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.

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

Ok, then explain to me how you have a piece of wargear called "Ion Shield" and then an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT piece of wargear called "Sanctuary" that we're told counts as an ion shield, but you're not counting the second thing as an additional ion shield?

If a Knight Errant take Sanctuary, his Wargear section looks like this...

WARGEAR:
* Heavy Stubber
* Thermal Cannon
* Reaper Chainsword
* Ion Shield
* Sanctuary (counts as an Ion Shield with extra rules)

How many Ion Shields does the Knight Errant count as having? If you say anything other than two, I'd like an explanation.
How is the second piece of wargear that counts as an Ion Shield not an additional Ion Shield?

Additional ion shield or not go back to the ion shield rule; the first bit is the timing and who you activate(each knight) then comes the definition of side, then the benefit to that side.

Rule is from the old codex and assumes each knight has 1 shield, it is only in the new codex,only situationally, and only 1 model that can have 2 shields.

Take all of that into account and see how reading it as each shield possessed by a knight is completely wrong.

Each knight chooses 1 side for their ion shield to protect with a 4++, it does not matter how many shields they have the rule for ion shield is clear.

other than the hypothetical wargear list you show, which I cannot find an official gw army builder to actually see if your correct and I am sure you cannot find one either to show that it is indeed a different piece of wargear,

The fact that the rule does not include the word 'additional' or 'extra' ?

you infer it as a separate line because you have added the qualifer that sanctuary states 'extra' or 'additional' when it never says such a thing, nothing stops it from also being inferred as the ion shield is 'sanctuary' which gives it special rules ontop of a normal ion shield. Considering there is no RAW stating it is an additional shield, and no rules for what to do if a model had more than one shield, the RAI that it is a modifier to the normal ion shield makes more sense than the RAI that it is an additional ion shield, which requires changing the wording of a rule to include words that are not there, and then requires additional wording to the base ion shield rule to tell you what to do if there were more than one shield, which the rule does not include in any form from "for each shield pick" or "of the knight has more than one shield..." or anything similar.

blaktoof wrote:
other than the hypothetical wargear list you show, which I cannot find an official gw army builder to actually see if your correct and I am sure you cannot find one either to show that it is indeed a different piece of wargear,

The fact that the rule does not include the word 'additional' or 'extra' ?

you infer it as a separate line because you have added the qualifer that sanctuary states 'extra' or 'additional' when it never says such a thing, nothing stops it from also being inferred as the ion shield is 'sanctuary' which gives it special rules ontop of a normal ion shield. Considering there is no RAW stating it is an additional shield, and no rules for what to do if a model had more than one shield, the RAI that it is a modifier to the normal ion shield makes more sense than the RAI that it is an additional ion shield, which requires changing the wording of a rule to include words that are not there, and then requires additional wording to the base ion shield rule to tell you what to do if there were more than one shield, which the rule does not include in any form from "for each shield pick" or "of the knight has more than one shield..." or anything similar.

Dude, the model has an Ion Shield as a piece of wargear and then has the option of taking a piece of wargear called Sanctuary. I'm getting this straight from the codex. Are you arguing that the model doesn't have two different pieces of wargear? It's not a replacement as in the case of some other heirlooms. It's an additional piece of wargear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I kind of feel like there's no point debating the rules if you won't even acknowledge that the "Ion Shield" and "Sanctuary" are two different pieces of wargear that you can sometimes equip simultaneously on one model.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Additional ion shield or not go back to the ion shield rule; the first bit is the timing and who you activate(each knight) then comes the definition of side, then the benefit to that side.

Rule is from the old codex and assumes each knight has 1 shield, it is only in the new codex,only situationally, and only 1 model that can have 2 shields.

Take all of that into account and see how reading it as each shield possessed by a knight is completely wrong.

Each knight chooses 1 side for their ion shield to protect with a 4++, it does not matter how many shields they have the rule for ion shield is clear.

You keep saying this why? Does the rule state "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield" or "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shields"? Remembering saying the former is conceding. So which is it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
other than the hypothetical wargear list you show, which I cannot find an official gw army builder to actually see if your correct and I am sure you cannot find one either to show that it is indeed a different piece of wargear,

The fact that the rule does not include the word 'additional' or 'extra' ?

you infer it as a separate line because you have added the qualifer that sanctuary states 'extra' or 'additional' when it never says such a thing, nothing stops it from also being inferred as the ion shield is 'sanctuary' which gives it special rules ontop of a normal ion shield. Considering there is no RAW stating it is an additional shield, and no rules for what to do if a model had more than one shield, the RAI that it is a modifier to the normal ion shield makes more sense than the RAI that it is an additional ion shield, which requires changing the wording of a rule to include words that are not there, and then requires additional wording to the base ion shield rule to tell you what to do if there were more than one shield, which the rule does not include in any form from "for each shield pick" or "of the knight has more than one shield..." or anything similar.

Cool a Space Marine Character can swap his bolt pistol and/or chainsword for a power weapon. Say I swap the bolt pistol I now have a power weapon (let's say an Axe) I then swap the chainsword for a Power weapon (let's say a Maul). How many power weapons does my Character have? Note I have never bought an "extra" or "additional" power weapon.

On the wargear question, as I have been saying from the beginning, Sanctuary is a 6++ Ion Shield that covers all facings not covered by the main 4++ Ion Shield. When read this way, no rules are broken, no rules are made up, and RAW is followed. Reading it as Sanctuary is s second 4++ Ion Shield and a 6++ power field is not RAW.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
On the wargear question, as I have been saying from the beginning, Sanctuary is a 6++ Ion Shield that covers all facings not covered by the main 4++ Ion Shield. When read this way, no rules are broken, no rules are made up, and RAW is followed. Reading it as Sanctuary is s second 4++ Ion Shield and a 6++ power field is not RAW.

SJ

You've completely changed what Sanctuary has said. By your argument Space Marines are all T10, sure the profile says 4, but if we read that as 10 no rules are broken, no rules are made up, and RAW is followed. Reading it as T4 is not RAW.

What does Sanctuary tell us? It tells us it is an Ion Shield, so what does that mean? Oh yes it means a 4++ in a facing chosen when a Knight is deployed or at the start of each enemy shooting phase. Then what does it say? Does it say we ignore the Ion Shield rules and instead follow different rules? No it says "in addition" which means in addition to being and Ion Shield it ALSO provides a 6++ in other facings not covered by the Ion Shield.

Following RaW does not mean you ignore the written text and make up your own rules which your interpretation requires. You must ignore when you are told Sanctuary is an Ion shield. You must ignore that the rules tell you the 6++ is an additional effect. Instead you completely change the entire meaning of Sanctuary to a 6++ in other facings that count as coming from an Ion Shield. Which is not at all what the rules claim to be the case. So who is right on RaW you or the rules?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
On the wargear question, as I have been saying from the beginning, Sanctuary is a 6++ Ion Shield that covers all facings not covered by the main 4++ Ion Shield. When read this way, no rules are broken, no rules are made up, and RAW is followed. Reading it as Sanctuary is s second 4++ Ion Shield and a 6++ power field is not RAW.

SJ

Your interpretation is incorrect. Ignore the fact that the Knight has a piece of wargear called "Ion Shield" and go back and re-read Sanctuary. Does Sanctuary require you to pick a facing? Yes, it does. Yet you're not doing so. You're picking a facing for wargear #1, but ignoring the directive to do so for wargear #2. Ignoring rules is fine, but makes what you're doing a house rule.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Additional ion shield or not go back to the ion shield rule; the first bit is the timing and who you activate(each knight) then comes the definition of side, then the benefit to that side.

Rule is from the old codex and assumes each knight has 1 shield, it is only in the new codex,only situationally, and only 1 model that can have 2 shields.

Take all of that into account and see how reading it as each shield possessed by a knight is completely wrong.

Each knight chooses 1 side for their ion shield to protect with a 4++, it does not matter how many shields they have the rule for ion shield is clear.

You keep saying this why? Does the rule state "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield" or "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shields"? Remembering saying the former is conceding. So which is it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
other than the hypothetical wargear list you show, which I cannot find an official gw army builder to actually see if your correct and I am sure you cannot find one either to show that it is indeed a different piece of wargear,

The fact that the rule does not include the word 'additional' or 'extra' ?

you infer it as a separate line because you have added the qualifer that sanctuary states 'extra' or 'additional' when it never says such a thing, nothing stops it from also being inferred as the ion shield is 'sanctuary' which gives it special rules ontop of a normal ion shield. Considering there is no RAW stating it is an additional shield, and no rules for what to do if a model had more than one shield, the RAI that it is a modifier to the normal ion shield makes more sense than the RAI that it is an additional ion shield, which requires changing the wording of a rule to include words that are not there, and then requires additional wording to the base ion shield rule to tell you what to do if there were more than one shield, which the rule does not include in any form from "for each shield pick" or "of the knight has more than one shield..." or anything similar.

Cool a Space Marine Character can swap his bolt pistol and/or chainsword for a power weapon. Say I swap the bolt pistol I now have a power weapon (let's say an Axe) I then swap the chainsword for a Power weapon (let's say a Maul). How many power weapons does my Character have? Note I have never bought an "extra" or "additional" power weapon.

and there are rules that tell you you can have more than one weapon, as well as rules as to what happens when you have more than one weapon which specifically tell you the possible benefits of having more than one and how they work together...are there rules that tell you you can have more than one shield? or how to choose facings if you have more than one shield?

There is no permission to pick a facing per each shield, nor to pick a facing for each shield, but just to pick a facing for the knights shield. The rules for ion shield are singular. no rules suppport for having more than one shield. Sanctuary does not specify it counts as an additional shield, nor how to resolve having more than one, without making up rules which is what you are doing in two separate threads on this topic.

as to the main question of this thread, unless gerantius is in the knew IK codex it cannot take relics so this questions answer is simple, it does not interact with it because he cannot have sanctuary.

Ok the rule in question:

"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 Imperial Knight player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering…."

So looking at this this we can see that its states "each Imperial Knight's ion shield" and not something like "choose which 1 side for all ion shield(s) to cover."

From this now we look at Sanctuary which states it counts as an ion shield.

Now we have two pieces of wargear that are or "count as" ion shields. How do we resolve it? The answer is simple, you have to resolve the affect for the ion shield twice as you have two pieces of wargear which you "must declare" at the beginning of the enemy shooting phase or when you first deploy.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
On the wargear question, as I have been saying from the beginning, Sanctuary is a 6++ Ion Shield that covers all facings not covered by the main 4++ Ion Shield. When read this way, no rules are broken, no rules are made up, and RAW is followed. Reading it as Sanctuary is s second 4++ Ion Shield and a 6++ power field is not RAW.

SJ

You've completely changed what Sanctuary has said. By your argument Space Marines are all T10, sure the profile says 4, but if we read that as 10 no rules are broken, no rules are made up, and RAW is followed. Reading it as T4 is not RAW.

What does Sanctuary tell us? It tells us it is an Ion Shield, so what does that mean? Oh yes it means a 4++ in a facing chosen when a Knight is deployed or at the start of each enemy shooting phase. Then what does it say? Does it say we ignore the Ion Shield rules and instead follow different rules? No it says "in addition" which means in addition to being and Ion Shield it ALSO provides a 6++ in other facings not covered by the Ion Shield.

Following RaW does not mean you ignore the written text and make up your own rules which your interpretation requires. You must ignore when you are told Sanctuary is an Ion shield. You must ignore that the rules tell you the 6++ is an additional effect. Instead you completely change the entire meaning of Sanctuary to a 6++ in other facings that count as coming from an Ion Shield. Which is not at all what the rules claim to be the case. So who is right on RaW you or the rules?

You have a very facetious argument, with no basis is reality. Please restate within the context of the rules rather than hyperbole.

 Kriswall wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
On the wargear question, as I have been saying from the beginning, Sanctuary is a 6++ Ion Shield that covers all facings not covered by the main 4++ Ion Shield. When read this way, no rules are broken, no rules are made up, and RAW is followed. Reading it as Sanctuary is s second 4++ Ion Shield and a 6++ power field is not RAW.

SJ

Your interpretation is incorrect. Ignore the fact that the Knight has a piece of wargear called "Ion Shield" and go back and re-read Sanctuary. Does Sanctuary require you to pick a facing? Yes, it does. Yet you're not doing so. You're picking a facing for wargear #1, but ignoring the directive to do so for wargear #2. Ignoring rules is fine, but makes what you're doing a house rule.

And all I ask is that you prove your position with rules. Saying my interpretation is wrong while not proving it with cited rules goes against the forum tenets. While we both know you have no rules based argument, you seem to think you do, so please cite the rules you think support your claim do we can have a dialog.

SJ

You have a very facetious argument, with no basis is reality. Please restate within the context of the rules rather than hyperbole.

Right 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.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
On the wargear question, as I have been saying from the beginning, Sanctuary is a 6++ Ion Shield that covers all facings not covered by the main 4++ Ion Shield. When read this way, no rules are broken, no rules are made up, and RAW is followed. Reading it as Sanctuary is s second 4++ Ion Shield and a 6++ power field is not RAW.

SJ

You've completely changed what Sanctuary has said. By your argument Space Marines are all T10, sure the profile says 4, but if we read that as 10 no rules are broken, no rules are made up, and RAW is followed. Reading it as T4 is not RAW.

What does Sanctuary tell us? It tells us it is an Ion Shield, so what does that mean? Oh yes it means a 4++ in a facing chosen when a Knight is deployed or at the start of each enemy shooting phase. Then what does it say? Does it say we ignore the Ion Shield rules and instead follow different rules? No it says "in addition" which means in addition to being and Ion Shield it ALSO provides a 6++ in other facings not covered by the Ion Shield.

Following RaW does not mean you ignore the written text and make up your own rules which your interpretation requires. You must ignore when you are told Sanctuary is an Ion shield. You must ignore that the rules tell you the 6++ is an additional effect. Instead you completely change the entire meaning of Sanctuary to a 6++ in other facings that count as coming from an Ion Shield. Which is not at all what the rules claim to be the case. So who is right on RaW you or the rules?

You have a very facetious argument, with no basis is reality. Please restate within the context of the rules rather than hyperbole.

 Kriswall wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
On the wargear question, as I have been saying from the beginning, Sanctuary is a 6++ Ion Shield that covers all facings not covered by the main 4++ Ion Shield. When read this way, no rules are broken, no rules are made up, and RAW is followed. Reading it as Sanctuary is s second 4++ Ion Shield and a 6++ power field is not RAW.

SJ

Your interpretation is incorrect. Ignore the fact that the Knight has a piece of wargear called "Ion Shield" and go back and re-read Sanctuary. Does Sanctuary require you to pick a facing? Yes, it does. Yet you're not doing so. You're picking a facing for wargear #1, but ignoring the directive to do so for wargear #2. Ignoring rules is fine, but makes what you're doing a house rule.

And all I ask is that you prove your position with rules. Saying my interpretation is wrong while not proving it with cited rules goes against the forum tenets. While we both know you have no rules based argument, you seem to think you do, so please cite the rules you think support your claim do we can have a dialog.

SJ

What specifically do you want me to prove? My assertion is twofold. First, a Knight with the Ion Shield and Sanctuary wargear items has two separate pieces of wargear. Second, models are required to obey the rules for their pieces of wargear. These are both such basic assertions that I'm not even sure what you're looking for.

Which do you disagree with?

1. A Knight who has selected Sanctuary from the Heirlooms list has two distinct pieces of wargear, one called "Ion Shield" and one called "Sanctuary".
2. Models are required to obey all of the rules associated with wargear items they currently have 'equipped'.

You seems to agree with #1, but your position requires #2 to be false as you're not obeying Sanctuary's directive to pick a facing. You are instead obeying Ion Shield's directive to pick a facing and appear to be saying that since you've already picked one facing for an entirely different piece of wargear, you no longer have to follow the rules for Sanctuary. I disagree. If you genuinely need me to prove something as basic as the requirement that a model follow the rules laid out in their wargear, I would ask that you go back and reread the core rules to gain a basic understanding before participating in a rules discussion. We shouldn't have to prove basic concepts with rules citations.

I agree that a Knight with Sanctuary has two pieces of wargear and two Ion Shields, one of which covers a single facing at 4++, while the other covers the remaining facings at 6++. That is what is written, and that is what the rules support.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I agree that a Knight with Sanctuary has two pieces of wargear and two Ion Shields, one of which covers a single facing at 4++, while the other covers the remaining facings at 6++. That is what is written, and that is what the rules support.

SJ

Are you stating Sanctuary doesn't follow the normal rules for an Ion Shield?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I agree that a Knight with Sanctuary has two pieces of wargear and two Ion Shields, one of which covers a single facing at 4++, while the other covers the remaining facings at 6++. That is what is written, and that is what the rules support.

SJ

Are you stating Sanctuary doesn't follow the normal rules for an Ion Shield?

Duh?

SJ

Why does Sanctuary not follow the Ion Shield rules when the rules tell us it counts as an Ion Shield?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Why does Sanctuary not follow the Ion Shield rules when the rules tell us it counts as an Ion Shield?

Did you even bother to read the response you are questioning? You quoted it, so I assumed you read it. Are you saying that you quote posts without reading the post you quote?

SJ

Yes I read it. Can you answer the question?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes I read it. Can you answer the question?

I'm just going to assume you are trolling. Here are the rules for Ion Shields and for Sanctuary:

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.

The underline part is very different from the rules for Ion Shields. However, the part that tells us Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield means the 6++ save is treated as an Ion Shield. If the rules for Sanctuary did not include a reference to the actual Ion Shield, you might have a point. Unfortunately for you, Sanctuary only refers to itself in the context of the 6++ save. The lack of any further rules defining the existence of a second 4++ save literally means no such save exists. We have just the original 4++ all Knights have, and the 6++ that Sanctuary provides.

Now, I know full well the fluff for Sanctuary tells us it is an upgraded Ion Shield Generator, yet the fluff also points out that Sanctuary would replace the regular Ion Shield generator, as seen here:

This potent ion shield was created by a Jokaero weaponsmith that accompanied his Inquisitor master on a routine inspection to the Knight World of Silverdawn. After tinkering with a burned out ion shield generator, the techno-savant was able to repair and upgrade the device so that it emitted a stronger and more stable power field that could shelter a Knight suit from every angle, though at slightly reduced effectiveness.

And before you fail to read yet again, I'm not claiming fluff as rules, nor as context. I have only posted RAW based points. You sir, however, have failed to back up your points with rules supporting your claim.

SJ

The underline part is very different from the rules for Ion Shields. However, the part that tells us Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield means the 6++ save is treated as an Ion Shield. If the rules for Sanctuary did not include a reference to the actual Ion Shield, you might have a point. Unfortunately for you, Sanctuary only refers to itself in the context of the 6++ save. The lack of any further rules defining the existence of a second 4++ save literally means no such save exists. We have just the original 4++ all Knights have, and the 6++ that Sanctuary provides.

Yes the underlined part is different to the Ion Shield rules it is in addition to them as that is literally what it tells us. It tells us it counts as an Ion Shield so why does it not provide a 4++ like other Ion Shields? Why does it not count as an Ion Shield when we read the Ion Shield rules? Please point to the RaW that allows the Sanctuary to not count as an Ion Shield for the Ion Shield rules. Rules that are in addition to it being an Ion Shield are not rules saying it is not an Ion Shield.

 FlingitNow wrote:

The underline part is very different from the rules for Ion Shields. However, the part that tells us Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield means the 6++ save is treated as an Ion Shield. If the rules for Sanctuary did not include a reference to the actual Ion Shield, you might have a point. Unfortunately for you, Sanctuary only refers to itself in the context of the 6++ save. The lack of any further rules defining the existence of a second 4++ save literally means no such save exists. We have just the original 4++ all Knights have, and the 6++ that Sanctuary provides.

Yes the underlined part is different to the Ion Shield rules it is in addition to them as that is literally what it tells us. It tells us it counts as an Ion Shield so why does it not provide a 4++ like other Ion Shields? Why does it not count as an Ion Shield when we read the Ion Shield rules? Please point to the RaW that allows the Sanctuary to not count as an Ion Shield for the Ion Shield rules. Rules that are in addition to it being an Ion Shield are not rules saying it is not an Ion Shield.

I will take you continued failure to support your position with actual rules as a concession. The fact that I have repeatedly post the actual rules while you have not proved that you are unable to support your claim. Thank you for playing.

SJ

You haven't once supported your argument with rules. You've posted rules then written an argued,went that completely contradicts those rules. Your refusal to answer questions to defend your made up rules speaks volumes. The rules are clear and as I've proven are that you have an Ion Shield and a Sanctuary. A Sanctuary count as an an Ion Shield and has an additional rule. For each Ion Shield (therefore including Sanctuary) you must pick a facing to receive a 4++ whenever a Knight is deployed and at the start of each of your opponent's shooting phases.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I agree that a Knight with Sanctuary has two pieces of wargear and two Ion Shields, one of which covers a single facing at 4++, while the other covers the remaining facings at 6++. That is what is written, and that is what the rules support.

SJ

So, you're ignoring the fact that Sanctuary, by itself counts as an ion shield and ADDITIONALLY grants a 6++ to the off-faces? Understood. You've got this wrong and it's clear that no amount of reasoned logic will convince you otherwise. Enjoy your house rules.

I would say that this is one of those situations where we should probably just call a draw, but does anyone actually agree with Jeffersonian000, or is this an instance where we've come to an agreement with one extremely vocal holdout?

 Kriswall wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I agree that a Knight with Sanctuary has two pieces of wargear and two Ion Shields, one of which covers a single facing at 4++, while the other covers the remaining facings at 6++. That is what is written, and that is what the rules support.

SJ

So, you're ignoring the fact that Sanctuary, by itself counts as an ion shield and ADDITIONALLY grants a 6++ to the off-faces? Understood. You've got this wrong and it's clear that no amount of reasoned logic will convince you otherwise. Enjoy your house rules.

I would say that this is one of those situations where we should probably just call a draw, but does anyone actually agree with Jeffersonian000, or is this an instance where we've come to an agreement with one extremely vocal holdout?

To be honest it appears Jeffersonian is just trolling at this point. He's refusing to say why Sanctuary doesn't count as anion Shield when the rules say it does. He refusing to acknowledge that the rules say "in addition" and instead is making up that they say presumably "instead of the usual ion Shield rules Sanctuary provides a 6++ in each facing not covered by the Ion Shield". When asked questions he refuses to answer and just says you're conceeding. He's backed into a corner and is now lashing out.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

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 underline part is very different from the rules for Ion Shields. However, the part that tells us Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield means the 6++ save is treated as an Ion Shield. If the rules for Sanctuary did not include a reference to the actual Ion Shield, you might have a point. Unfortunately for you, Sanctuary only refers to itself in the context of the 6++ save. The lack of any further rules defining the existence of a second 4++ save literally means no such save exists. We have just the original 4++ all Knights have, and the 6++ that Sanctuary provides.

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've explained what the above underlined means. Apparently there is some confusion with your claims, so can you please explain what the following underlined means?

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.

I already did, Happyjew, on this thread and the other. Since Flingit is now on ignore, I'd hate to add you, too.

To redirect, you are asking questions that have already been answers multiple times over two threads. Please read the threads. Thanks.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I already did, Happyjew, on this thread and the other. Since Flingit is now on ignore, I'd hate to add you, too.

To redirect, you are asking questions that have already been answers multiple times over two threads. Please read the threads. Thanks.

SJ

I think this has removed any doubt, it is now 100% clear Jeffersonian is trolling.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I already did, Happyjew, on this thread and the other. Since Flingit is now on ignore, I'd hate to add you, too.

To redirect, you are asking questions that have already been answers multiple times over two threads. Please read the threads. Thanks.

SJ

I have read the threads. I am honestly confused as to what you think "Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield. In addition..." actually means. From what I've seen in this thread (and only this thread), you appear to be under the impression that all Sanctuary does is provide a 6+ invulnerable save.

Your third post was that having two Ion Shields has not been proven. So I ask you is Sanctuary an Ion Shield? If so, then RAW a model has two Ion Shields. If not, then please explain what "Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield." means.

You then posted that Sanctuary only provides a 6+ invulnerable save to the other facings (which if IIRC is different to one of your posts in the other thread that Sanctuary is a 360 degree 6+, which would imply every facing).

You then continued to insist that all Sanctuary does is grant a 6+ to the other three facings.

Then you claim you agree that the model has two Ion Shields. Which means you've accepted that Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. However, you then claim that it is an Ion Shield that doesn't do what an Ion Shield does. Yes it provides a 6+ invulnerable save, but this is in addition to the normal Ion Shield rules.

When asked to clarify you responded "Duh?". When asked to clarify again you claim no one is reading your posts. When I asked for clarification you simply claim again, that people are not reading your posts, and you threaten to put me on your ignore list.

The one thing I've not seen in this thread from you, and maybe I've missed it in the other thread (and if so I apologize), is what "Counts as an Ion Shield." means.

Happyjew he has explained what he thinks counts as Ion Shield means. He said it means sometimes when rules refer to an Ion Shield those rules apply to Sanctuary and sometimes they don't. For instance in the case of the Ion Shield rules when they talk about Ion Shields those rules don't apply to Sanctuary. When I asked him where I find the rules that govern when Sanctuary does and doesn't count as an Ion Shield he said in the Sanctuary rules and that he had already posted them. When I asked which part of the Sanctuary rules as I couldn't see what he was talking about he said I was changing my argument...

Hope this helps I doubt he will answer any pertinent questions and just claim to have already answered then or repost the rules and then disagree with them as he has consistently done so far in both threads...