Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Damorte

Should/does shields break?

29 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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