can only choose a non-character model as your Warlord if there are no characters in your army and the Imperial Knight wouldn't be a character until after he's chosen as your Warlord so you couldn't choose him over a character when it comes time to choose a Warlord (Gerantius already being a character can get around this, as can the Exalted Court and Baronial Court formations).

I know he cannot gain a warlord trait but I do not know if that means he can be a warlord or not.

So your method may or may not be illegal.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Neither. Geranattus has 2 ion shields, picks 1 facing for the shield to cover(wording is the same in the old codex, facing is for each knight, not each shield) and has a 4++ and a 3++ in that facing, using only his best available save per the rules.

Then of course the other 3 facings get a 6++ per sanctuary.

this would be raw I believe as well

The model chosen gains the "character" title. So they can be the warlord.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The model chosen gains the "character" title. So they can be the warlord.

But they have to be a character before you can choose them as your Warlord over a character model.

 easysauce wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Neither. Geranattus has 2 ion shields, picks 1 facing for the shield to cover(wording is the same in the old codex, facing is for each knight, not each shield) and has a 4++ and a 3++ in that facing, using only his best available save per the rules.

Then of course the other 3 facings get a 6++ per sanctuary.

this would be raw I believe as well

Not to restart an existing argument, but the assertion that having 2 Ion Shields is RAW has not been proven.

SJ

Flingit is right in that technically a sanctuary he brings could also be "his ion shield" as it is an ion shield he has(by literal RAW).

But then that rule is concerning him with base gear(and while he may benefit from the formation allowance to take extra, I personally would never do this as he is a unique and the whole "forgotten knight" fluff), not extra gear gained through other means.

"His ion shield" should be the one he comes with and an added sanctuary should be a standard(RAI).

Not that it matters as it will still have the same effect(flingit i will explain the "each knight's ion shield to you again in the appropriate thread)

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Neither. Geranattus has 2 ion shields, picks 1 facing for the shield to cover(wording is the same in the old codex, facing is for each knight, not each shield) and has a 4++ and a 3++ in that facing, using only his best available save per the rules.

Then of course the other 3 facings get a 6++ per sanctuary.

this would be raw I believe as well

Not to restart an existing argument, but the assertion that having 2 Ion Shields is RAW has not been proven.

SJ

It has absolutely been proven RaW he has two shields. It is also clear RaW he gets to pick a facing for each.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Flingit is right in that technically a sanctuary he brings could also be "his ion shield" as it is an ion shield he has(by literal RAW).

But then that rule is concerning him with base gear(and while he may benefit from the formation allowance to take extra, I personally would never do this as he is a unique and the whole "forgotten knight" fluff), not extra gear gained through other means.

"His ion shield" should be the one he comes with and an added sanctuary should be a standard(RAI).

Not that it matters as it will still have the same effect(flingit i will explain the "each knight's ion shield to you again in the appropriate thread)

You can explain all you want it won't change the RaW. RaW you get 2 facings with Sanctuary as the rules tell you to pick a shield for each Knight's Shield.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Neither. Geranattus has 2 ion shields, picks 1 facing for the shield to cover(wording is the same in the old codex, facing is for each knight, not each shield) and has a 4++ and a 3++ in that facing, using only his best available save per the rules.

Then of course the other 3 facings get a 6++ per sanctuary.

this would be raw I believe as well

Not to restart an existing argument, but the assertion that having 2 Ion Shields is RAW has not been proven.

SJ

It has absolutely been proven RaW he has two shields. It is also clear RaW he gets to pick a facing for each.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Flingit is right in that technically a sanctuary he brings could also be "his ion shield" as it is an ion shield he has(by literal RAW).

But then that rule is concerning him with base gear(and while he may benefit from the formation allowance to take extra, I personally would never do this as he is a unique and the whole "forgotten knight" fluff), not extra gear gained through other means.

"His ion shield" should be the one he comes with and an added sanctuary should be a standard(RAI).

Not that it matters as it will still have the same effect(flingit i will explain the "each knight's ion shield to you again in the appropriate thread)

You can explain all you want it won't change the RaW. RaW you get 2 facings with Sanctuary as the rules tell you to pick a shield for each Knight's Shield.

You can say it's proven all you want, we're all still waiting for you to actually prove it with rules.

SJ

You cannot prove you are right through your own failure at reading comprehension.

Permission for 2 Ion Shields is simple: pages 102-106 Wargear Ion Shield list for every Knight. So we know they start with 1. Pages 107, 108 & 98 give permission to select Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses to 1 or more knight in the Detachment. Page 101 lists Sanctuary as an Heirloom for 15 points it does not state it replaces anything so it doesn't. Page 118 "Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield". So we know you have 2 Ion Shields. This seems like intent to me as there was no other reason to have the Sanctuary count as an Ion Shield. 

So what does having 2 shields do? Page 117 
"When an Imperial Knight is... blah blah blah... the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's ion shield is cover". So we pick a facing for each shield.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Permission for 2 Ion Shields is simple: pages 102-106 Wargear Ion Shield list for every Knight. So we know they start with 1. Pages 107, 108 & 98 give permission to select Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses to 1 or more knight in the Detachment. Page 101 lists Sanctuary as an Heirloom for 15 points it does not state it replaces anything so it doesn't. Page 118 "Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield". So we know you have 2 Ion Shields. This seems like intent to me as there was no other reason to have the Sanctuary count as an Ion Shield. 

So what does having 2 shields do? Page 117 
"When an Imperial Knight is... blah blah blah... the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's ion shield is cover". So we pick a facing for each shield.

And as I pointed out on the other thread, Sanctuary counting as an Ion Shield does not mean it's an additional 4++ Ion Shirld to another facing, Sanctuary is a 6++ Ion Shield that applies to the other facings in addition to the normal 4++ Ion Shield. The rules actually support my statement, while no rules exist to support two 4++ Ion Shields on the same Knight.

An example of rules supporting more than one Ion Shield can be seen with a Lancer's Ion Guantlet Shield, with is a 4++ Ion Shield that cannot cover the rear facing while providing a 5++ invul save in CC.

So, I ask again, please cite the rules that support two Ion Shields on a Knight, and please cite where it is explained how those two Ion Shields interact.

Note; I tried to avoid bringing this argument here, you are the ones that decided to make declarations you can't support.

SJ

You need something that either says Sanctuary replaces the standard Ion Shield or something that says Sanctuary doesn't count as an Ion Shield. RaW tells me it is an Ion Shield and it is taken in addition to an existing Ion Shield this is undeniable RaW.

 FlingitNow wrote:
You need something that either says Sanctuary replaces the standard Ion Shield or something that says Sanctuary doesn't count as an Ion Shield. RaW tells me it is an Ion Shield and it is taken in addition to an existing Ion Shield this is undeniable RaW.

So you should have no trouble citing the rules that cover more than one Ion Shield on a Knight.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
You need something that either says Sanctuary replaces the standard Ion Shield or something that says Sanctuary doesn't count as an Ion Shield. RaW tells me it is an Ion Shield and it is taken in addition to an existing Ion Shield this is undeniable RaW.

So you should have no trouble citing the rules that cover more than one Ion Shield on a Knight.

SJ

We don't need rules that specifically cover 2+ Ion Shields. We have rules for AN Ion Shield, not ONE Ion Shield. We simply follow those rules twice, just as we would any other two different pieces of Wargear.

We have one piece of wargear called "Ion Shield" with rules.
We have a second piece of wargear called "Sanctuary" with similar, but different rules, that we're told to treat as an Ion Shield.

Standard rules say we use our wargear bits. If you think we can't use both, the onus is on you to show rules saying we can't use both.

And those rules tell us to select a single facing for each knight's ion shield.

That is a facing per knight that has the ion shield(all knights) not each ion shield that is possessed by a knight.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
And those rules tell us to select a single facing for each knight's ion shield.

That is a facing per knight that has the ion shield(all knights) not each ion shield that is possessed by a knight.

I disagree...

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."

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."

You seem to be reading the line from the Ion Shield rule as "the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's ion shields are covering". This is not what it says. In effect, you have two separate pieces of wargear with two separate, but similar sets of rules.

In effect... the Ion Shield says "the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's ion shield is covering" whereas Sanctuary says "the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's [Sanctuary] ion shield is covering".

The Ion Shield tells you to pick a facing for itself. Sanctuary uses the same rules, so it also tells you to pick a facing for itself. There is no requirement to select the same facing. That requirement would have to be in the Sanctuary rules, and it's not there.

Again, HIWPI... Sanctuary replaces the Ion Shield. I think this is what GW intended, but it's not what they wrote. This most likely needs an Errata indicating that Sanctuary replaces the model's default Ion Shield. At the very least, the rules are written ambiguously and need to be FAQ'd.

saying sanctuary counts as an ion shield is not the same as saying sanctuary count as an additional ion shield.