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.

Iget what you sre trying to get at guys. I actually have a knight house and would love to have sanctuary give you 2 shields. Lets be honest here. It comes down to a matter of interpretation and who wants to use it that way. It says nothing abut stacked effect. It says nothing about having 2 ion shields that can be used at the sametime. All it say is that it is to be considered an ion shield and that the sides that the ion shield is not on get a 6++save.
The knight is not a vehicle it is a low and a walker. It can also take relics which is a piece of war gear. The ion shield is a piece of war gear. What happens when you have 2 pices of the same war gear ( ion shield) even if they have a diferent name or ability, you get to pick the one being used. Give me the rule that allows it as I have never seen it. I just wantthe straight rule without personal interpretation
Ithink it is pretty simple. No matter what I can say will change the minds that want it to have 2 ions at the same time so if the tournament you go to allows it, take it and run but dont be upset if they dont allow it, which it will be 8/10 times. If having a fun game then explain it to your opponent but again they have the right to refuse.
All I say is have a fun game

It's funny you say tourney won't allow it 8/10 as I've been doing research and asking questions and this hasn't come up a lot, but when it has it has been ruled in favor of. Please only state something if you've done research, not your opinion of what a tourney would do.

worldwrekka wrote:
The knight is not a vehicle

This is False. A Walker is a vehicle so the Knight is a Vehicle...

worldwrekka wrote:
The ion shield is a piece of war gear.

This is true.

What happens when you have 2 pices of the same war gear ( ion shield) even if they have a diferent name or ability, you get to pick the one being used.

Sanctuary and the Ion shield are not the same piece of wargear.

@ pain4pleasure. I think you need to take your own advice, I can only state on things that I know. The tourney in my 500km area havent allowed it.The local meta I play in dosent allow it that way. It is what it is. Please take your hypocrisy and trolling elsewhere. This is just a friendly rule discussion


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, deathreaper, you see it one way I see it another. It is a matter of interpretation. There is nothing to say it is to be used that way or not. It is how you want to play.

worldwrekka wrote:
@ pain4pleasure. I think you need to take your own advice, I can only state on things that I know. The tourney in my 500km area havent allowed it.The local meta I play in dosent allow it that way. It is what it is. Please take your hypocrisy and trolling elsewhere. This is just a friendly rule discussion


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, deathreaper, you see it one way I see it another. It is a matter of interpretation. There is nothing to say it is to be used that way or not. It is how you want to play.

I created this thread. I know what it's for. I'm sorry you play it wrong. We are just trying to help you play it right. Unless you're on the opposite end, and just want to nerf the knights

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if ITC has a ruling on this?

 Dramagod2 wrote:
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if ITC has a ruling on this?

No, they don't.

SJ

jeffersonian000 wrote:

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.

Having an advantage of always doing something does not translate must always do something.

jeffersonian000 wrote:

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.

Really?

jeffersonian000 wrote: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.

Sure looks like you mentioned replacing in places that don't have it to me.

jeffersonian000 wrote:

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.

That could be argued. "...{T}he controlling player must declare which facing each Imperial Knight’s ion shield is covering" could easily be multiple choices if multiple are available. Context is important.

Also, this is describing what one Ion Shield does. Having two does not limit to one facing for all Ion Shields. In fact, each Knight's Ion Shield facing must be chosen.

jeffersonian000 wrote:

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.

Yes, it does. By virtue of the fact that any model purchasing it already has one, you purchase it in addition to the base one currently on the Knight, and this does not replace nor upgrade the basic Ion Shield. So, purchasing Sanctuary provides a Second Ion Shield just the same as purchasing Shield Eternal and a Storm Shield gives a Space Marine Captain Two Storm Shields. The only difference is that having two Storm Shields provides zero benefit to the Captain (unless the Relic is destroyed) while having two Ion Shields allows for a facing to be chosen for each.

What's illegal with having two Ion Shields? Aside from piss-poor pricing for such a benefit being the only thing wrong with it?

worldwrekka wrote:

Again, deathreaper, you see it one way I see it another. It is a matter of interpretation. There is nothing to say it is to be used that way or not. It is how you want to play.

Which part of my post are you referring to specifically?

Except that just like the Storm Shield example, there are no rules that tell us how two Ion Shields are used. You are assuming that if you had two of them, then you make up a rule that allows you to use two of them. That's called a house rule.

SJ

worldwrekka wrote:
Iget what you sre trying to get at guys. I actually have a knight house and would love to have sanctuary give you 2 shields. Lets be honest here. It comes down to a matter of interpretation and who wants to use it that way.

The discussion has largely been focussed on RaW rather than interpretation. What we have been saying is 100% RaW and has absolute iron cast RaI support.

It says nothing abut stacked effect. It says nothing about having 2 ion shields that can be used at the sametime.

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.

All it say is that it is to be considered an ion shield and that the sides that the ion shield is not on get a 6++save.

Correct it is an Ion Shield that has an additional effect (note the use of "in addition" in the actual rule).

The knight is not a vehicle it is a low and a walker.

Battlefield role and unit type have no connection and Walkers are vehicles so this sentence shows a complete lack of understanding the basic rules.

It can also take relics which is a piece of war gear. The ion shield is a piece of war gear. What happens when you have 2 pices of the same war gear ( ion shield) even if they have a diferent name or ability, you get to pick the one being used. Give me the rule that allows it as I have never seen it. I just wantthe straight rule without personal interpretation

Check gunslinger and a guy with 2 Bolt Pistols. Or if you want an example even more closely aligned a guy with a pistol and a ccw. Now when you hit combat the pistol becomes a CCW so in effect it is a CCW with an additional effect. Does a model armed thus get the +1A for having 2 weapons? Nothing states the ccw doesn't replace your existing CCW and nothing states it is an additional ccw.

Ithink it is pretty simple. No matter what I can say will change the minds that want it to have 2 ions at the same time so if the tournament you go to allows it, take it and run but dont be upset if they dont allow it, which it will be 8/10 times. If having a fun game then explain it to your opponent but again they have the right to refuse.
All I say is have a fun game

It is not that our minds are made up it is that the RaW is absolutely 100% clear and RaI appears to match so why would you play it any other way?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Except that just like the Storm Shield example, there are no rules that tell us how two Ion Shields are used. You are assuming that if you had two of them, then you make up a rule that allows you to use two of them. That's called a house rule.

You could look at it that way, I suppose, but only if you want to be severely self-limiting. If you cannot figure out how two Storm Shields interact, that may indicate why you are having so much trouble here.

I am not making up no rule, though, I am using one you have quoted several times, and I even referenced it multiple times. Each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield must have a facing chosen. It's simple so long as you change the emphasis of the target of "each". This is a simple contextual change when a model is carrying two pieces of Wargear, and easily justifiable in the English language.

There is no rule against a model benefiting from multiple Wargear at the same time. Their interactions may have rules preventing it, such as a Captain carrying a Power Sword and the Blinding Blade and they can only use one Weapon, or the limit to using only one Save for an Allocated Wound, even when you have an Armour Save, 3 Invul Saves and a Cover Save.

Special Rules may also not stack with themselves, but while Wargear provide Special Rules, they are not Special Rules themselves. And that may be part of where your confusion is coming from.

Can you find in the rulebook or codex where it states otherwise to these last two statements?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Except that just like the Storm Shield example, there are no rules that tell us how two Ion Shields are used. You are assuming that if you had two of them, then you make up a rule that allows you to use two of them. That's called a house rule.

SJ

Again that is not how a permissive ruleset works. If you have 2 tactical squads can you move them both? Nothing tells you how to even move specifically a tactical squad.

We have instructions on how to use an Ion Shield. If we have multiple Ion Shields we follow those rules multiple times (once for each shield) unless instructed otherwise. So are you now accepting that a Knight can have an Ion Shield and a Sanctuary as 2 separate distinct items of wargear?

The Shield of Each Imperial Knight must have a facing chosen

The context of the rule is talking about the Knights being plural, as it is a rule that requires you to look at all Knights you have

It is not making alo9owance for more than one shield.

So, once you pick the facing for the shield, you have no permission to rerun the rule; you have satisfied the permission gained from this rule

Jeffersion's just grasping at straws. Just because x of the entries have a replacement effect doesn't automatically make Sanctuary a replacement effect too. I think the topic has been thoroughly discussed at this point and is mostly in favor for, rather than against.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The Shield of Each Imperial Knight must have a facing chosen

The context of the rule is talking about the Knights being plural, as it is a rule that requires you to look at all Knights you have

It is not making alo9owance for more than one shield.

So, once you pick the facing for the shield, you have no permission to rerun the rule; you have satisfied the permission gained from this rule

It doesn't have to make allowance for more than 1 shield as each shield has the rule. You have permission to rerun the rule by having it on each wargear. In effect you must pick a facing for each Ion Shueld and each Sanctuary. The wording is not indicative of a restriction to 1 shield it uses singluar language but that in itself isn't enough particularly due to the strength of the language.

Jeff, I'm with you buddy.

FratHammer wrote:
Jeff, I'm with you buddy.

Care to actually add to the discussion? Do you have any evidence to support the stance jeffersonian000 takes but refuses to justify.

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The Shield of Each Imperial Knight must have a facing chosen

The context of the rule is talking about the Knights being plural, as it is a rule that requires you to look at all Knights you have

It is not making alo9owance for more than one shield.

So, once you pick the facing for the shield, you have no permission to rerun the rule; you have satisfied the permission gained from this rule

It doesn't have to make allowance for more than 1 shield as each shield has the rule. You have permission to rerun the rule by having it on each wargear. In effect you must pick a facing for each Ion Shueld and each Sanctuary. The wording is not indicative of a restriction to 1 shield it uses singluar language but that in itself isn't enough particularly due to the strength of the language.

The rule refers to a player decision you make once for each Knight. Each Knight may pick a facing for their shield, singular

The context on this one is utterly clear, and normally youre really hot on context. Why changing your tune here? Inconvenience?

You'll make me blush Nos thanks for tell me how hot I am in context

I'd say each Ion shield has a rule that talks about you making a decision once per knight. The wording not near strict enough to restrict multiple Shields from working (if a Knight has a shield, boolean type wording). It talks in singular terms written under the assumption of a single shield (not surprising as Knights start with 1 shield, when the rule was written could never have more than 1 shield and even currently a maximum of 1 Knight can have 2).

As has been explain "each Knight's Ion Shield" can also equally mean "each, Knight's Ion Shield" as well as your "each Knight's, Ion Shield". There's nothing preventing the 2 shields from working beyond what people want to be the case.

Two Pistols > Gunslinger rule

Two CCW > More Than One Weapon rule

A CCW and a Pistol > Pistol rules

Moving two Tactical Squads > the Movement phase

Two Storm Shields > no rules, although the More Than One Save rules requires than you can only ever use one save

Two Ion Shields > no rules

Levels in Ruins > no rules, although quite a few can be found in the 6th Ed BRB

I'd ask if you can see where I'm going with this, but based on previous posts, the concept that no rules means no rules might still remain a stumbling point for many that really really want to have two seoerate facing Ion Shields on their expensive Knight-Titan models.

SJ

Right, there are no rules for resolving two ion shields. Fortunately, there is never a situation where we're resolving two ion shields.

We're resolving an ion shield and a sanctuary. We have rules for resolving ion shield AND we have rules for resolving sanctuary.

I'm still not sure why you think the model has two identical pieces of wargear. The rules don't support that position at all.

Imagine that the Imperial Knight comes stock with an "Ion Shield Module" that mounts to the hull and is able to swivel, pointing a 4++ shield in one direction at a time. The "Sanctuary Module" is effectively a second piece of equipment that would also mount to the hull, be able to swivel, point a 4++ shield in one direction and a 6++ shield in all other directions. There is nothing in the rules telling us that the Tech Priests have to uninstall the "Ion Shield Module" to install the "Sanctuary Module", i.e. this is not a replacement situation. There is nothing in the rules telling us that the "Ion Shield Module" and the "Sanctuary Module" have to swivel and point in the same direction.

In the absence of specific wording telling us otherwise, we resolve each effect independently, which results in the option to pick different facings for each piece of wargear.

You have yet to show any wording requiring you to resolve the effects simultaneously OR that Sanctuary replaces the existing Ion Shield. You've shown lots of anecdotal evidence that could show GW intended for it to be a replacement, but failed to write that intention into the rules.

Not really caring to much but I play 4 knights and it not 2 ion shields its one ion shield and a counts as ion shield that's 2,different shields each war gear has to be used no where does it say you can't use 2 war gear items there not staking its one side gets a 4+ 3 sides get a 6+ then you place ion shield giving another side 4+ 6+ use best save

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Two Pistols > Gunslinger rule

Two CCW > More Than One Weapon rule

A CCW and a Pistol > Pistol rules

Two Storm Shields > no rules, although the More Than One Save rules requires than you can only ever use one save

Each with explicit restrictions on or benefits for using two or more at the same time based on their interactions. Where is that restriction for the Ion Shield?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Moving two Tactical Squads > the Movement phase

True, you can move any unit you haven't moved that Phase.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Two Ion Shields > no rules

Incorrect. There are rules that pertain to operating an Ion Shield. This operation doesn't prevent the use of a second Ion Shield much like a second Storm Shield's use is prevented or a Storm Bolter and Pistol prevents the other's use on a regular Infantry model. Simply put, you keep claiming a restriction, but have yet to provide the actual rules for the restriction. You give examples where restrictions are explicit for their situation, but you cannot bring one where two Ion Shields are prevented from operating on two different facings. If there was a stated limit per Imperial Knight, that would work, but the only limitation is a phrase which states "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield", which can be used as either referring to a single Knight's shield or each Shield of an Imperial Knight, depending on the context of the situation.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I'd ask if you can see where I'm going with this, but based on previous posts, the concept that no rules means no rules might still remain a stumbling point for many that really really want to have two seoerate facing Ion Shields on their expensive Knight-Titan models.

This isn't a case of "no rules", though, this is a case of you adding rules in to the situation without written justification. You have referenced other rules which are limiting, but those limits are explicit in their use and application, and have zero bearing on Wargear providing Invulnerability Saves on a Vehicle's facings.

 Kriswall wrote:
Right, there are no rules for resolving two ion shields. Fortunately, there is never a situation where we're resolving two ion shields.

We're resolving an ion shield and a sanctuary. We have rules for resolving ion shield AND we have rules for resolving sanctuary.

I'm still not sure why you think the model has two identical pieces of wargear. The rules don't support that position at all.

It's the Ion Shield in Sanctuary that is the problem here. And it's the Ion Shield portion of Sanctuary's rules which would provide a second facing of 4++. If Sanctuary did not carry the "counts as Ion Shield" in it, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

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.

Deathmachine wrote:
Not really caring to much but I play 4 knights and it not 2 ion shields its one ion shield and a counts as ion shield that's 2,different shields each war gear has to be used no where does it say you can't use 2 war gear items there not staking its one side gets a 4+ 3 sides get a 6+ then you place ion shield giving another side 4+ 6+ use best save

Can you repost this in English?

SJ


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Two Pistols > Gunslinger rule

Two CCW > More Than One Weapon rule

A CCW and a Pistol > Pistol rules

Two Storm Shields > no rules, although the More Than One Save rules requires than you can only ever use one save

Each with explicit restrictions on or benefits for using two or more at the same time based on their interactions. Where is that restriction for the Ion Shield?

Exactly. Where is the restriction? Where is the text in the rules that covers this situation? We see such text almost everywhere else, and I even cited two other examples on where the text is missing from other similar situations. It's a permissive rule set, no permission equals a restriction.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Moving two Tactical Squads > the Movement phase

True, you can move any unit you haven't moved that Phase.

I'm not the one that said those rules were missing. Just pointing out the error in another post.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Two Ion Shields > no rules

Incorrect. There are rules that pertain to operating an Ion Shield. This operation doesn't prevent the use of a second Ion Shield much like a second Storm Shield's use is prevented or a Storm Bolter and Pistol prevents the other's use on a regular Infantry model. Simply put, you keep claiming a restriction, but have yet to provide the actual rules for the restriction. You give examples where restrictions are explicit for their situation, but you cannot bring one where two Ion Shields are prevented from operating on two different facings. If there was a stated limit per Imperial Knight, that would work, but the only limitation is a phrase which states "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield", which can be used as either referring to a single Knight's shield or each Shield of an Imperial Knight, depending on the context of the situation.

Simply put, post the rules that cover how to use two Ion Shields on the same Knight, or concede the point. I've already cite the Ion Shield rules and Sanctuary's rules, neither of which covers have more than one Ion Shield in play. You are creating a rule to allow you to face two separate 4++ saves, because that rule does not exist in the current rule set. So cite this made up rule of yours, or concede the point.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I'd ask if you can see where I'm going with this, but based on previous posts, the concept that no rules means no rules might still remain a stumbling point for many that really really want to have two seoerate facing Ion Shields on their expensive Knight-Titan models.

This isn't a case of "no rules", though, this is a case of you adding rules in to the situation without written justification. You have referenced other rules which are limiting, but those limits are explicit in their use and application, and have zero bearing on Wargear providing Invulnerability Saves on a Vehicle's facings.

You are the one creating rules, not I. Where is the permission? Where is the language that tells us what we can do? I cited direct counters you previously posted arguments, such as which rules grant permission to use two pieces of the same wargear. You now have to prove with rules that don't exist how you feel two Ion Shields work, or concede the point. Without explicit permission, you have an explicit restriction. Prove your position, or concede the point.

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.

Jeffersonian, try imagining that this Knight is so influential he was able to install a second Ion Shield, and this one is tweaked to provide full coverage on a low power scale as well as providing a full power to one facing just like the base one. That is how the rules say it is installed.

The concept of "Knight's mount only one Ion Shield" is just as true as saying a Rhino only mounts one Storm Bolter. They both come with them as default, but have an option to purchase another.

Sanctuary is not listed as an upgrade to the Ion Shield. It is not listed as replacing the Ion Shield. It states that it counts as an Ion Shield all on its own. If the term "upgrade" or "replaced" was used in Sanctuary's rules, or if the "counts as Ion Shield" were not present, you would be correct, and this wouldn't even be a discussion. But such is not the case. You are placing rules and limitations where they are not written.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Two Pistols > Gunslinger rule

Two CCW > More Than One Weapon rule

A CCW and a Pistol > Pistol rules

Two Storm Shields > no rules, although the More Than One Save rules requires than you can only ever use one save

Each with explicit restrictions on or benefits for using two or more at the same time based on their interactions. Where is that restriction for the Ion Shield?

Exactly. Where is the restriction? Where is the text in the rules that covers this situation? We see such text almost everywhere else, and I even cited two other examples on where the text is missing from other similar situations. It's a permissive rule set, no permission equals a restriction.

Yeah, but you're coming across as no restriction means no permission in this case. And I do have permission. I've stated it several times.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Two Ion Shields > no rules

Incorrect. There are rules that pertain to operating an Ion Shield. This operation doesn't prevent the use of a second Ion Shield much like a second Storm Shield's use is prevented or a Storm Bolter and Pistol prevents the other's use on a regular Infantry model. Simply put, you keep claiming a restriction, but have yet to provide the actual rules for the restriction. You give examples where restrictions are explicit for their situation, but you cannot bring one where two Ion Shields are prevented from operating on two different facings. If there was a stated limit per Imperial Knight, that would work, but the only limitation is a phrase which states "each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield", which can be used as either referring to a single Knight's shield or each Shield of an Imperial Knight, depending on the context of the situation.

Simply put, post the rules that cover how to use two Ion Shields on the same Knight, or concede the point. I've already cite the Ion Shield rules and Sanctuary's rules, neither of which covers have more than one Ion Shield in play. You are creating a rule to slow you to face two separate 4++ saves, because that rule does not exist in the current rule set. So cute this made up rule f yours, or concede the point.

I am not creating a rule. I am using the rules that are present. I have two pieces of Wargear (something to which you won't even acknowledge despite the evidence). I am not restricted in using them at the same time. Does or does not the Wargear in question state that we are to choose each Imperial Knight's Ion Shield facing?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I'd ask if you can see where I'm going with this, but based on previous posts, the concept that no rules means no rules might still remain a stumbling point for many that really really want to have two seoerate facing Ion Shields on their expensive Knight-Titan models.

This isn't a case of "no rules", though, this is a case of you adding rules in to the situation without written justification. You have referenced other rules which are limiting, but those limits are explicit in their use and application, and have zero bearing on Wargear providing Invulnerability Saves on a Vehicle's facings.

You are the one creating rules, not I. Where is the permission? Where is the language that tells us what we can do? I cited direct counters you previously posted arguments, such as which rules grant permission to use two pieces of the same wargear. You now have to prove with rules that don't exist how you feel two Ion Shields work, or concede the point. Without explicit permission, you have an explicit restriction. Prove your position, or concede the point.

The permission is the Wargear themselves. The language is in the Wargear themselves. You treat each Wargear as independent Wargear unless told otherwise, and neither the Ion Shield nor Sanctuary state otherwise.

You have provided nothing to adequately counter any of the arguments provided. You have yet to demonstrate that either Sanctuary is an upgrade or a replacement, which is what most of your case is predicated on. You have yet to demonstrate a blanket rule that prevents the use of two pieces of wargear, you have only provided the specific cases where they are not allowed (Weapon Use, Saves) which do not cover every situation, much less this one.

Charistoph wrote:

 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.

Jeffersonian, try imagining that this Knight is so influential he was able to install a second Ion Shield, and this one is tweaked to provide full coverage on a low power scale as well as providing a full power to one facing just like the base one. That is how the rules say it is installed.

The concept of "Knight's mount only one Ion Shield" is just as true as saying a Rhino only mounts one Storm Bolter. They both come with them as default, but have an option to purchase another.

Sanctuary is not listed as an upgrade to the Ion Shield. It is not listed as replacing the Ion Shield. It states that it counts as an Ion Shield all on its own. If the term "upgrade" or "replaced" was used in Sanctuary's rules, or if the "counts as Ion Shield" were not present, you would be correct, and this wouldn't even be a discussion. But such is not the case. You are placing rules and limitations where they are not written.

Then you should have no trouble proving it.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Then you should have no trouble proving it.

I have. You have yet to counter it. I notice you made no attempt to counter anything in the statement you quoted.

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?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Two Pistols > Gunslinger rule

Two CCW > More Than One Weapon rule

A CCW and a Pistol > Pistol rules

Moving two Tactical Squads > the Movement phase

Two Storm Shields > no rules, although the More Than One Save rules requires than you can only ever use one save

Two Ion Shields > no rules

Levels in Ruins > no rules, although quite a few can be found in the 6th Ed BRB

I'd ask if you can see where I'm going with this, but based on previous posts, the concept that no rules means no rules might still remain a stumbling point for many that really really want to have two seoerate facing Ion Shields on their expensive Knight-Titan models.

SJ

Please quote the movement rule that specifically covers 2 tactical squads. There are rules for an Ion Shield and there are rules for a Sanctuary, we follow each item's rules and that results in 2 facings receiving a 4++.