Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Damorte

Should/does shields break?

29 posts in this topic

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification! :)

I came in posession of the shield through using the inquiry/availability section of the core rule book while being at Scintilla.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And my comment was just poking.^^ RAW there is nothing against this combination it is just that in our group the NPCs might react irritated to a Cleric that is carrying a shield with him. It is not part of the iconic gear you would expect and should also not faith be the only "shield" a cleric is in need of? ;)

Combat Shields of this quality are mostly issued for highly combat orientated forces in limited environmental situations just like boarding parties or arbites but there is nothing wrong with a cleric that uses a fancy shield, maybe even decorated with some litanies or purity seals as a bullwark against the dark powers.^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell him that you'll rule that your shield breaks with multiple strikes if his armor breaks with multiple strikes. 

 

The synford-pattern lockshield isn't even cover. It's basically just extra AP on the body parts that it covers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shields (even the ones that provide cover) are classified as weapons, and there are no rules about damaging weapons. 

The only really wierd and unexplainable reference is the description of Lathe Blade upgrades in the Inquisitors Handbook, where they state that " A Lathe blade cannot be destroyed by the effects of a power field and counts as having an Armour value of 25 if directly attacked."

But there are no rules for attacking weapons, so it makes little sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FieserMoep said:

And my comment was just poking.^^ RAW there is nothing against this combination it is just that in our group the NPCs might react irritated to a Cleric that is carrying a shield with him. It is not part of the iconic gear you would expect and should also not faith be the only "shield" a cleric is in need of? ;)

Combat Shields of this quality are mostly issued for highly combat orientated forces in limited environmental situations just like boarding parties or arbites but there is nothing wrong with a cleric that uses a fancy shield, maybe even decorated with some litanies or purity seals as a bullwark against the dark powers.^^

 

Oh i did quiet vividly describe the shield as being covered with litany, ecclesiarcial symbols and song texts of praise. My cleric is after all a puritan fanatic, who leads from the front while singing inspiring praising songs to the emperor and the holy saints! ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darth Smeg said:

Shields (even the ones that provide cover) are classified as weapons, and there are no rules about damaging weapons. 

The only really wierd and unexplainable reference is the description of Lathe Blade upgrades in the Inquisitors Handbook, where they state that " A Lathe blade cannot be destroyed by the effects of a power field and counts as having an Armour value of 25 if directly attacked."

But there are no rules for attacking weapons, so it makes little sense.

Yet some shields are used as defensive weapons for parrying, and thus could be broken by a power field.  Others contribute directly to AP, and do not act as a defensive weapon.  It brings to mind your previous post concerning House Rules on shields.  Shields need to be cleaned up in the errata.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shields are weapons, they have the defensive quality, and potentially some AP to defend with

They are like any other weapon, you can parry with it, you can attack with it.

Power Fields can destroy it, unless it is a force shield or a power shield, or some of the other options that makes it so that power fields can't destroy them…

Oh and Critical damage can destroy shields too, just like it can destroy anything else…

I find the rules to be really clear about this… But people tend to see Shields and Weapons as two different type of items.

 

Always remember there is GM discretion. So there is that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IdOfEntity said:

Yet some shields are used as defensive weapons for parrying, and thus could be broken by a power field.

It's the other way around, it is when a weapon is parried by a power weapon that it might be destroyed. Not when you parry a power weapon.

You would have to actively attack with your shield in order to risk having it parried and destroyed. Considering the penalites most people get for attacking with Defensive weapons, this is not likely to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darth Smeg said:

IdOfEntity said:

 

Yet some shields are used as defensive weapons for parrying, and thus could be broken by a power field.

 

It's the other way around, it is when a weapon is parried by a power weapon that it might be destroyed. Not when you parry a power weapon.

You would have to actively attack with your shield in order to risk having it parried and destroyed. Considering the penalites most people get for attacking with Defensive weapons, this is not likely to happen.

Ah, I see our mistake.  We had been playing it as parrying or parried by a power weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IdOfEntity said:

Ah, I see our mistake.  We had been playing it as parrying or parried by a power weapon.

We use that rule too. As far as I know this is also how it is handled in later publications like Black Crusade that are basicaly some "updated" DH rules. And in my opinion that makes much more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FieserMoep said:

We use that rule too. As far as I know this is also how it is handled in later publications like Black Crusade that are basicaly some "updated" DH rules. And in my opinion that makes much more sense.

I had missed that change. But for some reason it was changed back to it's original version in Only War. By design or mistake, I do not know. I think it makes sense that it works both ways, after all an impact is an impact, regardless of which side has the highest momentum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darth Smeg said:

FieserMoep said:

 

We use that rule too. As far as I know this is also how it is handled in later publications like Black Crusade that are basicaly some "updated" DH rules. And in my opinion that makes much more sense.

 

 

I had missed that change. But for some reason it was changed back to it's original version in Only War. By design or mistake, I do not know. I think it makes sense that it works both ways, after all an impact is an impact, regardless of which side has the highest momentum.

The Black Library books I've read have been pretty clear that the power field on a power sword doesn't require momentum to destroy.  Proximity is enough.   Are Power Fists depicted otherwise?  (Sorry for the Threadjack for this question)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as a weapon they function differently. After they have activated their power field it is on a stand buy, conserving its energy though after an impact is near its field gets activated and unleashes its complete power in one devastating blow, pretty much like thunder hammers. In some novels power fist were also discriped as activated by their user. So for example you could manually activate the field, throw your fist in some solid plate, deactivate it and use the servor motors to tear the plate apart. Actually as a military grade gear I pretty much think the field can be manually activated all time, also when parrying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in that case it really should be when you parry an attack made by a power weapon that your normal weapon is destroyed. Not if your normal weapon is paried by a power weapon. After all, the power weapons field will activate as it hits, and it can't know if it hits flesh, armour or a parrying weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A power weapon will just activate when you want it to. A power fist is a military tool not a rifle sold to civilians with easy to use and dumbed down mechanics that prevent you from doing things that are not intended. I pretty much think that though the power fist usaly only activates if you strike something it can also manually activated if you need it to. Also there pretty much must be a user controllable trigger, for a power fist gets used for a lot of things where the field is not needed. And espaccialy a power fist should be able to break weapons when parrying an enemy weapon.

- Open your fist

- Sucessfull roll a parry

- Grab the weapon in your open fist

- Activate your power field

- Roll for the 75% chance

- Break the Weapon

- Profit

And even if you do not grab the weapon, just activate your fist at the right moment, the fist will engulfe in a potent power field stronger than all the others. And if you still argue now that the fist only activate when you are hiting stuff… well… roleplay it as if you have balls of steel and you are not parrying by deflecting someones blade when you are equiped with one of the stronged melee weapons the imperium offers… you are parrying by striking at it with your full strenght to shatter the blade or what every flimsy weapon is used against you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm convinced. I just think the rule as written in DH is a little strange. I'll be going with the BC version I think, make enemies with Power Weapons really nasty :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question then, from the IH on page 162-163, the Naval Shield provides a cover bonus of 8 AP, so does mean that the shield doesn't lose it's AP from attacks, short of power weapons then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my interpretation if it gets deployed and used as cover it also gets damaged by ranged attacks. In melee it would also be destroyable by power weapons just as any other weapon without a protection against them. Though regular melee weapons would not damage it when used to parry or "block" weapons. This might be inconsitent but it is just as "unrealisitc" than any other armor rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0