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.

Your premise is an "Affirming the Consequence" fallacy, because you assert that Sanctuary is a seperate feature from the base Ion Shiekd every Knight has, there by affirming that "counts as" equals "the same as", you attempt to create a consequence that ignores the fact that there is never more than one Ion Shield. The language of the Ion Shield rules concern only one shield being present, while the language of Sanctuary tells us that the relic is that Ion Shield plus more rules. By attempting the separate the base Ion Shield from the relic Sanctuary, you are implying that two states exist when only one exists.

My error was reading Sanctuary to imply that the 6++ save was also treated as an Ion Shield, which I now see was an incorrect assumption. Your error is in assuming that Sanctary as a separate piece of wargear rather than an upgrade to the existing wargear.

SJ

Where does I say there is never more than one jon shield?

Where does it say that Sanctuary is an upgrade to an existing piece of wargear rather than a separate piece?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Your premise is an "Affirming the Consequence" fallacy, because you assert that Sanctuary is a seperate feature from the base Ion Shiekd every Knight has, there by affirming that "counts as" equals "the same as", you attempt to create a consequence that ignores the fact that there is never more than one Ion Shield. The language of the Ion Shield rules concern only one shield being present, while the language of Sanctuary tells us that the relic is that Ion Shield plus more rules. By attempting the separate the base Ion Shield from the relic Sanctuary, you are implying that two states exist when only one exists.

My error was reading Sanctuary to imply that the 6++ save was also treated as an Ion Shield, which I now see was an incorrect assumption. Your error is in assuming that Sanctary as a separate piece of wargear rather than an upgrade to the existing wargear.

SJ

Who is assuming a consequence fallacy?

Simple facts are:
Every Knight carries one Ion Shield.
The only restriction that exists for carrying multiple base Ion Shields is there is no option to purchase another, aside from Relics.
Sanctuary is an Ion Shield and is never stated to replace the base Shield.

So, of course we consider Sanctuary a separate piece of Wargear. This is no different than a Chaplain taking the Shield Eternal. He doesn't lose his Rosarius when taking it, even though the Shield is better. So, the Chaplain then has a base 3+/3++/4++ Save group to work with.

You are assuming a consequence and basing a ruling on that more than applying what is written rather clearly.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Your premise is an "Affirming the Consequence" fallacy, because you assert that Sanctuary is a seperate feature from the base Ion Shiekd every Knight has, there by affirming that "counts as" equals "the same as", you attempt to create a consequence that ignores the fact that there is never more than one Ion Shield. The language of the Ion Shield rules concern only one shield being present, while the language of Sanctuary tells us that the relic is that Ion Shield plus more rules. By attempting the separate the base Ion Shield from the relic Sanctuary, you are implying that two states exist when only one exists.

My error was reading Sanctuary to imply that the 6++ save was also treated as an Ion Shield, which I now see was an incorrect assumption. Your error is in assuming that Sanctary as a separate piece of wargear rather than an upgrade to the existing wargear.

SJ

Lol. I've not assumed anything. I have proven every step take. You have committed the logical fallacy you accuse.

The premise that "counts as an Ion Shield" means "counts as your Ion Shield" isn't a premise as those two things don't have the same meaning. Thus you must present so premises that lead to that conclusion. I await those premises.

I wish i can take sanctuary on all my IK.

 Filch wrote:
I wish i can take sanctuary on all my IK.

According to Jeffersonian000 you can as apparently it and your normal Ion Shield are the same thing. So every Knight has it as standard apparently.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Filch wrote:
I wish i can take sanctuary on all my IK.

According to Jeffersonian000 you can as apparently it and your normal Ion Shield are the same thing. So every Knight has it as standard apparently.

There you go now with personal attacks. Is your conviction waning?

SJ

So are Sanctuary and the normal Ion Shield the same thing? This was your claim at the top of this very page.

Nah its actually another straw man

Or do you have any evidence that Sanctuary is either an upgrade to your existing Ion Shield or a replacement?

Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield with extra rules, and all Knights have an Ion Shield. The rules support the use of only one Ion Shield per Knight. Therefore, Sanctuary effectively replaces the standard Ion Shield, rather than adding a second.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield with extra rules, and all Knights have an Ion Shield. The rules support the use of only one Ion Shield per Knight. Therefore, Sanctuary effectively replaces the standard Ion Shield, rather than adding a second.

SJ

Umm.. Where does it state a Knight may only have one Shield? What in the rules only support one Shield exclusively?

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield with extra rules, and all Knights have an Ion Shield. The rules support the use of only one Ion Shield per Knight. Therefore, Sanctuary effectively replaces the standard Ion Shield, rather than adding a second.

SJ

Umm.. Where does it state a Knight may only have one Shield? What in the rules only support one Shield exclusively?

It doesn't say it anywhere, they are simply inferring it because the rules for ion shield refer to it as a singular item. When it would make absolutely no sense for it to refer to it as ion shields since the knight only comes stock with one.

SJ, by your logic, a model could only ever take one assault weapon because the rules for it refer to it as a singular item and not as a plural.

If anything, the only think you could say about Sanctuary is that the singular nature of it, as in "all facings not cover by the ion shield" simply supports the idea that the facings not covered by THAT PARTICULAR ion shield recieve the 6++, which would in effect mean that the facing covered by the knights stock ion shield receives the 4++ for the shield as well as the 6++ for sanctuary. The 4++ is simply the better save and is therefore used. This would even open the option that if something were able to take away a specific invul save, like removing the 4++, the the 6++ would still be present in its absence.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's another thing to think about. If there was a special weapon called "Fire Hands" and in its rules, it said "Fire Hands counts as a bolt pistol. When firing the pistol the user may reroll to hit." and I then purchased that weapon for a model with a pistol. WOuld that model have one weapon or two. WOuld it have the bolt pistol AND Fire Hands, or would Fire Hands automatically replace the bolt pistol? And which weapons would have the ability to reroll to hit?

If you would say that the model would have 2 weapons, then how is that different than this situation? Obviously we know that you would only be able to fire one pistol, so you might try to argue that, but we only know that because the rules specifically tell us so. If they didn't, it would be assumed that a model can fire all it's weapons, as it was before that rule was added.

If you believe that only FireHands would get to reroll, then it follows the exact same logic that the initial shield would continue to function normally and the new shield would work normally as well.

 Dramagod2 wrote:
It doesn't say it anywhere, they are simply inferring it because the rules for ion shield refer to it as a singular item. When it would make absolutely no sense for it to refer to it as ion shields since the knight only comes stock with one.

Well, I can't find it, and you can't find it, but if they have any idea where it is, it would be helpful to present it instead of just declaring it. After all, they have offered nothing as proof for their claims, so the question if for them.

 Dramagod2 wrote:
...Obviously we know that you would only be able to fire one pistol...

Um, Gunslinger rule....

But still, by their argument, it wouldn't apply, since they are both the same type of Wargear, never mind that they have two of them, and never mind that Gunslinger specifically allows for firing both Pistols and do not make a distinction against it if they are the same type of Wargear, i.e. two Bolt Pistols.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield with extra rules, and all Knights have an Ion Shield.

Correct you've started well and stated things that the rules say.

The rules support the use of only one Ion Shield per Knight.

The rules say no such thing unless you can say where this rule is found.

Therefore, Sanctuary effectively replaces the standard Ion Shield, rather than adding a second.

SJ

Again the rules say no such thing. Even if the rules state all Knights only ever have 1 Ion shield the more specific nature of Sanctuary and how it is added to your wargear means it would still result in 2 Ion Shuelds (and you don't even have a rule as remotely explicit as that just a rule talking about an item using singular language). So for this claim you again need rules support that states what you are claiming.

So you have a premise at the start which is correct. Then you have 2 conclusions based on nothing. What premises are those conclusions based on?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Your premise is an "Affirming the Consequence" fallacy, because you assert that Sanctuary is a seperate feature from the base Ion Shiekd every Knight has, there by affirming that "counts as" equals "the same as", you attempt to create a consequence that ignores the fact that there is never more than one Ion Shield. The language of the Ion Shield rules concern only one shield being present, while the language of Sanctuary tells us that the relic is that Ion Shield plus more rules. By attempting the separate the base Ion Shield from the relic Sanctuary, you are implying that two states exist when only one exists.

My error was reading Sanctuary to imply that the 6++ save was also treated as an Ion Shield, which I now see was an incorrect assumption. Your error is in assuming that Sanctary as a separate piece of wargear rather than an upgrade to the existing wargear.

SJ

The text for Sanctuary in no way, shape or form tells us that it replaces the Ion Shield. We're told that it counts as an Ion Shield, but we're never told that the Knight who takes Sanctuary loses the Ion Shield it started with.

I also agree that there is never more than one ION SHIELD. No Knight has the option to take a second ION SHIELD. Knights do have the option to take an ION SHIELD and a SANCTUARY (which just so happens to count as an Ion Shield with extra rules).

Can you provide the wording telling me that Sanctuary is an upgrade to the Ion Shield and not a separate piece of wargear? It doesn't seem to be in the rules anywhere that I can find.

Can you show me a single piece of Knight wargear other than the Stubber you can have more than one of?

The Rapid Fire Battle Cannon replaces the Thermal Cannon

The Gauntlet replaces the Reaper. The Relic Gauntlet replaces the Reaper, and replaces the Gauntlet on a Gallant. The relic Sword replaces the Reaper.

The Meltgun replaces the hull Stubber

The relic helmet replace the non-stat piece of armor covering the head.

The relic Banner replaces the non-stat banner

Knights has an Ion Shield. Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. The rules only support one Ion Shield per Knight, just like every other piece of wargear other than the Stubber.

You cannot prove that it is legal to take two Ion Shields without implied permission based on the Sanctuary language, the exact same language that implies the relic replaces the standard piece.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Can you show me a single piece of Knight wargear other than the Stubber you can have more than one of?

The Rapid Fire Battle Cannon replaces the Thermal Cannon

The Gauntlet replaces the Reaper. The Relic Gauntlet replaces the Reaper, and replaces the Gauntlet on a Crusader. The relic Sword replaces the Reaper.

The Meltgun replaces the hull Stubber

The relic helmet replace the non-stat piece of armor coveting the head.

The relic Banner replaces the non-stat banner

Knights has an Ion Shield. Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. The rules only support one Ion Shield per Knight, just like every other piece of wargear other than the Stubber.

You cannot prove that it is legal to take two Ion Shields without implied permission based on the Sanctuary language, the exact same language that implies the relic replaces the standard piece.

SJ

Cool so there is a bunch of stuff that replaces stuff for a Knight. Does all that stuff explicitly state is replaces stuff? Oh yes it does.

The last point just shows you still don't understand how a permissive ruleset works. Where is permission to use your Ion Shield on a Tuesday?

We have general permission to have wargear. We have specific permission to start with an Ion Shield. We have specific permission to add Sanctuary (which is an Ion Shield) to our wargear. We have proven all of this. Show denial of that permission or anything that supports your stance at all.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Can you show me a single piece of Knight wargear other than the Stubber you can have more than one of?

The Rapid Fire Battle Cannon replaces the Thermal Cannon

The Gauntlet replaces the Reaper. The Relic Gauntlet replaces the Reaper, and replaces the Gauntlet on a Gallant. The relic Sword replaces the Reaper.

The Meltgun replaces the hull Stubber

The relic helmet replace the non-stat piece of armor covering the head.

The relic Banner replaces the non-stat banner

Knights has an Ion Shield. Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. The rules only support one Ion Shield per Knight, just like every other piece of wargear other than the Stubber.

You cannot prove that it is legal to take two Ion Shields without implied permission based on the Sanctuary language, the exact same language that implies the relic replaces the standard piece.

SJ

How is any of that even remotely relevant? All of those examples have wording around replacement. Sanctuary does not. Apples and Oranges my friend. It's a different situation.

And again. Nobody is saying a Knight Titan can take two pieces of wargear called Ion Shield. They come standard with a piece of wargear called Ion Shield and potentially have the option to take a second piece of wargear called Sanctuary that we are never told replaces the first piece.

Your argument seems to be "all of these other things are replacements, so this thing must also be a replacement despite not saying it's a replacement". Have I understood you correctly?

I still believe the fact that Sanctuary itself only allows for wording as of you only had 1 ion shield, when by the time you take it you must have 2, means you only have 1.
Btw, we do all agree that GW couldn't write a proper rule if their lives depended on it right?

Why does Sanctuary only allow for 1 Ion Shield. When it uses singular in context that could be (and most likely is) referring to the Ion Shield provided by Sanctuary. Thus a Knight with Sanctuary has both a 4++ and an irrelevant 6++ in one facing.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Can you show me a single piece of Knight wargear other than the Stubber you can have more than one of?

Your point? Unless you can demonstrate where it says that a Knight can only have only one piece of any type of Wargear, you may as well be talking about Chinese Tea for the purposes of this conversation.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The Rapid Fire Battle Cannon replaces the Thermal Cannon

The Gauntlet replaces the Reaper. The Relic Gauntlet replaces the Reaper, and replaces the Gauntlet on a Gallant. The relic Sword replaces the Reaper.

The Meltgun replaces the hull Stubber

And the word "replace" is used in those instances where a replacement occurs in the Wargear Lists.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The relic helmet replace the non-stat piece of armor covering the head.

The relic Banner replaces the non-stat banner

Incorrect. The Relics never say they replace them. The Wargear Lists which provide for the opportunity only say, "A model may take one of the following", not "replace a non-existant piece of Wargear". There are no head armour or banner to replace.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Knights has an Ion Shield. Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. The rules only support one Ion Shield per Knight, just like every other piece of wargear other than the Stubber.

So, if a Dreadnought replaces their weapons with two Twin-Linked Autocannons, they can only fire one? Can a Knight only fire one of their two equipped Stubbers? Can they not use the Carapace Weapons they can purchase because it is not replacing a Weapon?

All of these are concepts which you are proposing exist, yet, have yet to provide any reference, either in codex or rulebook, to support them.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You cannot prove that it is legal to take two Ion Shields without implied permission based on the Sanctuary language, the exact same language that implies the relic replaces the standard piece.

Actually, it is very easy to prove that it is legal for an Imperial Knight to have two Ion Shields, one MUST be a Relic, though. It has been demonstrated several times:
1) An Imperial Knight, no matter its form or version, comes with one Ion Shield.
2) Where it has access to the Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses, it may purchase the Sanctuary.
3) Neither the Heirlooms Wargear List nor the Sanctuary state that it replaces the base Ion Shield, it is just purchased, just as the Carapace Weapon, Helmet, or Banner.
4) Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield.
5) The ability to carry two Ion Shields is not forbidden, nor does one necessarily focus nor interfere with the other's use.

Therefore: A Knight which purchases Sanctuary carries an alternative form of Ion Shield while at the same time still carries the base Ion Shield. Each piece of Wargear only addresses its use, and does not address the use of any other Wargear, save for the 6++ that Sanctuary applies not covering the Facing the Ion Shield covers.

If you can prove me wrong, please provide a reference point instead of just a judgement.

it falls down to a previous example used. You have a chapalin. He has a 4++ save with his rosarius. If you give him a storm sheild he now has a 3++. Did he lose the rosarius. No. He has both. When you make a save you can technically make a save with the rosarius if wanted but why not take the better save. You choose the equipment to make the save with.
Now with sanctuary do you have it and a regular ion shield. Yes. Is sanctuary an ion shied. Yes.. Can you make a save with both. No. Can the chaplain make a 4+ save with rosarus then a 3+ with storm shield. No. You have to declaire what is taking the save. This is the same with the ion shield problem.
you have 2 ion shield on your knight now. You need to decide what is going to be used for an upcoming save when ion shield placement is chosen. Do I take the regular ion 4++ shield or the 4++ with the extra 6++ saves.
Its not whether or not it has 2 ion shields because it does. You need to declaire what is going to be used.
There are abilites in the game that allow you to break relics. If sanctuary is broken then you would have your normal ion shield.
The problem arries when people assume that equipment stacks and unless stated it does not. The chappies inv save dosent change to a 2+ because he bas a 4++ and a 3++ and ion shields dont get extra 4++ sides because they have an ion shield and sanctuary

I think you've misunderstood the issue. An Ion Shield only gives you a 4++ in one facing. Thus having 2 gives you the benefit of having that 4++ in 2 facings. It is not that anyone is claiming you get 2 sequential 4++ saves but that you get double the coverage of that 4++.

worldwrekka wrote:
you have 2 ion shield on your knight now. You need to decide what is going to be used for an upcoming save when ion shield placement is chosen. Do I take the regular ion 4++ shield or the 4++ with the extra 6++ saves.
Its not whether or not it has 2 ion shields because it does. You need to declaire what is going to be used.
...
The problem arries when people assume that equipment stacks and unless stated it does not. The chappies inv save dosent change to a 2+ because he bas a 4++ and a 3++ and ion shields dont get extra 4++ sides because they have an ion shield and sanctuary

This isn't a question of Wargear stacking, exactly. No one is arguing that the Knight will be able to use both Saves on the same Hit. This has never been referenced or suggested. It would be counter to the rules regarding Saves that everyone is familiar with where only one Save is allowed.

What we have here are two pieces of Wargear that do a similar job, but it is one that is focused on a specific area, instead of all around. Now, if a person can focus one Wargear on one area, and has two of them, why would they have to focus on the same spot? A Vehicle, like the Knight is, has 4 different sides that can be affected, and an Ion Shield (Relic or base) can focus on one of three of them.

For the sake of argument, if the Ion Shield is facing on Left, and Sanctuary on the Right, one would not have to choose between which 4++ Save would matter, they would never be applied at the same time, any more than a Cover Save that applied to fire from the Right would not be accounted for when determining Cover Saves from the Left.

Now, in the same situation, the 6++ would not even be in play for consideration when dealing with the base Ion Shield because it doesn't work where an Ion Shield is focused.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Can you show me a single piece of Knight wargear other than the Stubber you can have more than one of?

The Rapid Fire Battle Cannon replaces the Thermal Cannon

The Gauntlet replaces the Reaper. The Relic Gauntlet replaces the Reaper, and replaces the Gauntlet on a Crusader. The relic Sword replaces the Reaper.

The Meltgun replaces the hull Stubber

The relic helmet replace the non-stat piece of armor coveting the head.

The relic Banner replaces the non-stat banner

Knights has an Ion Shield. Sanctuary is an Ion Shield. The rules only support one Ion Shield per Knight, just like every other piece of wargear other than the Stubber.

You cannot prove that it is legal to take two Ion Shields without implied permission based on the Sanctuary language, the exact same language that implies the relic replaces the standard piece.

SJ

Cool so there is a bunch of stuff that replaces stuff for a Knight. Does all that stuff explicitly state is replaces stuff? Oh yes it does.

The last point just shows you still don't understand how a permissive ruleset works. Where is permission to use your Ion Shield on a Tuesday?

We have general permission to have wargear. We have specific permission to start with an Ion Shield. We have specific permission to add Sanctuary (which is an Ion Shield) to our wargear. We have proven all of this. Show denial of that permission or anything that supports your stance at all.

You reply to my post shows you have a complete lack of understanding on how the rules in 7th Ed 40k interact. I pointed out how wargear for Knights interact, which is no different from how wargear for other units in the game interact. The example above of a Chaplin with a Storm Shield is spot on, because there is no ability for the Chaplin to choose his 4++ save, ever, while the 3++ save is present. Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield; how many Ion Shields does a Knight-class Titan have? One, just one. Buying a relic Ion Shield for your Knight does not add a second Ion Shield, it adds extra rules to your Ion Shield. The rules for Ion Shields tell you to pick one facing, the rules for Sanctuary do not contradict this, yet adds that the other facings not covered by the Ion Shield are granted 6++ save versus ranged attacks. As has been mentioned before, even if you have two Ion Shields, only one could be faced per the rules. Your attempts to point out ways that two Shields could be faced are house rules, not RAW.

SJ

The rules say that you can only roll one save (armor, cover, invul) against a single wound or pen, They say nothing about limiting the saves you have.

Each ion shield lets you pick a facing for a 4++. That makes one facing for ion shield, one facing for sanctuary which is an ion shield.

If you have the shield on the front and side and the side gets penned or glanced, you get one 4++ save, because the first shield let you put one there, if you get hit on the front, you get one 4++ save, from sanctuary. for each hp inflicted, you're still only getting one save which follows the rules completely;

The idea of the the chaplains save doesn't pertain to this since as an infantry model, he can only ever take one save since all of his wounds get applied to the same place.However, knights are different, as vehicles, they have facings, each of which is targetted and rolled against seperately. The ion shield gives an invul to a side, not to the model overall, hence two of them gives invuls to two sides, however, the model still only gets one save at a time, it just depends on which side was targeted. I can never take my front ion shield save against an attack from the side, so the saves don't interfere with eachother in the same having two invuls on an infantry model would.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You reply to my post shows you have a complete lack of understanding on how the rules in 7th Ed 40k interact.

And you are showing an even smaller understanding.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I pointed out how wargear for Knights interact, which is no different from how wargear for other units in the game interact.

Yeah, misquoting does change how the rules work. You mentioned several pieces of Wargear being replaced, except that in those cases, the word "replaced" is never used, they are just purchased.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The example above of a Chaplin with a Storm Shield is spot on, because there is no ability for the Chaplin to choose his 4++ save, ever, while the 3++ save is present.

Want to bet? A model always has the advantage of taking the Best Save, true. A model with a choice of Cover Saves must always take the best Save, true. Nothing about always having to take the best Invul Save or Armour Save, even when it is better than Cover.

It's also not that good of an example, because Ion Shield's only protect 1/4 of a model with the full 4++, while the Storm Shield and Rosarius cover the entire model.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Sanctuary counts as an Ion Shield; how many Ion Shields does a Knight-class Titan have? One, just one.

Has? Yes, one. Allowed to have? Prove it's only one.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Buying a relic Ion Shield for your Knight does not add a second Ion Shield, it adds extra rules to your Ion Shield.

Except for the fact that it never says any of this. Replacing an Ion Shield is never stated. It never states that you use Sanctuary instead of an Ion Shield.

What it does say is that you purchase it for the model. That it is an Ion Shield, or at least counts as one. That is its own piece of Wargear and never mentions being an upgrade to the Ion Shield. It IS its own Ion Shield, period.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The rules for Ion Shields tell you to pick one facing, the rules for Sanctuary do not contradict this, yet adds that the other facings not covered by the Ion Shield are granted 6++ save versus ranged attacks. As has been mentioned before, even if you have two Ion Shields, only one could be faced per the rules. Your attempts to point out ways that two Shields could be faced are house rules, not RAW.

Nope, nothing states only one facing for ALL Shields. It says each Knight's Shield covers one of three possible facings. Put in the context of having two Ion Shields, the "each" can apply easily to "Shield" rather than just the "Knight".

So, reference the actual rules you are working from, please.

 Dramagod2 wrote:
The rules say that you can only roll one save (armor, cover, invul) against a single wound or pen, They say nothing about limiting the saves you have.

Each ion shield lets you pick a facing for a 4++. That makes one facing for ion shield, one facing for sanctuary which is an ion shield.

If you have the shield on the front and side and the side gets penned or glanced, you get one 4++ save, because the first shield let you put one there, if you get hit on the front, you get one 4++ save, from sanctuary. for each hp inflicted, you're still only getting one save which follows the rules completely;

The idea of the the chaplains save doesn't pertain to this since as an infantry model, he can only ever take one save since all of his wounds get applied to the same place.However, knights are different, as vehicles, they have facings, each of which is targetted and rolled against seperately. The ion shield gives an invul to a side, not to the model overall, hence two of them gives invuls to two sides, however, the model still only gets one save at a time, it just depends on which side was targeted. I can never take my front ion shield save against an attack from the side, so the saves don't interfere with eachother in the same having two invuls on an infantry model would.

Pretty much. A Space Marine Captain comes with the Iron Halo, a 4++. He can purchase a Storm Shield, a 3++. He can purchase either Terminator Armour (5++) or Armour Indomitous (6++). Then he can replace a Weapon with a Shield Eternal for another 3++. Never mind the fact that taking a Storm Shield and Shield Eternal is quite redundant and therefore stupid, it IS quite possible and legal to do so, and so possess 1-2 Armour Saves (Armour Indomitus doesn't replace Power Armour) and 4 Invulnerable Saves, and that's not including Cover Saves obtained through other means.

And no, one is not required to use the best Save, it's just usually smart to do so.

Models with more than one save
In these cases, a model only ever gets to make one saving throw, but it has the advantage of always using the best available save.

So, I guess you can choose to not use your best available save, despite the BRB saying you do.

Heirlooms of the Knightly Houses
A model may take one of the following:

- Banner of Macharius Triumphant…
- The Paragon Gauntlet 1…
- Sanctuary…
- Ravager 2 …
- Helm of the Nameless Warrior…
- Mark of the Omnissiah…

1 May not be taken by a Knight Crusader. Replaces reaper chainsword. If taken by a Knight Gallant, replaces thunderstrike gauntlet.
2 May not be taken by a Knight Crusader. Replaces reaper chainsword.

You are absolutely right! The word "replace" is never mentioned at all, except for the three places I cited.

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.

Only references facing a single Ion Shield.

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.

Does not say it is an additional Ion Shield, nor does it list permission to chose more than one facing. It does tell you that it covers the facings not selected with an additional 6++ save, though.

SJ

After my local players reading the points on this thread, and some friendly discussion, we have decided the two shields at the same time on two facings is the way the rules work until otherwise FAQ. Thanks all for your input.