PDA

View Full Version : An idea concerning great weapons in WFB.



LeonidasL
21-10-2005, 13:05
Great weapons seem to have become the typical armamanet of characters when they dont get a funky magic weapon. I have become tired of seeing most of them carying one and making weapons like halberds, lances and simple hand weapons a rare occurance.

My proposition is to have characters take great weapons only when they are on foot. (see revised entry of swordmaster honour). Plus, the entry of the great weapons should be amended thus:

great weapons: +2st, strike last, requires two hands, -1 to hit, models on foot only.

The exception to this rule should be made for particular units like questing knights etc, to make them even more unique.
I hope that this doen't unbalance the game much and also makes regular troops with weapons other tha great weapons a more viable choice.

eagletsi1
21-10-2005, 13:18
I like it, Except for the -1 to hit.

As for units like questing Knights, just say they are immune to the rule.

eagletsi1

Mad Doc Grotsnik
21-10-2005, 20:43
No need. Sure, he's got a Great Weapon. But that just means he's striking last.

No biggy for Orcs or Mummies. But Elves? Big mistake.

Leave them be. Just because your opponents favour it, doesn't mean it's broken. And swining a double handed sword from a Horse is relatively easy. Just turn and swing. If anything, added to the momentum and impact of the horse, they should inflict a better S bonus!

MarcoPollo
21-10-2005, 22:15
Great weapons are not so cheesy. If everyone is allowed them, then it is fair to all. Sure, having a halberd would add spice, but in order to auto kill chariots, that is one of the only ways.

Perhaps if they amended the autokill of chariots the great weapon will not be as popular. But then again, chariots would be more popular.

I play beastmen with a little bit of mortals. I only really include mortals becuase I can get str. 7 from even the aspiring heros.

It's all about checks and balances and I find that having one or two at strength 7 helps but not all of them. That is why I will also use two hand weapons on my characters.

mageith
22-10-2005, 18:43
great weapons: +2st, strike last, requires two hands, -1 to hit, models on foot only.

I don't get the -1 to hit???

"models on foot" will have to be written carefully so as not to exclude Questing knights and models with Questing vow and any of the special characters that might have Great weapons.

Mage Ith

Trunks
22-10-2005, 18:52
The -1 to hit makes absolutely no sense.

I don't even know why we need a "models on foot" clause. People are trying to apply logic to a game where you can surf on hawks that are flying super fast, oh, and you can shoot your bow while this is happening.

Great Weapons on horseback aren't that powerful to warrant a change. You may think of them as a little goofy, but they are no more goofy than alot of other things. A Great Weapon on a cavalry model ends up being effectively a lance on the first turn anyway, which is the "make or break" round for cavalry most of the time anyway. In further rounds the Great Weapon dude is working just like a great weapon guy on foot anyway.

There is no need to change this. If whole regiments of Bretonnians can train themselves to fight that way, a random hero or two who has had years and decades of experience can do it too.

mageith
22-10-2005, 20:03
Great weapons are not so cheesy. If everyone is allowed them, then it is fair to all.

Not everyone has he same access to them on horseback. Dwarfs would be a prime example, Beastment have only their chariots or must use the hated humans, or Skaven (not that they need it.). But overall, it's not terribly unbalanced, but it does change the complexion of the game. It takes away some of the fantasy. Magic weapons should be sought and fought over as they were throughout the history of WFB. Instead, characters just grab the trusty two-hander and go off to war. It's terribly undercosted and makes all the magic weapons look over costed when they are some of the stuff that's been playtested most extensive. In short, it's the Great weapon that out of whack.



Perhaps if they amended the autokill of chariots the great weapon will not be as popular. But then again, chariots would be more popular.

I think chariots are but a small factor. A +2 strength magic weapon costs 40 points and was used often in 5e since it was fairly costed. For six points, a character on horseback gets practically the same ability. If he wants to invest in a 30 point +1 armor, many can do that.

Mage Ith

Bubble Ghost
22-10-2005, 20:27
I agree that great weapons are ubiquitous and rather boring; there's barely any incentive to take anything else, especially for mounted characters. Something needs to be done about this. Whether it's a change to great weapons themselves, or to some other rule, or whatever, the balance needs to be redressed.

I quite like -1 attack, to a minimum of 1. Actually still worth it for characters, and makes the premium on Strength-boosting items look OK, but keeps it fine for rank and file (including Questing Knights). You get to kill either lots of cheap stuff, or less hard stuff. And it needs no changes to army books.

mageith
22-10-2005, 20:56
I quite like -1 attack, to a minimum of 1. Actually still worth it for characters, and makes the premium on Strength-boosting items look OK, but keeps it fine for rank and file (including Questing Knights). You get to kill either lots of cheap stuff, or less hard stuff. And it needs no changes to army books.
Perhaps on mounted models but it makes the Greatswords a lot more iffy as well as the High Swordmasters, if anyone uses them. The Dwarfs would suffer too. None of these are too strong as it is, are they?

In fact, I think foot great weapons are still overcosted in most cases, especially on rank and file foot units.

On a character it essentially takes away a hit or a hit and half on a Lord and on the Questing knights vs. WS 3 units or less it probably takes away two hits on the charge. I think you are throwing the baby away with the bathwater with a -1 to hit on foot models.

Mage Ith

mageith
22-10-2005, 21:03
And swining a double handed sword from a Horse is relatively easy. Just turn and swing. If anything, added to the momentum and impact of the horse, they should inflict a better S bonus!
:) I wonder why so few real knights ever figured that out and settled for the inferior lance. There's little evidence for such a thing as you suggest.

Of course, we play fantasy. But the reason the great weapon is a problem in this edition is because of a simple rule change that allows it to strike first on the charge. No reason for the rule change ever given.

My guess is that great weapons are made up of new high strength aluminum these days and are easier to handle?

Or it might have been that GW felt sorry for the underused great weapon. I hope they feel as sorry for the underused halberds and spears their weapon change rules caused.

Mage Ith

Bubble Ghost
22-10-2005, 21:41
Perhaps on mounted models but it makes the Greatswords a lot more iffy as well as the High Swordmasters, if anyone uses them. The Dwarfs would suffer too. None of these are too strong as it is, are they?

In fact, I think foot great weapons are still overcosted in most cases, especially on rank and file foot units.

On a character it essentially takes away a hit or a hit and half on a Lord and on the Questing knights vs. WS 3 units or less it probably takes away two hits on the charge. I think you are throwing the baby away with the bathwater with a -1 to hit on foot models.

Mage Ith

-1 attack, not -1 to hit. To a minimum of 1. So Greatswords, Hammerers, Executioners and Swordmasters don't care in the slightest, and neither do Questing Knights, but characters and minotaurs have cause to think twice. Just a thought anyway.

mageith
22-10-2005, 22:26
-1 attack, not -1 to hit. To a minimum of 1. So Greatswords, Hammerers, Executioners and Swordmasters don't care in the slightest, and neither do Questing Knights, but characters and minotaurs have cause to think twice. Just a thought anyway.
I guess I was still reacting to the original poster.

Would champions then lose an attack? Apparently they would.

Yikes ! Not Minotaurs and Ogres! Ugh. Why?

Trunks
23-10-2005, 04:37
But the reason the great weapon is a problem in this edition is because of a simple rule change that allows it to strike first on the charge. No reason for the rule change ever given.

My guess is that great weapons are made up of new high strength aluminum these days and are easier to handle?

Or it might have been that GW felt sorry for the underused great weapon. I hope they feel as sorry for the underused halberds and spears their weapon change rules caused.

Mage Ith

Great Weapons aren't really a problem though. They use to rarely ever get used in the last edition at all with few exceptions. They needed the rule change to even be used other than for fun. It makes sense too. Great Weapons are not slow to swing at all really as long as you have the strength. The part that makes them slow is readying them to strike again, this isn't much of a factor on the charge.

I think that the under use of spears and halberds is much more related to the upgrade that the hand weapon and shield combo got (i.e., becoming a combo . . .) than the upgrade great wapons got.

Bubble Ghost
23-10-2005, 14:15
I guess I was still reacting to the original poster.

Would champions then lose an attack? Apparently they would.

Yikes ! Not Minotaurs and Ogres! Ugh. Why?

Not that I'm saying great weapons are too powerful in the hands of those units at the moment - they aren't - but so what? Assuming a 4+ to hit roll, because that's fairly normal for those guys and anything else gives me a headache, you're taking away half a hit per model. Seeing as ogres or whatever normally have about 3 models in combat, you're looking at 1 or 2 hits down per unit, in exchange for a much greater chance of the remaining hits - 3 or 4, down from 5 - killing something. Not so hot against weaker troops who you're likely to kill anyway, but better against heavy stuff - which surely is the whole point. Against lighter units, use your hand weapons.

Plus those units would still benefit from their champions getting an extra attack which, as you rightly pointed out, most units' wouldn't. And I don't think that's much of a problem either. Often I'd still pay the cost of a champion for the ability to challenge characters, but if you don't want to do that, just don't buy a champion - no loss. The costs for champions for those units could always be reduced later on, and in the meantime, paying 4 or 5 points too many for one or two champions in your army isn't going to kill you.

There are other things you can do about great weapons - although I don't think returning to striking last when charging is very desirable - I just like this one. I don't think it's is especially likely, don't worry.

mageith
23-10-2005, 15:00
Not that I'm saying great weapons are too powerful in the hands of those units at the moment - they aren't - but so what?
??? I think the main problem anyone complains about is great weapons in the hands of (nearly every) mounted character that can use one. The secondary problem is the mass destruction of chariots by any Str 7 user of chariots.

These problems are easily fixed in the BRB. My solution is an outright ban on mounted greatweapons for characters unless they have a specific rule that allows them use them or are part of their Special character description. (Alas the Questing characters lose out.)

Additional handweapons are banned from mounted models but there are exceptions. No reason is given for this banning. None is necessary. It's the same rule that bans the handweapon and shield (88) from mounted models. Just add weapons that require two hands.

I think the chariot rule is silly and either s/b amended or deleted. If amended, Gav once teased us with the idea of raising the bar to Str 8. Another good solution is restrict it to Str 7+ hits from war machines.

I personally talked to Gav about the problem with great weapons a long time ago. He agrees its not good. He especially hates the fact that the magic weapons are used so seldom.

I think the fact that there are so few (any?) mounted character models with great weapons tells us that the rule will be changed and 7e and that they will be banned.

Mage Ith

Bubble Ghost
23-10-2005, 15:16
Funny you play the Gav card there, since the whole -1 attack thing is an idea I got from him.:D

Like I said, it's not very likely to happen. I'm only teasing, really, I like making drastic suggestions. That said I still wouldn't object if it happened, and I'm in full agreement that great weapon-ubiquity is a tedious thing that needs rectifying.

made_of_metal
23-10-2005, 15:58
You can tell they (GW) has started to address the problem. Look at the cost of great weapons in OK. It makes the magic items look a bit better. +2 S is a big bonus, so just make them pay for it. See how many show up after that.

Of course the best magic weapons in OK are also great weapons....

Reinnon
23-10-2005, 17:32
what about this:

+1 strength and armour pen like a pistol, strike last

will limit ability to take out chariots but they can still take down heavy infentry

just my 2 cents

Trunks
23-10-2005, 20:26
I don't like that because it reduces the ability to wound things.

You are taking a specific situation (Great Weapons Hacking up Chariots) and weakening the weapon across the board because of it. Aim to solve the problem versus chariots, not against everything else.

Just making Chariots only destroyed by Strength 7 or higher shooting attacks (and spells, of which I can only think of one Tzeentch spell that can do it off the top of my head) would solve the problem without weakening the effectiveness of great weapons versus infantry (a situation where they are perfectly fine).


I think a big problem with the great weapon versus magic weapon situation is that alot of the magic weapons just plain aren't very useful (and I'm not saying not useful by comparison to great weapons). They aim for adding character to the army without thinking of functionality/usability.