When do Shields contribute to Armour Save?

[Timrath]

Or more importantly: when don't they?
I've googled many threads, including in this forum, that claim that Shields become dead weight when combined with any weapons that require two hands. I'm scouring the BRB for anything that would support that claim, but I can't find anything.

The BRB reads:
"If a model carries a shield, the score it needs to save is reduced by 1"

It doesn't say "except when the model also carries a Halberd, additional Hand Weapon, Great Weapon, etc." In fact, you don't even need a free hand to use a shield, because - both IRL, and on Warhammer artwork - shields are fastened to the forearm. Why do so many people believe that you lose the 6+ Armour Save when you combine the Shield with, say, a Halberd? What passages in the BRB support that opinion?

Please note that I'm not asking about Parry Saves. The BRB is very clear about when a Shield grants you a Parry Save, and when it doesn't. I'm strictly asking about Armour Saves.

[Darknight]

I think you may be technically correct. However, you are limited with what you can equip your models with. Very few, if any, models carry a two-handed weapon and a shield. Those that do (or did) invariably have explicit rules which say shields cannot be used in conjunction with a two-handed weapon. When equipping characters, the weapon choices do not include the option to take both shield and two-handed weapon, I think.

[Baron von Klatz]

Still get the armor save against missiles so it's not all bad. :-)

[Naitsabes]

The weapons are listed on page 90 in the BRB. Some (like halberds) have the special rule 'Requires two hands'. You can look that up in the list of special rules (go figure) and will find that it prohibits use of shields in close combat. Pretty straightforward.

[Timrath]

When equipping characters, the weapon choices do not include the option to take both shield and two-handed weapon, I think.

Let's take the General (or Captain) of the Empire as an example. They can take an additional Hand Weapon (unless mounted), and they're also allowed to take a shield. Together with their native Light Armour, they should have a 5+ Armour Save. As far as I can see, nothing in the BRB or AB suggests that they wouldn't get that 5+, despite their also wielding two Hand Weapons at the same time... not only against missiles, but also in close combat.
Even characters that don't get these options, can still obtain magical equivalent combinations, like for example Enchanted Shield + Fencing Blades.
And let's not forget the lowly Halberdier, who explicitly gets the option of taking a Shield.
It seems to me that the only reason why Shield + Two-handed is so rarely seen, is that people erroneously believe that the Shield is useless in close combat when wielded alongside a Two-handed weapon.

[Timrath]

The weapons are listed on page 90 in the BRB. Some (like halberds) have the special rule 'Requires two hands'. You can look that up in the list of special rules (go figure) and will find that it prohibits use of shields in close combat. Pretty straightforward.

I don't agree with that conclusion. "Requires two hands" doesn't mean "precludes the use of shields". In real life, most shields were not held in the hand, but strapped to the forearm. Only bucklers were held in hand. Even in the world of Warhammer, the artwork and the models themselves show us how shields are wielded by Halberdiers and Spearmen; namely on the arm, not in the hand.
The BRB explicitly says that you cannot use a Shield's parry save in conjunction with a two-handed weapon. By explicitly mentioning the shield's parry save, and not its armour save, they implicitly tell us that the armour save is unaffected.

[Cannonofdoom]

The weapons are listed on page 90 in the BRB. Some (like halberds) have the special rule 'Requires two hands'. You can look that up in the list of special rules (go figure) and will find that it prohibits use of shields in close combat. Pretty straightforward.

I don't agree with that conclusion. "Requires two hands" doesn't mean "precludes the use of shields". In real life, most shields were not held in the hand, but strapped to the forearm. Only bucklers were held in hand. Even in the world of Warhammer, the artwork and the models themselves show us how shields are wielded by Halberdiers and Spearmen; namely on the arm, not in the hand.
The BRB explicitly says that you cannot use a Shield's parry save in conjunction with a two-handed weapon. By explicitly mentioning the shield's parry save, and not its armour save, they implicitly tell us that the armour save is unaffected.

Except that this is not real life, this is a game which has rules, and those rules state that you cannot benefit from a shield in close combat when using a weapon that requires two hands. Period.

[Naitsabes]

It is really clear cut. The rule 'requires two hands' on page 75 states you can't use a shield in close combat. I didn't draw any conclusions, merely stating the rules as written.

[ZeroTwentythree]

In real life, most shields were not held in the hand, but strapped to the forearm.

You are starting with a mostly false premise. Most shields had a hand grip, and many had an arm or shoulder strap as well.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of a few examples of shields that aren't gripped by the hand when in use. Hellenistic phalangites used a pike with two hands, and small shield strapped to the arm. But they were mostly operating en masse, and not exactly fencing with their pikes.  I think some bronze age spearmen fought in a somewhat similar manner. Some missile troops anchored a pavise to the ground and then had two hands free to shoot.

But most European & African shield examples I can think or (and what examples of south & southeast Asian shields I'm familiar with) had a hand grip.

Can you show us some good examples of real world use of two hands on a weapon and a shield strapped to the arm?

Warhammer art is a completely different story. But I'm not sure that's something that overrides what's in the rules. Warhammer art shows Empire heroes tearing up the battlefield on badass griffins -- but that's not exactly loyal to the rules either.  :wink:

[Warlord]

It is really clear cut. The rule 'requires two hands' on page 75 states you can't use a shield in close combat. I didn't draw any conclusions, merely stating the rules as written.

Yep.

Boom. Rule as written.

Just to clarify, I assume you are asking about 8th edition?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

What Naitsabes said. The same rule applied in 6th and 7th edition (and probably already before that).

BRB p. 75: "If a weapon requires two hands to use, it is not possible for a model to use a shield or an additional hand weapon alongside it in close combat (although a shield can still be used against wounds caused by shooting or magic). We assume that the warrior in question slings the spare wargear on his back, or simply drops it, until the fight is done."

[Timrath]

It is really clear cut. The rule 'requires two hands' on page 75 states you can't use a shield in close combat. I didn't draw any conclusions, merely stating the rules as written.

You are right. I had missed that.
I spent two days searching various fora, and you were the first who bothered to quote the actual relevant passage. I guess I should have found it myself in the BRB, but there's so much information in it, and I'm still a noob.  :icon_razz:
Anyway, I'm convinced now. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. :::cheers:::

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

My experience is that there is a 75% chance that internet answers not quoting the actual written rule are wrong.

[Naitsabes]

You are right. I had missed that.
I spent two days searching various fora, and you were the first who bothered to quote the actual relevant passage. I guess I should have found it myself in the BRB, but there's so much information in it, and I'm still a noob.  :icon_razz:
Anyway, I'm convinced now. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. :::cheers:::

No worries, enjoy your games.   :::cheers:::

Even with this rule halberds are a good choice. As a great man once said (admittedly, he was ahead of his time): "I'd take strength 4 any day."  :icon_wink:

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

As you say: he was ahead of his time. He said it for the 7th edition AB - where Swordsmen were the superior choice and Halberdiers were clearly subpar. But it is true for the 8th edition.

[Warlord]

As you say: he was ahead of his time. He said it for the 7th edition AB - where Swordsmen were the superior choice and Halberdiers were clearly subpar. But it is true for the 8th edition.

You certainly took the tongue out of his cheek by explaining exactly what he meant...

:roll:

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

I was assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that Timrath may not know exactly what he meant.

[warhammerlord_soth]

I spent two days searching various fora, and you were the first who bothered to quote the actual relevant passage.

Sums up why this forum is what it is... a great and friendly place. Don't be a stranger.

[Naitsabes]

I was assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that Timrath may not know exactly what he meant.

but, what is life without a little bit of mystique?  :happy:

also, this is very true:

Sums up why this forum is what it is... a great and friendly place. Don't be a stranger.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

but, what is life without a little bit of mystique?  :happy:

Life? Definitely (I am a Catholic after all). Warhammer rules? Definitely not.

[Timrath]

I was assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that Timrath may not know exactly what he meant.

Your assumption was spot on, and I'm glad you did.  :smile2:

[GamesPoet]

Is this thread regarding 8th edition :icon_question:

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Yes.

[GamesPoet]

Thank you! :icon_biggrin: :eusa_clap: