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.

In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit.

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 (eBook Edition).” iBooks.

SJ


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deathmachine wrote:
English dude I'm on a tiny phone. So I forgot some periods. Its english. Holy crap Jeff go jump off a cliff...how's that for English?

Instead of getting pissed, how about reposting your post in a readable format. I too am posting from a phone. There is no excuses for posting unreadable posts as the forum tenets specifically forbid posting unintelligible posts.

SH

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit.

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 (eBook Edition).” iBooks.

SJ


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deathmachine wrote:
English dude I'm on a tiny phone. So I forgot some periods. Its english. Holy crap Jeff go jump off a cliff...how's that for English?

Instead of getting pissed, how about reposting your post in a readable format. I too am posting from a phone. There is no excuses for posting unreadable posts as the forum tenets specifically forbid posting unintelligible posts.

SH

Nothing there even mentions 1 tactical squad let alone 2. I want specific instructions that tell me how to move 2 tactical squads. Just like you want rules that specifically mention 2 Ion Shields. Following a process that allows you to do an action more than once is apparently not enough it needs to call out the specific example and number of occasions.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit.

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 (eBook Edition).” iBooks.

SJ


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deathmachine wrote:
English dude I'm on a tiny phone. So I forgot some periods. Its english. Holy crap Jeff go jump off a cliff...how's that for English?

Instead of getting pissed, how about reposting your post in a readable format. I too am posting from a phone. There is no excuses for posting unreadable posts as the forum tenets specifically forbid posting unintelligible posts.

SH

Nothing there even mentions 1 tactical squad let alone 2. I want specific instructions that tell me how to move 2 tactical squads. Just like you want rules that specifically mention 2 Ion Shields. Following a process that allows you to do an action more than once is apparently not enough it needs to call out the specific example and number of occasions.

Cool, I accept your concession. You can't proved rules to support your claim, so you attack the ones requesting you support your claim.

SJ

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit.

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 (eBook Edition).” iBooks.

SJ


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deathmachine wrote:
English dude I'm on a tiny phone. So I forgot some periods. Its english. Holy crap Jeff go jump off a cliff...how's that for English?

Instead of getting pissed, how about reposting your post in a readable format. I too am posting from a phone. There is no excuses for posting unreadable posts as the forum tenets specifically forbid posting unintelligible posts.

SH

Nothing there even mentions 1 tactical squad let alone 2. I want specific instructions that tell me how to move 2 tactical squads. Just like you want rules that specifically mention 2 Ion Shields. Following a process that allows you to do an action more than once is apparently not enough it needs to call out the specific example and number of occasions.

Flingit.... although I do agree with your interpretation of the Sanctuary being a separate 4+ shield you do realize that your comparing apples to oranges here.

This just comes across as antagonist and dumb. Obviously the rules support moving multiple units of tactical squads as it says you can move any and all units. Remember that the wording for ion shields is for a singular ion save, and a singular facing. The language is not really comparable.

The assumption on our side is that you are simply following all of the ion shield rules twice because there are two separate pieces of Wargear that have the rules and both must follow them despite one being a relic, and the other one being the wargear item ion shield.

It's a nice assumption, but there are not rules to support that assumption. To do as you assume, you have to create rules to do so, which is a house rule, not RAW.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Kriswall, try imagining that the Ion Shield is distributed over the Knight's frame, and occasionally there's this one Knight with a tweaked Ion Shield that is so legendary, people call it Sanctuary. It's still an Ion Shield, it just covers the Knight a little bit better. Knight's mount only one Ion Shield, but that Ion Shield's coverage is based on the skill of the Noble pilot to use effectively. Sanctuary is a tweaked Ion Shield.

I totally understand what you're saying. Sanctuary is most certainly A tweaked Ion Shield. We know this. It counts as an Ion Shield, but with extra rules. The issue is that while we both agree that Sanctuary is A tweaked Ion Shield, we disagree on what happens to the original Ion Shield when Sanctuary is purchased for the Knight. I say that nothing happens to it. The player still resolves its rules as per normal. You seem to think that Sanctuary somehow replaces or modifies the original Ion Shield. The rules simply don't support this. Sanctuary is an extra thing. It's not a replacement thing and it's not a modifying thing.

It's so hard to argue with you on this because you won't post any rules backing up your position and I can't because they're not there. I can simply refer you separately to the rules for "Ion Shield" and "Sanctuary" and show you how they work. I can tell you that this is a permissive rule set and that Ion Shield tells me to pick a facing for Ion Shield and Sanctuary tells me to pick a facing for Sanctuary. I can't provide any citations saying that they should be handled separately, just as you can't provide any citations saying they should be handled together. The reason is that the rules don't address this. Instead, the rules give us a piece of wargear and tell us to resolve it's rules text. The rules then give us a second piece of wargear and tell us to resolve it's rules text.

I'm pretty sure you're being caught up when we're told to treat Sanctuary as AN Ion Shield. We're not told to treat it as THE Ion Shield. That's a distinct difference. How many pieces of wargear does a Knight with Sanctuary have that are or count as being Ion Shields? The answer is two. The answer can only be two. If you're not resolving each, including choosing a facing, you are ignoring rules... which you're not allowed to do.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
It's a nice assumption, but there are not rules to support that assumption. To do as you assume, you have to create rules to do so, which is a house rule, not RAW.

What rules do we have to create?

Unit has one piece of Wargear and can purchase a special version of that Wargear in addition to what he already has. This special Wargear is not noted for being a replacement or an upgrade, but a version of that one Wargear. Therefore, when the special Wargear is purchased, you have two pieces of the Wargear, one normal, one special. This is how Wargear is purchased.

Each Wargear states that "the controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering."

What do we have to create to get this to work?

A paradigm shift to cover context, sure, but that's the case for almost any Relic that counts as something else.

Whereas, in order for yours to work, "A Relic must replace something, even if it doesn't say it replaces it", "A Relic that counts as another piece of Wargear replaces that Wargear or prevents the function of that Wargear", and/or "If two pieces of Wargear do the same job, but are focussed to cover only one case, they cannot be used to cover any more than one of those cases". Those are the rules you have created for your paradigm.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move before you start to move another unit.

Excerpt From: Workshop, Games. “Warhammer 40,000 (eBook Edition).” iBooks.

SJ


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deathmachine wrote:
English dude I'm on a tiny phone. So I forgot some periods. Its english. Holy crap Jeff go jump off a cliff...how's that for English?

Instead of getting pissed, how about reposting your post in a readable format. I too am posting from a phone. There is no excuses for posting unreadable posts as the forum tenets specifically forbid posting unintelligible posts.

SH

Nothing there even mentions 1 tactical squad let alone 2. I want specific instructions that tell me how to move 2 tactical squads. Just like you want rules that specifically mention 2 Ion Shields. Following a process that allows you to do an action more than once is apparently not enough it needs to call out the specific example and number of occasions.

Flingit.... although I do agree with your interpretation of the Sanctuary being a separate 4+ shield you do realize that your comparing apples to oranges here.

This just comes across as antagonist and dumb. Obviously the rules support moving multiple units of tactical squads as it says you can move any and all units. Remember that the wording for ion shields is for a singular ion save, and a singular facing. The language is not really comparable.

The assumption on our side is that you are simply following all of the ion shield rules twice because there are two separate pieces of Wargear that have the rules and both must follow them despite one being a relic, and the other one being the wargear item ion shield.

No... Fling is absolutely correct. My rule book has rules telling me how to move ONE unit. It also has rules telling me to follow the ONE unit movement process once for each unit I want to move. If there are rules telling us how to move TWO units, I'd like some citations. I don't want rules telling me how to fully move one unit before moving to the next. I want these rules showing me how to move TWO units.

Obviously, I'm not serious. You can't provide rules telling me how to move TWO units because they don't exist... much in the same way that rules on how to resolve TWO pieces of wargear don't exist. Instead, we're told how to resolve ONE instance (of movement or wargear rules) and then told to do this for each time we need to figure out what happens (how many units are moving or how many pieces of wargear a model has).

It says nothing about using Ion Shields at 3:25pm on a Tuesday either. That is not how a permissive ruleset works. It gives permission to have an Ion Shield and permission to add another piece of wargear which is also an Ion Shield. Thus you have 2. 

There is also no rule stating that I cant hit you in the face with a toaster. Again so me the rule where it states you can use both ion shield clearly.I cant find it. Thoug it clearly states how other shield work like void shields. Like the bolt pistol reference of course you get 2 cc attacks but in shooting you get 1 unless you have gun slinger. Like wise if each pistol has an ability , ie bolt pistol 1 has rend and 2 has shred you do not get both abilities. You have 1 ion shield and sanctuary( which counts ans an ion shield) 2 ion shield pieces of wargear. Make you choice. Just because you have 2 dosent mean that both are used at the same time. If it was to be stackable or used at the same time,the rules would say so specifically. The raw does state that you decide on what piece of war gear you use.
I know that tthis will be argued and that is ok because everyone is allowed an oppinion. No side will be happy. Just dont be close minded and difinitive that your opinion is the only one correct when there is a level of vagueness because last time I checked I know I dont write the official rules. Neither does anyone else here I would bet.
Lets be honest. Even if you are correct and it has multiple ion shield it dosent really make a big difference. It defenitly doe not break the game. Ik still die to many things.
Now, let the knit picking begin.
Happy gaming all. Me boys are awaiting a good ruckus on the battlefield.

It's tragic when my opponents make statements about me not posting rules, when I'm the one posting the rules. Repeatedly. Over the course of the multi-page thread.

Yet, when I ask you otters to cite the rule they think supports their claims, they post logical chains, false premises, opinion, and the occasional personal attacks.

Now, I realize you really really want to cover two different facings with 4++ saves, but all I want from you is to support how this occurs with actual rules backing your claim. Like I did.

So far we have had examples of two Storm Shields, which is debunked by the More Than One Save rules. We have had the two Pistols example which is debunked by the Gunslinger rules, Monstrous Creature rules, and vehicle rules. We have had the multiple CCW example which is debunked by the More Than One Weapon rules. I have demonstrated how Imperial Knight upgrades replace existing items, preventing you from ever taking mor than one of any option (exceptions being the Stubber, because the RFBC comes with one, and the carapace options, which are addons). Sanctuary does not include language that states it is an additional Ion Shield. It only states that it counts as on Ion Shield with addition rules, the additional rules of which do not address having two facable 4++ saves, but does give the Knight a 6++ on the facings not covered by THE Ion Shield.

As a permissive rule set, lack of permission equals a restriction. A specific exception will override a general restriction. Sanctuary does not provide a specific exception to the lack of permission. An example of language that would solve this issue in the favor of two facable Ion Shields is Sanctuary stating it is an additional Ion Shield that may be positioned on a different facing that the standard Ion Shield. But Sanctuary does not state nor imply that. Sanctuary states that it counts as an Ion Shield, and Knights only have one Ion Shield, which means if a Knight has Sanctuary, Sanctuary counts as that Knight's Ion Shield.

I'm not arguing about your house rule that Sanctuary works as a second Ion Shield, I'm arguing that per RAW your house rule is a house rule.

SJ

Honestly, this issue isn't going to be settled until there's an faq and until then, this is just meaningless back and forth. I will continue to play it as I believe it should be played and everyone else should do the same. Individual events will have to make their own calls and I'll be ready to make my arguments for 2 facings, but other than that, I think this thread has served its purpose and should probably be closed. It's beginning to become an Internet stereotype.

That's on you bud.

SJ

 Dramagod2 wrote:
Honestly, this issue isn't going to be settled until there's an faq and until then, this is just meaningless back and forth. I will continue to play it as I believe it should be played and everyone else should do the same. Individual events will have to make their own calls and I'll be ready to make my arguments for 2 facings, but other than that, I think this thread has served its purpose and should probably be closed. It's beginning to become an Internet stereotype.

It has to be an internet stereotype for 10-14 pages before mods close it, unless a mod is also posting in the thread then it closes at p.4-7

worldwrekka wrote:
It says nothing about using Ion Shields at 3:25pm on a Tuesday either. That is not how a permissive ruleset works. It gives permission to have an Ion Shield and permission to add another piece of wargear which is also an Ion Shield. Thus you have 2. 

There is also no rule stating that I cant hit you in the face with a toaster. Again so me the rule where it states you can use both ion shield clearly.I cant find it. Thoug it clearly states how other shield work like void shields. Like the bolt pistol reference of course you get 2 cc attacks but in shooting you get 1 unless you have gun slinger. Like wise if each pistol has an ability , ie bolt pistol 1 has rend and 2 has shred you do not get both abilities. You have 1 ion shield and sanctuary( which counts ans an ion shield) 2 ion shield pieces of wargear. Make you choice. Just because you have 2 dosent mean that both are used at the same time. If it was to be stackable or used at the same time,the rules would say so specifically. The raw does state that you decide on what piece of war gear you use.
I know that tthis will be argued and that is ok because everyone is allowed an oppinion. No side will be happy. Just dont be close minded and difinitive that your opinion is the only one correct when there is a level of vagueness because last time I checked I know I dont write the official rules. Neither does anyone else here I would bet.
Lets be honest. Even if you are correct and it has multiple ion shield it dosent really make a big difference. It defenitly doe not break the game. Ik still die to many things.
Now, let the knit picking begin.
Happy gaming all. Me boys are awaiting a good ruckus on the battlefield.

Sigh.

This isn't an either/or situation. This isn't a scenario where you have a Boltgun and a Bolt Pistol and you're told to choose one or the other when making a shooting attack. This isn't a scenario where you have Terminator Armor (5++) and an Iron Halo (4++) and you're told you have the advantage of making the best saving throw (4++). This is a scenario where you have two distinct pieces of Wargear.

Yes, both pieces grant invulnerable saves.

Yes, you have to pick ONE invulnerable save when making a saving throw.

No, you are not permitted to ignore the rules associated with a piece of Wargear. Rules aren't optional. This includes Wargear rules. You can't just say "I have Sanctuary, so I won't be following the rules for Ion Shield". This is what you're doing. You're somehow conflating the two and deciding that by following the rules for one, you no longer have the option of following the rules for the other. The core rules don't support this action.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
That's on you bud.

SJ

The fact that you felt the need to reply to that says a lot about why this thread has become what it is.

I don't know how the name Drama God has not lead to being banned on its own. It's obvious by even his user name, he's only here to riel people up.

Point is, the argument is my Warboss can ride both Gazbags Blitzbike and a Warbike at the same time if it's sensuous to me according to the KnightRider's in this thread.

Jeff and I are on the, you can't ride 2 bikes without rules for straddling two bikes while screaming at the top of your lungs how awesome Waaaaggghhh! is.

Especially since those shields claim to fill the same slot, have no rules governing having multiples and are written to only give permission to use 1 ion shield.

jeffersonian000 wrote:It's tragic when my opponents make statements about me not posting rules, when I'm the one posting the rules. Repeatedly. Over the course of the multi-page thread.

Are you talking about the rules in which Sanctuary replaces the Ion Shield? Still waiting on that one.

Are you talking about the rule where you can only ever use one piece of Wargear at a time? Still waiting on that one. Not the specific instances like Weapons or rolling Saves, just the general rule.

Yet, when I ask you otters to cite the rule they think supports their claims, they post logical chains, false premises, opinion, and the occasional personal attacks.

Well I have quoted a few, but you still either reply with random made up rule or ignore it.

Now, I realize you really really want to cover two different facings with 4++ saves, but all I want from you is to support how this occurs with actual rules backing your claim.

You mean like I just referenced and you have not properly addressed at all? Hi Pot, I'm obsidium.

Like I did.

So far we have had examples of two Storm Shields, which is debunked by the More Than One Save rules. We have had the two Pistols example which is debunked by the Gunslinger rules, Monstrous Creature rules, and vehicle rules. We have had the multiple CCW example which is debunked by the More Than One Weapon rules. I have demonstrated how Imperial Knight upgrades replace existing items, preventing you from ever taking mor than one of any option (exceptions being the Stubber, because the RFBC comes with one, and the carapace options, which are addons).

All debunked as being pertinent to your case, actually.

Only using One Save does not mean any other Wargear that provides a similar type of Save disappears. The Storm Shield does not replace the Iron Halo, it just makes it less useful.

There is a general limit preventing the use of more than one Weapon, Gunslinger allows permission to go beyond this, as do a few others.

Replacing equipment is replacing equipment. Carapace Weapons are not listed as Replacing anything. Only the Weapon Relics are listed as Replacing anything. The Banner and Sanctuary are just listed as purchase options like the Carapace Weapons. You replace when you are told to replace, and add on when told you may take one. Sanctuary never lists "replace", " exchange", or "upgrade" in the Wargear List nor in its own rules.

So, if everything is replaced, what Wargear is replaced by the following for a Space Marine Captain?
Meltabomb?
Bike?
Jump Pack?
Storm Shield?

Sanctuary does not include language that states it is an additional Ion Shield. It only states that it counts as on Ion Shield with addition rules, the additional rules of which do not address having two facable 4++ saves, but does give the Knight a 6++ on the facings not covered by THE Ion Shield.

It doesn't need to say "this is an additional Ion Shield". Everything else tells you it is. Every Knight comes with one. Sanctuary is purchased out right and is not ever stated to replace or upgrade anything. Sanctuary tells you to treat it like one. This is basic math here.

So the 6++ doesn't cover the 4++ of the Ion Shield. So what? This does not mean that this express exclusion for Sanctuary to be a standard Ion Shield. It never is stated as such from what I've read nor from what you've posted.

As a permissive rule set, lack of permission equals a restriction. A specific exception will override a general restriction. Sanctuary does not provide a specific exception to the lack of permission. An example of language that would solve this issue in the favor of two facable Ion Shields is Sanctuary stating it is an additional Ion Shield that may be positioned on a different facing that the standard Ion Shield. But Sanctuary does not state nor imply that. Sanctuary states that it counts as an Ion Shield, and Knights only have one Ion Shield, which means if a Knight has Sanctuary, Sanctuary counts as that Knight's Ion Shield.

I'm not arguing about your house rule that Sanctuary works as a second Ion Shield, I'm arguing that per RAW your house rule is a house rule.

Except I've quoted the rule that gives permission for each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield. Where is this disproven or restricted to one facing for all?

FratHammer wrote:Jeff and I are on the, you can't ride 2 bikes without rules for straddling two bikes while screaming at the top of your lungs how awesome Waaaaggghhh! is.

For proper reference, which codex/supplement is this from? I've had examples misquoted and misreferenced enough in this thread and others that I would like to look it up.

Especially since those shields claim to fill the same slot, have no rules governing having multiples and are written to only give permission to use 1 ion shield.

Same slot? Why haven't either you or Jeffersonian ever quoted or told us where to look it up before?. I know I've asked for it or similar many times in this thread I didn't know Imperial Knight's worked on a slot system. Is it like Tau Crisis Suits? Or is it a completely different system?

FratHammer wrote:
I don't know how the name Drama God has not lead to being banned on its own. It's obvious by even his user name, he's only here to riel people up.

Point is, the argument is my Warboss can ride both Gazbags Blitzbike and a Warbike at the same time if it's sensuous to me according to the KnightRider's in this thread.

Jeff and I are on the, you can't ride 2 bikes without rules for straddling two bikes while screaming at the top of your lungs how awesome Waaaaggghhh! is.

Especially since those shields claim to fill the same slot, have no rules governing having multiples and are written to only give permission to use 1 ion shield.

Can you provide more information on this 'shield slot' you're talking about? I can't seem to find any reference to it in my rules. My rule book doesn't have 'wargear slots'. It just has wargear.

And yes, unless there is specific wording saying that they can't be taken together (like Space Marine Terminator Armor and Jump Packs) or that one replaces the other (I don't have the codex on me), an Ork Warboss can take Gazbags Blitzbike and a normal Warbike at the same time. I'm not sure why you'd want to, but it should be possible. You'd just resolve the rules for the first and then resolve the rules for the second. You don't need rules for how to resolve both simultaneously. You just resolve one and then the other. I feel like this is your sticking point. Sure, some of the rules are redundant, but you follow all of them.

The rules sometimes create scenarios that don't make sense unless you use your imagination. What would a Warboss with two bikes look like? I'm imagining the two bikes, racing side by side with the Warboss standing astride each seat. A team of Grots is desperately trying to control the handlebars, but occassionally fall off. See... it turns out the rules are representing a potentially real situation, after all. It's not my issue you can't 'forge that narrative' well enough. The Ion Shield/Sanctuary thing is even easier. Two pieces of equipment are mounted to the hull/installed into the chassis. Done.

So, you can image an Ork standing astride two warbikes, but you can't wrap your head around a Knight having only one Ion Shield. Here's question for you: where is the Ion Shirld on a Knight? How do you WYSIWYG it?

SJ

FratHammer wrote:
I don't know how the name Drama God has not lead to being banned on its own. It's obvious by even his user name, he's only here to riel people up.

Actually I am a professor of theatre and drama god is a colloquialism for Dionysus or Bacchus, the mythological God of theatre, wine and dance.

And as for riling people up, we have provided numerous quotes and passages for what the rules say can happen, you and Jeff continually say things like, "the rules states you can't have two ion shields" or "the rules say one replaces the others, yet after continued requests by
fling, myself and others, neither of you have been able to do anything but post the normal rules which you then disregard portions of or misquote rules from other places the you don't even have the text to back up.

Further, through some of the things said earlier, it is very clear that Jeff is not actually very familiar with the Knights army or codex, since he says things like the knight helm relic replaces the normal head gear when a normal knight doesn't even have a piece of wargear like that to replace. Or how the banner replaces the normal one when Knights don't even have a normal banner. You guys know nothing about this faction and continue to argue just to get people going. I'm half convinced fling might be on it just to keep it going and drag the rest of us in to help him.

No offense fling, but they either have a hook in you deep and are dragging you along, or you've got to be in on it. It's just too much of the exact same back and forth over and over and over. Literally every page of this thread has the same arguments just repeated in different ways.

I play Knights and I truly to believe that sanctuary is a second shield giving you a second facing. I have a good and balanced argument for it and I can cite sources to back it up, as many have posted here. If you think you have a great argument to the contrary, that's great, argue it with the next knight player you play but it probably won't be me(since the world is big and the odds are low), but don't be surprised when you end up rolling off for it since people seem to be pretty immovable on their side of this issue. But other than that. No one is going to concede, and to just sit here and rehash the same points over and over is numbing to the mind, no matter which side of the fence you may fall on.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So, you can image an Ork standing astride two warbikes, but you can't wrap your head around a Knight having only one Ion Shield. Here's question for you: where is the Ion Shirld on a Knight? How do you WYSIWYG it?

SJ

Couldn't tell you. I failed my entrance exam when I applied to Mechanicus University. Also, it's completely and totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If it makes you feel better, I imagine the field generators are under the carapace where you can't see them. Sanctuary's field generators also go under the carapace. You can't see them either. There's plenty of space under there. You do lose a couple of cup holders and about 3 inches of leg room though when they install the extra field generators.

In reality, I don't WYSIWYG certain pieces of wargear because I don't have to. There is no published GW material showing what plastic bit represents the Ion Shield wargear, so I assume there isn't one. I assume you knew this though, and are just trying to be difficult.

I can absolutely wrap my head around a Knight only having one piece of wargear called Ion Shield. There is no mechanism in the game currently for a Knight to have more than on piece of wargear called Ion Shield. My contention remains that the Knight has a piece of wargear called Ion Shield (which does stuff) and a piece of wargear called Sanctuary (which also does stuff).

I turn the question back on you. Why can't you wrap your head around a model having two different pieces of wargear and have both of them do something?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So, you can image an Ork standing astride two warbikes, but you can't wrap your head around a Knight having only one Ion Shield. Here's question for you: where is the Ion Shield on a Knight? How do you WYSIWYG it?

I can wrap my mind around it pretty easily. It's what they come with, isn't it?

So, why can't you wrap your mind around this concept?
I have One Ion Shield. I purchase Sanctuary and install it, and also acts like an Ion Shield, which would then give me the equivalent of two Ion Shields. Each Ion Shield has a facing it covers. Simple.

What I can't get my head wrapped around is the concept that the Sanctuary is replacing a piece of Wargear that is not limited to only one per model of, that is not stated to be replacing, upgrading, or any other variant which would have Sanctuary take the place of the base Ion Shield when the rules never tell me to do so in the first place. Why are you trying to put restrictions in that are never mentioned nor stated and run counter to how everything else works in the game?

I not only wrap my head around two pieces of the same wargear with different names, I can point out where the Ion Shield generators are are mounted on the Knight chassis. Now, I've only been playing Knights few two decades, do I can't claim to be an expert, but there are four Shield projectors on each Knight Titan model, one on either side of the waist and one on either side of the cockpit hatch. So, which ones of those are the Ion Shield, and which ones are Sanctuary? The answer is both none of them and all of them. The Ion Shield is a piece of hardware mounted to the chassis. Sanctuary is a tweaked Ion Shield. In order to use Sanctuary, you physicall have to mount it to your Knight.

So, where does the Banner go? Does you mount a second Banner, or just swap out the one that's already there?

Where do you mount the Helmet?

SJ

You are confusing the aesthetics of the model and wysiwyg with the RAW. They have nothing to do with each other. Those items are not pieces of wargear being replaced and that is the issue being discussed.

 Dramagod2 wrote:
You are confusing the aesthetics of the model and wysiwyg with the RAW. They have nothing to do with each other. Those items are not pieces of wargear being replaced and that is the issue being discussed.

Well, you are the expert, after all. My meager understanding of the 40k universe bows to your unerring greatness on all things not rules related.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Dramagod2 wrote:
You are confusing the aesthetics of the model and wysiwyg with the RAW. They have nothing to do with each other. Those items are not pieces of wargear being replaced and that is the issue being discussed.

Well, you are the expert, after all. My meager understanding of the 40k universe bows to your unerring greatness on all things not rules related.

SJ

I'm glad to see you're finally seeing reason.

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So, you can image an Ork standing astride two warbikes, but you can't wrap your head around a Knight having only one Ion Shield. Here's question for you: where is the Ion Shield on a Knight? How do you WYSIWYG it?

I can wrap my mind around it pretty easily. It's what they come with, isn't it?

So, why can't you wrap your mind around this concept?
I have One Ion Shield. I purchase Sanctuary and install it, and also acts like an Ion Shield, which would then give me the equivalent of two Ion Shields. Each Ion Shield has a facing it covers. Simple.

What I can't get my head wrapped around is the concept that the Sanctuary is replacing a piece of Wargear that is not limited to only one per model of, that is not stated to be replacing, upgrading, or any other variant which would have Sanctuary take the place of the base Ion Shield when the rules never tell me to do so in the first place. Why are you trying to put restrictions in that are never mentioned nor stated and run counter to how everything else works in the game?

Well I think Jeff is wrong that you can only have one shield.
You have an Ion Shield, and you purchase Sanctuary which is also an Ion shield. Now you have 2 Ion Shields. You can stick it on the Knight's other shoulder, or on its arm, or on its head, or on its ankle. Still WYSIWYG.

The problem is that the rules for Ion Shields only allow you to use one Ion shield. You pick a Knight, you pick a facing, you move on to the next knight. The other just kind of hangs out and looks cool. You aren't given permission to pick a different facing for each ion shield: you are told to pick one facing for the Knight's shield (singular).
Now you can say that, well, now a Knight has 2 shields we need a context change in the Ion Shield rules to deal with that. Sure, you're probably right. But that's not RAW, its a house rule, and when we start making house rules we can just as easily say it the context shift is to explicitly say that you can only use one shield.

I really didn't mean for this thread to turn into an arguement of circles.. unfortunately both sides have made every point they could possibly make. You either read the rules for or against two. Personally I believe it's two.. I do believe it's due to poor rules writing. But still believe it is two shields you get to select two facings for.

 Dramagod2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Dramagod2 wrote:
You are confusing the aesthetics of the model and wysiwyg with the RAW. They have nothing to do with each other. Those items are not pieces of wargear being replaced and that is the issue being discussed.

Well, you are the expert, after all. My meager understanding of the 40k universe bows to your unerring greatness on all things not rules related.

SJ

I'm glad to see you're finally seeing reason.

The irony is outstanding.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Dramagod2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Dramagod2 wrote:
You are confusing the aesthetics of the model and wysiwyg with the RAW. They have nothing to do with each other. Those items are not pieces of wargear being replaced and that is the issue being discussed.

Well, you are the expert, after all. My meager understanding of the 40k universe bows to your unerring greatness on all things not rules related.

SJ

I'm glad to see you're finally seeing reason.

The irony is outstanding.

SJ

tell me about it.