As the combat shield is not avaiable till distinguished there is a gap in equipment for low rank chars with 2handed weapons who wish to be able to parry.
The combat shield is strapped to the arm leaving the hand free. the char can parry with it and it has the balanced trait.
The same is true for the buckler from the inquisitor's handbook for DH. So would it be possible for a low rank SM to use a simple bucker with his twohander? Like a stormwarden with sacris claymore.

If so how many requisition would you charge him?

Or does the SM have to rely on a chainsword with dipole mag-lock for parrying?
(remember you can have it fly into yout hand as part of a parry)

I would probably allow for a basic combat shield without the forcefield as this would allow a parry and nothing else.

Maybe lower the renown to repected or even initiate level and reduce req cost to around 10

Tell you what....just take the power field rules from the Combat Shield, lower it's Renown req to none and there you go.

Keeping the Req cost as it is should be the price for a 2-Handed weapon wielder to get the ability to parry at such a low level.

i'd probably make the combat shield require respected instead of distinguished instead. if you wanted to make a non-powerfield buckler, i'd say charge 10 req for it and have it identical to the combat shield except for the field (balanced weapon with a free hand that does the same blunt damage). 10 req sounds a bit harsh at first glance but this is a piece of wargear that fixes a very big defensive vulnerability of several builds (two-hander assaulty types as well as those with heavy weapons). without a buckler, they'd be forced to use one hand to draw an inferior weapon *IF* they spent the req points to maglock it or rely on a *usually* inferior roll for dodge (most characters i've seen tend to have higher ws than dodge and that's before the balanced ability kicks in).

Or even a house-ruled talent that reflects lots of training with said weapon and enables a 2-handed weapon to be treated as Unbalanced rather than Unwieldy. maybe 500-600xp and the limit that it only applies to a specific weapon.

"2-Handed Weapon Expertise" or something along those lines.

That is a great idea as well.

I came up with a few talents for just this type of thing here .

What would you say if the SM who wants the shield has trade (armorer), can he build it for himself? And if so does it still require Requisition?
Would he be allowed to keep it at all? Because if a SM finds something during a mission it's taken at the end because it's not his usual equipment.

@Itsuncertain: My GM already told me he likes thwohanders as they are and thus will not include those talents.

Yes it would still require Req due to firstly, the materials to make said item. Secondly, I doubt I would let them just keep the item due being able to side-step around Req. Also, there are not THAT many Space Marines who build weapons and shields. The only ones who would be able to make something and have it be a high-tech (comparatively speaking =P) piece of equipment such as a decent shield would be Techmarines, although lesser quality version could be made by any with the Trade skill.

Honestly, I'm even certain what the Trade skill is worth in Deathwatch outside roleplay and background reasons. I can't really see a decent mechanical use of the skill, even in a situation as this.

Umbranus said:

Hmm, then just take Two weapon wield melee and duel strike everything until he makes the connection of the differance I guess. That is all it took for me to consider changing the two handed weapon to something along the lines that user Itsuncertain had presented.

It's a matter of taste.

I've always liked polearms and two-handed weapons in general but have been perpetually underwhelmed with the way they are represented in most systems.They never really seem to get much love.

I'd say fluff wise, combat shield is the lowest shield, and otherwiese it's the chainsword to parry.

As Space marines, you only usually go into the field with the best, so it would have to be a pretty good sheild if someone were to make it, which might as well be a combat shield anyway. So I'd just see about lowering the renown or just usng a chainsword.

Huh, what? You can use a combat shield and a two handed weapon at once?! W.T.F?

'Keeps the hand free' and 'allows you to use that hand to wield a two handed weapon AND a shield at once' are clearly two very different things, surely?

Siranui said:

Why should it be two different Things?
Just hold your two handed weapon with one hand (hold, not use), parry with the combat shield on the other hand and grip the two handed weapon with both hands again.

And as I said, you could even, by RAW, draw your dipole mag-locked chainsword, parry with it, put it away again and attack with yout two handed weapon. Rinse and repeat. So why shouldn't you be able to parry with a buckler/combat shield?

A real shield would be defencive, a combat shield or buckler is only balanced, because it allowes just that.

Umbranus said:

Besides it completely defies common sense? You don't take your controlling hand off a heavy weapon and leave it waving around so you can use your shield.

Per RAW your example does not work. Quickdraw allows a weapon to be readied for free, and Diapole allows it as a reaction. You don't get to put your weapon away as a free action, too. You could - in response to a blow- theoretically, take your controlling hand off the two-hander, pull the chainsword and parry, but then you've got a chainsword in one hand and a two-hander in the other.

Actually there is nothing wrong with using a two-handed weapon and a buckler/combat shield. A buckler is typically strapped to the forearm leaving the hands free for use, also it is typically strapped to the "off-hand" (for a right handed person they would train to use a shield in the left hand or, in the case of a buckler, on the left arm). You would let go of the two-handed sword (hold it in one hand...NOT attack with it in one hand) and parry an attack then return the "off-hand" back to the hilt of the sword.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of it. His question is how to get the ability to use something such as the combat shield, although toned down, to lower Renown players. Personally I think keep it as is, having to prove yourself worthy of such a piece of equipment would be a big thing.

*Puts on the Classical Fencing hat*

A combat shield is more akin to a rotella: Strapped to the forearm. Bucklers are defined pretty much by the fact that they are NOT strapped to the arm, and are gripped by a single hand, in a fist-like grip, and are used in forward extension. A rotella keeps a hand free (sometimes), whereas a buckler does not. Bucklers are a completely different piece of kit to combat shields.

More relevantly; that's just not how you ever use a sword. There's not much point in fighting with a two-handed blade and trying to use a rotella. It really doesn't work well. Better just to use the sword to displace blows. You certainly don't use it by taking your controlling hand (the left one) off your weapon. I'm trying to think of a single blow that you could block in time by taking your hand off your weapon which you couldn't have dealt with much earlier by simply moving your weapon to cut the angle off, or voided. The idea is just... wrong, in simple terms. By all means carry a done-handed weapon, combat shield, and carry a plasma pistol (or even a combat knife if you want that proper Scotsman Space Marine *ahem* I mean Stormwarden look) but a two-hander... just no.

But I'm with you on retaining the renown requirement.

Siranui said:

I just called it buckler because RAW call it so. It's in inquisitor's handbook.
So I thought it was easier to quote an existing item instead of modifying one (the combat shield).

As of how it's done: I've seen it irl. Having been around reenactment croups a lot I've met some people who seemed to know what they did. And at least one of them used a little shield strapped to the arm in combination with a big sword. I think it was in fact a bastard sword aka a one-and-a-half-hander, but the difference as of this topic should be marginal.

And if using a weapon with which you just are not allowed to parry there is no "it's easier to use your weapon"

Siranui said:

Good points there and I think it shows some of the weakness in the way larger weapons are modelled in DW/RT/DH. Big swords are awesome at parrying IRL but get no love from the system. There is a 20% difference between parrying with a chainsword and a sacris claymore which seems a bit off.

Maybe the rules are designed to simulate the oversized heroic proportions of the TT models in which case we should be happy that the characters can even lift their weapons.

On the issue at hand I think dropping the power field and 10 req is probably fair enough for the mini-shield but if the end result is the same why not just make claymores balanced or remove unbalanced? As Siranui said it is difficult to envisage how the parry even works.

Continuing on the weapons that don't parry well train of thought I was reading through the Inquisitor wargame recently and reread the power fist (another weapon i'm a bit unhappy with in the 40k rpgs). Its damage is in the same range as most other one-handed power weapons with extra knockback and it can parry reasonably well (it is essentially a giant arming glove I suppose) but you can attempt a trickier crushing attack by grabbing an opponent and crushing him for mega-damage (same as lascannon plus strength bonus!).

difference between RL 14 century long sword and bastard sword is minimal (longer grip, wider but shorter blade), difference between bastard sword and zweihander is astronomical, full 2h sword have completely different school of unit fighting. And u may trust me full 2h blade and arm strapped shield (puklerz) have completely no sense in fight, u need 2 arms to control swings and thrusts of 2 handed weapon. In RL. Block with small shield mean that u are no longer in combat position to make attack.

if it comes to wh40k its your play, your rules, your physics, your world.

tbh i would allow combat shield and 2h sword, by broken RAW rules u are strong enough to carry 10 heavy bolters welded together or few tons of other stuff, so 2h blade that weight 20kg should be like waving toothpick or broom stick for marine.

Umbranus said:

So he wasn't actually using a two-handed weapon and shield at all then...!

It's the second part of your comment though that's my massive problem with the rules: The idea that it's impossible to parry with most of the weapons that the game tells us it's impossible to parry with is both absurd and part of the reason that two-handers in the game are unfairly boned.

OK: You can't parry with a power fist. Fair enough. But some of the other stuff that is listed as unwieldy? Seriously? So a chainsword is a perfectly balanced parrying tool, but a claymore isn't and an eviscerator is impossible to parry with?!

I really don't mind if other GMs run their two-handed weapon rules in bizarre and completely nonsense ways. It's your call and your preconception of what you want. I'm just pointing out that if you want something that's -dare I say it- vaguely realistic, then two handers don't get used with shields and are far more nimble defensively than given credit for. Give me a zweihander over an arming ('long' in gamer parlance) sword ANY day for defensive value. It's far better suited for the job.

Is this really that big an issue?

In scanning the book, I only see 2 melee weapons that require 2 hands.

Sacris Claymore - Unbalanced, ok so you can parry with it you just get -10 to your roll

Force Staff - Balanced, so parry with it.

So you're really just looking for a way around the -10 to parry with your chapter trapping as a Storm Warden?

bmaynard said:

Most two-handed weapons are generally unwieldy. Some specific few weapons are unbalanced, and very few have neither or are Balanced.

If he isn't a Storm Warden he can't get the Sacris Claymore and will need to use a normal two-handed power sword or other two-handed power weapon.

I confess, I'm hoping for some more twohanded weapons in RoB. But it's not available around here yet.

There are a few. Not many, but a few.