http://www.darkreign40k.com/weapons-and-armour/rules-for-shield.html

so here are the unofficial rules for shields. but the one thing that i find illogical is that they all have 'primitive' trait, even 'modern' (in context of 40k) shields that arbites use in law keeping. at first glance it just doesnt make sense that those items would have their APs halved against wh40k weapons. why would they?

the main problem is that these custom rules see shields from two perspectives:

1) they are normally used as shields as intended by the dh rulebook. in other words, they arent used for 'soaking' damage, but for deflection in the form of parrying. so they are used actively. they have no passive use.

2) some of them that are large enough and designed with that purpose can be used as cover. so, they can be used passively. you just take them as an object, put them in front of you and hope they will be thick enough. just like armour.

the main problem that i encountered in previous arguments is that shields arent neccessarily weapons as the game would make you think by default. as i said, i think it is entirely possible to use shields with modern design and that they lose primitive trait in regards to the cover. since the primitive trait doesnt apply to regular cover, why would it be applied to shields acting as cover?

I assume there's a different logic behind the Primitive mechanic: Cover that is shot through loses one point of its AP. So a 4 AP non-primitive shield is destroyed twice as quickly as an 8 AP primitive shield while the two are otherwise identical.

I don't have it handy at the moment, but I believe the eratta gives shields a passive armour value for the arm that is carrying it now, the default being about 2 points. I would probably make an Arbites shield around armour 5 (same as Enforcer Carapace).

As for non-primitive shields, I am quite confident that Adeptus Arbites Supression Shields and Imperial Navy boarding shields lack the primitive quality. Heck, the Navy shields are even made flat so they can be used for emergency hull-patching: Rather implies sturdy and high-tech construction given what Imperial ships call hulls....

There is also a rather cool specialty use for shields. Characters with the Deflect Shots talent can use their shields (+15% to parry!) to bat aside incoming rocks, arrows, knives and so on since a shield also counts as a "melee weapon". Add Wall of Steel and you can do cool wuxia defensive moves like in any good martial arts movie set in China.

I always assumed that the guard shield and naval sheild provided normal cover and that the primitive characteristic was just applying to attacks made with it.

Face Eater said:

That makes alot of sense, but there is a problem in the rules that stem from the designers designating shields as "melee weapons". The eratta (rightfully) gave shields an armour rating and sadly this is where the awkward situation develops. If a shield is primitive then the damage is about right for those situations where you slam your shield into someone as an attack. It hurts a bit to a lightly armoured opponent and bounces harmlessly off anyone in serious protection: so far, so good. The problem then is when your shield is struck by an incoming attack: if it is primitive then your protection is halved against a non-primitive weapon. Obviously a navy shield meant to board ships defended by lots of angry guys with shotguns, rifles, pistols and sharp pointy things would be designed to take hits from these weapons or it would be hard to justify the naval trooper giving up a free hand to use it. Ditto for Arbites shields.

One solution you might consider is to steal a concept from D&D 3.5 where a shield used offensively has it's offensive and defensive traits determined separately. Basically a magic shield used to attack only gets a bonus to attack if it is separately enchanted to be a weapon as well. It is awkward though, since there is no standing rule in DH or RT to back such a ruling up that I am aware of.

I tried checking the errata for any mention of shields but couldn't see any. Where is that section?

Because shields are technically weapons, you could just mono-upgrade them and remove the Primitive quality anyhow. As usual, this would be explained as something other-than-but-equivalent-to a monomolecular edge.

Hodgepodge said:

The only problem with that is that you then have a very weird shield with a penetration rating. Simply houseruling that the more modern shields give a modern form of cover, but not attack (much like how Zilla stated), seems a much more logical way to handle it. Because while shields can be use as a weapon, both in and out of game, they are not designed to actually be used in a highly offensive manner, which is what pen rating is for.

Well, if the shield is hard and dense enough to not count as primitive, then it is almost by definition made of a mateiral hard/dense enough to potentially cut through armor of similar protective value. If it lacks an edge or point such as a spike, perhaps the enhancements or hyper-dense material used to build the shield give it enough oomph to be similar to a mono-equivalent hammer.

Hodgepodge said:

Hah, interesting. I might allow it, with the caveat that its 25 points of protection function as normal cover does, ie, permanently diminishes by one point per point of damage blocked. The defensive quality also means that it will never be optimal for attacking.

Now a really nasty Secutor has two Power Fists, a RT Power Sword with the +5 to parry on one mechandite, and an Inferno Pistol on another.

from france

is' old debate here for my self if anything from sword to a hamer can be considered eliginle to mono. why not shield. you can attck with the shield espicaly for those made with this idea in mind. like thos with a pike in the midle or auround the edge. and i dont think it s a question of material. look for the hammer it s a pneumatic that give him the mono quality it seem rubish to me then that shiel cannot be mono. the errata says any close combat prymitive weapons any....if you have large idea you can think that arrow range and not close weapon can be used as a desperate closed weapon (in this cas improvised) and be edge...

the same question goes for amor built with primitive material but with offensive feature like pike they can be mono and losse the primitive quality?

The Inquisitor's Handbook lists the AP value provided by the shields it describes, and states which are treated as "primitive". This roughly corresponds to the OP's linked Houserule, with the exception of the Dark Heresy Core Rulebook's shield, which isn't explicitly listed as capable of providing cover (and is, in fact, supposed to represent just about ANYTHING used as a shield - bucklers AND plasteel!), and the AP values given (generally +/-1).

As for using Mono to lose the primitive quality, the ability to grant the wielder cover is not perfectly analogous to the "primitive" offensive quality a shield provides - note that the Guard Shield in the Inquisitor's Handbook has the Primitive quality, yet does not count as Primitive armor for the purposes of the cover AP it provides (unlike the Tower Shield in the same book, whose description is explicit about it being halved against non-Primitive weaponry).

The nature of the AP cover a shield provides and its offensive classification (which is the only thing Mono changes) are not actually linked in the rules.

I don't see why one couldn't just make a Mono defensive equivalent, for armor and shields alike. Call it "plassteel-reinforced" or "inertia-dampener", or some such.

If you compare the shields in the IH to each other you get some oddities.

There are two tower shields, one wood, the other metal. The wood one provides 6AP, metal 8AP. The naval shield provides 8AP, the guard 6AP (these are described like tower shields). They are all listed as primitive weapons, whether they be an actual primitive wooden tower shield or a plasteel naval shield that can secondarily be used as an emergency weld patch. However, the towershields are both extremely heavy AND reduce AB by 2, whilst the naval/guard shields do not reduce AB and weigh a lot less.

But they are all listed as primitive. I'm pretty sure that guard/naval shields are far more advanced than a wooden towershield, but they provide the same number of APs. On the other hand the 'primitiveness' of the towershields is reflected in their ridiculous weight and reduction of AB. So should they also be reduced in APs as well? Or is that enough of a tradeoff?

I'm not sure that a power armour equivalent naval shield is very balanced considering how common they are. If they were that good, that light and that ubiquitous everyone would be carrying them. On the other hand I'm not a fan of a wooden shield providing as much armour as an advanced composite guard shield.

What I'd do is remove the primitive quality from the naval/guard shields but reduce their APs as well, say to 6 and 4 respectively. That or treat their APs as cover that gets whittled away, destroying the shields over time.

Hellebore

from france

i am at work so i don't have the book about the radical but is it possible to add to a shield the substance that give lectrical reaction when touch? as i said if a shield is made of modern material and can be use to attack then it can be mono. in the same book a sword made from plant can be mono. so if a plan can be mono i don't see why a shield cannot be.

Hellebore said:

If you actually look closely at the descriptions for the shields in the IH, you'll see a discrepancy between the more primitive style shields - the Mirror Shield and the Tower Shield - and the 'modern' style shields - the Guard Shield and the Naval Shield.

That difference is found where the description gives us the Cover value the shield provides. Notice the text on the Mirror Shield and the Tower Shield, where it lists the Cover AP as being Cover 6 (Primitive) or Cover 8 (Primitive)? That means that the armor value is considered primitive - halve its value against non primitive attacks.

We then take a look at the description for the Naval Shield, where it states that the shield provides 8 Armor points as cover. See the lack of the (Primitive) tag? That indicates that the cover provided by the Naval Shield is not considered to have the Primitive quality for the purposes of the cover it provides. Similar wording can be found for the Guard Shield. Note, of course, that both weapons are still considered to have the primitive WEAPON quality - if you bash someone with a Naval Shield in melee, non-primitive armor's AP would be doubled.

Basically, as the rules are written now, a weapon's Primitive quality and the nature of the cover provided by a shield are not actually related: A Mono Tower Shield still provides a Cover AP of 8 (Primitive), and a regular ol' Guard Shield still provides a non-primitive Cover AP of 6.

For the record, given the wording for all of these items, they actually are treated as "Cover" for the purposes of the Armor Points they provide. After someone hits a wielder of a Naval Shield for 9 points of damage, that Naval Shield's AP is reduced by 1, as per the rules for cover. That, and their heavy weight, is probably why most characters don't bother with them - they're a source of potent but quickly-degrading protection.

Except there is no such thing as primitive cover and the naval/guard shields are listed as primitive everywhere else in their descriptions (type of weapon, special rule in the weapon description).

Hellebore

Hellebore said:

There is no such thing as primitive cover in the core rulebook, but the Inquisitor's Handbook provides us with all sorts of new things.

And the Primitive special quality found in the weapon description (outside the aforementioned Tower Shield and Mirror Shield) applies to using the weapon as a melee weapon - that's what the Core Rulebook's section of Special Qualities tells us, and nowhere in the description of the weapon does it indicate otherwise (excepting, as mentioned before, the Tower Shields and Mirror Shield).

Honestly, look again at the descriptions. It describes 4 types of shields: Tower Shields, Mirror Shields, Guard Shields, and Naval Shields.

For the Tower Shields, it specifies the cover's AP is 6 or 8, and it is explicitly tagged as Primitive. Mirror shields are treated the same way (explicitly primitive AP for the cover), but have text allowing the full cover bonus against laser weapons. Guard and Naval Shields have no mention of their cover bonus being treated as primitive.

It seems very silly to me for a single source to list the same mechanic differently if they function the same, especially if one is explicit as functioning outside of the default way (as you said, cover in the core rules is not considered primitive) and the other works perfectly fine functioning as normal cover.

Why would the Inquisitor's Handbook provide such different wording that so strongly suggests one type treats the cover as Primitive armor and the other is treated normally, if all the cover protection was to be considered primitive?

Edit: Let's try a different tact.

Find, in the rules, where it describes the Primitive special quality for weapons in the Core Rulebook. Read through it thoroughly. What does the Primitive special quality do to a weapon? Does it say anything at all about it's interaction with a cover bonus provided by the weapon?

Look at the rules for each type of shield. Does it say how the shield's Primitive weapon special quality interacts with the Cover AP it provides, if any?

Until I see a rule that links a weapon's Primitive quality to the quality of protection it affords due to the cover it provides, I'm going to assume that the cover a shield provides uses the normal rules for cover, unless there's explicitly a rule that indicates otherwise ( like the way-too-often-mentioned Tower Shields with their (Primitive) tag after the listing of their AP value as cover).

It also lists primitive as an armour quality and those shields are listed as having the primitive rule. It doesn't say what that primitive rule is being applied to, the attack, the cover, or both. But as primitive is both a weapon rule and an armour rule and those shields have both weapon and armour components AND have the primitive rule I fail to see how you can conclude they don't provide primitive armour.

You are saying that for someone to know the rules of a naval shield they have to know the rules of a tower shield but no items (unless explicitly stated) require you to know how another one works, that's what their individual rules are for. The naval shield is listed as primitive and it provides both an armour and weapon component. It doesn't distinguish between the two so logic says that the Primitive quality must apply to both. However it also says that those APs are COVER and nowhere in the rules does it describe a Primitive rule for cover. Even if those shields that list 'primitive' cover were introducing a new special rule to the game, they don't describe what primitive cover does. Cover and armour are two different things that perform similar functions. Just as TB and natural armour perform the same thing but are also different. You are arguing that because penetration works on armour it should work on TB as armour and TB both perform a similar function. As the rules for cover do not denote a special kind of cover called Primitive nor describe what a special rule called Primitive would DO for cover and there is absolutely no rules pertaining to primitive cover in any book (even the shields in question do not state what primitive cover actually does), you cannot claim it to be something else.

The examples of cover given in the rulebook include the materials the tower shields are made of and are not listed as being primitive.

You can infer what it means, but unless there is actually a rule that states what primitive cover does it's not actually a quality that exists beyond it being named in the entry of two weapons.

In my opinion the shields shouldn't be cover anymore than armour should be. An armourplas shield is going to be no different than the armour plas used to make carapace. So unless carapace armour falls apart after taking damage a shield shouldn't. Of course, I'm not a fan of how armour seems to be virtually indestructible either (baring some unusual Crits), so wouldn't mind if armour actually took damage over time.

Hellebore

It lists primitive as an armor quality, but shields don't provide an armor bonus, they provide Cover.

I do understand where your interpretation comes from, and I hope you understand where mine comes from. Now let's get down to what our interpretations mean in-game.

In my interpretation, truly primitive shields provide comparatively mediocre cover against non-primitive weaponry, roughly equivalent to standing behind a light wooden door. Meanwhile, shields of more modern material and make provide exceptional (i.e. ****-near-unbeatable) cover against almost all primitive weaponry and a decent, but not unbeatable, defense against modern weaponry. In my interpretation, that shield absorbing a lasgun blast could end up nearly useless after only 3-4 solid blows.

In your interpretation, a wooden tower shield of primitive make provides exactly the same protection as a Guard shield made of plasteel, and a crude metal tower shield provides, again, exactly the same protection as the plasteel modern equivalent, i.e. the Naval Shield. In your interpretation, a wooden tower shield could partially deflect lasguns all day long, even though a door of the same material would break apart after 3-4 solid blows.

If both interpretations have the backing of the rules (I can't find text to indicate that the Primitive special quality assigned to the weapon is NOT associated with the cover protection it provides, and you cannot find text to indicate that it DOES), and one interpretation results in 41st century tech shields providing better protection than 15th century shields... Well, I think the decision on which interpretation to use is pretty obvious.

In the IH guide on pg 97 and 99 it specifically describes the cover AP for the listed shields as Primitive (Mirror Shield and Tower Shields). In the IH guide on pg 162 and 180 is does not specifically describe the cover AP for the listed shields as Primitive (Naval Shield and Guard Shield). The primitive weapon quality is only relevant when the item is used as a weapon (when you use the shield to bash somebody). The primitive armor quality is only relevant when the item is used as armor (when you are hiding behind the shield as cover). I figure that unless the book specifically lists the cover AP for shields as primitive quality we'd have to assume they're not.

But... For the sake of argument, if a Guardsman found himself without any weapons being attacked by a guy with a knife and the Guardsman took off his non-primitive quality AP helmet and used it as an improvised weapon would that improvised weapon inflict non-primitive damage? Essentially that's what people are doing with shields.

from france

i read the shields entry again and i found it limited. the shield normal and tower are use in the same way. wich is... disturbing. the penalty for such thing as using the hields as a weapons should not be the same. normal shield are made ti defend one self and should be unyeldy and not impose a penalty of 20%. tower shield should give bonnus when use in a team of at least to tower shield user. like the team talents and when use with it a better bonnus. bucklet shields especially the one with a pike in the center should be use as a weapons without any penalty.

special shield like the spyrer one should have others benefits as well.