Ye Olde Gaming Companye

[Metathiax]

The optional armor rules found in WGJ #1 made me think of a simple way to include the buckler and tower shields to the game while still using the standard absorption rules. Here it goes :

Armor / Absorbance / Impedance / Cover
Shield, buckler / 1 / -1 / 25%
Shield / 1 / -2 / 50%
Shield, tower / 1 / -3 / 75%

Wielding a shield would allow a character to use it as partial cover (as described in page 197 of the rules) against missile attacks instead of attacking or performing another action. The Shield Use discipline should therefore be extended to three grades to account for the added shield impedance.

Does it sound reasonable and worthwhile?


MX
_________________
My campaign's rules
My Wayfarers review

[Gregory Vrill]

I think it sounds good. Maybe change it to 0%, 33%, and 67% cover for Buckler, Shield, and Tower Shield? Not sure how much a buckler gives you cover more than your helmet or plate armor.
_________________
The GM is your friend.

[JimmySwill]

Ah, Greg... He never reads the rules.

I think it's a very interesting idea, Metathiax.

So you mean that you'd apply a -2/-4/-6 to-hit modifier to the opponent's attacks if the wielder took no action? Just missile or melee attacks too?

Hm. I like the idea of using the shield instead of attacking. I am wondering if sacrificing an attack, or maybe applying an initiative modifier might allow you to use the shield as cover. I am going to think on this.

This might be some good stuff for WGJ3.
_________________
Take a page out of the Unicorn Bible and dance all night by the Light of the Dragon's flame. -Champions of Breakfast

[Metathiax]

[greyfaced]

I support this motion. Seems reasonable. I too, hate the idea of "bucklers" being used for much. This doesn't seem to lead to mouthguard rules, or treble scythes, or double bows. One could ask about using two medium shields instead of a tower shield....stuff like that. How many bucklers can I wear? Helmets, as Greg alluded to, any number of things. I do dislike cover rules in general. Either you can hit someone, and there is a chance represented by dodge, or there isn't a chance, is how I prefer it. So cover shouldn't be a percentage in my book. There is something to the idea of active defense with a shield being more useful than the rules as written have it.

Exclusively defending, while skillfully using a shield, should give a big boost to defense, but I hate cover. I dislike rolling to hit, and then rolling again to hit. Then again, dice hate me.....even soulless computer dice.

[Doyle33]

I think building a system around such an idea is fine, but adding one to an existing game, full of weapons and combos, isn't quite ideal.

There is some inequality in Mordheim, mostly due to armor being prohibitively expensive and cumbersome to use. Making shields better (+2 armor maybe) would make them more useful, and would in turn make axes more useful.

Personally, I like having an off-hand penalty for any games where you can dual-wield weapons. Your off-hand weapon is just -1 to hit. Nice and simple.
_________________
www.plagiarismdetector.net

[madprofessor]

Hi everybody

I am new here and new to Wayfarers, so at the moment I cannot comment too constructively with specific mechanics. I am however, in favor of Meta's idea, even if I am unsure of the specifics, and I'll throw in my 2 cents anyway.

BRP uses a similar idea where shields can be used as cover against area type attacks like a hail of arrows or a fireball, if the shield user dedicates an action to hide behind the shield. I like those rules in that game for a couple of reasons.

A) I like rules that give players options.

B) It allows for some classic story images - the knight covering himself from a dragon's flame, or the 300 "fight in the shade."

C) Mechanically, shields are often an ineffective use for the off-hand in RPGs, where they should be the default, or option of choice. Fighters who went into combat with two weapons (historically rare - though I realize we are talking about fantasy) or a two handed weapon weapon did so at great personal risk, exposing themselves to attack in exchange for a little more offense. In my opinion, shields don't get enough love in RPGs. Classic D&D having set the trend.

I understand Doyal33's concern about adding complexity - its tricky to add new rules, house rules or otherwise, for this and that, as they quickly pile up on each other and there are always unforeseen implications. I have been following some of the controversy over the shield rules. Unfortunately, I don't have a constructive suggestion and won't until I have a little more experience with the game. I just know that shields are one of the first things I house rule for most games, and Meta's suggestions are on target with the kind of thing I would normally suggest.

Anyway, I like the thought process here, and I look forward to contributing when I can,

madprofessor

[Metathiax]

The working of shields has been revised in the latest version of the game.

Small shields (or bucklers) now absorb 1d6-4 damage with an impedance of 1, medium shields absorb 1d6-3 damage with an impedance of 2, and large shields (or kite) absorb 1d6-2 damage with an impedance of 3.

I must admit that I was a bit sceptical at first but so far it has been working well in play. They are more potent but less reliable than before.

You could still easily house-rule that they can also be used for cover.
_________________
My campaign's rules
My Wayfarers review