8th Ed. maiming shield question

Hi, new to the forum

Just one question. If you have a saurus leader with the maiming shield and great weapon, would he get the extra attack?

scarr

 

But if he have the maiming shield and the burning blade of chotec.
Will the blades effects be used for the extra attack?

 

But there is nothing that says that he must use it in combat to get the effect.

And he can't use the attack with any magical weapons effects.

scarr

 

the shield gives you one extra attack at base streght as well as being a shield.

 

I know you use the base S but do you get the extra benefits (i.e. flaming, armour piercing) if you have a weapon that gives that to you.

I dont think this was intended and I would not use it, but I do think its possible to make that interpertation from the wording of the rule.

 

This topic came up ages ago.... Basically, some of our weapons say 'attacks struck by the sword grant x' while others say 'the sword gives the character x'.

It is my conclusion RAW that the weapons of the first type definitely cannot benefit the maiming shield effect. For example, our old friend blade of realities only effects blows struck by the sword, so no extra attack that can autokill. However, the second type, and I've forgotten names but I believe the one that includes granting flaming attacks, says they give the ability to the bearer, thus he would pass it on since it becomes part of his basic stats. It only says the attack must be at base strength, not everything else at base.

But its definitely a grey patch and could be argued either way.

 

I remember that discussion. I believe it was also agreed by most but one or two that, in the case of magic items such as the maiming shield, you have to be able to use it in combat in order to get the benefits. Therefor the origonal question that you gain an extra attack from the Maiming shield but use a GW in close combat you DO NOT gain the extra attack because GWs require two hands and you can not use the shield in hth.

 

Agree, I assumed the original question was not still up for debate and had been conclusively answered. The discussion had seemed to move on to combining effects.

 

I agree with you and think that the rules should be interpreted as you say. However I would still not be comfortable claiming that my shield-attacks were flaming. Just doesnt feel right.

Easily solved however, I wont use the shield.

 

i read it as you get the extra attack even with the great weapon. since the owrding is that the characters gets an extra attack, thus a saurus would have X attacks at S7 and 1 at S5.

regarding combinations, i allways play them combined. its just too troublesome for me to remember to roll separately in the heat of battle. and itsonly flaming atacks when it is. i rarely use something else. also i use it in combination with the sword of +3 attacks so it doesn't really matter.

 

You may only claim the benefits of a magic item if you can actually use it in a given situation. In this case (combat) the rules of a great weapon includes that of Requires two hands, which disallows the use of shield in combat which means quite simply for the duration of the combat the character cannot claim the benefits of a shield (magical or otherwise).

People should also read the description of the item as it says quite clearly how it is used

As far as the burning blade is concerned it also quite clearly says that the blade (and therefore only the attacks made with the blade are granted flaming attacks and -2 AS

There are some pretty interesting combos that can be had if we read rules out of context

 

I do not at all agree with your interpretation of the fluff of the maiming shield.
As I have said before I would not like to play as if it gets the bonus since that feels wrong (for the reasons you state), however there is no rule that says that the extra attack does not benefit from anything else. Top interpret fluff as rules is a stretch and even if you wouldnt want to play it that way you shouldnt see it as something that goes against the rules.

I would however agree that the wording from the blade quiet clearly states that the attacks have to be made by the blade in order to be -2 to armour save. The flaming attacks special rule does not specifically refer to the blade though.

 

That is like saying a skink chief with a blowpipe and a dagger of sotek (killing blow, causes fear) would be able to claim killing blow on its shooting attacks because the description for the weapon does not specifically mention that only the attacks made with the dagger gain killing blow.

Its not an interpretation merely a reading of the passage. Secondly I wasn't giving it the weight of a rule, however, im saying the intention of the writers of this weapon can clearly be seen in those few sentences. Of course players can ignore the spirit of the game for minor tactical benefits.

And I quite agree with you. The subject of the original question, as far as I have read, was whether or not a character could use a GW and claim benefits from a magical shield. But you do raise a good point on that attack being altered. For example, assuming we aren't using a GW or any other 2 handed weapon that would not allow us to claim a shield, if the Wyssan's Wildform or Savage beast of horrors spells were cast on the character his base strength would count as being +1/+3. The shields extra attack would be resolved at that new strength as that is the characters new base strength.