8th Ed. Odd issue with shields and Ward saves

You hve never played against a Skavens before, have you?

The highlighted part is a slippery slope. You are now talking RAI, and not RAW. Sure, common sense should apply, but off the top of my head, I can name at least 2 rules instances, that, RAW, makes no sense. you could try to argue that "common sense says otherwise!", but your entire argument is hanging in a thin thread. It's easy to argue that TikTaq'to SHOULD be able to join a unit, as he even have a special rule that confers to his UNIT, even refering to granting his rule to TerradonS. (Note the s). Yet RAW clearly states characters cannot join fliers. If you want to force someone to accept your "common sense" ruling, you are effectively homebrewing.

The Charmed Shield is annoying, because it is too poorly worded. It states: "The first hit suffered by the BEARER of the charmed shield is discounted on a 2+."

To my knowledge, bearer isn't the same as actually using - you are "bearing" it regardless of whether or not you are USING it. The only thing the word "bearer" seems to have in terms of restrictions, is that the "save" can't be confered to another model, even if in the same unit.

And since we established that magic shields can't parry, and the shield says nothing about parrying, it isn't a parry - so i don't see why it should require being actively used.

I created this thread to see if anyone had some rules to refer to. But it seems the only arguments against using it with a 2-hander or an additional hand weapon relies entirely on RAI/Common sense.

 

I haven't fought Skaven in quite some time (I wish there was a local player who did though!) and am aware they can fire into friendly troops. They have mortars and the likes, but no cannon balls. Regardless, a mortar round would still be an auto hit, therefor, still a hit. In the case of wielding, bearing, using, or whatever the case may be, my "common sense" still applies. Slippery slope, yes, but like you saw in the tournament and from the majority of us giving our views, it seems that such a call must be made.
After all, doesn't seem that the language used in the book is supporting your view of the rule? Almost like... common sense? As you have pointed out, it might not be clear to you, but to the majority, it is clear. I'm not saying that your argument has no merit, because it does. They should use consistent definitions in the rulebook in order to avoid any confusion. It's unfortunate that they don't. I'm just simply giving you my view and opinion on the situation you posted, it's up to you to accept or deny it.

 

So I didn't have the rule book in front of me and figured I would give it a gander now that I'm home. It took me some digging, but here is what I found.

"We assume that the warrior in question slings the spare war gear on his back, or simply drops it, until the fight is done." Page 75 under Requires Two Hands.

Now we cannot say which the warrior in question would choose to do. If he slings it on his back does he still keep the attributes because it is still on him? Then why does it leave the potential to have the character in question throw the shield on the ground? What appears clear to me is that the shield, and all of it's attributes, are intended to be out of commission until the end of close combat. I hope this helps clear things up!

 

Some more slippery slope for ya'll

Taking a big of the FAQ about the Battle Standard Bearer refusing a challenge:

Page 107 – The Battle Standard Bearer.
Add “If a Battle Standard Bearer is in a unit that Refuses a
Challenge and is subsequently moved to the rear of its unit, it
loses the Hold Your Ground rule until the end of the turn.
Note, however, that if the Battle Standard Bearer has a magic
standard its effects continue to apply as normal (it cannot be
‘switched on or off’)”.

If the magic properties of the Battle Standard cannot be switched on or off, can the magic properties of a shield be switched on or off just because you have "slung it over your back" rather than held it in front of you?

 

I think your forgetting the last bit about throwing it on the ground. In other words, considering a shield flung over your back the same as not having it on your person. Stands to reason as you are not using it as a shield either way. The standard makes sense because, if your main focus of inspiration falls back in ranks and is no longer waving it's morale rising glory for all to see up in front, you lose moral bonuses (IE: Hold Your Ground). Is it still in the unit, acting as a rally point and doing essentially everything a standard is meant to do? Yes. Do you lose faith in your standard bearer when he backs down from a challenge. Of course you do! He's supposed to be Billy Badass and now he's hiding. Same as losing frenzy when you lose combat. Yeah your all pissed off and ready to kill the first thing in your way , but when that thing kills half of the guys around you and then comes your way... Well your not feeling quite so killy all of a sudden. Overall, a good majority of the game makes sense. I don't agree with everything in the rule book, but in these areas, it makes sense.

 

With a regular shield, sure, he might just throw it on the ground. With his super-unique and powerful piece of magic gear he refuses to part with? (page 172 under unique)

And under armour, the only restriction to shields is "A magic shield is threated as a normal shield, but cannot be used alongside a hand weapon to gain a parry save". So it gains the benefits of being a standard shield, on top of the magical properties it gains, which doesn't seem to be limited.

Now, looking at mundane shields, i do see a problem in the wording to further complicate things. "If a model carries a shield, the score it needs to save is reduced by 1". Well shit, this sounds like you'd still get the armour, even if you can't use the shield, considering that's the same wording they use for almost all gear, all the time. "Bearer" is the same word used under standard armour and talismans as well, but the interesting thing is, most of the magic weapons don't use that wording, instead using "attacks with" or "wielder" (which clearly means "actively being held in your hands") some variant thereof. The exceptions is Fencer blades, anti-heroes and beserker sword. Fencer blades makes sense, because it applies both way, not just when attacking, and since you have to use your magic weapon, we will never know if you retained WS10 if you switched to another weapon. Anti-heroes falls into the same category, and just makes it clear that the enemy characters needs to be in contact with the "bearer" to gain the benefits. But beserker sword grants this bonus regardless of whether you even wield it or not, because otherwise, it would make more sense to only draw it upon entering combat, rather than be subject to frenzy long before hitting combat in the first place. But you can't; You are the bearer of the sword, and are therefore subject to frenzy at all times.

Things are further mudied when you read the "paired weapons" section, which reads "the bearer of paired weapons has +1 attacks"... which seems to indicate that bearer isn't actually a word that means anything to GW, and is just thrown in whereever it sounds nice, much like how "unmodified" doesn't actually mean unmodified.

*sigh* If they at least gave us FAQs or something, it would have been perfectly okay, but no. I hate going by common sense when playing this game, because by that logic, Tiktaq can join units, or his special rules makes no sense - what terradons in his unit? The unit he can't be placed in? Obviously not - but I've never seen a tournament allow it, baring tournaments that house-rule everything in the first place. (Like giving additional points to some armies, changing costs or adding additional restrictions not present in the actual rules, etc.)

Sure, we could start rewriting the rules, but that sorta defeats the purpose of having them in the first place.

 

And yet a shield is a shield is a shield, magic or no. Here is what I got from the FAQ.
Q: Does a model with a shield get the armour save bonus in combat
if it can’t use it? For example it is using a weapon that requires two
hands? (p43)
A: No.


If it doesn't help you in combat or restricts you in any way, you're not going to hold on to it when your swinging a two handed weapon (or two hand weapons as you will see further down). A big shield flapping around is a restriction. Try slinging something over your shoulder and go split some wood. Makes life difficult. Could the character stop and find the time to safely secure the item on his back. Yeah sure. They can take a tea break as well while they are at it. I don't know. Anyhow, I think the "no" really emphasis this point of view.

Q: Does a weapon that gives a bonus to a characteristic only give that
bonus when being used to attack a model?(p4)
A: Most weapons, including magic weapons, state when the
bonus is given. For example, a model with the Fencer’s Blades
will always have Weapon Skill 10 whilst a model with a great
weapon will only have +2 Strength when striking an enemy in
close combat. When a weapon does not say when the
characteristic bonus applies, then it only applies when striking,
or being struck, in close combat.

More evidence that an item must be in use.

A similar situation came to mind. If (using a version of your argument) a character riding a monster has armor that gives a ward save, does the monster then get the ward save. After all, your monster is bearing a character on its back just like a shield (or in a similar fashion ). It might not be using the armor, but it is touching it and therefor must benefit from it, right?

Q: Does a ridden monster benefit from any ward save that its
rider possesses or vice versa? (p105)
A: No.

Might seem a little silly, but it basically the same line of thinking.

These also might help.

Q: Do all attacks made with Paired Weapons (including the
Extra Attack), use all of the Paired Weapon’s special
rules/bonuses? (Reference)
A: Yes.

Page 91 – Weapons, Two/Additional Hand Weapons.
Add “Requires Two Hands.” to the special rules on the profile.

I hope these help as well.

I understand your frustration. I'm the same way with cavalry charges. Makes absolutely no sense why a charging cavalry unit wielding lances/spears wouldn't strike first. Do the higher initiative opponents leap forward (past a 8-10 foot lance/spears held by riders at a full gallop) then jump back to get hit by them? There are some physics in play that don't really make sense. And I completely agree with the whole character on a flying mount not being able to join a unit. But that is how the book is written so I must hope that they figure it out for the next rule book.

Sadly, we are both in different camps on this shield issue and regardless of what I throw out there from the FAQ or rulebook, I think you've dug in on this position. Personally, I don't play tournaments. I have a pretty large variety of people that all play and we enjoy it. If we come to an issue where neither party can agree (rarely ever), we roll on it and run with it for the duration of the game. After the battle we discuss, research, and decide what the rule will be for all coming battles so we don't have this issue again. Usually both parties are pretty open about figuring it out. Works well for my group.

 

I know this is an old thread, but I have only just joined the forum and I believe you all have it slightly wrong.

In the scenario the character would be using the charmed shield and not the halberd.

In the rules under magic items it states that character will never used mundane items over magical ones, so if you take a magical shield they can only use one handed mundane weapons.

So OP you would have got your 2+ charm shield save but you wouldnt have been getting +1 str

Hope that clears things up

OB

 

That only applies to weapons. You would only technically be "forced" to use the Charmed Shield over a standard mundane shield, but having both is pointless.

It does, however, beg the question; If I take mundane armour and a Armour of Destiny, I can only use one, but can I TAKE both, in case someone destroys my armour of destiny?

Might be a complete waste of points in 99% of all cases, but it's just an odd question that popped into my head upon reading the new post.

 

+1
Now that you mention it, that is a good question. I want to say that I'm pretty sure you can only every have one suit of armor, shield, helm, etc... but I don't have my book right now. If the rulebook doesn't say you can't then I suppose you COULD, but I would see it as a pretty cheesy move. I'd have a hard time justifying a character that carries around an extra set of armor on the battlefield.

"Hold on guys. That spell just made my gear less powerful. Let me just... awww... damn, I dropped my gauntlet. Wait, don't charge... Just a few more minutes..."

 

Yup, you can only have 1 suit of armour and 1 shield.
But there is no such thing as "helmet" so you can use dragonhelm and helm of discord in the same time. Or I am missing something

 

You can only have one magic item from each category.

 

I was pretty sure it counted for all magical items not just weapons, but I could be wrong. I'll re-read the BRB when I get home.

Either way, if he could have been using the halberd I agree he wouldnt get the benefits of the charmed shield's ability.

I'm also pretty sure it says somewhere in the magic items section that if you get magic armour it replaces the character's mundane armour of that type, again will have a look when I get home for a reference pg No.

 

BRB quote:

"A model can only have one suit of armour and one shield, so if you give a model a magic suit of armour or a magical shield, it replaces any mundane equivalent already worn by the model"

So cant have a magic and mundane armour item.


Silverfaith - Yeah you were right just magic weapons that have to be used. Cheers

 

of the same type.

you could have a magic helmet and regular light armor and a shield.

 

Thanks n810, thats what I meant, I have a nasty habit of making people guess though my bad