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.

Since an enchanted shield does not have "shield" in its description (as several other items in the empire book do, such as Shield of the Gorgon, etc), does it require one hand to use? In other words, given the following setup:

Captain of the Empire
Full Plate Armor
Barded Warhorse
Enchanted Shield
Great weapon

Will the captain be able to have his 0+ armor save and also use his great weapon (and thus strike last at +1 strength) in the same combat? (could also apply to an additional hand weapon if available, as for a warrior priest, but this wouldn't matter if the character were mounted).

Arguments in favor: any magic item loses all its normal properties relative to a mundane item of the same type. Thus, a character using a magical hand weapon may not avail himself of the parry bonus unless the item's description specifically says "hand weapon." A shield follows the same rule, and this one should therefore function like a talisman, giving the bearer 2 more points of armor save while not requiring the use of either hand. Other items are specifically granted the "shield" attribute in their description, but the enchanted shield only reads "magic armor."

Arguments against: Fluff-wise this makes very little sense, and feels kind of RAW ish. It should also be noted that if the rules are read as described above, an enchanted shield is "magic armor" and thus the character using it may not simultaneously wear mundane armor.

I'm interested in what people think. This answer is needed for a tournament coming up this weekend. Thanks!

Im pretty sure in the faq if the shield is magical you dont get the parry bonus either

Actually no, you do get the parry bonus for magical shields, but you don't for magical weapons unless specifically stated otherwise. However, the parry bonus is not relevant here, as the character who would be using it is mounted.

The full rules for the common magic items are in the main rule book. In the main rulebook the enchanted shield IS a shield.

"Enchanted Shield

Magic Armour-the Enchanted Shield protects its user with powerful magic. The shield confers an armour save of 5+ rather than a mundane shield's armour save of 6+. This can be combined with other mundane amour-for example, light armour + Enchanted Shield = armour save 4+, heavy armour +Enchanted Shield + mounted = 2+"

So...it does not say "shield" (unless it does in the Errata). It does strongly imply that it is a shield, but it never comes out and says it. In fact, it says that it can be combined with "other mundane armour", which, strictly RaW, could mean that it could be combined with a regular shield. But it seems to me that GW meant to say "shield", and just missed it.

On this note, though, I find it silly that the only way for non-Dwarfs to get a +1 to their armour is via a shield and not some type of armour that would allow for GW and EHW.

So yeah, I'd recommend saying its a shield...but technically, GW messed up, so if the players wanna exploit it...

What part of "THE SHIELD" did you miss?

a) it states it is a shield that confers a 5+ save
2) it then compares itself to a mundane shield, which again places it as a magical shield

Nos may sound a little harsh, but he's absolutely corrected. A enchanted shield is a shield in all respects that offers a 5+ save. Its as simple as that, reading into it further or dissecting it is unneccessary.

Now, I'll agree that it only makes sense, but the item is "Magic Armour", and it does not say "shield" other than "the shield", which is not a technical term or a piece of mechanical jargon; it's just shorthand for "The Enchanted Shield". It suggests that it replaces a mundane shield, but it does not say so. It only says that it "can be combined with other mundane armour", and then gives a few examples that do not include a shield, but there is nothing to say it can't.

My problem is with the word "other" in that passage, though. It seems to be saying "armour that isn't a shield", but it ends up saying "mundane armour that is not this item", which doesn't make sense.

I agree with you guys, but not from a RaW standpoint. It does not say "Shield", which is how Games Workshop has decided to classify their magic armour and weapons. They only recently decided to do this across all the books, so the main one is a little outdated, but that's RaW for you. It's stupid, and I have no intention of using it, and I'd just chalk it up to a typo, but I would not try to prove to some jerk that he's wrong. Just that he's a jerk.

So it's sloppy GW rule-writing rather than a seriously intentional issue. Fair enough, I'm used to it. Thanks for your help everyone. Mod can lock this if one is around.

Warpsolution wrote:Now, I'll agree that it only makes sense, but the item is "Magic Armour", and it does not say "shield" other than "the shield", which is not a technical term or a piece of mechanical jargon; it's just shorthand for "The Enchanted Shield". It suggests that it replaces a mundane shield, but it does not say so. It only says that it "can be combined with other mundane armour", and then gives a few examples that do not include a shield, but there is nothing to say it can't.

My problem is with the word "other" in that passage, though. It seems to be saying "armour that isn't a shield", but it ends up saying "mundane armour that is not this item", which doesn't make sense.

I agree with you guys, but not from a RaW standpoint. It does not say "Shield", which is how Games Workshop has decided to classify their magic armour and weapons. They only recently decided to do this across all the books, so the main one is a little outdated, but that's RaW for you. It's stupid, and I have no intention of using it, and I'd just chalk it up to a typo, but I would not try to prove to some jerk that he's wrong. Just that he's a jerk.

Trying to argue that the Enchanted Shield isn't a shield is like arguing that Teclis isn't an Archmage or that a Daemon Prince isn't a daemon (both of which are covered in the FAQ, so don't bother). In both cases, GW said something to the effect of, "Yes, by RaW, you're technically correct, but trying to actually play that way makes you TFG so don't do it."

Shields in the BRB are called both "shield"s and "Shields", so claiming they have created a proper noun, and only that proper noun will do, is incorrect.

So yes, when it states it is a shield it IS a shield.

Manfred, I agree.

Nosferatu, you are correct, but I am not claiming that there is some sort of "Shield, captail 'S'" rule here. What I'm saying is that, at the beginning of a magic item's description, it is supposed to say "Shield" or "Lance" or whatever. Or "counts as" in the description. This one does not. This one only ever says "Enchanted Shield", which, technically, tells us nothing, except for one instance, where it says "the shield", which is not directly (and let me emphasize directly) stating that it is or counts as a mundane shield with magical properties. Arguably, it could just be shortening the official name "Enchanted Shield", to "the shield".

Finally: how many disclaimers do I have to put out there before I say something like this? I said I agreed. I said I'd chalk it up to a typo. I said that, technically, there is room for debate, and isn't that what this thread is for?

So yeah, it's not nice. It would make me "TFG" if I did it, which I don't and never would, but these forums have been made so that people may discuss these things and sort out the RaW, in case we run into TFG.

I mean, Malleus asked this question for a tournament, so while we could just all say "in the spirit of RaI, let's all play nice and be reasonable", but some people won't and that's why we can get together and figure this kind of thing out. That one jerk won't listen to you talk about the spirit of the game or RaI; he just wants to win or whatever.

So here's the last thing I'll say on this: the description of an Enchanted Shield all but says that it's a mundane shield with magical properties. The context of the description points to the fact that it is a mundane shield with magical properties. But it does not say in clear, concise words that it is a mundane shield with magical properties. I, for one, would ask my opponent to be reasonable, to be considerate, and to help both of us have a fun game. If he pressed the issue, I'd probably say he's a jerk and play the game and I'd both have an excuse if I lost and feel even better if I won.

Please, everyone: the next time someone tries to argue about how something works in this game from a RaW standpoint (the only one that can be debated; any reasonable person can determine what the RaI are at a glance), assume that he's trying to figure it out because someone tried to pull that crap on him, or because it's funny to find those holes in the rules, and not because he's some jerk who wants to break this game.

I'll admit that my post - upon a re-read - came off a little harsher than I wrote it. I wasn't directing any negative words directly at you, I was just trying to get a point across in response to your post.

But my point stands. I literally watched a guy in the 40k YMDC forum argue that a force sword isn't a force weapon. Since Day 1 I've been saying that RAW was a bad idea, and every time I see someone make one of these uber-ridiculous arguments I die a little more...

Arguing RaW, when its blatantly clear what GW meant to write (RaI), is just being a TFG.

If you told me it wasn't a shield, and I can't combine it w/ a hand weapon for the extra +1, I'd tell you your vampire can no longer use the Dreadlance, as you are clearly carrying an axe.

Or I'd tell you your stegadon now has no legs, so he is removed as a casualty, providing me with 3 times his normal points cost worth of victory points.

Then these threads-where all the weird stuff gets asked-shouldn't be an issue. Someone brings up a rules question, we all say "well, Games Workshop clearly meant this, so let's just go with that". The end.

But that isn't the point. I go here to learn how to deal with people who try to play the game like it was some kind of contract they could twist to their advantage. Part of this discussion board seems to be an attempt to figure out whether or not the rules-as they are written-say one thing or another, to help people who want to play the game the right way deal with those who want to play the wrong way.

And I must say, I'm tired of unnecessary responses directed towards people who are trying to figure something out; especially when those people blatantly say that they agree with everyone who's attacking them, but they just want to get things straight rules-wise.

It honestly seems like people just get overly upset or agitated when someone mentions "RaW", even if they follow it up or precede it with "Now I would never do this" or "I know it doesn't actually make sense". It looks like people just don't read the whole thing. A comment on the human condition, I guess. Communication.

Warpsolution - except there is no "supposed" like you are claiming.

They have *started* doing what you suggest (e.g. Dreadlance: lance <etc&gt however there is no rule *requiring* the mundane version to be included in the description at the front.

So you are left with it stating it is <the> "shield", which cannot be a contraction of Enchanted Shield as it is not capitalised "S", which means that RAW it *is* a shield.

Nos is correct here. By RAW the Enchanted Shield is a shield. There is more than enough evidence in the rules for it to indicate, by RAW, that it is a shield. Any argument that the rules don' clearly state "shield" in a separate part of the entry is silly.

Warpsolution wrote:Then these threads-where all the weird stuff gets asked-shouldn't be an issue. Someone brings up a rules question, we all say "well, Games Workshop clearly meant this, so let's just go with that". The end.

But that isn't the point. I go here to learn how to deal with people who try to play the game like it was some kind of contract they could twist to their advantage. Part of this discussion board seems to be an attempt to figure out whether or not the rules-as they are written-say one thing or another, to help people who want to play the game the right way deal with those who want to play the wrong way.

And I must say, I'm tired of unnecessary responses directed towards people who are trying to figure something out; especially when those people blatantly say that they agree with everyone who's attacking them, but they just want to get things straight rules-wise.

It honestly seems like people just get overly upset or agitated when someone mentions "RaW", even if they follow it up or precede it with "Now I would never do this" or "I know it doesn't actually make sense". It looks like people just don't read the whole thing. A comment on the human condition, I guess. Communication.

Like Nosferatu said, people HAVE been doing stuff like this. This is usually the point where I pipe in with:

PLAY THE GAME, NOT THE RULES.

RAW has exposed an ugly segment of the gaming population who seem all too willing to twist the words of the rules to suit their needs, and it frankly disgusts me. Yes, I get a little heated when non-quesions like this come up - it's because it casts an ugly shadow over my hobby, and it depresses me.

And that shadow can certainly get to everyone; I just hope that those heated statements are saved for those people are are, in fact, willing to twist the rules for their needs, rather than for those people who bring up those rules to get a confusing situation sorted out. Though I would think it would be better if those heated statements were just not stated. The less hostility in the hobby, the better.

But philosophical and ethical discussion isn't the real point here. So I'll end my contribution to all of this with the following: Nosferatu, that is, thus far, the best explanation provided. I still think that GW needed editing in re-printings, and that this is still a big, bloody mess, but that is the best thus far. Mostly because it actually addressed what I was saying. Not that I'm blaming you or anyone for misunderstanding the first go 'round; the statement was posted, responses followed, then clarifications, now this. I might have had to swallow some pride if I hadn't remembered that this was all about a game and I was supposed to have fun and etc., so...yep.

Oh yes, 7th ed is a huge mess - characters, mounts and what is and isnt magical / flaming etc. Alessio IS making changes since he took over, its just the turnaround is sooo slow.

As for reprints - they try to keep these to a minimum, as it can act as a barrier to long standing players. They got stick for the 3 reprintings of the chaos 3rd ed codex for 40k, the stealth Necron codex, etc - and rightly so.

Karon wrote:Arguing RaW, when its blatantly clear what GW meant to write (RaI), is just being a TFG.

If you told me it wasn't a shield, and I can't combine it w/ a hand weapon for the extra +1, I'd tell you your vampire can no longer use the Dreadlance, as you are clearly carrying an axe.

Or I'd tell you your stegadon now has no legs, so he is removed as a casualty, providing me with 3 times his normal points cost worth of victory points.

However your arguments make no sence whatsoever while mine do. Your vampire example is going off of a model, not a rule, and your stegadon example makes no sence whatsoever.

Lets take The Balefire Spike from W:VC as an example. It says "Lance. Attacks with the Balefire Spike are Flaming" It actually says "Lance" as its own sentance, therefore I get the +2 Str on the Charge.
The Black Axe of Krell has the same thing at the beginning of the entry: "Great Weapon. The Black Axe..."
The NightShroud Declares that it is Light Armor, just like all Magic Armor items that count as mundane armor
In W: DE the Shield of Ghrond specifucally states "... is treated like a normal shield, ..."

The Enchanted Shield however says no such thing. It is not a "Shield" by rules, for all you know it could be a magic gauntlet that is called "The Enchanted Shield" because it offers some kind of magical protection, we just dont know.

If I were to go by your ruling, I could say that my Skaven Warlord with the shield of distraction would also get the parry bonus, my warpstone scroll can also act as a dispel scroll because it says that it is a scroll, that I can combine ANY magic weapon that is called a sword in its name that is not said specifically to be something else and combine it with an additional hand weapon or get a parry bonus because it is a sword, which is said to be a hand weapon. Can an empire Dragon Bow also fire like a normal bow, just with magic attacks because it says that it is a bow (not that you would want to, but i'm just making examples)?

Hopefully in the next edition this will be fixed, but for now everyone just has to deal with not getting the parry bonus.

What I like is that while the enchanted shield is a shield, and can be combined with a hand weapon to get the +1 parry bonus, a magic weapon is not a hand weapon, and cannot be combined with a normal shield to get the pary bonus.

Unless they've changed that since the last time I... cared.

Zeekill - I asume you ingnroed the previous posts, showing you you are incorrect?

The ES IS a shield, as it states so within its rules. There is *no* requirement in the rules to state the mundane ruleset at the beginning - that is simply a convention they have (thankfully) adopted in the last few armybooks.

Until you can point to a rule requiring the word "Shield" to be used at the front of the ES text, your argument is null: The Enchanted shield IS a magic shield and you, at least for the next month, definitely get the parry bonus.

zeekill wrote:

Karon wrote:Arguing RaW, when its blatantly clear what GW meant to write (RaI), is just being a TFG.

If you told me it wasn't a shield, and I can't combine it w/ a hand weapon for the extra +1, I'd tell you your vampire can no longer use the Dreadlance, as you are clearly carrying an axe.

Or I'd tell you your stegadon now has no legs, so he is removed as a casualty, providing me with 3 times his normal points cost worth of victory points.

However your arguments make no sence whatsoever while mine do. Your vampire example is going off of a model, not a rule, and your stegadon example makes no sence whatsoever.

Lets take The Balefire Spike from W:VC as an example. It says "Lance. Attacks with the Balefire Spike are Flaming" It actually says "Lance" as its own sentance, therefore I get the +2 Str on the Charge.
The Black Axe of Krell has the same thing at the beginning of the entry: "Great Weapon. The Black Axe..."
The NightShroud Declares that it is Light Armor, just like all Magic Armor items that count as mundane armor
In W: DE the Shield of Ghrond specifucally states "... is treated like a normal shield, ..."

The Enchanted Shield however says no such thing. It is not a "Shield" by rules, for all you know it could be a magic gauntlet that is called "The Enchanted Shield" because it offers some kind of magical protection, we just dont know.

If I were to go by your ruling, I could say that my Skaven Warlord with the shield of distraction would also get the parry bonus, my warpstone scroll can also act as a dispel scroll because it says that it is a scroll, that I can combine ANY magic weapon that is called a sword in its name that is not said specifically to be something else and combine it with an additional hand weapon or get a parry bonus because it is a sword, which is said to be a hand weapon. Can an empire Dragon Bow also fire like a normal bow, just with magic attacks because it says that it is a bow (not that you would want to, but i'm just making examples)?

Hopefully in the next edition this will be fixed, but for now everyone just has to deal with not getting the parry bonus.

Let me get this straight: You resurrected a month-dead thread to be on the wrong side of argumentative? On a topic that's going to be void inside a month? AND you've got less posts than fingers and toes?

Calling for lock, methinks.