Hello, just had my 1st player join the slayer cult. The rules state that a Troll Slayer cannot use armour, but does not specifically say that they cannot use shields. I assume that slayer Can-not use shields but would still prefer to get more experienced opinions from you guys.

Thanks

Gary

I'd say he can use even armor when fighting "minor" opponents. Slayers are searching for honorable death and getting killed by some weak manling thieves would certainly not justify that.

If you are looking for an official answer, there is none, some months ago there was exactly the same question posted in these forums. I would suggest to take the question to FFG. They will answer quite fast.

As for a non-official question, slayers have been changed over the different warhammer editions. In first and second editions they were allowed to wear armour, in the 3rd edition they are not allowed. From my experience, I will allow them to wear armour and shield, armour in this game is far too important. On the other hand, I would not add up their career skill with the armour they wear, but only with the shield.

So far Slayers in my games never made it to the second career, Giant Slayer, they always died before or they were just too crippled to keep on going as PCs. Next time I will allow them some armour. Just my experience.

Cheers,

Yepes

Having read nearly all the novels, books etc I would say that not only do Slayers not wear armour but they do not use shields either. Shields are a form of armour after all. If you look at what slayers are, it will only be a phenomenally good and / or a phenomenally lucky (from a player not Slayer point of view) Slayer who will make it to Giant Slayer or beyond. Gotrek Gurnnison is an aberration as ,as well as being phenomenally good, he wields Grimnirs axe. He is also called Doomstealer by other Slayers as they believe he steals their dooms from them, and is not liked by most as a result. Slayers are not meant to last, they are expected to die to redeem their honour. Allowing armour of any kind would negate their purpose. The only slayer who does wear armour is the King of Karak Kadrin and he is a special case.

The best wording I ever heard, was someone who said: "A living Troll-Slayer, is a failed Troll-Slayer".

But at the same time, being a slayer is a very thin line to walk. It's about not fearing death, but at the same time not commiting suicide, and how to interprit that is very very hard.

Is it suicide to charge 10 orcs solo? Is it fearing death not to try'n see if you can actually kill most or all of them?

Is it fearing death to use cover in a fight (or wear armor), or is it suicide to stand in the open and fight?

That said, I think slayer career puts a HUGE demand on both the player (to make it appear as if he tries to die with honor) and the GM to not put the slayer in hopeless situations where he (the player) must chose between getting his character killed for sure, or be a coward.

I read somewhere on these, or the old boards, that a group with a slayer all had tons of fun to make sure the slayer didn't die. So they'd knock him KO'd and drag him away from a fight, after which the slayer would be even more ashamed and try to drown his shame in strong beer.

I was once against ever letting a slayer in to my group, but I really think it's more based on my fears of failing as a GM, than the slayer ruining things.

To make a long story short… No armor/shields for a slayer in my group, but on the other hand, as GM, to model the campaign/scenes so the player wouldn't lose his character any faster than the other players characters.

I'd say no, no armour = no shields. To me shields are a form of armour, and I would not allow it just due to the fact that they are not in the same table as the other armours.

Agreed. no armour = no shields as shields = armour. However, parrying blows whatsoever equals defending one's self, so it's all kind of illogical anyways.

For balance, I would probably allow a shield or even a parrying weapon, but not bod-encasing armour.

How about wardancers?

As a slayer your goal is to die….but not at the hands of 10 goblins….no glory…ie i would allow shield, ambush etc.

However if there is an orcwarboss, this is a worthy opponent, ie. No shield, no beating around the bush, this is glorious combat, so woe the "friend" who would "help" the slayer…..proberly there Will be more than words exchanged afterwards…

thats my two pennies

To be honest I wouldn't really limit them that much, elven steel would be much lighter than ours or dwarven stuff and I used to LARP/Reenact a lot and a good friend of mine can do backflips (plural), spinning jump kicks and cartwheels in full on antioc and plate. True he's a professional dancer and built like it's a lie, but he can still do it so I don't see an issue with a fantasy construct being able to

No to shield.

But the way older wfrp did armour was to have each area to have protection eg head, chest, legs, arms etc The trollslayers back then only wore armour on their chest eg a mail shirt.

One solution I can think of is to carve a rune on the slayers skin to give this limited protection. I dont see dying to an arrow being a glorious slayer death.