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.

Trasvi wrote: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'm sorry, but this incorrect. This "context change" comes when having two Ion Shields. Noway else. Which means that it is contained in the RAW. It requires a paradigm shift, true, which is more trying to determine the RAI from the RAW, but it IS in there.

Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote: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'm sorry, but this incorrect. This "context change" comes when having two Ion Shields. Noway else. Which means that it is contained in the RAW. It requires a paradigm shift, true, which is more trying to determine the RAI from the RAW, but it IS in there.

The rules tell you how to choose the facing for the Ion Shields in your army. At deployment and at the start of the enemy's shooting phase, you pick a Knight, and choose the facing for its shield.

It refers to shield in the singular. It doesn't give you permission to choose for each ion shield. Pick one knight, choose one facing, move on to the next knight.

Thus there is no RAW way to determine how to use multiple Ion Shields.


(And 15pts to more than double the durability and counter the greatest weakness of a 3-500pt model is pretty ridiculous; the points cost alone should give away the intent of Sanctuary if we're going to start down the RAI road)

Trasvi wrote:
The rules tell you how to choose the facing for the Ion Shields in your army. At deployment and at the start of the enemy's shooting phase, you pick a Knight, and choose the facing for its shield.

It refers to shield in the singular. It doesn't give you permission to choose for each ion shield. Pick one knight, choose one facing, move on to the next knight.

Thus there is no RAW way to determine how to use multiple Ion Shields.

Misquoting the rule is a poor way to prove your point. The full pertinent statement (not including timing) is, "...{T}he controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering." It is not listed as "Chose a Knight, chose one facing, move on to the next Knight". That is only an interpretation.

This is where the context of having two Ion Shields comes in to play. If all Knights only had one Shield, than treating it as the interpretation is fine. When a Knight carries two Shields, though, putting it as "declare which facing each Ion Shield is covering" is a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase.

So, the context is there. The words are there. The only thing missing is the paradigm to recognize them.

Trasvi wrote:
(And 15pts to more than double the durability and counter the greatest weakness of a 3-500pt model is pretty ridiculous; the points cost alone should give away the intent of Sanctuary if we're going to start down the RAI road)

This is not a discussion about balance. That's what the next forum down is for, or if you want to declare it as HYWPI, that's fine, too. But to use balance as deciding RAW is like peeing on the leg and shouting about rain.

Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
The rules tell you how to choose the facing for the Ion Shields in your army. At deployment and at the start of the enemy's shooting phase, you pick a Knight, and choose the facing for its shield.

It refers to shield in the singular. It doesn't give you permission to choose for each ion shield. Pick one knight, choose one facing, move on to the next knight.

Thus there is no RAW way to determine how to use multiple Ion Shields.

This is where the context of having two Ion Shields comes in to play. If all Knights only had one Shield, than treating it as the interpretation is fine. When a Knight carries two Shields, though, putting it as "declare which facing each Ion Shield is covering" is a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase.

So, the context is there. The words are there. The only thing missing is the paradigm to recognize them.

The words (EACH Ion Shield) are not there.
'The only thing missing is the paradigm to recognize them' == 'Not RAW'.
You need to insert words to make your reading of the rules correct. Those words are not written. As in, rules as written.

Your interpretation adds words that are not written. My interpretation does not add words that are not written - and is also a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase 'declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering.'. In a Rules as Written argument.... pretty easy to see which side wins.

Trying to say points cost is a reason it can't be possible is not a valid arguement period. That's been proven throughout 40k
.Tbh if you can't deal with with a knight with two facings in your army.. maybe 40k isn't the game for you

This thread really needs to be locked. We've gone back and forth on this several times now. Each time, the general consensus is that per RaW you'll get two facings at 4++ with 6++ on the other two facings.

Those arguing against this tend to be a vocal minority arguing about fluff, model aesthetics or 'what makes sense' and persistently refuse to cite any rules text to back up their positions.

To the OP, or anyone reading... Currently, from a Rules as Written standpoint, you can purchase the Sanctuary Relic for certain Imperial Knights. This does not replace the Knight's existing Ion Shield as there is no replacement wording. Since wargear rules are not optional, you must resolve the rules for both the Ion Shield and Sanctuary. For the Ion Shield, you pick a facing and give it a 4++ save. For Sanctuary, you pick a facing, give it a 4++ and give the other facings 6++. There is no wording in the Sanctuary rules telling us that we have to choose the same facing as the Ion Shield. The confusion for many people seems to be manyfold... Firstly, Sanctuary in the fluff is an upgraded Ion Shield. The rules don't call it a replacement, though. Secondly, Sanctuary is 'only' 15 points, which seems high for a second 4++ facing and two 6++ facings. The rules don't care about points values and what is perceived as undercosted. Thirdly, the Knight Titan models supposedly have one set of 'shield projectors' on the model. The rules never identify the shield projectors, so there is no issue of WYSIWYG. The rules also don't tell us what Sanctuary looks like, so we wouldn't know what we have to add. Lastly, the Ion Shield rules tell us to pick a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. This is being misinterpreted to cover both the Ion Shield and Sanctuary. The Ion Shield rules don't tell us to pick Sanctuary's facing. Sanctuary's rules tell us to pick Sanctuary's facing. Not picking one of the two facings is ignoring wargear rules and therefore isn't allowed. You do have the option of picking the same facing for both pieces of wargear, which adds an extra wrinkle, as the opposition's contention that a Knight with Sanctuary should have a 4++ on one facing with 6++ on the other three is one of the valid configurations. It is possible to choose the same facing for both, which would result in that configuration. It is not required to choose the same facing for both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
The rules tell you how to choose the facing for the Ion Shields in your army. At deployment and at the start of the enemy's shooting phase, you pick a Knight, and choose the facing for its shield.

It refers to shield in the singular. It doesn't give you permission to choose for each ion shield. Pick one knight, choose one facing, move on to the next knight.

Thus there is no RAW way to determine how to use multiple Ion Shields.

This is where the context of having two Ion Shields comes in to play. If all Knights only had one Shield, than treating it as the interpretation is fine. When a Knight carries two Shields, though, putting it as "declare which facing each Ion Shield is covering" is a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase.

So, the context is there. The words are there. The only thing missing is the paradigm to recognize them.

The words (EACH Ion Shield) are not there.
'The only thing missing is the paradigm to recognize them' == 'Not RAW'.
You need to insert words to make your reading of the rules correct. Those words are not written. As in, rules as written.

Your interpretation adds words that are not written. My interpretation does not add words that are not written - and is also a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase 'declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering.'. In a Rules as Written argument.... pretty easy to see which side wins.

Sanctuary COUNTS AS an Ion Shield, but isn't 'each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield'. When are you picking the facing for Sanctuary? It's not an optional step. If you don't pick a facing, you're ignoring rules, which isn't an option.

 Kriswall wrote:
This thread really needs to be locked. We've gone back and forth on this several times now. Each time, the general consensus is that per RaW you'll get two facings at 4++ with 6++ on the other two facings.

Those arguing against this tend to be a vocal minority arguing about fluff, model aesthetics or 'what makes sense' and persistently refuse to cite any rules text to back up their positions.

I won't argue fluff, aesthetics, balance, or what makes sense. I'll quote the rules:

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.

Under the Ion Shield rules, the Knight is given permission to declare the facing of its Ion Shield. The singular form is used, and the rest of the paragraph similarly refers to facing in the singular. You are not given permission to declare facings for multiple ion shields per Knight.
Sanctuary likewise refers to Ion Shield in the singular.

In fact, it seems clear now that you are never given permission to declare the facing of the 'shield' from Sanctuary. The Knight only has permission to declare facings for its Ion Shield (singular), (presumably the Ion Shield that all Knights come equipped with). You fully satisfy the rules by picking the facing for ONE Ion Shield and not for sanctuary.

(three things that don't matter at all and...) Lastly, the Ion Shield rules tell us to pick a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. This is being misinterpreted to cover both the Ion Shield and Sanctuary. The Ion Shield rules don't tell us to pick Sanctuary's facing. Sanctuary's rules tell us to pick Sanctuary's facing. Not picking one of the two facings is ignoring wargear rules and therefore isn't allowed. You do have the option of picking the same facing for both pieces of wargear, which adds an extra wrinkle, as the opposition's contention that a Knight with Sanctuary should have a 4++ on one facing with 6++ on the other three is one of the valid configurations. It is possible to choose the same facing for both, which would result in that configuration. It is not required to choose the same facing for both.

Rules quotes are above: Sanctuary's rules don't tell us to pick its facing. Picking the facing for Sanctuary is not compulsory, and in fact you are never given permission to do so, so it is not allowed.
You fully satisfy the rules by picking the facing for ONE Ion Shield and not for sanctuary.
Essentially you end up with your Ion Shield which you pick a facing for, and Sanctuary which you don't pick a facing for, but provides a passive 6+ invulnerable save benefit.

Even if you don't believe the rules are satisfied by picking only one facing, if you want to use two ion shields on one knight, you have to house rule in permission to declare two facings: ie, neither position is correct RAW.

Trasvi wrote:
Your interpretation adds words that are not written. My interpretation does not add words that are not written - and is also a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase 'declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering.'. In a Rules as Written argument.... pretty easy to see which side wins.

Sanctuary COUNTS AS an Ion Shield, but isn't 'each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield'. When are you picking the facing for Sanctuary? It's not an optional step. If you don't pick a facing, you're ignoring rules, which isn't an option.

If you do pick a facing, you're going against the rules (by picking 2 different facings / one facing twice) for your Ion Shield(s), which is not an option.

Just because the rules break both ways, doesn't mean breaking them the way you want to correct. Given the nature of GW's rule writing it is entirely possible for all interpretations to be wrong.

Trasvi wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
This thread really needs to be locked. We've gone back and forth on this several times now. Each time, the general consensus is that per RaW you'll get two facings at 4++ with 6++ on the other two facings.

Those arguing against this tend to be a vocal minority arguing about fluff, model aesthetics or 'what makes sense' and persistently refuse to cite any rules text to back up their positions.

I won't argue fluff, aesthetics, balance, or what makes sense. I'll quote the rules:

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.

Under the Ion Shield rules, the Knight is given permission to declare the facing of its Ion Shield. The singular form is used, and the rest of the paragraph similarly refers to facing in the singular. You are not given permission to declare facings for multiple ion shields per Knight.
Sanctuary likewise refers to Ion Shield in the singular.

In fact, it seems clear now that you are never given permission to declare the facing of the 'shield' from Sanctuary. The Knight only has permission to declare facings for its Ion Shield (singular), (presumably the Ion Shield that all Knights come equipped with). You fully satisfy the rules by picking the facing for ONE Ion Shield and not for sanctuary.

(three things that don't matter at all and...) Lastly, the Ion Shield rules tell us to pick a facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. This is being misinterpreted to cover both the Ion Shield and Sanctuary. The Ion Shield rules don't tell us to pick Sanctuary's facing. Sanctuary's rules tell us to pick Sanctuary's facing. Not picking one of the two facings is ignoring wargear rules and therefore isn't allowed. You do have the option of picking the same facing for both pieces of wargear, which adds an extra wrinkle, as the opposition's contention that a Knight with Sanctuary should have a 4++ on one facing with 6++ on the other three is one of the valid configurations. It is possible to choose the same facing for both, which would result in that configuration. It is not required to choose the same facing for both.

Rules quotes are above: Sanctuary's rules don't tell us to pick its facing. Picking the facing for Sanctuary is not compulsory, and in fact you are never given permission to do so, so it is not allowed.
You fully satisfy the rules by picking the facing for ONE Ion Shield and not for sanctuary.
Essentially you end up with your Ion Shield which you pick a facing for, and Sanctuary which you don't pick a facing for, but provides a passive 6+ invulnerable save benefit.

Even if you don't believe the rules are satisfied by picking only one facing, if you want to use two ion shields on one knight, you have to house rule in permission to declare two facings: ie, neither position is correct RAW.

Trasvi wrote:
Your interpretation adds words that are not written. My interpretation does not add words that are not written - and is also a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase 'declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering.'. In a Rules as Written argument.... pretty easy to see which side wins.

Sanctuary COUNTS AS an Ion Shield, but isn't 'each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield'. When are you picking the facing for Sanctuary? It's not an optional step. If you don't pick a facing, you're ignoring rules, which isn't an option.

If you do pick a facing, you're going against the rules (by picking 2 different facings / one facing twice) for your Ion Shield(s), which is not an option.

Just because the rules break both ways, doesn't mean breaking them the way you want to correct. Given the nature of GW's rule writing it is entirely possible for all interpretations to be wrong.

I appreciated the well thought out and reasoned interpretation. I still disagree. I still think you're ignoring the rules for Sanctuary. It counts as an Ion Shield, but you're not treating it like an Ion Shield when resolving its rules.

Ultimately, this is why the thread needs to be locked. We have opponents who are reasonable and rational, without name calling who can't convince each other.

Ask your TO before attending an event or talk to your opponent directly and dice off if you can't agree.

Look up "counts as" in the rulebook.

Deathmachine wrote:
Look up "counts as" in the rulebook.

I don't have my rulebook handy. Can you provide the citation as well as page and paragraph?

Trasvi wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
The rules tell you how to choose the facing for the Ion Shields in your army. At deployment and at the start of the enemy's shooting phase, you pick a Knight, and choose the facing for its shield.

It refers to shield in the singular. It doesn't give you permission to choose for each ion shield. Pick one knight, choose one facing, move on to the next knight.

Thus there is no RAW way to determine how to use multiple Ion Shields.

This is where the context of having two Ion Shields comes in to play. If all Knights only had one Shield, than treating it as the interpretation is fine. When a Knight carries two Shields, though, putting it as "declare which facing each Ion Shield is covering" is a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase.

So, the context is there. The words are there. The only thing missing is the paradigm to recognize them.

The words (EACH Ion Shield) are not there.
'The only thing missing is the paradigm to recognize them' == 'Not RAW'.
You need to insert words to make your reading of the rules correct. Those words are not written. As in, rules as written.

Your interpretation adds words that are not written. My interpretation does not add words that are not written - and is also a perfectly viable interpretation and usage of the phrase 'declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering.'. In a Rules as Written argument.... pretty easy to see which side wins.

How fascinating that you deleted the actual rule quoted in order to support your position...

Here is the important part you left out: "...{T}he controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield is covering."

So, "each Ion Shield" IS in there. There is a term of "Imperial Knight's" in the middle there, but when dealing with multiple objects, a possessive noun isn't as necessary as you seem to think, especially if it does not change the flow of the sentence. Leaving out "Imperial Knight's" does change the focus of the statement from meaning either "each Imperial Knight" or "each Ion Shield", to being just "each Ion Shield" which means that for every one Ion Shield, a facing is chosen.

And that is what I mean about missing a paradigm. The words are there, and in proper order. But this goes back to the concept of the rabbit/duck picture.

You see what you choose to see. Can you see both rabbit and duck in this picture, or just one? With the Ion Shield and Sanctuary concept, you are only seeing one.

 Dramagod2 wrote:

 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.

Ok, I'll tell you. I was pointing out that your rules interpretations are so flawed, your views on the fluff are also suspect. The irony is that you missed it, like you miss it when you interpret rules or fluff.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Dramagod2 wrote:

 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.

Ok, I'll tell you. I was pointing out that your rules interpretations are so flawed, your views on the fluff are also suspect. The irony is that you missed it, like you miss it when you interpret rules or fluff.

SJ

All I can say is thank you for proving your obliviousness....

 Dramagod2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Dramagod2 wrote:

 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.

Ok, I'll tell you. I was pointing out that your rules interpretations are so flawed, your views on the fluff are also suspect. The irony is that you missed it, like you miss it when you interpret rules or fluff.

SJ

All I can say is thank you for proving your obliviousness....

There's that irony, again.

SJ

lol

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Dramagod2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Dramagod2 wrote:

 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.

Ok, I'll tell you. I was pointing out that your rules interpretations are so flawed, your views on the fluff are also suspect. The irony is that you missed it, like you miss it when you interpret rules or fluff.

SJ

All I can say is thank you for proving your obliviousness....

There's that irony, again.

SJ

Are you sure you see it? Because I don't think you do friend....

Lol

All lol's aside, though, at least we can agree on checking with your opponent or TO first, and have all your Rabbit-Ducks in a row if you need to justify whichever position you want in the sure to occur argument.

Good times.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Lol

All lol's aside, though, at least we can agree on checking with your opponent or TO first, and have all your Rabbit-Ducks in a row if you need to justify whichever position you want in the sure to occur argument.

Good times.

SJ

I completely agree, good sir!

Actually, if you are the Knight player and think you can only pick one facing, you don't have to ask anyone. Both positions support choosing the same facing for both pieces of wargear. Only one position requires it.

 Kriswall wrote:
Actually, if you are the Knight player and think you can only pick one facing, you don't have to ask anyone. Both positions support choosing the same facing for both pieces of wargear. Only one position requires it.

I actually am a Knight player, and my position is based on how the rules are written. Not what I want the rules to mean, just what the rules are written to convey.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I actually am a Knight player, and my position is based on how the rules are written. Not what I want the rules to mean, just what the rules are written to convey.

Says the person who thinks that he has to replace a piece of Wargear when he's not told to replace it....

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I actually am a Knight player, and my position is based on how the rules are written. Not what I want the rules to mean, just what the rules are written to convey.

Says the person who thinks that he has to replace a piece of Wargear when he's not told to replace it....

I play Knights, I'm just not a douche bag about it. Save the exploits for other lists, Knights need to be above reproach if they are to be accepted.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Actually, if you are the Knight player and think you can only pick one facing, you don't have to ask anyone. Both positions support choosing the same facing for both pieces of wargear. Only one position requires it.

I actually am a Knight player, and my position is based on how the rules are written. Not what I want the rules to mean, just what the rules are written to convey.

SJ

Your position is based on how you interpret the written rules, just as mine is based on how I interpret the written rules. I am entirely impartial and have no feelings one way or the other in terms of 'what I want the rules to mean'. I don't want them to mean anything.

You're making it sound like you're completely impartial and that the opposing side has some sort of hidden agenda and is trying to twist the rules to make them match that agenda. I don't think that's happening at all. I do think you might have some confirmation bias going on though. I'm basing this on how you bring up things like how Knight models don't have multiple shield generators so the rules must have meant Sanctuary to be a replacement or how most of the other wargear for Knights is replacement based, so Sanctuary must be also.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I actually am a Knight player, and my position is based on how the rules are written. Not what I want the rules to mean, just what the rules are written to convey.

Says the person who thinks that he has to replace a piece of Wargear when he's not told to replace it....

I play Knights, I'm just not a douche bag about it. Save the exploits for other lists, Knights need to be above reproach if they are to be accepted.

SJ

No one said you were a d-bag. I applaud you avoiding what you believe to be an exploit. We aren't really debating HIWPI though. We're debating RaW. I would also tend to play as one facing only because I believe it was GW's intent for it to work that way. I don't believe this is what they wrote though. Had they intended for Sanctuary to replace the Ion Shield, they could have simply said so. They didn't. At best, this is confusing. At worst, it requires an Errata or FAQ.

I am impartial, and I go by RAW. You might have noted at a point earlier in this thread when I realize my position was flawed, and made a correction? It's about following the rules as written.

SJ

Question:
Ion shield facing stays the same until you change it.

The main camp against double shielding says there ARE 2 shields but you are only allowed to face a single one per knight.

So I start my deployment, and choose to face my ion shield on the front arc.
Then I get to my opponent's first shooting phase. I now select sanctuary to face say...the left, and do not select the ion shield to change, assuming that I'm not allowed to reface both in the same turn.

It sounds like this is a legal way to adhere to what the "two shields but only face one" crowd's idea but still get two facings covered. Am I wrong?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I am impartial, and I go by RAW. You might have noted at a point earlier in this thread when I realize my position was flawed, and made a correction? It's about following the rules as written.

Considering the ironic lovefest you and another made with that statement, it's hard to see it.

And when discussing the RAW of the argument, using "I'm not going to be a douche-bag with it" as a reason is not RAW and is quote counter-productive. That is the definition of HYWPI. I have no problem with how you may choose to play it so long as you acknowledge it as such. Just don't tell me the words are saying something they don't.

RAW is that purchasing Sanctuary grants the Knight a second Ion Shield and you must choose a Facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. If you don't want to give a newbie an easier time or make Knights easier to accept, have them be on the same facing, there is nothing stopping you. If the other guy is being an a-hole, have them be on different facings.

Can we lock this thread already?

All the arguments have been made, and neither side will come to a consensus.

Talk to your TO and opponent about it before the game.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Question:
Ion shield facing stays the same until you change it.

The main camp against double shielding says there ARE 2 shields but you are only allowed to face a single one per knight.

So I start my deployment, and choose to face my ion shield on the front arc.
Then I get to my opponent's first shooting phase. I now select sanctuary to face say...the left, and do not select the ion shield to change, assuming that I'm not allowed to reface both in the same turn.

It sounds like this is a legal way to adhere to what the "two shields but only face one" crowd's idea but still get two facings covered. Am I wrong?

This is a very interesting observation.

SJ, Im curious to hear what your side of the fence would think of this interpretation. It still seems to hold true with your idea of only being able to pick on shield per phase. And since there doesnt seem to be as much argument about the fact that you have two shield, and it seems to be more centered over whether or not you can choose two facings, this seems like an interesting workaround which falls within both RaW interpretations.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Can we lock this thread already?

All the arguments have been made, and neither side will come to a consensus.

Talk to your TO and opponent about it before the game.

I actually have an open question a couple posts above yours that presents a new angle. Accepting the idea from the "you can't face two shields" viewpoint that you can only face one shield per turn, and simply facing one of them to front on deployment and leaving it there, and using the other to move around during enemy shooting phases.

I'd like to hear the responses to it.

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I am impartial, and I go by RAW. You might have noted at a point earlier in this thread when I realize my position was flawed, and made a correction? It's about following the rules as written.

Considering the ironic lovefest you and another made with that statement, it's hard to see it.

And when discussing the RAW of the argument, using "I'm not going to be a douche-bag with it" as a reason is not RAW and is quote counter-productive. That is the definition of HYWPI. I have no problem with how you may choose to play it so long as you acknowledge it as such. Just don't tell me the words are saying something they don't.

RAW is that purchasing Sanctuary grants the Knight a second Ion Shield and you must choose a Facing for each Knight's Ion Shield. If you don't want to give a newbie an easier time or make Knights easier to accept, have them be on the same facing, there is nothing stopping you. If the other guy is being an a-hole, have them be on different facings.

Until you prove your claims, it's a house rule, not RAW. As to my statement from on not being a douche bag while playing my Knights, it means I play by RAW, not house rules.

 Dramagod2 wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Question:
Ion shield facing stays the same until you change it.

The main camp against double shielding says there ARE 2 shields but you are only allowed to face a single one per knight.

So I start my deployment, and choose to face my ion shield on the front arc.
Then I get to my opponent's first shooting phase. I now select sanctuary to face say...the left, and do not select the ion shield to change, assuming that I'm not allowed to reface both in the same turn.

It sounds like this is a legal way to adhere to what the "two shields but only face one" crowd's idea but still get two facings covered. Am I wrong?

This is a very interesting observation.

SJ, Im curious to hear what your side of the fence would think of this interpretation. It still seems to hold true with your idea of only being able to pick on shield per phase. And since there doesnt seem to be as much argument about the fact that you have two shield, and it seems to be more centered over whether or not you can choose two facings, this seems like an interesting workaround which falls within both RaW interpretations.

If it could be proven that two Ion Shields can exist on the same Knight, your question does pose an interesting question. Since it hasn't been prove, and the rules already only support one Ion Shield, no new rules need to be created in order to handle your question.

SJ