The first rule of going to war is bring a weapon that you know how to use. The second rule of going to war is bring a helmet. If it's a choice between having a shield, a second weapon or a helmet, ALWAYS TAKE THE HELMET. If you get a cut in the arm you can still fight, even if it hurts like hell. You get an arrow in the leg you can still give em hell even if you can't run. Even if you take a sword in the chest you generally have a few seconds in which you can strike back against the guy who stuck you. But if they get you in the brain that's it, your done and dead. Helmets are light, they're cheap and they protect your most important part of you.
If you don't have a helmet, you have no business being in an army.
>>44033712
Of course, when you're the hero of the story, you might have to forgo that kind of protection to make sure people can see your pretty face. It's not like fate's going to risk scarring it, anyway, when you have to look your best for your date with destiny.
>>44033712
Wasn't there a thing with some soldiers ditching helmets because they screwed with hearing and then got bonuses to spot checks and initiative on ambush?
Swear I read it somewhere. And books would never lie to me. Might as well say people put lies on the internet.
>>44034361
I wouldn't be surprised, a bad helmet is worse than no helmet
ok
Dying because someone bonked you on the head would be pretty bad.
Brain is precious.
>>44033712
>helmet
>over a shield
Enjoy being stabbed and killed, IF you somehow live past the opening arrows, javelins, darts, and other projectiles.
You won't.
>>44033712
Helmets aren't very good head protection. Often their most serious benefit is in terms of lessening glancing blows and preventing deaths from bombardment. In the medieval world, bombardment was often of arrows and met with shields. Shields were thus often the better option.
This is why the vikings considered helmets secondary to a good shield.
>>44034692
Helmets provide excellent protection, unless extremely shoddy.
>>44034667
I'll take my helmet over a shield every day.
>>44034724
>bring a weapon
>if given a choice between a second weapon, a helmet, or a shield
You don't get full armor.
Read the OP. And then commit suicide, because that armor only gives -20% piercing, no blade or blunt.
>>44034667
There's a reason why shields have been phased out of combat situations with the exception of specialist units/trainings, but helmets are fucking mandatory.
A shield requires a hand to use.
A hand that is thus not being used to sling offense at your opponents.
You've got other armour to wear all over your body. Trust in your armour.
The only time you should take a shield over a helmet is if you literally have no other armour on.
>>44034711
Not really dude, not for the majority of the medieval period and especially not pre then. I mean, often times a good axe blow or sword strike would penetrate one and even then they didn't cover the face or throat.
A shield solved most of these issues. You could guard your face, throat and head with relative ease, you could parry as needed and if you needed to take the blow it was less dangerous. Shields wouldn't penetrate deeply and a sword or axe blow wouldn't be able to cut through the full width. This had the added benefit or trapping yer enemies weapon.
All this is assuming we're talking about the quality of weapons the average peasant or freeman could afford, of course.
>>44034760
>Playing RPG's besides Song of Swords or GURPS.
Also the OP said nothing about not having full armor. Just a choice between a second weapon, helmet, or shield.
>>44034817
>Characters in GURPS with no helmet
ISHYGDDT
>>44034778
Well, to be fair, shields do have value even in the modern day. Thing is they lose out on cost effectiveness generally, especially in the 3d fighting environments common to modern warfare.
>>44034867
They certainly have value, but the problem has always been one of reach and control.
If you're using a shield in one hand, you're using a one handed weapon in the other.
That implies a certain level of reach and control.
Having two hands for weapons allows greater reach and control.
Easier to keep the other guy from hitting you if you can reach out and touch him from a greater range.
Decent armour provided decent defense against arrow barrages. But it was ultimately pointless when the weapons started to upgrade and armour became less effective.
>>44034803
Could you try not being a retard?
That would be great.
Actual testing of helmets, and excavations of graves from battles shows helmets fucking WORKED. They're universally designed to cause blows to deflect or glance off, and face protection is exceedingly common, from both nasal, brow ridges, and cheek plates, let alone full visors.
>MUH THROAT
Aventail.
Second it is FUCKING OBVIOUS you have never, ever, ever fought with a shield.
You are NOT moving-at the lighter end for a medium sized shield-7lbs of wood to cover your skull from an attack when it is already coming. Not consistently. and if you do, your body is now exposed, and you WILL die, because battes are fought en masse with long weapons that are great for poking bellies.
>average peasant
Doesn't fight at all in most societies unless his home is under direct attack.
>freeman
Where and when?
Some would be splendidly equipped. Others would turn out with limp dicks and run off a week later.
You're going to turn out with both.
If you have no money at all, it will be a shield, simply because the body is a larger target and easily shot.
no professional or semi professional-meaning almost everyone on the field past the classical period-is going to a fight without head protection.
>>44034817
>not knowing where that image is from
>>44034950
>But it was ultimately pointless when the weapons started to upgrade and armour became less effective.
This... never happened, until the widespread use of guns.
mail stayed in use for a full thousand years because it worked.
Brigandine and composite limb armor was perfectly adequate against later threats.
Full plate was so stupidly good, we have accounts of duels where men where hammered to the ground with poleaxes, struck over 20 times, and still got up to fight before a judge interceded.
>>44034972
... dude, you realise the average peasant made up the main meat of a medieval army, right? And most motherfuckers couldn't afford aventails and shit like that.
Is the shield a perfect solution? No, far from it. But by the standards of most people in that time period its pretty much the best you could afford if you also wanted a weapon better than a billhook or your work axe.
And yer right, if yer guard is low yer not gonna get a fucking shield up in time. If yer guard is set high? Maybe. But that may be why so many people died in battles, ya know?
Shields are inferior to actual armour, this is true. But unless you can afford to cover the entirety of yourself in armour, as in the case of a Greek Hoplite or a Saxon Huscarl, you'll get better use from a shield than you will from just a helmet. Thats kinda why almost everyone that was trying to stay alive and could choose their gear got them.
>>44034950
Decent armour would be good protection, undoubtedly. And a 2 handed weapon is a superior offensive, and thus arguably defensive option.
But lets face it, if holding a controlled location is your goal you'll rarely go wrong with a spear and shield.
>>44035067
>you realise the average peasant made up the main meat of a medieval army
You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>44035125
Okay, fine. Are you simply going to ignore the rest of my comment?
>>44035002
>This... never happened, until the widespread use of guns.
That is basically what I am referring to, yes.
>>44035136
Yes, because I'm not the guy you were arguing with before. I just dropped in to call you a faggot.
>>44035160
Dont get involved unless yer willing to actually get involved you steaming pile of excrement.
>>44035171
>durr no one can say I'm wrong unless they write me a dissertation on medieval infantry
Go fuck yourself nigger.
>>44035067
>low guard
If you think anything below your fucking eyes is low, sure.
It isn't.
>that may be why so many people died
No, it's mostly to limb wounds.
>peasant
>meat of an army
Literally never true in the medieval era, except during peasant rebellions.
>HERES WUT MUH PEASANTS WOULD HAVE HAD
But you're wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181
Legal mandate for the poorest doesn't include shields.
In fact, they're required to own spear and skullcap first, and only the two richest classes listed are required to own shields.
>>44035221
This is a discussion thread. Im in here for a specific goddamn reason. As a DM, this sorta shit is the sorta shit Im trying to get a better handle on.
You are simply shitposting. And poorly at that. Shut the fuck up your fucking driveling mouth you dumb fuck. Stop typing. Leave.
Or, if you want to respond, try getting involved. Id love to hear you opinion on the topic.
>>44035244
and it should also be noted that england in particular was known to be a poor backwater in europe.
fuck off with telling me what people could and did afford.
you're wrong.
>>44035244
Huh. Interesting.
Question: Why is it then that many reports of the era seem to indicate that shields were very common? Is that a holdover of the migration era or is it misinformation?
Would a medieval weapon even inflict a sufficient limb wound as to kill? Would a shield not be a good way to solve that, by and large?
>>44035267
Chill dude. Im not trying to flame here. I was misinformed, Ill accept that.
>>44035262
And I'm here to tell you it's factually incorrect to claim peasants were in any way a significant part of medieval armies. I don't care what you're here for I'm here to correct your entirely wrong statement.
>>44033712
Laughed so hard because I heard this entire speech once, nigh word for freaking word, a few years ago when I first learned Mordheim basics.
>>44035342
I am aware of this. I accept that. Have you anything to contribute to the fucking thread?
Is this in reference to medieval scenarios? And if so, when do you define as medieval? We talking 8th-15th century? Later? Earlier?
>>44035349
I FUCKING KNEW I'D READ THIS SOMEWHERE ELSE.
>>44033712
This is some what funny to me seeing as until world war 1 started helmets weren't standard issued and when they were issued the we're almost recalled
>>44035300
Because they were common.
If you went to war you brought both.
In earlier periods-you need to remember the medieval era is fucking long-yes, helmets would be rare.
by the "knights are a thing and we know that word" period you're imaging, you had both.
As it goes on, the shield get smaller, and sees less use, but it never truly goes away.
>would they inflict sufficent limb wounds to kill
Are you serious?
Look.
you need to do actual research. Literally ANY reasearch.
Yes, they will. They'll fucking remove your limb or permanently cripple it with ease. a draw cut from a light sword on your leg could open arteries or wound bad enough to drop you.
the poleax? It'll go through a 30 layer linen jack, and embed itself in a training pell.
shields only protect what they cover.
They don't cover everything, and you can manuver around them.
If a man is wearing a helmet and carrying a shield, and you are also protected, you attack the face, the weapon hand and forearm, and his legs.
the graves at wisby are apparently full of skeletons with leg wounds.
>>44035478
I have done research, as it happens. What truth is there, in your opinion, to the supposition that limb wounds mainly allowed for the enemy to then be finished off with greater ease rather than actually caused the death in many cases?
Especially in the case of Wisby this sounds likely. You get put on the ground by a wound to the leg and either bleed out slowly or get done in once the enemies line advances past you
>>44035524
it doesn't matter.
if you're on the ground with a leg removed-and this is the case with a lot of dead at wisby-you're a dead man. and you're out of the fight.
real life isn't an rpg. a man who can''t fight anymore is no longer worth consideration, you can come back and kill him when you feel like it.
Fighting isn't about killing the other guy. it's about removing his capacity to resist. Killing him is just often the easiest way to do it.
and there's a high percentage of repeat head wounds in the graves, too. getting your jaw removed isn't instantly fatal either.
Few things are.
>>44035575
To be fair, any wound bar full removal of the leg will likely leave a pissed off dude swinging a weapon at you. And even then, its going to leave a squirming body. Neither of these things is likely to be conducive to unit cohesion Id imagine
>>44035612
No, they won't.
A torn ACL will leave most people on the ground immediately. this isn't a factor of being tough, but off your leg no longer being able to bear your weight.
The loss of your foot, or severing of most of your thigh isn't going to be any better.
This is disregarding the shock and blood loss.
>squirming bodies
March over it. You do it to friends too. Rear rankers will kill them if need be.
The loss of a fighter is going to be a lot worse for the other line anyway.
These threads don't belong on /tg/ as the level of uninformed posts is painful. The reason you don't see too many shields is because they stopped offering protection they did against arrows. Just have a look at the war against the north en agressors.. 0 shields and 0 helmets. Then fragmentation starting doing tons of damage especially during sieges and that's when the helmet started to shine again. Behold Ww1 and helmets quickly become a standard (also thanks to germans). Fast forward to today and we see lives becoming worth more and thete is plenty of money and tech to use shields again. Pic relatedI am talking out of my ads but head canon.. bring this to /k/ please unless we are gonna talk stats
Even today a good shield can be a life saver.
>>44035719
Armor literally never went away.
To all those "Shields are Better than Helmets" dudes, remember that a shield takes up a hand and there are many weapons which require two hands to operate. You can not have a shield when operating said weapons, but you can have a helmet.
>>44035900
Here is another such weapon
>>44034645
That is not in dispute
>>44035428
I don't know if the guy ever wrote it down or anything but he did emphasis that getting stunned is like save or suck from the d20 realm of thinking. He was pretty big on the old noggin safety so we had a tendency of calling him the supervisor because he was always checking for helmets, a joke among the elders of our group who all worked one form of construction or another. He played it up for laughs.
>>44035719
Shields existed in WWI you know, it's just that they were incredibly cumbersome and needed to be mounted on wheels just to /move/.
>>44033712
shield > helmet
It can protect your head IN ADDITION to other parts of you!
>>44035900
>>44035908
I would rather use a shield and survive into a range where I am able to use my two handed weapon than wear a helmet and die to literally any ranged weapon before I even arrive.
You only forego the shield for helmets if you are in a high cover situation, like trenches.
>>44037259
shields are also foregone in situations where a nation is wealthy enough to give everyone ACTUAL ARMOR.
Shields are armor for people who can't afford armor. If you are stuck with a choice like OP's, you choose the shield.
>>44035575
>fighting isn't about killing the other guy
>it's about removing his capacity to resist
Anyone who plays enough SS13 will know the wisdom of these words.
>>44034645
>Brain is precious
Yea, and if I take the Anonymous name off your post it's going to reveal you're an illithid, won't it?
>>44034494
>I wouldn't be surprised, a bad helmet is worse than no helmet
No it's not.
Shields are far more important than helmets unless you're wearing full plate.
>>44034315
There is nothing better than a badass greathelm to inspire your people though.
>>44035067
>peasants made up the bulk of middle ages armies
Terrible stereotype about the period that reinforces the perception of the middle ages as a time of mud-covered imbeciles beating each other to death with rocks.
What commander would want to bring untrained peasants when he could bring a smaller, more professional force that would annihilate untrained peasants every time?
>>44038149
it categorically is.
>>44035267
11/10 post. Shouting down the only person with an actual reference, without posting one of your own.
Get off tg shithead.
>>44033712
>Shield, second weapon, or helmet.
Why not take all three?
>>44034315
Do women need helmets, I mean how else are you going to tell they're women if their face is covered?
>>44038195
Because it was dishonorable to kill other nobles, and killing half trained peasants for "glory" is less likely to get you excommunicated than killing a peer.
>>44035002
>we have accounts of duels where men where hammered to the ground with poleaxes, struck over 20 times
>hide ye olde kush blunt in brigandine before donning my plate
>attend to battle
>am unhorsed "accidentally"
>pull arm into torso bit of armor and light kush blunt
>i lie on the battlefield hotboxing mine plate, the blows of the enemy deflecting quite pathetically
>i know how the turtle feels
>>44039002
With a shapely Greco-Roman boob curiass.
>>44038938
It's a matter of prioritization. If you can get away with all three do so.
>>44039045
maybe in 1914
>>44033712
>your done and dead
>your
I'm guessing you didn't wear a helmet to your last skirmish.
>>44039903
That's disgusting.
>>44041157
You got a problem with the human form profligate?
>>44035355
He contributed by correcting you on something you used as part of your argument.
I think, at the end of the day, if I was going to get into a fight and they offered me either a shield or a helmet - I'd take a helmet.
Here's my logic:
1. I've never used a shield before. Sure I could probably cover a wider area with a shield than with a helmet, but...I've never used a shield. I'm giving up a hand to focus on better defense, and I won't be able to see anything on the other side of the shield - blocking who knows how much line of sight.
2. A helmet is a something I don't have to focus on. I can put it on and add a little more armour where it's needed most. It leaves my hands free to either defend or attack, and (depending on the helmet) it shouldn't cut off as much line of sight.
Just my two cents.
