I'm just wondering what other people think about giving spearmen shields? I'm currently putting together the Erebor Dwarves, I'm just wondering what people's experiences are with giving spearmen in general a shield?

I'm pretty new to the battle scene and all, but theoratically you want spearmen to support a guy with a shield, and therefore not get into a 1v1 fight as much as possible. With smart positioning the times that spearmen do get in base contact with an enemy model, can be very limited. Again I'm not too experienced playing battles yet, but this is my experience from what I've seen so far. So my question is; is it really worth giving these guys a shield? Or for instance pick an extra grimhammer or whatever for every 12 of these guys.

I always try to take as many shields as possible for spearman, for morannon for example.
D6-7 is a big difference, I always should do it. (exept for orcs and golblims)
it's 1 man less and so many more armour, (this is not with golblims or orcs)
grim hammers aren't very good, 3 points more than a normal dwarf and only a 2handet weapon and a special rule more. (and trowing weapons)
maybe usefull if you use a few as elites with 2handet weapons on monsters or a good special strike.

Bolg

Personaly i woudnt bother arming spearmen with shields. There whole point is to support and will be behind the front line so will not be getting shot much. The expense soon mounts up. As for dwarves well they have heavy dwarf armour.

_________________
You would of had me crawling on all fours like a BEAST!

if possible I like to give my spears a shield if it gives them defense 6 or 7. Otherwise I usually wont bother giving them shields.

But giving shields to your spear men gives you more versatility, and it's also nice because if the man in the front dies the second rank guy can fill the line and use the shielding rule.

_________________
Fight! Fight to the last man!

If this was to be our end then I would have them make SUCH AN END as to be worthy of remembrance

As it has been mentioned, if the shields improve the spearmans def from 6-7 then it is worth it. Mainly because of the poor strength of the orc bow (stops them being shot out). Against str3 warriors the extra defence doesnt really matter (still wounding on 6's) but for str 4 troops, shields are invaluable. (6's instead of 5's)

_________________
12th GBHL 2013.
13th GBHL 2014
9th GBHL 2015


Mid Sussex Wargamers

And also for D4-5, as it goes from a 5 to a six from strength 2 (most shooting)

Actually for S3 warrior D6 is better, 6 to wound ! Not the way around.

I understand the D6 to D7 point of view, so I am indeed considering giving them shields.

However, what about their role as support? Like I mentioned, theoratically they shouldn't come in combat very often, and will hide behind normal dudes for bowfire. Or I'm I totally misjudging how often they will end up being in base to base combat?

Regards

One reason I can come up with to give your spearmen shields is to form a block of spearmen without a weak side. If you have spears up front and spears behind it becomes impossible to outmaneauver them with cavalry to deny support or to "go for the squishies!

Fair point! I have to say in the limited time I played I haven't really faced a lot of cavalry, but if I do, I can imagine the shields will help!

Even not considering Cavalry, you WILL loose some front line troops. Then your spearmen will have to move to fill the gap or you shrink your line.

You will also have spearmen isolated and attacked far more often than you may imagine. When your spearmen do get attacked directly the ability to 'shield' often is the difference between dying and living to fight another turn.

Additionally you will find opponents trying to pick off your spearmen whenever possible with archery. If your base defense is high enough that you don't worry about shooting against your spearmen as-is, then don't worry about this last one.

The shield wall formation is a goal but not something you should depend on. First, with the new warband rules and deployment options your force could be more spread out than you would like, or at least a key part of it could be out of place at deploy time. Second, if your opponent does not desire a shield-wall battle and has the means to impose his will (mobility, concentration of strenght, superior ranged firepower, etc) then your shield wall formation may not last long and you would be forced to break into smaller groups which could expose your shield troops more than you planned.

"It will bring forward a pell-mell battle and that is what I want."
Viscount Admiral Lord Nelson
Speaking in reference to his plans to engage the Combined Fleet.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

Thanks for the tips Beowulf. So shields it is!

shield and spear + rangers with longbows.

You can contribute with nice firepower and the melee dwarves can tightly up into blocks and support eachother when the enemy get close :)

From my limited experience in this game I would say yes, it seems like it would be worth arming your supporting troops with shields. Having only played with Grey Company and Rohirrim so far, it has made a big difference in terms of targeting with strength 2 bows and if the supporting models haven't got shields, then I will target them anyway and just roll the in the way. Being in the second rank doesn't protect them that much.



Exactly

_________________
Subscribe to the GBHL YouTube for daily SBG content http://Www.youtube.com/gbhlpodcast
*5th in 2014 GBHL