Jump to content



Photo

Should/does shields break?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#21 Phi6891

Phi6891

    Member

  • Members
  • 189 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:39 AM

FieserMoep said:

Well, there are several 'primitive' Shields that work like cover (i. e. Tower Shield - IH) though the Sinford is not one of them. It is made of ceramite and therefore is just as reliable as Carapace Armor or any other Weapon that gets used to parry stuff. If this shield would suffer from the Cover Rules all your armor should because that is simply what it is: Stackable Armor. The problem of this shield, that makes it a formidable upgrade, is its fireing port that makes it an awe-inspiring tool in combination with a good shotgun. (Though I wonder why a cleric is using such a dedicated arbites shield^^)

So rule-wise the shield does not have the cover rules and therefore does not get damaged by every penetrating hit. (That would be pathetic for 4 AP… even an unarmed attack could destroy the arbites most resilient tactical shield that is used to protect from small-arms fire and even explosives)

Well hold on, are you saying that plasteel is weaker then ceramite? Because if it is then I can understand if it does suffer from the cover rules, but if plasteel is equivalent or better then ceramite then it should be subject to the same rules as Synford-Pattern Lockshield.

Even though the Navel Shield uses the cover rules it is still plasteel and for cover rules it should have a 32 AP but since it's a shield instead has a 8 AP. So I say that if your going to apply cover rules to a plasteel shield then I argue that you should have to beat a 32 AP first before you reduce the 8 AP to 7 AP so on and so forth.

Otherwise make it a like how the Synford-Pattern Lockshield is and make it Stackable as well. Because quoting you it would be pathetic that even a well placed unarmed attack could destroyed a Navel Shield made from plasteel.



#22 FieserMoep

FieserMoep

    Member

  • Members
  • 362 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:11 AM

We are talking about DH guys. If you want a realisitc game forget DH.

The 4 AP Shield is balanced to be stackable, hence the 4 AP.

The 8 AP Shield is balanced to be cover, hence the 8 AP.

Also the 32 AP mentioned as cover do not refer to a thin layer of plasteel that can be carried by ONE human… the 32 AP refer to a solid structure made of plasteel or do you believe some naval armsmen carries the weight of a double T-girder?

Also most of the naval shield I know of (from novels) are barely more than some metal plates that provide basic cover during bording actions. They are also usable to seal breaches but thats it. They are disposable and nothing advanced like the shields in use of the arbites, one of the best equiped military forces of the imperium that is actually quite big.

And you can not easily compare ceramite and plasteel thouhg mostly ceramite is refered to be the more advanced material though even Flak Armor has some mass produced low quality ceramite parts. As far as I know ceramite has the superior abilitys when you create a not overly cumbersome armor hence big parts of power armor are made of ceramite. Though Terminator on the other side has also ceramite on the outer side (it has great energy absorbtion abilites) but the bulky armor is filled with plasteel, much more than power armors. In this comparison it is very much like our modern world where tanks are a combination of lighweigth ceramic and heavy tank steel parts.



#23 Phi6891

Phi6891

    Member

  • Members
  • 189 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 08:42 AM

I guess what I'm trying to say is I want to give the Navel Shield an Armour Value of 32 like plasteel's cover bonus AP value. I came up with/stole this idea when I was reading in another thread that was talking about Lathe Blade (Weapons Upgrade), because Lathe blade weapons have an Armour Value of 25, but it's kind of pointless because there is no rules for sundering weapons/shields, short of power weapons with their 75% chance to destroy other weapons/shields. So I thought that a Navel Shield could have an Armour Value of 32 for purposes of calculating the reduction of the cover bonus from damage that the Navel Shield would endure during combat. 

For example you would have to deal 33+ damage to the shield to reduce the cover bonus from 8 AP to 7 AP in one round, and then do 33+ damage the next round to reduce the, now, 7 AP to 6 AP. 

I'm also thinking that a plasteel has some resistance to combat damage though, but I wouldn't think that ceramite would be more resilient, by comparison to plasteel though.   

No you are right Navel Shields are not as Advance as the Synford-Pattern Lockshield. 

-A Synford, for one, has an armourglass viewport to see through the shield.

-A Navel Shield does not.

 

-A Synford has a firing port, to allow for using a pistol or basic weapon with.

-A Navel Shield does not.

 

-A Synford has a vox-hailer, to be able to shout over the noise around you.

-A Navel Shield does not.

 

-Synford has mag-strips, to secure prisoners to the shield with magnacles.

-A Navel Shield is a giant metal shield so you can use magnacles to do the same.

 

-Synford can link up with other Synford Shields to form a lockshield armoured wall

-A Navel Shield can be used to seal up a hole in a bulkhead of a ship.

 

-Synford covers head, body, and arms when in motion or body, arms, and legs when stationary

-Navel Shield covers the body and shield arm or grants full cover.

 

I don’t know why you would say I can’t compare plasteel to ceramite, but anyways, so in comparison the Synford-Pattern “Lockshield” is technologically advanced to a Navel Shield, but what a Navel Shields is, is a giant piece of metal that can be used to repair holes in a spaceships. Otherwise wouldn’t spaceships be made with ceramite on their outer haul for protection? So I don’t know how you can say that a Navel Shield can be considered disposable though.



#24 FieserMoep

FieserMoep

    Member

  • Members
  • 362 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 04:05 PM

Phi6891 said:

I don’t know why you would say I can’t compare plasteel to ceramite, but anyways, so in comparison the Synford-Pattern “Lockshield” is technologically advanced to a Navel Shield, but what a Navel Shields is, is a giant piece of metal that can be used to repair holes in a spaceships. Otherwise wouldn’t spaceships be made with ceramite on their outer haul for protection? So I don’t know how you can say that a Navel Shield can be considered disposable though.

Because that is, what it is. It is a metal plate with a grip, nothing more. It is disposable because it is mass produced and because you will have hundreds in in your space vessel as a back up, maybe even more you actually do not know of. And do not get the wrong view on naval shields. They are huge but thin, remember, one man has to carry them, if necessary with one hand. They are far from beeing something solid and also they are not made to protect you from direct fire, they shall protect from ricochet shots and explosives and they are well expected to get damaged or destroyed for you have plenty in reserve. And the paragraph about repairing the hull… it helps for small holes, realy small holes where the shields of the ship can actually save the section. Do not think of it as replacing a whole side of the ship.

And the 32 Ap are just redicioulus… a terminator suit consists of massive parts made of plasteel and geat quite "easly" damaged. The 32 AP are for SOLID objects like armor plating of a damaged tank that is on the ground, the door of a bunker and so on.

The 8 AP for a Naval shield are just fine. The DH system might nor portray it right but if you compare it, this thin shield is just as good as a mobile sandbag or flakboard emplacement. In my opionion this pretty much portrays a naval boarding shield right. It is the cheapest way to reduces your lossses on armsmen when boarding actions are taken but it is far away from being a dedicated combat shield that was specificaly designed for the purpose of protecting someone.

I promise you there are naval shields just like the sinford in use but those are made for the elite armsman of the imperial navy. The rank and file sailors have be to happy with this thin plate and RAW it is just as good as most of imperial guard emplacements that are also made of flakboard and sandbags. And the naval shield has the benefit to be easily portable.

And another question ppl should ask themself if they create such special rules: Do they actualy improve the game? To make one thing more "realisitc" though everything else is not? If you want an advanced shield for the navy, take the arbites one, thats absolutly legit. Just because it is called sinford and is in use by the arbites that does not mean only they are allowed to take it. And always remember that the imperium uses standard designs for a lot of wargear. It is pretty much possible that the sinford is based upon another design that is standard issue for boarding troops of the navy. maybe with less electronics but basicly the same.



#25 Phi6891

Phi6891

    Member

  • Members
  • 189 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 03:50 AM

I’m not saying that the Navel Shield isn’t a metal plate with a grip, because that is what it is, I’m just saying that I feel that for a shield made from plasteel it shouldn’t suffer from the Damaging Cover rule on pg 199 or if it does the shield should be subject to 33+ damage before you reduce the cover bonus it provides of 8 AP down to 7 AP.

Because think about how that sounds that a melee sword can reduce that cover bonus of a plasteel shield with one hit, effectively cutting through a metal shield. And it is also possible for an unarmed attack to do the same thing as well.

 

 

FieserMoep said:

 

 

And the 32 Ap are just redicioulus… a terminator suit consists of massive parts made of plasteel and geat quite "easly" damaged. The 32 AP are for SOLID objects like armor plating of a damaged tank that is on the ground, the door of a bunker and so on.

 

 

 

 

First of all a suit of terminator armour is going up against military grade weapons and such, so unless you’re fighting combats that involve high use of heavy weapons, tanks, walkers, aircraft, ect. then the extra AP from the Navel Shield or Lockshield wouldn’t really matter to begin with. And the second thing is I don’t know what you’re talking about a 32 AP for. What I’ve been trying to get across was that I feel that the (I guess what I’m looking for is hardness) hardness of plasteel should be 32 and that the shield should have to take damage exceeding its hardness value in order to reduce the cover’s Armour Points value (8 AP for a Navel Shield) by 1.  

 

 

FieserMoep said:

 

 

I promise you there are naval shields just like the sinford in use but those are made for the elite armsman of the imperial navy. The rank and file sailors have be to happy with this thin plate and RAW it is just as good as most of imperial guard emplacements that are also made of flakboard and sandbags. And the naval shield has the benefit to be easily portable.

 

 

 

 

I don’t want a Navel Shield version of the Synford-Pattern "Lockshield", I like it the way it is. I like that the Navel Shield is just plain slab of metal and that’s it, noting more or less. I like that the Synford “Lockshield” is an advance piece of tactical combat equipment. I just don’t like how some shields have stackable AP and others are subject to the rules of Cover, because why should a plasteel lose its cover bonus over time when ceramite doesn’t? It just doesn’t make sense to me that you’re going to apply a little bit of realism to one shield type and not subject that to another shield type is all.

 

I just find it funny that DH has you micromanage one piece of equipment over other pieces of armour/shields that don’t have to be, now this doesn’t take into the decision of what the GM tells players how their equipment is effected by certain events/situations.



#26 FieserMoep

FieserMoep

    Member

  • Members
  • 362 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 07:22 AM

So you want to make a non-realisitc setting realistic just for one item? If you look after it you will find tons of things in DH that are inconsistent and maybe do not even make sense. But they are used to simplify the game.

When you start to make the game realistic for the sake of one item. Where do you want to stop? Shall your players spent 3 hours of gametime to find an armorsmith on an imperator-forsaken world that repairs their armor because after four penetrating hits its protection value has degraded into nothing? Does the game actually benefit from such changes? I say no, it does not. You are offered Shields with different mechanics. Ignore what they are called, hell I do not even care. I use them for what they look appropriate. And if I want a Pavese-Like deployable Cover I Take a tower or naval shield. If I want a personal tactical shield I take the arbites one. It is quite easy. Everything in the Rulebooks is just a suggestion you can change. They even tell you to give things a name and to make a normal Stubber Pistol into a MK. 3 Lucius Pattern Personal Defens Automatic or what ever.



#27 Darth Smeg

Darth Smeg

    Lord Nitpicker

  • Members
  • 1,647 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 06:46 PM

 I assume you mean NavAl shield, and not one that just protects your belly button 


Tarald - The Dark Lord of Smeg

 

My House Rules for using Only War (and more) for Dark Heresy games


#28 Phi6891

Phi6891

    Member

  • Members
  • 189 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 12:23 PM

@Darth Smeg: LoL, yep I do mean Naval Shield. Well when you work off of only 4 hour of sleep in-between an 8 hour shift and an 11 hour shift bad spelling happens. But I see you didn’t point out that FieserMoep was spelling Synford-Pattern “Lockshield” with an “i” instead of a “y” though, but no matter we all understood what we were reading all just the same I guess.

 

FieserMoep said:

So you want to make a non-realisitc setting realistic just for one item? If you look after it you will find tons of things in DH that are inconsistent and maybe do not even make sense. But they are used to simplify the game.

No actually I’m saying the opposite. I’m saying that I want realistic rules on one item, actually two items because on page: 181 the Guard Shield is under the same effects too, to be unrealistic in an unrealistic game.

 

FieserMoep said:

When you start to make the game realistic for the sake of one item. Where do you want to stop? Shall your players spent 3 hours of gametime to find an armorsmith on an imperator-forsaken world that repairs their armor because after four penetrating hits its protection value has degraded into nothing? Does the game actually benefit from such changes? I say no, it does not. You are offered Shields with different mechanics. Ignore what they are called, hell I do not even care. I use them for what they look appropriate. And if I want a Pavese-Like deployable Cover I Take a tower or naval shield. If I want a personal tactical shield I take the arbites one. It is quite easy. Everything in the Rulebooks is just a suggestion you can change. They even tell you to give things a name and to make a normal Stubber Pistol into a MK. 3 Lucius Pattern Personal Defens Automatic or what ever.

 

So going back to the first few comments of this thread.

Damorte said:

Im currently playing a cleric whos using a synford pattern lock shield. One of the players of our group insists that shields should break just as any other cover in the game, but ive yet to find anything in the game rules that states that this is the case. Could someone please clarify this for me?

Then

FieserMoep said:

Well, there are several 'primitive' Shields that work like cover (i. e. Tower Shield - IH) though the Sinford is not one of them. It is made of ceramite and therefore is just as reliable as Carapace Armor or any other Weapon that gets used to parry stuff. If this shield would suffer from the Cover Rules all your armor should because that is simply what it is: Stackable Armor.

(also note the Synford spelled with an "i". :D)

So if you’re equating that ceramite is just as reliable as Carapace Armour. Well from the book on page 145 it says that Carapace Armour made of densely layered plates of armaplas, ceramite or highly durable material. Well on page 199 looking at Table 7-10: Cover Types, I’m equating that Plasteel is just are reliable as Carapace Armour because Plasteel and Armaplas both provide cover bonus of 32 AP. So then I conclude that Plasteel = Ceramite, because if Plasteel = Armaplas and Armaplas = Ceramite, just because you can have Carapace Armour made from Armaplas or Ceramite.

Now granted you could have Carapace Armour made out of plasteel too but from the weight of the Synford shield, which is 4 kg, and the Naval shield, which is 9 kg, I’m guessing that plasteel is 2.25x the weight of ceramite. So the Enforcer Light Carapace (15 kg) + Carapace Helm (2 kg) would weighs 17 kg, which is the same weight as Storm Trooper Carapace , and if either was made out of plasteel they would weigh roughly about 38.25 kg. So at that point you would think that you would just wear Light Power Armour instead.

And don’t quote me dimensions of materials in this game setting when they don’t even give you the density of any materials or their thicknesses either because I can just say that a thin layer of plasteel is better than a thick layer of Iron because on the same table one row above Plasteel and Armaplas is Thick Iron and that provides half the cover bonus of Plasteel and Armaplas does.



#29 FieserMoep

FieserMoep

    Member

  • Members
  • 362 posts

Posted 15 April 2013 - 02:34 PM

You a trying to break down a "count as" system on math? Well, let me screw it for you: There is even Flakarmor made of low-quality ceramite components. Also you take the suggested weight serious? You do now that there are a thousand different designs to actually build a carapace?

What is so difficult to understand with the matter that Shield A and Shield B are meant and balanced for different purpose? That they have a different name is just to make them more "fluffy" and to seperate them. In the same manner we could argue why primitive armor only counts half against non-primitve weapons. We could argue about a lot of things that are annoying to actually game breaking. Also the cover rules are just SUGGESTIONS. There might be occasions where some wood provides 8 AP, and occasions where a solid nahlwood tree provides 20 AP cover. Also there is a broken Armorplate that provides 32 AP and some thin plasteel that offers no more than 10 AP.

I hardly doubt that the imperium is employing a unit of the munitorum that is the quallity assurance of cover in the field. And if that Plasteel does not offer 32 AP because it is just a lousy fence it does not get the badge of approval!

 

What we have are two different rules that alow diversity. If you want to take a personal shield on your adventures you have a shield, and if you want to waste and throw away pavese like shields you have an option. I offered you fluffy explanations for this items to work just as good as the flimsy ones in the rulebooks. But if you take every item discription mandatory and try to bring realism to this setting, that is far away from that, you are on a lost position. I mean, what sense does it make to have some realisitc shield rules  if your armor still does get magically repaired after it was penetrated? Does it make the game more immersive while a human beeing just gets a fleshwound from a devastating attack for his TB soacked a lot of damage? How did his skin does get as tough as leather? If you realy wanna break down everything that is not "realisic" you might not enjoys this game. And that is, what it is. A game, there is always simplicity, always abstraction. For example you could kill a greater deamon with an auto cannon at ease… in fluff they soack the damage of hydras and are nigh unstoppable beasts. Conclusions have to be taken, and I take them gladly if they are as harmless as different shields, i even see them as a welcome oppertunity.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS