PDA

View Full Version : Paired weapons (counts as two handed?)



Harwammer
17-06-2010, 10:40
Having read the rule I am a little confused.

Paired weapons is a rule for magic weapons that gives the item the extra attack rule.

It seems the intention is paired weapons means two hands are required, thus the weapons can't be used with a shield.

Am I right that shields can't be used with paired weapons or are my expectations colouring my judgement of the rule?

T10
17-06-2010, 13:59
8th edition? Well, here's my guess.

Paired magical weapons are a pair of two magical weapons that are wielded at the same time (one in each hand) in order to provide the benefits as described in their magic item entry.

So: no shield.

-T10

Kaelarr
17-06-2010, 14:19
Same as current edition. You can have a shield against shooting but not in combat as both your hands are in use.

Jericho
18-06-2010, 21:53
This is something I have been meaning to ask at the local GW, does it say they get the +1A from having two weapons? Can mounted models use them?

Yrrdead
19-06-2010, 02:29
AFAIK you get a +1A for a "paired weapon" magical item. That is what I recall reading but as I don't have the book in front of me I can't be 100%.

Harwammer
02-07-2010, 12:47
Now that many more people have had a chance to look at the rules, what are the thoughts on this question?

Also what are the implications for mounted characters, are they able to use paired weapons as Jericho suggests?

Atrahasis
02-07-2010, 18:57
The "Brace of Pistols" and "Two Hand weapons" entries don't carry the "requires two hands" rule either.

Interesting.

jaxom
02-07-2010, 22:03
If an item was to be listed as "Bob's Nasty Fencing Blades" with the "paired weapon" rule would you buy it once or twice? I assume the intent (from the names I saw) was that you bought it once and had two blades, not that you could buy one and then buy another to use in the other hand (which would normally be illegal under 7th). This is actually a kind of interesting concept if you pair it with the additional appendages available in some armybooks (like Skaven).

Intent seems to be a single entry for a pair of weapons purchased once but I don't recall particularly clear language. Anyone got something more definitive than a gut feel?

Falkman
02-07-2010, 23:31
They are a pair of weapons, there's no debate about that.
The problem is that neither paired weapons nor additional hand weapons actually have the rule "Requires two hands", and there's nothing about shields not being usable otherwise.
So it seems you can actually use two hand weapons at the same time as getting +1 armour save from your shield.

Ganymede
03-07-2010, 04:07
They are a pair of weapons, there's no debate about that.
The problem is that neither paired weapons nor additional hand weapons actually have the rule "Requires two hands", and there's nothing about shields not being usable otherwise.
So it seems you can actually use two hand weapons at the same time as getting +1 armour save from your shield.

I think that might only be a problem when attempting to run a warhammer computer simulation. In an actual game with actual people, I have a feeling the issue won't come up too often.

Kalandros
03-07-2010, 04:19
The very rule for 'Requires Two Hands' states one cannot have an additional hand weapon or shield with a weapon that has the rule.

Falkman
03-07-2010, 04:32
Yeah but neither of the items discussed here have that rule in the first place...

Kalandros
03-07-2010, 04:36
I know, now that I've read the rules in the rulebook... its stupid but there is no mention anywhere that using two weapons (additional hand weapon or paired weapon) removes the armor save bonus of the shield.

The Bonus save of the shield is mentioned in the shooting phase, not mentioned in the close combat phase except to refer to the shooting rules and then the reference at the end only shows the table of armor saves depending on what you have.

Requires Two Hands is the only rule that removes the shield armor bonus when it comes to weapons.

So basically they missed this. So of course use common sense and play that you can't use your shield either when wielding 2 weapons... -_-

Falkman
03-07-2010, 04:39
So basically they missed this. So of course use common sense and play that you can't use your shield either when wielding 2 weapons... -_-
Obviously most of us will do this, but it sucks that there's nowhere in the book I can just point to and prove it though.
I'm hoping for an errata to fix this kinda stuff fast, there's a bunch of errors in the summary at the end of the book that needs fixing as well, for example.

Haravikk
03-07-2010, 09:45
This to me seems like a case whereby common sense should be able to fill in the blank and that a rule shouldn't be needed (i.e - stop looking for loop holes to cheat with!). To me the two-handed rule refers to a single weapon that requires two hands, if you have two hand weapons then it stands to reason that in order to use both you need to use two hands, so with the exception of freakish monsters with more than two hands you don't get to hold a shield as well (and in such cases I think a rule should really say for certain that you can before you do that as well).

Unless the paired items are something more specific like a buckler (strapped to arm) shield, and a sword whereby a case could be made that one hand is still free, I think it should be safe to assume that anything involving two weapons means two hands are being used.

Rhaivaen
03-07-2010, 11:15
But "common" sense would also come up with buckler, being able to hang it on a sword arm, and still be able to use both weapon and shield.
:rolleyes:
I could see this especially with Duellists and such:shifty:

Wednesday Friday Addams
03-07-2010, 11:32
Shouldn't they get the parry bonus as well then?

Nocculum
03-07-2010, 12:42
You cannot use a shield in combat with a magical weapon that has the Paired Weapon rule.

Against shooting, certainly, but otherwise, no.

I cannot say for sure regarding mounted units however, I will check.

Atrahasis
03-07-2010, 14:27
You cannot use a shield in combat with a magical weapon that has the Paired Weapon rule.
Why not? You can't use it to get a parry save, but you can use it with a shield.

Nocculum
03-07-2010, 16:31
They're brought as a pair. Two, and give the Extra Attack special rule which is described under 'Additional Hand Weapon'/'Extra Attack' in the weapon descriptions alongside Spear, Lance etc.

There is infact only one weapon in the BRB with Paired Weapon, The Fencer's Blades.

In name, theory and common sense, they are wielded as a pair, and since you cannot use the shield with a magic weapon, and you must use a magic weapon if you have one, it can only lead to both hands being used to wield said blades at all times in combat.

I would have thought that if the item was meant to be mixed and matched, it would say so. Of course, this is as much conjecture, common sense looking at the book and drawing from 'Blades' in the name of the weapon as it is cold hard fact, but I would not let anyone use a shield in combat with the Fencers Blades.

An extra attack and WS10 and Magical attacks and a shield in the other hand for 35 points would be pushing it.

Someone else may be able to find a more conclusive answer, but logic points to Paired Weapons, i.e magical, preventing shield use in combat.

Atrahasis
03-07-2010, 16:36
since you cannot use the shield with a magic weaponWhy?

Why do you think you cannot use a shield with a magic weapon?

Nocculum
03-07-2010, 16:42
*use a magic shield to gain a parry save.

Sorry, that was miles off. I've got an answer in my head and it's flavouring the path to explaining it.

Put very simply. You must use a magic weapon, and this is two magic weapons, and the magic weapon use clause overrides the option of switching weapons/choosing configuration upon entering combat.

(I'm glad you're paying attention though, somebody has to [I blame it on Pimms, tennis and the sun])!

EDIT:

Would you allow a model with an Extra Hand Weapon to also benefit from the use of a shield in combat?

Atrahasis
03-07-2010, 17:03
Yes, because the rules do.

Nocculum
03-07-2010, 17:14
No, they do not.

Only in an instance where a model has two special weapons (non-magical) may you elect to use one over another at the start of combat. If your model has an extra hand weapon or two hand weapons he must use them in combat. You may not elect to use a hand weapon and a shield.

Only when said special weapon is destroyed can they elect to use their hand weapon (pg. 89).

Two/Additional Hand Weapons is a special weapon entry, and thus must be used over a singular hand weapon until destroyed (however one might achieve that is another thread in it's own right).

Now, the problem I can see here is that Paired Weapon does not refer to Additional Hand Weapon, and Additional Hand Weapon does not refer to Paired Weapon. To me, it is blindingly obvious that they are one and the same, and that The Fencer's Blades are the same as 'two magical hand weapons.'

Whilst there's only one now, in the future, previous weapons may and will be clarified and rectified with the Paired Weapon rule. I am hoping this issue can be resolved, either by consensus, Dire Wolf or GW themselves.

For all we know, it could be deliberate to allow Fencers Blades to be used with a shield (but the 'it's modelled as a buckler retort' will never wash with me, because my Wood Elves are modelled with trees on the bases, so we can argue about moving cover for an hour to highlight the stupidity).

I would play it safe and use them as 'two hand weapons that are magical' until told otherwise, or naturally, dice it off.

This will cause headaches when and if Rageth's Wildfire Blades are given the 'Paired Weapon' rule :shifty:

Atrahasis
03-07-2010, 17:16
No, they do not.

Only in an instance where a model has two special weapons (non-magical) may you elect to use one over another at the start of combat. If your model has an extra hand weapon or two hand weapons he must use them in combat. You may not elect to use a hand weapon and a shield. A shield is not a weapon.

You might as well argue that a model cannot use heavy armour while wielding a halberd.

Nocculum
03-07-2010, 17:20
I've just realised how badly written this book is.

There's nothing preventing Great Weapon wielders using a shield to claim (in the example of a Chaos Warrior) a 3+ save as well as +2 strength (even if it means they ASL).

Sod it.

Use it.

It's not like Wood Elves need another hampering factor...:shifty:

Urgat
03-07-2010, 17:34
Yes, because the rules do.

"looks at Atrahasis sig".
Oh, I understand now.

I'll have to take a look at those rules too later. Wouldn't surprise me though, it's the guy who wrote the fanatics rules who also wrote that, I guess.

Atrahasis
03-07-2010, 17:36
"looks at Atrahasis sig".
Oh, I understand now. Ok, I'll bite. What do you mean?

Incidentally, the entirety of my sig is out of date, and as soon as this discussion ends, I'll be removing it :)

Nocculum
03-07-2010, 17:55
Stormvermin with shield bonus whilst using Halberds will be fun.

Chaos Warriors of Khorne with Great Weapons and 3+ saves? Yes please!

Let's not forget Ogres too.

And Rita and Sue!

Griefbringer
03-07-2010, 18:06
And Rita and Sue!

Does 8th edition contain rules for fielding those, too? :confused:

Nocculum
03-07-2010, 18:09
It's a metaphor, Rita, Sue, and Bob too! :p

Urgat
03-07-2010, 18:17
Ok, I'll bite. What do you mean?

Not gonna tell :p (sneaky attack :D)

Falkman
03-07-2010, 18:30
There's nothing preventing Great Weapon wielders using a shield to claim (in the example of a Chaos Warrior) a 3+ save as well as +2 strength (even if it means they ASL).

Sure there is, the "Requires two hands" rule that accompanies both great weapons and halberds.

Atrahasis
03-07-2010, 18:32
I believe Nocculum is referring to the fact that to increase your armour save, you need only carry a shield.

"Requires Two Hands" doesn't stop you carrying a shield, it just stops you using it in close combat.

You need to use the shield to get the parry ward save, but to get the armour save you just have to carry it.

Falkman
03-07-2010, 18:39
Ah, right.
The shield rules are incredibly badly written, I don't understand why the only place in the book that describes how a shield works is the shooting phase section, there should be separate rules for shield usage in combat (proper rules, not just the parry part), so we wouldn't have to deal with this crap.

Nocculum
03-07-2010, 18:42
I wish Atrahasis had pointed the failing logic in my argument a page ago, to save me the bother of coming to realise the retardant nature of the anomaly that shall be forever named 'Fencer's Idiocy' without stressing myself out and furthering my need for Pimm's No.1 :p

Atrahasis
03-07-2010, 18:46
Hey, that wasn't even the point I was making ;)

Nocculum
03-07-2010, 18:48
*Swills glass.*

Oh? :p

Urgat
03-07-2010, 21:58
OK, looked at the rules, and yeah.
Shields always work, you only need have it. Gains parry when in close combat. So a shield grants a save even if wielding a two handed or two weapons. My chaos warrior friend is going to love that >>
It only needed "requires a free hand" in its rules too. What a bunch of idiots.

Bac5665
03-07-2010, 23:29
My temple guard just stopped sucking quite so much!!

Huzzah.

On the other hand, my TG aside, I do hope GW fixes that very quickly.

Lord Zarkov
03-07-2010, 23:41
Surely it must say in the rules for 'two handed' that shields can't be used? Given that only HWs can be used as a pair that's the only thing it could do.

Falkman
03-07-2010, 23:51
Yes, it says that you can't use the shield in close combat.
That is not a needed criteria to get the +1 armour save from it though.

Nocculum
03-07-2010, 23:52
It says under Two Handed that you can't use the Shield to parry, and equally, Paired Weapons are not two handed, and wielding an Extra Hand Weapon does not result in Two Handed.

It is as described. Wielding a shield or carrying one, you get the armour save permanently.

Do remember though, you no longer get the +1 armour save you did under 7th wieldng a hand weapon and shield. It balanced alot of units out, makes spears more attractive and so forth, but in instances such as Chaos Warriors and Saurus, Temple Guard and Stormvermin.

It's just utter retarded.

FAQ please.

Falkman
04-07-2010, 00:04
To be honest, the two-handed rules do point out that you cannot use the shield in combat (but it can be used against magic or shooting) which is a pretty strong implication that the +1 to saves is not supposed to work in combat when wielding something with the two-handed rule.

Lord Zarkov
04-07-2010, 00:05
It says under Two Handed that you can't use the Shield to parry, and equally, Paired Weapons are not two handed, and wielding an Extra Hand Weapon does not result in Two Handed.

It won't be not to parry either since again only hand weapons can parry, so it would again be redundant.

If it says, as Falkman states, that you can't use shields in close combat though I think it's pushing it to claim the +1Sv for carrying a shield if you can't use it (you are 'using' the shield's ability to get +1Sv afterall)

Obviously this won't affect an Extra Hand Weapon or Paired Weapons if they're not stated as 'two handed', but gaining a bonus from something you've explicitly been told you can't use is a stretch too far to my mind.

Nocculum
04-07-2010, 00:32
Under Shield there is no stipulation that requires a shield to be used in combat. Owning one increases armour save.

Wielding one with a hand weapon grants a 6+ ward in combat.

Using a two handed weapon prevents using parry, there is nothing in the entirety of the book to say otherwise regarding shields. It is a massive over sight.

Where people stand with it is another question altogether, as rules written and perhaps, just perhaps, as rules intended, the shift to parry ward requires a more stable armour save.

Otherwise, Stormvermin only have a 6+ armour save when using Halberds, and that list of redundancy would increase dramatically.

Lord Zarkov
04-07-2010, 00:43
Using a one handed weapon prevents parrry if it isn't a hand weapon, and yet there is still a 'two handed' rule. While I don't have the book on me (I have only read it in the store since it isn't out yet) I am 100% sure that that rule doesn't just prevent weapons with it from doing something they already can't do.

Now Falkman has told us that the 'two handed' rule says that shields may not be used in combat. If that is the case then while technically you might be able to point out that a shield only needs to be carried not used to gain the bonus I can't see how anyone would let you get away with claiming a bonus from something you've been explicitly forbidden from using - afterall what on earth would be the point of a rule telling you you can't use something when you don't need to use it to benefit from it.

Falkman
04-07-2010, 00:44
Under Shield there is no stipulation that requires a shield to be used in combat. Owning one increases armour save.
I know. But the blurb under two-handed about being able to use it for shooting but not for combat kinda implies that it's intended that you're not supposed to get the +1 to save either.
Just implied though, not actually stated anywhere.

Nocculum
04-07-2010, 00:48
It says shields may not be used in combat with a two handed weapon (or rather, a weapon with the two-handed rule).

Falkman
04-07-2010, 00:54
Yes, and goes on to describe that although they can't be used in combat they can still be used against shooting, a line that to me implies that "hey, you don't get the benefit of the shield in close combat, but fear not, it still works against shooting!".
As Zarkov says that line is completely unnecessary otherwise, as it disallows the parry save simply by being a special weapon.

Lord Zarkov
04-07-2010, 00:56
Yup, so attempting to use the bonus from the shield you've been banned from using while wielding your 'two handed' weapon in combat (especially if they've gone out of their way to say you can still use it against shooting) is prehaps something you shouldn't be doing?

If Additional Hand Weapons and Paired Weapons don't say they are two handed then obviously this doesn't apply to them - I'm sure they'll get round to FAQing it either way at some point - However the point still stands that, even by the rules as currently written, you really shouldn't be using be using the save bonus from a shield while in combat wielding your halberd or great weapon.

Edit: Hey, Ninja'd!

Nocculum
04-07-2010, 00:57
If that line wasn't there, you could be certain that there would be another thread now arguing that characters with Great Weapons and the like can't buy shields as they cannot be used at all.

My logical coherency is strenuous at best, and is strained further as it's 1am, so I'm going to bow out of this until tomorrow before I drag myself further into the rhetorical gutter, evening gentlemen! :D

Falkman
04-07-2010, 01:01
What I'm saying is that the entire "may not use a shield in combat" line is unnecessary if it is supposed to just disallow the parry, since ALL special weapons do that without the need for that line.
Therefore the reason for putting that line there would seem to be to disallow the only other use of a shield possible, the +1 save.

Ganymede
04-07-2010, 03:19
Haven't any of you ever took a debate class? The winner isn't the person who is the "most correct." The winner is the person who is the "most convincing." As it is, y'all sound like a dozen Sheldon Cooper clones arguing with each other.

Urgat
04-07-2010, 10:45
Using a one handed weapon prevents parrry if it isn't a hand weapon, and yet there is still a 'two handed' rule. While I don't have the book on me (I have only read it in the store since it isn't out yet) I am 100% sure that that rule doesn't just prevent weapons with it from doing something they already can't do.

Now Falkman has told us that the 'two handed' rule says that shields may not be used in combat. If that is the case then while technically you might be able to point out that a shield only needs to be carried not used to gain the bonus I can't see how anyone would let you get away with claiming a bonus from something you've been explicitly forbidden from using - afterall what on earth would be the point of a rule telling you you can't use something when you don't need to use it to benefit from it.

That was my understanding too and I rushed to check the rules, but the way the rules are written cannot be questionned, unfortunately: it's is clear as water that you only need own the shield to get the save bonus, wether you use it or not only lets you use parry or not.

Nocculum
04-07-2010, 11:59
It does refer to 'carry' several times under Shield and save too, but you can carry a shield on your back, on your tail, on your head etc :D

theunwantedbeing
04-07-2010, 12:04
Had this discussion with a freind.
Sheilds dont need to be used to generate +1 save, they simply need to be carried.
Paired weapons don't require you to use 2 hands.

Hopefully the Errata clears this up so rules lawyers cant be a pain and use this to some advantage. I'm certainly not going to be letting people get away with such nonsensical interpretations of the rules though.

Harwammer
04-07-2010, 12:59
Haven't any of you ever took a debate class? The winner isn't the person who is the "most correct." The winner is the person who is the "most convincing." As it is, y'all sound like a dozen Sheldon Cooper clones arguing with each other.

I'm probably going a little off topic responding to this quote but I'd like to point out that this is a discussion, not a debate. As such there are no 'winners', merely the opportunity to come to a common resolution based off the facts.

When playing warhammer you are meant to play by the actual rules, not by whatever you can convince a naive opponent to believe. As such I'd rather take rules advice from someone who is most correct.

In a couple of days time we are going to be able to pour over this in detail, but I am worried that theunwantedbeing may be right... the rules on this issue are vulnerable to nonsensical interpretations... In fact I'm having trouble finding a sensible interpretation, though perhaps my experience of previous editions is colouring my reading!

Lord Zarkov
04-07-2010, 13:53
That was my understanding too and I rushed to check the rules, but the way the rules are written cannot be questionned, unfortunately: it's is clear as water that you only need own the shield to get the save bonus, wether you use it or not only lets you use parry or not.

You're still 'using' the shield's ability to grant +1 save to the person carrying though. As a similar example, if you had a charcter with at Item/Rule saying 'models in base contact may not use magic items' would you allow them to gain benefits from talismans etc (some examples from the TK book since I have it next to me Golden Ankhra "The model has a 4+ Ward Save", Death Mask of Kharnut "The model causes terror" etc.) These make no mention of the model using the magic item to get the benefit.

And again even without the 'two handed' rule (which prevents the use of shields) models with weapons that aren't hand weapons can't parry anyway since they don't have hand weapons - which would make the 'two handed' rule completely redundant - thus clearly showing the intent of the 'may not use' wording.

Anyway, to my mind trying to use the benefit from something you've been told you can't use based on a claim that the specific wording seems to indicate that you don't need to use an item to use it's benefits seems to be a pretty fallacious argument.

Again, obviously this doesn't apply to anything that doesn't have the 'two handed' rule, but frankly anyone trying to use a sheild in combat with halberds is being willfuly obtuse.

Havock
04-07-2010, 14:33
The very rule for 'Requires Two Hands' states one cannot have an additional hand weapon or shield with a weapon that has the rule.

Show me a rule which states a model only has two hands.

:p

Urgat
04-07-2010, 17:00
You're still 'using' the shield's ability to grant +1 save to the person carrying though.

No you're not, it's just there. I get where you're coming from, I can't say I disagree with the idea, if you ask me it should work that way, but the rules don't agree with either of us. Untill it's faqed, I hope.

As for the magic exemple... well, I'm sure you will find people to argue either way if you open a topic dedicated to it :p

For what it's worth, I'm going to be adamantine with my fellow players that shields need to be used to grant that +1 save, anyway. I'm da boss, I decide :D

Lord Zarkov
04-07-2010, 17:10
I can see how the rules can be read that way, but I still don't buy it and am not convinced anyone will actually be allowed by anyone else to play that way. - You should never be getting the benefit from something you can't use.

It's pretty much on the same level as the bogus Sword of Hoeth argument and frankly no more supported by the rules IMO. Once you start letting people use the bonus for a shield they're not using you're opening the floodgates for all the badly worded magic weapons to be used for thigs like magic and shooting as the argument against that is the same.

Atrahasis
04-07-2010, 17:22
Previous editions have made that very distinction with magic items - fleeing models could not "use" magic items but magic items that were passive still took effect.

Just sayin'.

Ganymede
04-07-2010, 22:14
...I am worried that theunwantedbeing may be right... the rules on this issue are vulnerable to nonsensical interpretations...

Nonsensical interpretations are only an issue if you play with nonsensical people. Do you anticipate playing warhammer with someone who is clinincally insane in your future?

Nocculum
04-07-2010, 23:41
What part of 'a model with a shield gains +1 armour save' did you presume to be part of a nonsensical interpretation then, Ganymede?

Ganymede
05-07-2010, 00:45
What part of 'a model with a shield gains +1 armour save' did you presume to be part of a nonsensical interpretation then, Ganymede?

I'm not advocating for any position whatsoever here.

Spawn of Icarus
05-07-2010, 11:10
Mounted don’t receive the HW+ Shield or THW bonus,
RAW the model has only to "carry" said shield (E.g. part of their war gear.) The new parry save represents you "actively" using it in your off hand in CC.

It’s a bit like the Bows and Xbows not having 2 Hand rule but some units still being allowed shields and thus claim bonus. We could always petition for a
"Warning suspension of disbelief is advised" advisory if you'd like :wtf:

Lord Zarkov
05-07-2010, 13:32
RAW the model has only to "carry" said shield (E.g. part of their war gear.) The new parry save represents you "actively" using it in your off hand in CC.


Then, again, what the hell is the point of the 'two handed' rule?
Any weapon that has it already can't parry as it isn't be a hand weapon (and only hand weapons can parry)
What to your mind is the difference sheildwise between a Spearman with a Shield (who can use a shield in combat) and a Halberdier with a Shield (who can't use a shield in combat)
It's not even like it's a new book making old rules redundant, it's two rules in the same one!

While the 'two handed' (and shield) rule may not be as clear and watertight as we would like (and is in fact downright sloppy), the way it is meant to be interpreted seems pretty clear.

Yes you have twisted raw to mean something that clearly wasn't intended in order to make a point of GW's incompetence - well done, have a cookie. Now can we go back to playing the game properly?

Again the above rant is just about weapons with the 'two handed' rule. If it is true that 'paired weapons' and the use of an Additional Hand Weapon are neither 'two handed' nor say anything preventing the use of a shield then either it is a genuine oversight or is intentional, and either way should probably be played as written unless subsequently FAQ'd/Errata'd

Spawn of Icarus
05-07-2010, 15:26
Then, again, what the hell is the point of the 'two handed' rule?


Its to show you cant one hand a greatsword/ Halberd

Two hands raw is-
If a weapon requires two hands to use, it is not possible for a model to use a shield or an additional hand weapon alongside it in close combat (Although a shield can still be used against wounds caused by shooting or magic) we assume the warrior in question slings his spare wargear on his back or simply drops it untill the fight is done."

Halberds, flails and great weapons were the only weapons in the book i saw with the 2 hands rule and they all have an advantage to off set the trade. (this is known as game balance)


"What to your mind is the difference sheildwise between a Spearman with a Shield (who can use a shield in combat) and a Halberdier with a Shield (who can't use a shield in combat)"

Gameswise the shield is to make sure you survive getting there against volley fire. Thats Probally influence by the fact the RL halberd is about 6ft long and designed to be wielded in two hands its not possible/ feasible to use one handed. To my knowlege Halberdiers generally wernt fielded with shields/ if they were it was so they werent mowed down before they got to the enemy when they were discarded. IIRC 14-15th C was the start of powder weapons.

I know i said Fantasy required some suspention of belief but its not anime either. :wtf:

Spawn of Icarus
05-07-2010, 15:31
I believe your confusing the spear ( often used with shields) with the pike (used 2 handed)... a comepletly different beast.

Lord Zarkov
05-07-2010, 15:35
Its to show you cant one hand a greatsword/ Halberd

Two hands raw is-
If a weapon requires two hands to use, it is not possible for a model to use a shield or an additional hand weapon alongside it in close combat (Although a shield can still be used against wounds caused by shooting or magic) we assume the warrior in question slings his spare wargear on his back or simply drops it untill the fight is done."

Halberds, flails and great weapons were the only weapons in the book i saw with the 2 hands rule and they all have an advantage to off set the trade. (this is known as game balance)


Well yes.
The point is though that people are saying that you don't need to use a shield to use the bonus save it gives, and that the only benefit of actually using it is to gain the 'parry' ward save.
Since only hand weapons can be used to gain this save, and only hand weapons can be combined to get +1 attack; if that were the case then the 'two handed' rule would be redundant as it would only prevent weapons from doing things they already can't do by virtue of not being a hand weapon.

Hence my question - I am well aware of what the rule is meant to do (and indeed that was the whole point of my post).

Edit: the "don't need to 'use' it" interpretation would mean that a Halberdier would get the same benefit from a shield as a Spearman (even in combat), hence my second question. - I do know how Halberds work in reality.

Spawn of Icarus
05-07-2010, 16:10
its still there to split the special weapons into tho that can be used with a shield for +1 save and those that cannot.

Parry save is must use a hand weapon and shield and carry no speical weapons or magic weapons else you must use those and are unable to claim the parry bonus but still the +1 ac, eg spear and shield (incase people missed that part of BRB. if that helps what you were saying?) Page 88-89 of new book i think. "Normal" hand weapons pretty much means if your weapon has a weapon type (halberd, pistol, spear etc) its not a hand weapon :P

Lord Zarkov
05-07-2010, 16:20
its still there to split the special weapons into tho that can be used with a shield for +1 save and those that cannot.

Parry save is must use a hand weapon and shield and carry no speical weapons or magic weapons else you must use those and are unable to claim the parry bonus but still the +1 ac, eg spear and shield (incase people missed that part of BRB. if that helps what you were saying?) Page 88-89 of new book i think. "Normal" hand weapons pretty much means if your weapon has a weapon type (halberd, pistol, spear etc) its not a hand weapon :P
Exactly! It appears we are in agreement.

The problem is that others feel the need to twist the sloppy wording of the shield and/or 'two handed' rules (i.e. you need only 'carry' the shield) to mean that you can still claim the +1 save in combat when you've been explictly told you can't use the shield (i.e. halberdiers etc with 'two handed' weapons). - Hence my post with all the questions, which was an attempt at Reductio Ad Absurdam.

p.s. IIRC the 8th Ed BRB still tells us that a single pistol counts as a Hand Weapon in combat.

Spawn of Icarus
05-07-2010, 16:45
p.s. IIRC the 8th Ed BRB still tells us that a single pistol counts as a Hand Weapon in combat.

oops it does my bad :P