PDA

View Full Version : Mounted great weapons and you



Avian
25-02-2010, 16:10
Assuming that everything else remains as is, which would you prefer for mounted models (cavalry, chariot riders and monster riders) wielding great weapons:

1) +1 Strength and strike FIRST when charging (current rules)
2) +2 Strength and strike LAST when charging (5th edition rules)

warlord hack'a
25-02-2010, 16:12
option 1. striking first is more dear to me than one extra strength.

The SkaerKrow
25-02-2010, 16:14
Option 2, personally. It helps to bolster Questing Knights, Knights of the White Wolf and appropriately armed Centigors.

Bloodknight
25-02-2010, 16:15
Option 2.

Higher S does more damage (after all, S modifies not only the to-wound roll, but also the enemy's armour), but at a price.

At +1S they're a bit pointless against the halberd, at +2S striking first they're too good compared to the lance and flail.

willowdark
25-02-2010, 16:15
neither option makes me want to take Great Weapons on cavalry, but I wouldn't ever take an option that has me striking last on the charge.

Option 1.

Condottiere
25-02-2010, 16:19
Option 2 sounds more interesting.

Memnos
25-02-2010, 16:22
Meh. I think they should be treated like great weapons now.

+2 strength, hit first on the charge and last on subsequent rounds.

Knights really... REALLY want to break units on the charge. It's rare that an unbroken unit won't beat the knights in subsequent rounds. While I suppose there's a purpose against Unbreakable units, there's no reason for the majority.

Ethos
25-02-2010, 16:23
tactically, I would never want my cav. charged. they should always be the ones charging a flank. if I had to prepare better tactics to give them some help when they charge (via another unit charging or to only have them charge a flank) that would be much more advantageous, rather than having to always expect them to be attacked first.

Malorian
25-02-2010, 16:23
Option 4: +2 strength and striking first!

It deserves to be +2 strength because it's a bloodly great weapon damn it! I can't see a spear doing as much damage as a 4 foot claymore...

And the striking first when charging should be kept. You are getting the jump on the army and fact that the great weapon is slow to move after the first swing is shown by it striking last after.

willowdark
25-02-2010, 16:23
Looking at it from the other perspective, option two would be a big boost to spear armed infantry. Striking last makes charging spears to the front a big liability.

In that light, I'd be in favor of it. But from the perspective of someone choosing an upgrade for my Knights, I'd still go for option 1.

Avian
25-02-2010, 16:32
Option 4: +2 strength and striking first!
Naturally, such an option was not added because all the mounted great weapon-owners would love it and all the others would hate it. Thus it wouldn't be interesting other than as a measure of how many people had these units (which I quite frankly don't care about). :p

Please pick one of the existing 3.

John Wayne II
25-02-2010, 16:33
Second option. It would differentiate them from lances and still "nerf" them, as was the intention last edition, while still making them powerful. I suspect that is going to be indicative of changes to the new edition; instead of having things like "Strike First" or "Strike Last", everything is going to strike on initiative. So charging may give you Ini 10, something that could also apply to Always Strike First. Great weapons could make you strike on Ini 1 always, ignoring all other modifiers.

Malorian
25-02-2010, 16:35
Naturally, such an option was not added because all the mounted great weapon-owners would love it and all the others would hate it. Thus it wouldn't be interesting other than as a measure of how many people had these units (which I quite frankly don't care about). :p

Please pick one of the existing 3.

If forced to pick one of the three I would take option 2.

King_Pash
25-02-2010, 16:36
I would love it for my High Elves as Great Weapons mean squat all to us so i'd always take one on a mounted character. :P

But if I was a non-HE player I think I still would go with Option 2, as long as it's strike first on first round of combat and subsequently go last as per Great Weapons. This would, of course, make the lance redundant.

Malorian
25-02-2010, 16:39
make the lance redundant.

Nope, the great weapon cav can't use a shield so they have a worse save in combat, plus the striking last after the first round means even more due to the reduced save.

Redvampire7
25-02-2010, 16:40
Option 2. But then I also want combats to be resolved in Initiative order (meaning chargers should get another bonus instead of striking first).

Midloo
25-02-2010, 16:44
Meh. I think they should be treated like great weapons now.

+2 strength, hit first on the charge and last on subsequent rounds.

Knights really... REALLY want to break units on the charge. It's rare that an unbroken unit won't beat the knights in subsequent rounds. While I suppose there's a purpose against Unbreakable units, there's no reason for the majority.

I agree with this - Option 4 please!

Herod
25-02-2010, 16:52
Option 2, personally. It helps to bolster Questing Knights, Knights of the White Wolf and appropriately armed Centigors.

I don't think anyone with Centigors would risk GW's with that rule. Low AS is not going to keep them alive to strike back in most cases.

H

Condottiere
25-02-2010, 16:55
I would love it for my High Elves as Great Weapons mean squat all to us so i'd always take one on a mounted character. :P

But if I was a non-HE player I think I still would go with Option 2, as long as it's strike first on first round of combat and subsequently go last as per Great Weapons. This would, of course, make the lance redundant.I suspect that ASF is about to get nerfed.

The SkaerKrow
25-02-2010, 16:59
I don't think anyone with Centigors would risk GW's with that rule. Low AS is not going to keep them alive to strike back in most cases.

HDepends on what you're charging, really.

Max_Killfactor
25-02-2010, 16:59
Option 2.

Higher S does more damage (after all, S modifies not only the to-wound roll, but also the enemy's armour), but at a price.

At +1S they're a bit pointless against the halberd, at +2S striking first they're too good compared to the lance and flail.

We're on the same page.

The SkaerKrow
25-02-2010, 17:03
I'm a good bit more curious about what fate is going to befall Great Weapons in the hands of infantry, truth be told.

EmperorNorton
25-02-2010, 17:08
Option 2 defeats the purpose of cavalry, so I voted for option 1, although that's not great, either.

CrystalSphere
25-02-2010, 17:09
Second option, seems like a fair trade off. Lancers better for one hit charges, great weapons better for long combat. That would give heavy armoured cavalry with great weapons quite a lot of staying power and menace, and what is better, a different role than lance armed cavalry.

apbevan
25-02-2010, 17:09
If I had to choose between the 2 options provided it would be Option 1 as striking last on the charge is extremely bad especially if you don't have the extra armour from the shield.

However mounted GW's are not picked with the current rules much and would never be picked if option 2 was the rules I think some other option is needed.

As a Bretonnian player the only reason I take 1 unit of Questing knights is because their base Strength is 4 making them S5 with GW's. If they were S3 I would never use them.

Keeping GW +2S Strike first on charge otherwise strike last should be just fine as the knight does loose 1 point of armour.
The current rules make a mounted great weapon a subpar halberd.

Here are the options I would have presented:
1. +2S strike first on charge, strike last when not charging
2. +2S strike first on charge, +1S strike last when not charging
3. +1S strike first on charge, +1S fight in initiative order when not charging <- is a halberd so really is this even an option?

Souppilgrim
25-02-2010, 17:10
I would, and currently do not use great weapons with my mounted troops. Both options are subpar. There needs to be a third option...or we can just continue to not take great weapons ever (unless the army book forces you to).

Ozorik
25-02-2010, 17:19
Great weapons on cavalry were never very popular, for good reason, so option 1 is a reasonable approximation. I would like to see chariots follow the usual infantry rules for greatweapons though.

Odin
25-02-2010, 17:34
We have a house rule that mounted great weapons give you +2S on the charge, +1 S the rest of the time, and follow the other rules for great weapons (i.e. strike last unless charging). It makes Questing Knights and White Wolves actually worthwhile. I'm hoping that's what we'll get with 8th edition.

Then again, I don't like the rules that charger always strikes first - I'd rather it was worked out in Initiative order, and charging gave you an initiative bonus. That would go a long way towards making high initiative relevant in combat without having to give everyone ASF.

If I had to choose one of the options in the poll, I guess I'd go for Option 2, as at least it makes QKs and WWs useful occasionally. But neither is really good enough.

Taishar
25-02-2010, 17:34
Cavalry hammer rules! (same as now, but an additional str on the charge).


Cheers

Lordsaradain
25-02-2010, 17:48
I prefer how they worked in the 6th Edition.

Gadhrain
25-02-2010, 17:54
The +2S for great weapons is a really crappy way of representing something with less real life hitting power then a halberd. In addition it doesnt really make sense to wield a two-handed sword/axe/hammer from horseback (except for parades and showing of :p).

A longsword or a hammer yes, a great-sword no.

But in the choice between two evils I'd take 2 since possibly that gives less encouragement to use them for mounted models.

Really think the weapon rules, striking order and "space taken be models" (using various weapon types/formations) needs to be re-designed from scratch...

/ Rob

King_Pash
25-02-2010, 18:03
I suspect that ASF is about to get nerfed.

If that were true and it were replaced with an Initiative-based system as in 40k (most likely alternative in my opinion) my High Elves wouldn't suffer too much as most of my units (all the ones with ASF) are I5 or higher. It would hamper low initiative armies so I suppose I wouldn't mind losing it too much. It would, however, mean there are pretty much no special rules for High Elves and that would make me sad :(

Malorian
25-02-2010, 18:07
If that were true and it were replaced with an Initiative-based system as in 40k (most likely alternative in my opinion) my High Elves wouldn't suffer too much as most of my units (all the ones with ASF) are I5 or higher. It would hamper low initiative armies so I suppose I wouldn't mind losing it too much. It would, however, mean there are pretty much no special rules for High Elves and that would make me sad :(

Bah! The high elves have high enough initiative that they wouldn't care that much.

On the other hand think of the weak, hard hitting, units that NEED the charge as their initiative is crud (such as squigs).

The SkaerKrow
25-02-2010, 18:12
Or Great Weapon armed infantry. Hence my sudden reluctance to start painting up Bestigors for my army.

It seems that discussion about the fate of Great Weapons is innately tied to what changes that we're going to see in the game's method of handling charging units, and striking order.

Condottiere
25-02-2010, 18:34
Then there's always the compromise +1 strength, AP.

The SkaerKrow
25-02-2010, 18:35
So, as current with AP? You have to be careful not to make them outright superior to Halberds (unless Halberds stop being usable while mounted in the next edition).

Condottiere
25-02-2010, 18:49
The fault lies in the limited range of damage, not in the weapons themselves.

The only way to differentiate is by point cost and/or effect; the halberd is the redhaired stepchild in this armoury.

GodlessM
25-02-2010, 18:53
I'm going with option one, since most units that carry Great Weapon have little to no armour and so need to get that charge as otherwise who cares if the get +2S if they get no attacks back 'cause they all got butchered.

Cacodemon
25-02-2010, 20:55
Option 1. I remember playing 5th edition with White Wolf knights charging and dying before they get to swing. Madness!

Desert Rain
25-02-2010, 21:41
I don't really care what happens to great weapons when you're mounted. Any changes to infantry using them interest me a lot though.

Lord Malorne
25-02-2010, 21:43
I voted option one, my real choice as Malorian pointed out, is option 4 ;).

gdsora
25-02-2010, 21:48
I'd like +2 Str mounted
and to strike first if i charge.
As TK, I can only get Str 7 mounted, by using a Flail....I would Like +2 Str for more then one turn thank you

dhallnet
25-02-2010, 22:28
If that were true and it were replaced with an Initiative-based system as in 40k (most likely alternative in my opinion) my High Elves wouldn't suffer too much as most of my units (all the ones with ASF) are I5 or higher. It would hamper low initiative armies so I suppose I wouldn't mind losing it too much. It would, however, mean there are pretty much no special rules for High Elves and that would make me sad :(

"Ranked high elves get +1I" would be a good replacement I think.

On topic : I would choose option 2, it makes enough interresting differences to make options with lances, halberds and flails.

Stronginthearm
25-02-2010, 22:35
Option 4: +2 strength and striking first!

It deserves to be +2 strength because it's a bloodly great weapon damn it! I can't see a spear doing as much damage as a 4 foot claymore...

And the striking first when charging should be kept. You are getting the jump on the army and fact that the great weapon is slow to move after the first swing is shown by it striking last after.

I Don't havge much of an opinion here but i do have to say to you Malorian that claymore were traditionally anti cav weapons, its hard to wield a 5 foot blade with both hands and ride well into enemy lines with somebody trying to stick a sword in you, I do for +1 Str and strikes normal, yes its a big weapon but you have less personal mobility and room to swing it therefore it would not be as useful

Zapfork
25-02-2010, 22:55
Hum, as an O&G player I already get +1 S on a mounted charge with choppas and spears...so at the moment there is no reason to take a great weapon. Its only +1 S for one turn, but the great weapon comes with too many disadvantages.
I voted 2.

Bloodknight
25-02-2010, 22:57
I'd like +2 Str mounted
and to strike first if i charge.
As TK, I can only get Str 7 mounted, by using a Flail....I would Like +2 Str for more then one turn thank you

That's the point (and I say that as a fellow TK player). +2S mounted great weapons that don't strike last make flails redundant.

shredshredxx
26-02-2010, 00:30
why not treat them like the old cavalry hammers?? strike first and +2 on the charge, +1 strength subsequent rounds

w3rm
26-02-2010, 00:52
Hum, as an O&G player I already get +1 S on a mounted charge with choppas and spears...

Erm no you dont. +1 strength for Choppas is only infantry.

fantasypisces
26-02-2010, 06:23
+1 strength on charge is same as spear, worse than lance, and with both of those you can still take a shield. Granted, they lose the strength bonus after the charge.

I prefer the +2 and strike last. I find the 1 extra strength to be very good, but it creates a separation from lances and other weapons, while still having the penalty for keeping that strength bonus. It would also help to promote more tactical use of them, picking charges for carefully.

Memnos
26-02-2010, 08:30
I suspect that ASF is about to get nerfed.

Y'know... I had always suspected High Elves were going to be the be-all and end-all army when they had ASF.

It didn't come to pass. I really don't have a problem with high elves. They're expensive, bad armor with low toughness. They need something. :)

Condottiere
26-02-2010, 09:29
If rumours are to be believed, ASF might end up to be one off, like hatred, or an initiative bonus. Of course, it may turn out to be eternal ASF against Dark Elves, and Sword Masters just have eternal ASF against everyone.

Gromdal
26-02-2010, 10:27
I would still not field questing knights with either option.

Lance and shield is much better.

Festus
26-02-2010, 10:38
Hi

I would simply disallow Halberds for mounted models - how stupid is using a polearm if mounted???

Festus

Avian
26-02-2010, 11:19
That wouldn't affect Questing Knights, White Wolf Knights, Centigor with great weapons or anything like that. ;)

Zapfork
26-02-2010, 11:24
Erm no you dont. +1 strength for Choppas is only infantry.

Interesting. In that case I still got the spear.

Condottiere
26-02-2010, 12:11
Hi

I would simply disallow Halberds for mounted models - how stupid is using a polearm if mounted???

FestusAssume that the halberd is just a term for a class of weapon, rather than specifically a pole axe with a spike and hook.

selone
26-02-2010, 18:00
+2 S and strike first :)

Rodman49
26-02-2010, 22:21
I agree with a lot of other posters in that great weapons should be a lot like the White Wolf Cavalry Hammers from 6th edition. +2 strength on the Charge and +1 strength in subsequent rounds of combat (strikes last in subsequent rounds though). This way they are comparable to the Lance and Shield option. Limit the availability of these weapons to choices with one attack.

Niibl
28-02-2010, 12:58
I did not vote as there is no "other" option and I don't like both.
Leave them great weapons->+2 str with strike first on the charge (strike last was the death of great weapons in 5th edition) but with one attack only.

Avian
24-05-2010, 07:56
And so it seems the "+2 S and strikes last on the charge" crowd has it. :)

ftayl5
24-05-2010, 08:05
Option 1 is the best of the 3. But option 4 (my option) Strength 2 on charge and strikes first.

WHy would they strike last? If a guy on foot can swing a hammer while moving at 'foot speed' and get +2 Strength, then why can't a guy going at horse speed, swinging a hammer from 10 feet in the air??

Then the only reason not to take GW Knights would be for lack of shield, but meh, full plate, theys till get a 2+

ChaosVC
24-05-2010, 08:26
option 1 makes carrying great weapon pointless as you can do the same with halberd.

option 2 makes more sense, too bad with the rumoured intiative order thing, centigor is going to eat crap one way or the other. But good for characters and ogres like creatures never the less.

Magic Karl
24-05-2010, 09:54
Option 2 personally, but 1 makes more sence fluff-wise as it's much harder to wield such a big weapon mounted... hell I think the mounts would be slowed by GWs if it was mocking reality.

N1AK
24-05-2010, 11:56
Option 2. Option one makes them massively inferior to Lances and basically equivalent/marginally worse than Spears.

Personally I don't think it would matter if they were the same as GWs on foot. In 7th +2str + strike first on charge would have made Lances inferior as noone survived to fight back (so the +1 save from shield was wasted). In 8th where more models will be able to make attacks back the benefit of having a shield means Lances still compete.

snyggejygge
24-05-2010, 13:55
Strike last & +2 S, with good armour (which cavalry has), it shouldn't be much of a liability.