How to treat shields

So in the thread about dual wielding.. one of the most popular points brought up to contest with dual wielding's undeniable effectiveness over other options is to improve shields.

The common ones that get tossed around are
• Treat HW+Shield as pre-8th ed Warhammer in giving a +2 to armor save in close combat.
• Treat HW+Shield like the same as Warhammer 8th edition in giving you a +1 to ward save.

Initially I was more into giving +2 armor save in CC with HW because of my personal rules bias (played 6th ed Warhammer).. but then I was running into certain things that seem a bit too powerful. The biggest and most apparent to me were Lizardmen since its one of my main opponents. It essentially gives Saurus a 3+ armor save in close combat.

So I gave the 8th ed rules a little more thought and I think at the base of giving 6+ "ward" save seems pretty fair. Gives equal survivability bonus to anyone who uses it. The trouble comes up in that I'm not 100% what ward saves are out there in Mordheim. So I'm not sure if allow it to stack will start becoming too powerful in certain scenarios. The one that popped into my head immediately was the "Step Aside" skill. If this were able to stack with that.. it'd be a 4+ "ward" save... unless you literally take the description in saying that save can't be modified, for better or worse. That still leaves us with the shield bonus just hanging out there.

Alternatively.. we could just treat the shield 6+ unmodifiable save as its own save that gets rolled alone. The biggest argument against this of course is that it means more die rolling. Personally, I don't mind, but I can see it slowing down the game a little.

What do you guys think?

I'm ok with high Armour Saves so I like the +2 AS for the shield in h2h.
The reason for this is it makes axes and great weapons and even black powder weapons much more usefull in the game.

There really are no ward saves in Mordheim (well maybe one or two random mentions in unofficial stuff) so I'm not interested in adding a new concept into the game.

Option 3 sounds dangerous. An elf with fey quickness (+1 WS), step aside (+2 WS) and a shield (+1 WS)? That's a 3+ ward save in combat. Combine that with T4 (yes, they can get T4 in Mordheim) and you've got an elf who is not going down anytime soon. A bit over the top.

I'm for a straight +2 AS. It mirrors what shields did back in 7th, which is closer to the ruleset of Mordheim. 25gc for a 4+ AS that can be pretty easily negated? No problem. An easy to get 4+ (or as shown above 3+) ward save? That's a bit harder to take.

Plus, I never liked the idea of ward saves for shields. Example time!

A dragon charges a unit of clanrats with shields. It's a dragon. Against little furry things with wooden shields. They each get a 6+ ward save against it's attacks. That make sense?

An ogre tyrant with a great weapon (strength 6 attacks here) charges a unit of greatswords. They are wearing full plate armor. It is useless, given the raw strength of the ogre. The same ogre tyrant hits the detachment of swordsmen. Their shields are just as effective against the tyrant as they are against a snotling? Yeah...


Straight +2 armor save, please.

There are ward saves in Mordheim. Lucky Charm, Dodge, Step Aside, Amulet of the Moon, & helmet could all be ward saves in some way.
Each of these are situational to some degree, more expencive, cost an advancment (hero only), or are one use only so much harder to get and use then a shield.
for 5gc you get a common 6+ WS vs all hits that any model can use.
vs
A 4+ ward save that is one use per battle @ 10gc and a rarity roll (Lucky Charm).

You should/could have a "D" None of the above category.

Suppose +2 AS in CC is the way to go. At the very least, it'll make axes and such a little more useful. I guess it just garnered my attention immediately because my main 2 opponents are Lizardmen and Dwarfs who are already pretty hard to kill.

DeafNala: yea, that is an "option" but it goes back to essentially making the shield + HW combo rarely taken.

When u ho for house rules is better to to soft .. I think that the better is simple a 20% armour discount.

In my group we use the +2 AS method. The reason for that was that it improved shields vs additional hand weapons and also improved the usefulness in taking armour-defeating weapons such as the axe and even gromril weapons. With more armour running around there was actually a point in getting things such as gromril swords, maces, and even axes.

For quite some time we discounted armour, but recently went back to the full price armour to help bring back the specialness of armour. After all, back in the day armour was *not* cheap and looking back we realised that although we always thought of armour as 'useless' if we ever *found* any for free we would pretty much always *use* the armour as armour rather than selling it, so it was really not so much useless as not good value for money.

When armour was discounted we would quickly buy a decent amount of armour, but then the warbands quickly turned into well-armed, well-armoured, well-equipped adventurers and it didn't feel much like rag-tag gangs of gritty scavengers scouring the ruins of a post-apocalyptic city. Might discount it a bit for settings like Relics of the Crusade or Empire in Flames though.

As most people, we do use the straight +2 AS.
This have many effects in game term if combined with -1 to hit for dual wielding.

More shield, more armour, more 2H weapons, more axes, more blackpowder weapons.

Yea, I already deal with dual wielding being -1 to hit for the off-hand weapon.

I guess for me, personally.. its a bigger deal to just do a flat +2 AS simply because I play against the 2 warbands that benefit the most out of it (Dwarfs and Lizardmen). I personally play Orcs and Undead.

I noticed as of this posting.. 3 people voted for the other options instead of +2 AS.

Care to share your thoughts on that?

Another side note that does kind of favor shields giving a 6+ save is the idea behind the shield is that the warrior is using the shield as a first line of defense against an attack. So to avoid it being in conjunction with other ward saves, the 6+ save is taken for TO HIT rather than TO WOUND. In theory it makes sense.. but not sure how it is in practice. This is not my idea, someone on the Warseer forum proposed it and he said his group has been using it to great effect. I can see things potentially getting convoluted with the extra rolls.

As far as the Dragon vs peon example given before.. the shield could easily be used to help maneuver/confuse an attack rather than going with a straight block..not saying its the best idea, just throwing it out there to get opinions.

the to hit ward save is how the Lucky charm works. 10gc, rare 6 for a one time use 4+ vs 5 gc common 6+ reusable. Even if just used vs shooting it's a much better deal.

I had no clue on the lucky charm. We've just been playing with the common items so far so we haven't gotten that deep in yet.

As I'm getting opinions from Warseer about how they like 8th ed rules with shields.. its definitely getting harder to see which rule makes more sense.

I always saw the "parry save" as more of a guy using the shield to block his opponents view and moving behind the shield unencumbered (hence why it requires a lighter 1 handed weapon) to avoid damage. Which is why the 6+ unmodified save made more sense to me because its not a direct block. The direct block and addition to armor is already shown in the shield's profile of adding +1 to armor save in all scenarios (such as shooting). Probably why I didn't see the dragon attacking slaves and still getting a 6+ save as unbelievable. Their direct blocking/armor is already negated.. now they're using the shield to try to move out of the way of harm's way. I guess I liken it to when I see scenes where a shield gets completely demolished but the warrior uses that opportunity to move out of harm's way.

Not sure if this makes any sense to the rest of you.

gorenut wrote:

I had no clue on the lucky charm. We've just been playing with the common items so far so we haven't gotten that deep in yet.

As I'm getting opinions from Warseer about how they like 8th ed rules with shields.. its definitely getting harder to see which rule makes more sense.

I always saw the "parry save" as more of a guy using the shield to block his opponents view and moving behind the shield unencumbered (hence why it requires a lighter 1 handed weapon) to avoid damage. Which is why the 6+ unmodified save made more sense to me because its not a direct block. The direct block and addition to armor is already shown in the shield's profile of adding +1 to armor save in all scenarios (such as shooting). Probably why I didn't see the dragon attacking slaves and still getting a 6+ save as unbelievable. Their direct blocking/armor is already negated.. now they're using the shield to try to move out of the way of harm's way. I guess I liken it to when I see scenes where a shield gets completely demolished but the warrior uses that opportunity to move out of harm's way.

Not sure if this makes any sense to the rest of you.

But how does hiding behind a shield help in such a situation? If you mean a 'dodge' save, then why would a shield be of any use? I know you say block your opponent's view, but can a shield do that? And even if you stick your shield in his face, he's still trying to stab/bludgeon you. And if it is, say, a dragon, why would it matter? The shield is worthless. It'll step on you and that's it. Or the ogre tyrant will swing right at the shield, knowing that the head of its hammer weights more than you do. The shield will be crushed along with your arm and chest.

This is why I like the +2 AS. Shields block. Either you have a buckler for parrying (it is light enough for it) or a shield that is heavy enough to take the damage for you. But if you find yourself facing a minotaur with a weapon bigger than you are and you are dumb enough not to run....then you might as well drop that shield. Because it 'aint going to be doing you any good.

I'm going on the basis of even having a chair in front of you vs something stronger/faster than you can make a big difference. It helps in the sense that it redirects hits (the chair isn't stuck on you to be used as armor). The reason why I brought up that it does help block line of vision is because the bonus only works in close combat where even shoving a big board in front of your opponent's face can obscure where he can see when he's striking. I suppose I'm just seeing this from my experience in various martial arts where side stepping makes a huge difference and even the difference of wearing 12-14oz gloves vs 4oz gloves can really change your field of vision when attacking/blocking.

Ofcourse we're talking about a Fantasy setting here.. but it also means that it's not beyond the realms of possibility here for guys to pull off some crazy feat. Sure a dragon will just stomp on you and negate the armor (which is represented by the flat +1 save of the shield), but I see the 6+ parry as possibly using the shield in any way to try to get out of the way enough to avoid damage.

I'm not saying you're wrong here and I definitely see your point of view.. just playing Devil's advocate.

gorenut wrote:

I'm going on the basis of even having a chair in front of you vs something stronger/faster than you can make a big difference. It helps in the sense that it redirects hits (the chair isn't stuck on you to be used as armor). The reason why I brought up that it does help block line of vision is because the bonus only works in close combat where even shoving a big board in front of your opponent's face can obscure where he can see when he's striking. I suppose I'm just seeing this from my experience in various martial arts where side stepping makes a huge difference and even the difference of wearing 12-14oz gloves vs 4oz gloves can really change your field of vision when attacking/blocking.

Ofcourse we're talking about a Fantasy setting here.. but it also means that it's not beyond the realms of possibility here for guys to pull off some crazy feat. Sure a dragon will just stomp on you and negate the armor (which is represented by the flat +1 save of the shield), but I see the 6+ parry as possibly using the shield in any way to try to get out of the way enough to avoid damage.

I'm not saying anyone is right here.. just playing Devil's advocate.

No, that makes sense. Especially on the internet, when both sides can agree that the other has made a valid point, I call it a win. I'm just glad that you explained it in a way, that if I see it in the future, it'll make more sense. Ironically, the way you describe it, the 6+ parry save makes much more sense in Mordheim (skirmish game) than WFB.

the side stepping is acounted for with the sword and buckler giving a perry roll. or rather that is using the shield/sword to divert the attack
you could also say the "to hit" roll is the dodge/side step as even in the heat of battle it's not to hard to hit a target that is standing still so thus you have to roll to hit vs there WS to represent your guys ability to connect with a guy trying to not get hit.
The above perry is just there even better at it.
Then you have the "dodge" special skill that a hero can gain to be even better at avoiding contact.

Grumbaki: Yea, I try to imagine the game being dynamic and constantly moving around.. but even at best.. it'd be hard to imagine a big tight block of troops being able to get that unmodified save to represent them avoiding the hit all-together. I suppose once in combat, they can scatter about.. but the guys in the middle are pretty screwed haha. SO completely agree with you that the +2 save makes more sense in Warhammer. I suppose for that though.. trying to make the game balance and run smoothly is the most important factor since its played competitively. It seems like people overall think its nice because it gives low armored guys a reason to take shields and keeps high armored guys in check (seems like mostly people who field Chaos Warriors upset at the change).

Pervavita: As mentioned, I picture these games as a dynamic flow. It's just another tool at their disposal. A guy who is already good at dodging without having a force multiplier on himself can just be better at it if he's trained to use some aid. Maybe I got too caught up in semantics and shouldn't have used "parry save" knowing that in Mordheim swords/bucklers actually do have a parry device.

Thanks to everyone for the input so far. It's giving me more ways to look at how to handle shields in my gaming group.

It makes sense what your saying. I'm just pointing out that the idea of moving out of the way is already acounted for with in the rules. What your saying is much like giving the shield the perry rule it sounds like to me.
or maybe give a modified perry rule of perry at a -1 (so a 5 can not be perried like 6's normally) but gives when combined with Sword (or other perry weapon) a +1 to the perry rule (so even 6's can be perried).
just as an idea rather then a ward save that would be vastly too powerful IMHO.

Those are good ideas as well. If the shield were to have a "ward" save.. I'd definitely rather it be an independent thing vs something that just adds on to other existing "unmodifiable" saves.. because I think it'd be too powerful too. I think the way Warhammer treats it is that when you have more than 1 "ward" saves.. you just pick the best save rather than stack them. The exception to this is Mark of Tzeentch which adds to whatever ward save.

5+ CC/ 6+ Shooting. Option A!

And also reduced cost for Light Armor and Heavy Armor.

I recommend a 25% discount for light (15gc) and 20% for heavy (40gc)

Light armor and shield for 20 gc then gives a base 4+ save in H-t-H.

We've played with the 6+ "Parry Save" in a previous campaign, but Step Aside replaced it if a Hero got that skill, instead of letting it stack. Also, we played Elves with a Max Toughness of 3 to balance out the "Fey Quickness". Elves with both T4 and a 4+ Ward Save would be broken. As it stood, the 4+ ward save that our Elf player had made his troupe nearly unbeatable. (Bit of a tangent I know, sorry).

Anyways, with the 6+ Parry Save, Henchmen with shields get to be a bit more beefy, I think. And I also am totally on board with the reduced Armor costs.

I think I'll treat shields as an independent 6+ save that is unmodifiable and unstackable along with +1 to overall armor save.

Now I'm trying to decide if taking something like Step Aside should nullify the 6+ of the shield or if it should still be rolled but separately as Step Aside. Sure it's an extra dice to roll if someone has Step Aside.. but I don't think that'll come in too often and will keep things within reason in scenarios mentioned above. Especially since I'm also going to play with reduced cost armor, I think it'll keep things in check where guys with awesome armor don't get too carried away while warbands that don't have access to good armor across the board still get some kind of protection.

I just see shield, evasion, and armor as layers of protection which might be better represented with multiple rolls vs just banking on a single D6 to sort it out. D6 system already limits the numbers when you do just 1 roll, so it seems the counter to this is to add more rolls which I know isn't a popular option (especially for speeding up games).

Also, I gotta decide if it'd be better to roll that 6+ shield save before or after rolling for toughness/to wound.

Parry save is 16% to save Each attack .. i think it's a great enancement (that gets better Each match because the strenght goes up .. And the parry save is still there)

20% discount means 1co buyback Each 5co spent on armour.

Shield 4
Helm 8
L.armour 16
H.armour 40
Buckler 4

Think that there are warbands that couldn't access to armours so adding such rules could change very much the metagame.