Do you have to use shields?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**skyth**

If a unit is equipped with shields, do they have to use them? This can be advantageous in a couple ways, if you want the unit to die quicker, or for instance, against rule of burning iron.

What about if the unit has shields and two handed weapons...Do they have to use them against shooting attacks?

**Tri**

no it always improves your armour save ... only time it ever changes is when you choose to use a single hand weapon and shield (getting an additional improvement to your armour save (edit) against the front rank)

**nosferatu1001**

AS above - there are no options in the book to let you "not use" the shield, you are just told it gives you +1 to your armour save.

**Lehnsherr**

I think the only exception to that would be Black Orcs, no?

But they have a rule specifically outlined that allows them to do so.

**skyth**

What about the second point? If you have both a two-handed weapon and a shield...Do you have the option of 'using' the two handed weapon against ranged attacks and thus forgoing the shield 'bonus'?

**aromasin**

I think the second is possible, yes, but if your giving them a 2 handed weapon AND shield you don't want them to die in the first place!

**nosferatu1001**

No, because again the shield is not actively used against ranged attacks -the handedness of weapons is only a consideration in close combat, when you are prohibited from using a 2 handed weapon with anything else.

**Malleus**

Let's take empire halberdiers. They can be given shields for a point each, but need two hands to use their halberds. Do they have a 5+ save, or a 6+ in close combat? (they come with light armor for free)

**BorderCountess**

Malleus wrote:Let's take empire halberdiers. They can be given shields for a point each, but need two hands to use their halberds. Do they have a 5+ save, or a 6+ in close combat? (they come with light armor for free)

Depends - are you using the halberds or the shields? If you're using the hlaberds for extra strength, 6+. If you're using the shields for extra save, 4+ (and you should really be using Swordsmen).

**nosferatu1001**

Malleus wrote:Let's take empire halberdiers. They can be given shields for a point each, but need two hands to use their halberds. Do they have a 5+ save, or a 6+ in close combat? (they come with light armor for free)

At range you have a 5+ save - you have no choice but to use the shield

In close combat you have a choice, either Handweapon (which you always have) and shield or Halberd.

**Warpsolution**

Nosferatu's got it down once again.

**Vulcan**

Why would you not want to use the shield if you have one? I can see a slight exception in the case of troops armed with two-handed weapons, but I can see no good reason to let your opponent gather more VP by killing your troops.

And even if there was some reason for you to do it, somehow I would expect your troops to 'misplace' that order... just like they occasionally misplace the order to go attack that dragon, or hold at all costs, or etc.

**skyth**

Well, I was mostly thinking for stuff like Spirit of the forge and rule of burning iron...And Cloying Quagmire. There are certain times where it is beneficial to have a 'worse' armor save.