IK - ionic Flare Shied and Baronial Court ionic shield wall

[One_happy_hippy]

Hi, apologies if you have already seen this on Dakk, I hope you don't mind me asking here as well. I'm sure this will have been answered about a billion times but my google-fu is obviously lacking.

 

I am planning on running a knight army using the Baronial Court formation and incorporating Knight Atrapos.

 

The formation rules state:

 

"Ionic Shieldwall: As long as an Imperial Knight from this Formation is within 6" of one or more other Imperial Knights from this Formation, it adds I to any invulnerable saving throw it makes for its ion shield on the front arc"

 

Does this rule apply to the Atrapos Knights ionic flare shield in the same way it would to a regular knight's ion shield. In the description of the Ionic flare shield it does describe it as an 'ion shield' ("Ionic Flare Shield - When a Cerastus Knight-Atrapos is deployed, and subsequently at the start of each of the opposing side’s Shooting phases, the Cerastus Knight-Atrapos’ controlling player must declare which facing each Cerastus Knight-Atrapos’ ion shield is covering.")

 

I wasn't sure Re: RAW as the ionic flare shield in its description is described as a ion shield and i couldn't remember if the Atrapos was released before or after 7th Ed Imperial Knights codex and thus is this would have been taken in to account.

 

Is there a FAQ for this anywhere? I intend to use the formation in a tournament and would like to get it right.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Tyriks]

I think it would count, as the ionic flare shield is clearly an ion shield, just a more specific version.

[jeffersonian000]

Unless it tells us it counts as an Ion Shield, it isn't an Ion Shield.

 

We went through this not to long ago with the Gauntlet Ion Shield, and with the Sanctuary relic.

 

SJ

[Echelon]

I agree with Jeff here. It is a type of ion shield but not exactly an ion shield. I am planning on running a baronial court as well. Good stuff for sure! But I don't think it would apply to that shield. I would check with your opponent and tourney organizer before hand though. They might interpret it differently.

[Jolemai]

FWIW, what is posted on dakka dakka has no relevance here so don't worry about cross posting :)

[Tyriks]

The rule itself refers to it as an "Ion Shield". If the flare shield isn't an ion shield, then the rule makes no sense, since it refers to an item the Atrapos wouldn't have.

[One_happy_hippy]

Yeah it was the reference to the ion Sheild in the rule that made me wonder.

 

I'm currently building a Legio Astorum Mechanicum Knight Army to go with my Titan that will eventually total 8 knight however only the first four are in progress. I thought I'd add a little teaser and start a WIP thread if there is sufficient interest.

 

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n161/one_happy_hippy/IMG_6294.jpg

[Vel'Cona]

Please do! 

[Echelon]

There is interest. There are not many knight players so we need all the advertising we can get. If you ever plan on running the baronial court with allies I have created a post in the army list section that goes over a bunch of different allies for the specific baronial court I am making.

 

Great work so far!

[jeffersonian000]

Ionic Flare Shields are never referred to as Ion Shields in their own rules, each instance of self reference is stated as Ionic Flare Shield. Its pretty clear that while they are a similar system, they are not the same system.

 

The Ion Gauntlet Shield does state that it is used just like a standard Ion Shield, with exceptions. An argument can be made either way.

 

The Baronial Court Shield Wall referes to Ion Shields.

 

The IK draft FAQ tells us that Sanctuary replaces the existing Ion Shield. Since Ionic Flare Shields and Ion Gauntlet Shields are not "Ion Shields" on their own, Sanctuary might be usable or it might not be with those two systems. Per RAW, probably not. Per RAI, maybe. Ask your TO or opponent.

 

As a general rule, if it modifies "X", and it isn't "X", then it doesn't modify it.

 

SJ

Edited January 18, 2017 by jeffersonian000

[One_happy_hippy]

The reason I queried it is because the Ionic flare sheild uses both the words 'Ionic Flare Shield' and 'Ion Shield' in the rules.

 

[Direct quote from Data sheet]

"Ionic Flare Shield

When a Cerastus Knight-Atrapos is deployed, and subsequently at the start of each of the opposing side’s Shooting phases, the Cerastus Knight-Atrapos’ controlling player must declare which facing each Cerastus Knight-Atrapos’ ion shield is covering. The choices are front, left side, right side or rear.

 

The Knight has a 4+ invulnerable save against all hits and the strength of any Shooting attack against it is reduced by -1, the effect increasing to -2 if the weapon has the Blast

or Template special rules (note however that this strength reduction has no effect on Destroyer or Haywire attacks). Ionic flare shields are repositioned before any attacks are carried out in the Shooting phase and may not be used to make saving throws against close combat attacks."

 

Quoted from: https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/Horus_Heresy/Cerastus-Knight-Atrapos.pdf

 

Uses Ion sheild in first paragraph and Ionic flare shield in second.

 

EDIT: WRT RAW I suspect that you are correct and that the use of the words Ion shield in the rule is lazy copy and past from another data sheet however it does add ambiguity to the issue and potential wiggle room should one want to argue it on a RAI or individual game basis.

Edited January 18, 2017 by One_happy_hippy

[Tyriks]

Ionic Flare Shields are never referred to as Ion Shields in their own rules, each instance of self reference is stated as Ionic Flare Shield. Its pretty clear that while they are a similar system, they are not the same system.

The Ion Gauntlet Shield does state that it is used just like a standard Ion Shield, with exceptions. An argument can be made either way.

The Baronial Court Shield Wall referes to Ion Shields.

The IK draft FAQ tells us that Sanctuary replaces the existing Ion Shield. Since Ionic Flare Shields and Ion Gauntlet Shields are not "Ion Shields" on their own, Sanctuary might be usable or it might not be with those two systems. Per RAW, probably not. Per RAI, maybe. Ask your TO or opponent.

As a general rule, if it modifies "X", and it isn't "X", then it doesn't modify it.

SJ

You're wrong. Reread the rule, it does in fact refer to it as an ion shield. That's why this is unclear.

[jeffersonian000]

I was about to quote the Ionic Flare Shield descriptions for the Atrapos, Stiryx, and Magaera from the Tahgmata ebook, which never use the term "Ion Shield", when I thought FW might have published two different sets of rules.

 

Per the Tahgmata, they only self-reference as Ionic Flare Shields.

 

Per the downloadable PDF, they do indeed use the term Ion Shield.

 

Got to love GW/FW, they just can't get their own rules right!

 

SJ

Edited January 19, 2017 by jeffersonian000

[One_happy_hippy]

Unfortunately I dont own the Taghmata book so I wasn't aware there was a difference in the way the rules are written. I've been avoiding buying a copy as I'll then HAVE to build a Mechanicum army! Edited January 19, 2017 by One_happy_hippy

[jeffersonian000]

Unfortunately I dont own the Taghmata book so I wasn't aware there was a difference in the way the rules are written. I've been avoiding buying a copy as I'll then HAVE to build a Mechanicum army!

I wanted the Warlord Titan rules, and rules fir all the weird HH weapons, so Tahgmata seemed like a good buy. And I definitely did not expect FW to publish two vesions of the same rule, either. If I were your opponent or TO, I'd agree that Ionic Flare Shields are Ion Shields in 40k (but not 30k!).

 

SJ

[Vel'Cona]

It's really annoying the contradictions in writing between GW and FW.  The fact that GW has blessed FW being blended into 7th edition while FW in no way bothers to balance or playtest their rules only exacerbates the problem.  In this case, I'd definitely argue for opponent's agreement on this rule and if in doubt err on the side of it NOT being an Ion Shield (since it's highly beneficial and could be read as WAAC).

[jeffersonian000]

It's really annoying the contradictions in writing between GW and FW. The fact that GW has blessed FW being blended into 7th edition while FW in no way bothers to balance or playtest their rules only exacerbates the problem. In this case, I'd definitely argue for opponent's agreement on this rule and if in doubt err on the side of it NOT being an Ion Shield (since it's highly beneficial and could be read as WAAC).

FW does play test and balance their units, erroribg on point increases for potential abuse. GW seems to have stopped play testing in early 5th.

 

SJ

[Vel'Cona]

Are you so sure?  The rules for Peltasts are incredibly overpowered from what I've seen.  

[jeffersonian000]

Pretty sure. Although I have no idea what Petlasts are.

 

SJ

[Tyriks]

Basically, they are souped up Sternguard for the AdMech.

[jeffersonian000]

Which book are those in? They look like Skitarii Vanguard/Rangers with head and weapon swaps.

 

SJ

[Tyriks]

Rules are on forgeworld for download, the book isn't out yet.

[jeffersonian000]

The kinetic hammershot seems a bit overstuffed with rules. AP3 and Rending? Okay, I guess.

 

SJ