sheilds should let you take an extra save.

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.

**soultaker**

sheilds should be an extra save i know the get an invulreble save from it but thats it using a sheild you block frist and then it go's to you armour surly GW have thought of this?

**forkbanger**

You've done this wrong.

**AlexGrannell**

No they shouldn't, that would make them broken.

**SaintHazard**

First of all, this clearly belongs in "40k Proposed Rules."

Second, no, that'd be ridiculous. Saves + FNP is bad enough, a second save on top of that would be absolutely broken. Even without FNP.

**arinnoor**

Unless it would be just a Feel No Pain. Say if Combat shields gave the guy holding it a Feel No Pain, then they'd actually be worth something.

**zeshin**

soultaker wrote: sheilds should be an extra save i know the get an invulreble save from it but thats it using a sheild you block frist and then it go's to you armour surly GW have thought of this?

By that logic a Terminator with a SS should get 3 saves. 1 for the shot initially hitting the shield, 2 for the shot hitting the armour, and 3 for the shot getting past the armour and being stopped by the super mega force field of the Emprah or whatever it is that gives them their 5+ invulnerable.

It's just simpler to reduce everything to 1 save at the best or most applicable value.

**Alpharius**

Off to the Proposed Rules forum...

Though I'm not convinced that he meant "40K" and not "WFB"?

Who knows!

**arinnoor**

Well if he meant Fantasy then shields do that now in combo with hand weapons.

**SaintHazard**

If he meant Fantasy, he was in the wrong forum... twice.

**Valkyrie**

The way Invulnerable is better is that you always get the save (barring few exceptions). Giving the model 2 seperate consecutive saves (3 with FnP!) would be hideously broken.

**sebster**

In addition to the game balance issues, we really don't need to add another dice roll to a system that's already got three (four with FNP) just to simulate a guy blocking with a shield.

**Valkyrie**

Using this system you could have a Blood Angels Terminator Chapter Master with 5 saves! (2+ Armour save, 5++ Termie save, 4++ Iron Halo save, 3++ Storm Shield save and a 4+ FnP save). This would make them completly invulnerable to anything short of a Vortex weapon.

**Arctik_Firangi**

Although the proposition is a bit bizarre, he never actually suggested that every invulnerable save should be taken seperately.

To the OP, it think the best way to look at it is that a Storm Shield can stop anything, and the 3+ represents his chance to actually get that shield up and in the way. If it wasn't going to penetrate his armour save, you'd be using the 2+ anyway.

**Captain Solon**

spelling mistakes.. argh!

anyway: makes sense; kind of like the parrysave of fantasy.

but:

Lets say it's a 5+.
It's useless against Bolters.
but, an assault marine gets a 3+5+ save against guardsmen, which is even worse then before. lets run some numbers:

30 guardsmen shoot 90 lasgun shots [best] at an assault squad with a model with a shield.

45 hit, 15 wound, 5 fail, and then the sergeant can take one extra wound, of which he has a 1/3 chance of winning.

is that fair? 30 guardsmen are worth 10 marines, surely they could do a little more damage.

maybe, they give the invulnerable in shooting, and ane extra save in CC.

It's kind of like FNP, I suppose.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
in a realistic game, youd get a cover save, then an armour save, then an invulnerable save.

**JSK-Fox**

If that was true, then for termies, they would get a 2+, a 3+, and then a 4+. Yeah, no.
That is a 1/11 chance of failing all of those saves. You first need to hit the guy and wound him! I probably did that mathhammer wrong though...

**JimBowen38**

So glad every one is against this extra save with a shield in early eeditions that was pretty much how it worked, making it very frustrating when you where trying to kill characters going through seemingly endless save for no result. The current rules are better dispite thier faults in my humble opinion.

**wizard12**

Maybe if you addeds somthing like the parry save in fantasy, like you can take you 6+ invun from a combat shield ontop of you normal armour save if you fail it, but only with combat shields.

**SaintHazard**

wizard12 wrote:Maybe if you addeds somthing like the parry save in fantasy, like you can take you 6+ invun from a combat shield ontop of you normal armour save if you fail it, but only with combat shields.

Even though this is less broken than Storm Shields giving you an extra save, it'd still make previously frustratingly tough Marines slightly more tough, therefore slightly more frustrating.

I don't think Marines need to be harder to kill, thanks.

**Arctik_Firangi**

Terminators used to have a 3+ save taken on two dice.

The idea in later editions, however, has been to stray away from 'Herohammer' builds in which single models can dominate not so much because of their power compared to the statistical unlikelihood of their demise.
The prevalence of cover saves in 5th edition has pulled us back to 'rate of fire' being more valuable than AP values, and your pissy little shield isn't going to protect you from masses of fire from all directions. That's realistic. Something will slip through eventually, and needing to soak characters in an even more unlikely volume of fire will just spoil the game rotten.