Talk:Shield

-I seem to notice that the mechanical workings of sheilds isn't listed under sheilds or armor. Can someone help clarify how a sheild's AL comes into the equation durring damage resolution? Does it add it's AL to other armor, or is it added as another place to strike( i.e. chest, legs, head, hands, feet)
 * Um, I'd just like to point out that there is a tactics Aegis, but I'm too nub to fix it myself. - Arthas 00:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Are you sure it's not named Shield of the Wing though? They have the same skin. - B e X o R  00:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I have a screen shot if I can manage to get it on... one sec - Arthas 13:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I just found an Aegis (shield) that req 8 Tactics (and does +1 to fire magic o_O). I don't know if it belongs in the core column or what, but I can confirm that it exists. - B e X o R  14:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 * See Talk:Aegis (shield). - B e X o R  14:17, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Hassin's Shell should be added to the list of no req shields... I too am too newb to fix it :(
 * Added.--Fighterdoken 05:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is still no mention of how a shield's armor bonus works. I had to link to the other wiki to answer a question in guru. --Darcy 13:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you weren't the second person to ask, I'd have to wonder whether it would be really necessary. It's a global bonus to armor rating of up to 16. I guess it's good enough for the first couple paragraphs, though. -- Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 15:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a req. 8 16 armor shield... is that strange at all? 68.78.64.125 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess not, I've got the same. I didn't think you could get max shield > req. 9, but one dropped for me today so I came here to ask the same question you did. [[Image:User_Belker_Q8al16.gif|Max shield, req. 8]]. --Belker 15:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are max-armor shields with 8 req. Even with 7 req, although, if memory serves me correct, those have stopped dropping since the release of Nightfall. &mdash; Why [[Image:User Why Are We Fighting BlackRose.PNG|User talk:Why Are We Fighting]] 00:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just had a Gold Stone Summit Shield with AL16 and req 8 Tectics drop for me today in Fronis' Lair. Guess they are still dropping after the release of Nightfall. Damar 10.41 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, the r8 ones do, but I thought the r7 ones didn't. Not entirely sure about that though. &mdash; Why [[Image:User Why s.png|User talk:Why Are We Fighting]] 15:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Other non-req shields?
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5573/shieldsb7.jpg Just found that. Gunm 11:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This was a bullshit, k. Gunm 19:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Order of mods, bug ?
with recent shield moddings, i could only get the reversed order for shield mods, whatever the order i apply mods.

Example :

Elephant 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's not a bug, it's just how most shields work, while on all other kinds of items all the changeable mods and inscriptions will keep getting displayed ordered from earliest to latest put mod, shields are just different and keep the order of handle on the top and inscription on the bottom. But not all shields work like that, there are some that don't have this fixed mod order and as such work as every other weapon class. I haven't found out yet what makes the shield's mod order either fixed or not, it doesn't seem to be dependant on skin because I got some shields with the same skin where one has fixed mod order and other not. If that zodiac shield of yours has a fixed mod order then it would mean it's not dependant on drop location either (I got 2 zodiac shields with change'able mod order). --Yawg [[image:User_Yawg_Pumpkin_Crown.png|Yawg]] 19:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a HALF!
I knew about it back in 2005 but was patiently waiting to see when someone will finally find out the truth. It's unbelievable that 4 years later everyone still thinks that if you don't meet the requirement you get half of the shield's base armor. Soo wrong! And it's so easy to test and prove. The truth is shields work just like focus items with their energy bonus - If you don't meet the requirement for a randomly generated dropped shield (white/blue/purple/gold), you'll get 8 armor no matter what the listed armor rating is. Yes, even a shield that reads "Armor: 8 (Requires 3 Strength)" will gain your Mo/Me whole 8 armor! All randomly generated shields work like that, and since the 13th July 2006 update also every other *max* shield (crafter/collector/green/bonus/pvp/etc..). Only max here because despite what the update notes say, most or even all nonmax fixed (not randomly generated) shields weren't affected by this update, so they DON'T behave the same way as generated shields. Those shields grant 5 armor if you don't meet their requirement, no matter if the shield had 7 or 13 or other listed armor rating (there may be exceptions, I haven't tested every nonmax fixed shield). And to think that for all these years everyone was saying "half" when asked about it.--Yawg 06:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm that makes sense. I tested a req6 14 armor shield once and it gave me indeed 8 armor. But lets say if you have a 7 armor shield would it give you 8 if you don't meet the req? oO Vortex  ™  14:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are NO randomly dropped 7 armor shields with a requirement. The only 7 armor shields with a requirement are fixed - crafter, collector or similar, and those give you 5 armor if you don't meet the req.--Yawg [[image:User_Yawg_Pumpkin_Crown.png|Yawg]] 18:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is true, then shouldn't this article and the Requirement article be corrected? --Silver Edge 17:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, much better now. I'm still doing research on non-max shields though, it seems there are still weird cases out there. Judas 23:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ornate Buckler
Is there no possible way one can get an ornate buckler with a Strength requirement? Its listed as one of the atributes they can have, but i dont see them listed under strength shield Evil Eyeball 11:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Historical Note
add something about -2 -2(-3) from back in the day? Chessyang 14:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

1st Anniversary Shield
I think we should add this shield to the list of Promotional shields. It can only be collected by someone from Japan that was active at the time (January 2007?) Here is a link confirming it's existance; http://guildwars.plaync.jp/news/0701firstAnniv01.aspx. Here is a link with a lot of screen shots but no stats: http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/japan-1st-anniversary-shield-t10449159.html?t=10449159. If I knew the stats I would have added it to the list myself. KJZ 06:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Facing
Did shields one depend on facing/positioning? --Emkyooess 15:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"A shield with an AR of #"
is grammatically correct, as opposed to shields offer up to "armor rating" 8. And no-one uses the phrase, A requirement 4 shield. You say A shield with a requirement of 4. And shields don't offer anything but a handle to hold it with. They either give or grant. --Xu Davella 15:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * shields offer AR; it's a perfectly valid expression. And all sorts of people say, q4 shield, which is shorthand for requirement 4 shield; I see the latter phrase less often, but people do use it. That said, I don't have a particular strong objection to rephrasing the notes to avoid the issue.


 * However, the reason for reverting was that other points were rephrased in a way that changed the meaning. In particular, the first point altered is about the formula connecting the requirement to the maximum amount of AR for the shield; it has nothing to do with how many points the character invests in the attribute. It was easier to revert and then go back to try to incorporate the spirit of your edit into the other notes. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 15:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The revision does looks more sleek than mine now, but can I change it to read "+8 AR" instead, for example? --Xu Davella 16:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. As I say, I tried to incorporate the spirit of your original edit (although I somewhat disagree that it was necessary); if I wasn't entirely successful, I hope that you'll review and update it again to be sleeker still. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 16:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)