Shield Guard

[cfox5012]

Heard some people knocking the Sheild Guard ability and was not sure why, so please enlighten me....thanks.

[AJ the Ronin]

If the attacking model do not have LOS to the model with Shield Guard, the model with Shield Guard won't get to trigger the Shield Guard ability.

[jdeckert]

Which means that all you have to do to ignore shield guard is turn your base a little so that the shield guarding model is no longer in your front arc. Or screen with your own troops/terrain. It means that you can ignore the ability pretty much whenever you want.

[2LiveIs2Die]

It the same way it worked when you could turn your model not to see cover, your target didn't get cover.
If you can't see the shield guard then it doesn't happen.

[Trollz]

It the same way it worked when you could turn your model not to see cover, your target didn't get cover.
If you can't see the shield guard then it doesn't happen.

This is no longer applicable as of January's Errata. The new ruling for determining cover is based off the full volume of the attacking model, not just their front arc.

Edit: I was not correcting you, but was merely further elaborating that their may be hope for a similar errata for shield guard. Re-reading my post, I thought it came off as more of a correction than extrapolation.

[The Happy Anarchist]

We are all expecting similar errata on Shield Guard.

[AJ the Ronin]

Errata is being published once a year right?

[Demeritus]

Errata is being published once a year right?

There is no official number of times, I think their plan is to do it quarterly as they deem necessary so approximately every 3 months but there is no guarantee that they will release one every 3 months.

[AJ the Ronin]

Point is, since Mk.2 there being 2 errata documents? 3 tops right?

[eliassmith27]

It's the "I can't see you, so you're not there" mentality. It need's an Errata

[Kenlen]

Realistic fix would be "the shield guarding model must have line of sight to the attacker." Stops dumb stuff like being able to shield guard a model you are hiding behind.

[Lord Sessadore]

Realistic fix would be "the shield guarding model must have line of sight to the attacker." Stops dumb stuff like being able to shield guard a model you are hiding behind.

That, and removing the reference of targeting. "This model is directly hit instead of the original target" or similar, instead of "this model becomes the target".

[AJ the Ronin]

That, and removing the reference of targeting. "This model is directly hit instead of the original target" or similar, instead of "this model becomes the target".

This I disagree, because it will allow some weird things, like a protectorate jack with the "no shooting" choir song jumping in on a shot it is not a legal target in the fist place.

Common sense and game balance need to find common ground.

[sarukamate]

This I disagree, because it will allow some weird things, like a protectorate jack with the "no shooting" choir song jumping in on a shot it is not a legal target in the fist place.

Common sense and game balance need to find common ground.

Could you explain why you consider such a situation to be against common sense or potentially unbalancing?
After all, you don't have to use shield guard against a shot unless you want to; and if you prefer to give up your "no shooting" choir benefit to use shield guard instead... why not? It's only one use per turn, you paid the points for access to both abilities and it doesn't seem like a "broken combo" to me.
Regarding "common sense"... "No shooting" choir song means the enemy cannot choose to target your model - if I use shield guard the enemy still hasn't chosen to target that model. While clearly not the existing rule, I don't find that any more confusing or contrary to common sense than a steathed model using shield guard being automatically hit (in the sense that by electing to use shield guard I lose the benefit of that other ability), which is healthily and sensibly enshrined in the rules.
Maybe there are some really problematic things out there that make this really hard to rule on but I find them hard to identify.

[AJ the Ronin]

Common sense: models with shield guard should be able to use the ability if it has Los to the attacker.

Game Balance: Removing the word "target" from shield guard means that when using the ability not only you deny the original intended target (basically what the rule should do) , it also deny any trigger or effect activated by being targeted since the model will only be "hit" (probably not what rule should do).

[vintersbastard]

Point is, since Mk.2 there being 2 errata documents? 3 tops right?

Nah, four. It's a roughly twice a year schedule.

[AJ the Ronin]

Nah, four. It's a roughly twice a year schedule.

Thank you. So, just before Templecon and Gencon? That means there should be a new document by late July, early August.

[jandrese]

I would make the Shield Guard model "directly hit", not just "hit". That should clear up most oddball interactions.

[MagnustheJust]

Or just add "...regardless of LOS." to the end of the shield guard rule. You only get to use it once per turn, so it would not really crank the power level up...

[sarukamate]

Common sense: models with shield guard should be able to use the ability if it has Los to the attacker.

OK, I see what you mean here now. Thanks for clarifying. I'd have to agree with you.

Game Balance: Removing the word "target" from shield guard means that when using the ability not only you deny the original intended target (basically what the rule should do) , it also deny any trigger or effect activated by being targeted since the model will only be "hit" (probably not what rule should do).

Here I'm afraid I'm still not sure what the issue you have is. Which abilities (or kinds of abilities that may exist in the future) which trigger on being targeted (or prevent targeting) are you thinking of that would cause a problem?

[DaPreacherMan43]

Why can't shield guard work if the model with shield guard has Los with the original target? It removes the Los tricks, and we already have magic bullets that go around stuff, why can't you have a magic effect that 'sucks' the bullet off the target back to th unit with shield guard?

It should be dependent on the attacker but on the target.

Oh well, what do I know......

[jdeckert]

I think that even requiring the shield guarding model to have LOS is a fairly serious nerf. Since he's often used to shield medium or large bases, a small based model could fairly easily get screened by its own troops. Forget about shield guarding Karchev from Eiryss, for example.

[MagnustheJust]

Karchev is kind of a bad example. He's fat, old, & slow - she will just run circles around him, stripping his focus all day long.

[jdeckert]

I think that makes him a great example. Karchev really needs the bokur, or any list with Eiryss becomes essentially a hard counter. If the bokur is useless in this capacity, it's a bad idea to take Karchev if there's a chance you'll run into her (i.e. every tournament ever). There are of course a ton of other examples, because you're likely to take a bokur with a medium based or larger caster that is hard to screen anyway.