Melee (Parry) and Shields

Cubicle 7 // 2018
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Sat May 25, 2019 7:07 am

No, he's pretty right to chastise it considering large-ish chuncks of the rules are written like they wanted a diceless game, others are simply omitted, and they forgot to provide new players with a proper description of the old world at all. and as someone who has tried to help new people play 4th (i kinda sold several people on it before reading the new book) the validation you describe isn't going to come.
CapnZapp
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Sat May 25, 2019 7:28 am

mormegil wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 2:26 am
The Rangdo of Arg wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 11:12 am
So I know there was a long and controversial thread about this on StS, but has there been any clarification on how the Melee (Parry) skill and shields work?

If parrying with an off-hand weapon is -20% without the skill, but you can parry anyway with your main weapon at no penalty, why take the Parry skill or have an off-hand weapon at all?

And where do shields fit in?
This is the initial post that started the discussion and to which some of us try to reply.

The rant whether the WFRP4 moved to another direction than WRFP1, is not the topic of the original post.

Cap, you are the one chasing mills and in any way, each of us have a different aspect of the Old World in his mind, your personal tastes does not validate anything. The only validation will come, from how successful the edition will be to the young people interested in RPGs.
Okay I will respect your desire to not derail the thread. Repost your comment in a new thread and I will respond.
fluminor
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 1:30 pm

Thu May 30, 2019 10:05 am

mormegil wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:28 pm
If you are defending and have an AP 2 shield in your offhand, your options are:

With Melee (Basic) skill:
1. Roll using main hand weapon. Gain +1 SL (Defensive). 0APs.
2. Roll using offhand shield. Gain +1 SL (Defensive). 2APs. -20% on Melee (Basic) test.

If you have the Melee (Parry) skill you can use that instead, which is the same but without the-20.
This assumes I am using a weapon in my main hand and a shield in my off hand.

What if I equip a shield in my main hand and nothing in my off hand? Example: my WS is 40 and my Melee (basic) is 10. I am attacked in melee, so I roll for the opposed melee test. Say I roll 44. What's my SL? I am thinking I should not get the -20 off hand penalty and I should get the +10 from defensive, so my SL should be (40+10+10)=6 minus 4 = 2. I should also benefit from the Shield* quality, were I to lose the melee opposed test. Is this correct?

Say my opponent's SL is lower than mine, so I win the opposed melee test. I am assuming that I crit my opponent in this case, since the shields have a damage rating. Is is so? Am I still using the shield defensively, despite delivering a crit with it?

Thanks in advance for the clarification
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Thu May 30, 2019 10:39 am

You are correct on all counts to the best of my interpretations. i think i'm now inclined to say that defensive qualities only apply in your off-hand unless they're fencing weapons as a house rule though.

gods what a crapshack this book has proven to be.
fluminor
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 1:30 pm

Thu May 30, 2019 12:06 pm

Orin J. wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 10:39 am
You are correct on all counts to the best of my interpretations. i think i'm now inclined to say that defensive qualities only apply in your off-hand unless they're fencing weapons as a house rule though.

gods what a crapshack this book has proven to be.
Thank you. So in your house rules one could, in addition, carry a buckler in the off hand, and would still get the +10 from defensive? Just wondering. And yes, the left quite a few things to the imagination. But to be fair, it is not easy to get it all right.
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Thu May 30, 2019 12:24 pm

fluminor wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 12:06 pm
Orin J. wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 10:39 am
You are correct on all counts to the best of my interpretations. i think i'm now inclined to say that defensive qualities only apply in your off-hand unless they're fencing weapons as a house rule though.

gods what a crapshack this book has proven to be.
Thank you. So in your house rules one could, in addition, carry a buckler in the off hand, and would still get the +10 from defensive? Just wondering. And yes, the left quite a few things to the imagination. But to be fair, it is not easy to get it all right.
you're now officially in shenanigans territory, but i'd allow it.
Jakhtur
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 1:31 am

Thu May 30, 2019 1:09 pm

fluminor wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 10:05 am
mormegil wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:28 pm
If you are defending and have an AP 2 shield in your offhand, your options are:

With Melee (Basic) skill:
1. Roll using main hand weapon. Gain +1 SL (Defensive). 0APs.
2. Roll using offhand shield. Gain +1 SL (Defensive). 2APs. -20% on Melee (Basic) test.

If you have the Melee (Parry) skill you can use that instead, which is the same but without the-20.
This assumes I am using a weapon in my main hand and a shield in my off hand.

What if I equip a shield in my main hand and nothing in my off hand? Example: my WS is 40 and my Melee (basic) is 10. I am attacked in melee, so I roll for the opposed melee test. Say I roll 44. What's my SL? I am thinking I should not get the -20 off hand penalty and I should get the +10 from defensive, so my SL should be (40+10+10)=6 minus 4 = 2. I should also benefit from the Shield* quality, were I to lose the melee opposed test. Is this correct?

Say my opponent's SL is lower than mine, so I win the opposed melee test. I am assuming that I crit my opponent in this case, since the shields have a damage rating. Is is so? Am I still using the shield defensively, despite delivering a crit with it?

Thanks in advance for the clarification
I think you made 1 mistake (that didnt change result in this example). Defensive gives +1SL not +10. Its simillar but not the same. Rolling 55 would change the result.
You have WS 40 Melee 10 - so 55 is fumble. Then you get +1SL from defensive. So you are +1, but still fumble.
Thats why -20 from your offhand is quite a drawback. It makes your sill lower, so triggering talents (like shieldman or reverse) is much harder.
In fact i think it can be potent tactic to use shield in your right hand, and sword in off-hand.
fluminor
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 1:30 pm

Thu May 30, 2019 1:41 pm

Jakhtur wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 1:09 pm
I think you made 1 mistake (that didnt change result in this example). Defensive gives +1SL not +10. Its simillar but not the same. Rolling 55 would change the result.
You have WS 40 Melee 10 - so 55 is fumble. Then you get +1SL from defensive. So you are +1, but still fumble.
Thats why -20 from your offhand is quite a drawback. It makes your sill lower, so triggering talents (like shieldman or reverse) is much harder.
In fact i think it can be potent tactic to use shield in your right hand, and sword in off-hand.
You are right, thank you for pointing this out.

The fact that the current rules make it so that carrying a shield in the main hand and a weapon in the off hand can be better than the other way around speaks for itself about how current rules could be further improved.

Allegedly, in the play test version of the rules, you couldn't use shields with melee(basic). After heavy criticism, they changed that at the last minute. Hence the mess, since not all sentences where changed appropriately.

Personally I like the idea that some other poster wrote in another forum of assigning off hand penalty to shields when carried in the main hand, and not when carried in the off hand, after all, your train with shield in the off hand, so this should come more natural than the other way around. Imposing a penalty on shields when carried in the off hand does not sound like a good idea to me.

If the devs want to make a shield more effective when used with Melee (parry), here is an idea. One could allow shields to be used to attack/crit only with the skill Melee (parry), while using melee (basic) just allows for shields to be used defensively. In other words, you can neither attack, nor score a critical when defending with the shield, unless you are using Melee (parry).
CapnZapp
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Thu May 30, 2019 2:07 pm

fluminor wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 10:05 am
mormegil wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 2:28 pm
If you are defending and have an AP 2 shield in your offhand, your options are:

With Melee (Basic) skill:
1. Roll using main hand weapon. Gain +1 SL (Defensive). 0APs.
2. Roll using offhand shield. Gain +1 SL (Defensive). 2APs. -20% on Melee (Basic) test.

If you have the Melee (Parry) skill you can use that instead, which is the same but without the-20.
This assumes I am using a weapon in my main hand and a shield in my off hand.

What if I equip a shield in my main hand and nothing in my off hand? Example: my WS is 40 and my Melee (basic) is 10. I am attacked in melee, so I roll for the opposed melee test. Say I roll 44. What's my SL? I am thinking I should not get the -20 off hand penalty and I should get the +10 from defensive, so my SL should be (40+10+10)=6 minus 4 = 2. I should also benefit from the Shield* quality, were I to lose the melee opposed test. Is this correct?

Say my opponent's SL is lower than mine, so I win the opposed melee test. I am assuming that I crit my opponent in this case, since the shields have a damage rating. Is is so? Am I still using the shield defensively, despite delivering a crit with it?

Thanks in advance for the clarification
I think the confusion is when you say you're "using the shield defensively" as if that's another "mode" of parrying than when you parry with a sword - it isn't, a shield is just a weapon in the WFRP4 rules; you're parrying with a weapon, meaning you can inflict crits. Defensive is just a quality that helps you do that - it doesn't say you lose your chance of "counterattacking" (or whatever we agree the crit-on-defense is).
fluminor
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 1:30 pm

Thu May 30, 2019 8:19 pm

Yes I agree with you.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that shields grant the Shield* ability only when “used defensively”. This is why I was stressing it. I think it refers to using the shield to parry rather than using your own hand weapon. So I guess in principle one could attack with the shield but also use it defensively in the same round. Confusing to say the least.
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Thu May 30, 2019 9:29 pm

fluminor wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 8:19 pm
Yes I agree with you.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that shields grant the Shield* ability only when “used defensively”. This is why I was stressing it. I think it refers to using the shield to parry rather than using your own hand weapon. So I guess in principle one could attack with the shield but also use it defensively in the same round. Confusing to say the least.
Yeah, the system as written doesn't make an actual distinction there past choosing when you roll what weapon you pair with the result so it's not something you have to single out like that. but the rules are clearly missing bits that were edited out and and the references to them forgotten about (like size/reach aren't in there anywhere :< ) so it's probably leftovers from an older version of the combat rules.
CapnZapp
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Fri May 31, 2019 1:46 am

fluminor wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 8:19 pm
Yes I agree with you.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that shields grant the Shield* ability only when “used defensively”. This is why I was stressing it. I think it refers to using the shield to parry rather than using your own hand weapon. So I guess in principle one could attack with the shield but also use it defensively in the same round. Confusing to say the least.
I might be a harsh critic of the ruleset, but I'm sorry, in this case, I don't see it.

The Shield quality states: "If you use this weapon to oppose an incoming attack, you count as having (Rating) Armour Points on all locations of your body".

I really don't see the confusion here. When you're about to Parry, choose whether you're using your Hand Weapon or your Shield. Then just follow all the rules for your chosen weapon.

And of course you can both attack and parry with the Shield in the same round. You can both attack and parry with a Sword, after all.

To me it seems you are getting tripped up by how shields work in other games. Again I have to say, as soon as you realize shields are weapons in this edition, I honestly believe all confusion will be dispelled. Good luck :)
CapnZapp
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Fri May 31, 2019 1:52 am

Orin J. wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 9:29 pm
Yeah, the system as written doesn't make an actual distinction there past choosing when you roll what weapon you pair with the result so it's not something you have to single out like that. but the rules are clearly missing bits that were edited out and and the references to them forgotten about (like size/reach aren't in there anywhere :< ) so it's probably leftovers from an older version of the combat rules.
As someone who truly don't see the confusion, you will have to give a few more details.

What distinction? What pairing to which result? What bits are you missing? Reach rules are called in-fighting and is on page 297. Size rules might be hidden away in monster traits, but they're there.

You know I'm all for trashing game rules, but this is too sweeping and imprecise for me... ;)
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Fri May 31, 2019 9:52 am

CapnZapp wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 1:52 am
Orin J. wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 9:29 pm
Yeah, the system as written doesn't make an actual distinction there past choosing when you roll what weapon you pair with the result so it's not something you have to single out like that. but the rules are clearly missing bits that were edited out and and the references to them forgotten about (like size/reach aren't in there anywhere :< ) so it's probably leftovers from an older version of the combat rules.
As someone who truly don't see the confusion, you will have to give a few more details.

What distinction? What pairing to which result? What bits are you missing? Reach rules are called in-fighting and is on page 297. Size rules might be hidden away in monster traits, but they're there.

You know I'm all for trashing game rules, but this is too sweeping and imprecise for me... ;)
i mean for how much room they take up and how far away they can reach sans weapons. and ogre with a sword is gonna have a greater natural reach than a halfling with a sword, after all. i prefer to handle combat with a map whenever possible to cut back on players arguing about where they aren't.
CapnZapp
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Fri May 31, 2019 10:49 am

Orin J. wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 9:52 am
i mean for how much room they take up and how far away they can reach sans weapons. and ogre with a sword is gonna have a greater natural reach than a halfling with a sword, after all. i prefer to handle combat with a map whenever possible to cut back on players arguing about where they aren't.
You are of course free to be disappointed the rules does not do what you want, but there's a difference between saying "I want the rules to give Ogres greater reach" and claiming rules were "edited out" or "forgotten about".

WFRP simply does not have rules for what Dungeons & Dragons call Space and Reach. I do not consider that a mistake or edit gaffe, and I would like to respectfully ask you to drop your conspiracy theories.
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Fri May 31, 2019 11:04 am

CapnZapp wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 10:49 am
Orin J. wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 9:52 am
i mean for how much room they take up and how far away they can reach sans weapons. and ogre with a sword is gonna have a greater natural reach than a halfling with a sword, after all. i prefer to handle combat with a map whenever possible to cut back on players arguing about where they aren't.
You are of course free to be disappointed the rules does not do what you want, but there's a difference between saying "I want the rules to give Ogres greater reach" and claiming rules were "edited out" or "forgotten about".
that's exactly my issue, they were forgotten about. they have ranged modifiers for size on 162, then say the rest about size will be handled in the bestiary and....it's mostly not there. a lot of it seems to be that combat movement and engagement isn't really addressed to begin with. there's still no answer on if i can move past enemies without engaging them and just disregard them to get where i want, which is important for using maps. to say nothing of difficult terrain, cover, and things of that nature
CapnZapp
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Fri May 31, 2019 1:01 pm

Orin J. wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 11:04 am
that's exactly my issue, they were forgotten about. they have ranged modifiers for size on 162, then say the rest about size will be handled in the bestiary and....it's mostly not there. a lot of it seems to be that combat movement and engagement isn't really addressed to begin with. there's still no answer on if i can move past enemies without engaging them and just disregard them to get where i want, which is important for using maps. to say nothing of difficult terrain, cover, and things of that nature
Since I appear to have failed to make my point, forgive me if I am blunt.

You appear to assume any ruleset without, say, space or reach rules must have forgotten to include them, i.e. the designers made a mistake. This is incorrect. They did not forget these rules. They were never there. WFRP has never had such rules.

I trust you see that I am not denying you your right to say things like "I think WFRP sucks because it has no reach rules". But please do not insinuate that the designers have written such rules only to then forget to include them in the book. Thank you.
makrellen
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:01 am

Fri May 31, 2019 1:18 pm

fluminor wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 1:41 pm
You are right, thank you for pointing this out.

The fact that the current rules make it so that carrying a shield in the main hand and a weapon in the off hand can be better than the other way around speaks for itself about how current rules could be further improved.
Oddly enough the best melee strategy is to use your shield in your main hand, go defensive for a few rounds to gather advantage and then just attack with your shield. No need for a sword 🙄

As many have pointed out before me : The devs got lost in their own house rules.
fluminor
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 1:30 pm

Fri May 31, 2019 1:20 pm

CapnZapp wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 1:46 am
fluminor wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 8:19 pm
Yes I agree with you.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that shields grant the Shield* ability only when “used defensively”. This is why I was stressing it. I think it refers to using the shield to parry rather than using your own hand weapon. So I guess in principle one could attack with the shield but also use it defensively in the same round. Confusing to say the least.
I might be a harsh critic of the ruleset, but I'm sorry, in this case, I don't see it.

The Shield quality states: "If you use this weapon to oppose an incoming attack, you count as having (Rating) Armour Points on all locations of your body".

I really don't see the confusion here. When you're about to Parry, choose whether you're using your Hand Weapon or your Shield. Then just follow all the rules for your chosen weapon.

And of course you can both attack and parry with the Shield in the same round. You can both attack and parry with a Sword, after all.

To me it seems you are getting tripped up by how shields work in other games. Again I have to say, as soon as you realize shields are weapons in this edition, I honestly believe all confusion will be dispelled. Good luck :)
This is what happens when I am following the same topic in two different forums :D

You are right, in the book this is made clear. But in another forum (here: https://boardgamegeek.com/article/32105692#32105692) on the same topic, a user wrote this:

(...) A recent blogpost by one of the writers on the C7 website has clarified this. Have a look there under the News section, but the short answer is:

The -20 Off Hand penalty does apply to use of a shield defensively with Melee (Basic), but not if you are using Melee (Parrying).
The Defensive quality of a shield applies to a defence test, even if you are using another weapon to parry with (i.e. as long as you are equipped with your shield, this quality counts passively).
The Shield * quality only applies if you are using the shield defensively.


It is possible if not likely that the user wrote this quickly without realizing s/he was being imprecise. I should ask that user, not the devs, what "defensively" means. :D
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

Fri May 31, 2019 1:32 pm

CapnZapp wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 1:01 pm
Orin J. wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 11:04 am
that's exactly my issue, they were forgotten about. they have ranged modifiers for size on 162, then say the rest about size will be handled in the bestiary and....it's mostly not there. a lot of it seems to be that combat movement and engagement isn't really addressed to begin with. there's still no answer on if i can move past enemies without engaging them and just disregard them to get where i want, which is important for using maps. to say nothing of difficult terrain, cover, and things of that nature
Since I appear to have failed to make my point, forgive me if I am blunt.

You appear to assume any ruleset without, say, space or reach rules must have forgotten to include them, i.e. the designers made a mistake. This is incorrect. They did not forget these rules. They were never there. WFRP has never had such rules.

I trust you see that I am not denying you your right to say things like "I think WFRP sucks because it has no reach rules". But please do not insinuate that the designers have written such rules only to then forget to include them in the book. Thank you.
i was going to say it's a blind-eye oversight for weapons to have reach rules but not monsters, then realized that's sort of the theme here. complaint retracted and folded back into the general mass!
Post Reply