PDA

View Full Version : Should the Hand Weapon/Shield bonus go away?



Commissar von Toussaint
24-08-2005, 02:31
What do you think?

Grand Warlord
24-08-2005, 02:38
Personally I say no. For the most part it doesnt grant too much more protection.

I am speaking from the Empire viewpoint.

:0)
24-08-2005, 02:39
Why should it?

Commissar von Toussaint
24-08-2005, 02:51
If my memory does not betray me, CvT doesn't like the rule and thinks it should go away.

Not quite.

Some folks think halberds/spears need to be tougher. This is my fix.

I'm also curious as to how popular HW/S actually is at this point in the edition.

Alco Engineer
24-08-2005, 02:56
You need some advantage over being armed with a spear. Where is it if the bonus goes away??

Trunks
24-08-2005, 03:07
The reason this bonus is in the game is because people had no reason to take hand weapon and shield troops in the last edition of the game other than for aesthetics or the background of the game, unless they had no other options. Given the choice between spears or hand weapons, almost everyone chose spears because both ways of equipping the regiment had the same defensive capabilities and did the same on the charge, but the spearmen were better in further rounds and were better when charged.

HW/S is pretty damn popular in the edition. It makes you better defensively overall than a spearman regiment. You get less attacks but more men survive, meaning that your static combat resolution is staying intact for longer (which is the whole point of a defensive close combat regiment as you know).

Removing the bonus would be bad in my opinion though because it would swings things the other way completely as I described above, which I think isn't a good thing.

Something needs to be done with spears and halberds, whether it is to give them some other bonuses or to make them cheaper. Halberds really seem to be over-priced and over-valued by GW when you compare them to the same regiment if armed with hand weapon and shield or spear and shield in most cases (there are exceptions like Chaos Warriors).

It'd be nice to give spears the same bonus that pikes get when enemy cavalry charges (Pikes are just long spears anyway), I'm not sure how much that is needed but it'd be cool. Spearmen seem to see alot more use than halberds in my experience though.

Commissar von Toussaint
24-08-2005, 03:08
Well, you get the +1 for the shield, just as everyone else does.

Used to be, HW/S was the default option (read: free).

Nurglitch's assertion to the contrary, I'm not particularly passionate about either side. That's why I pretty much confined myself to putting up the question. I leave the advocacy to others.

UPDATE: So basically, you think every weapon style should have a special ability?

Trunks
24-08-2005, 03:19
UPDATE: So basically, you think every weapon style should have a special ability?

Don't know if this was directed at me since it was an edit . . .

I think every weapon style should be equally points effective. Hand Weapon/Shield combo is fairly effective for it's points in my opinion. Spears are less so for some regiments (Goblins in general are better off with hand weapon and shield than spear). In general, Halberds are the least effective for their points out of the three options (ignoring great weapons because they don't pertain to this discussion) most infantry have for close combat. None of these options are useless, it's all about the bang for your buck though.

I see no reason why a guy with a halberd should cost more than a guy with a spear at the moment. Halberdiers have less defensive capability and overall less offensive capability in any round after the first if the regiment charges (If charged, the spearmen are likely to cause more wounds than the halbediers). So, halbediers have worse armor and it's debatable that they cause more damage overall, why price them higher?

Either get the points costs to be more reasonable, or add in a special rule (which makes them more effective, which in turn makes the point cost more reasonable).

PANZERBUNNY
24-08-2005, 03:22
I believe every weapon should have some form of advantage going for it that will actually make you think if u want to take it or not.....
"hmmmm...should I take HW/S..or...should I take spears.....what if I face this army..or this army"
"should I take hand axes instead of a normal HW....as..I can throw them..so i can get some missile weapons at close range in a pinch"

Actually putting your prospective list through a nice thought process can be rewarding n the end for the game.

maxwell123
24-08-2005, 03:43
You need some advantage over being armed with a spear. Where is it if the bonus goes away??

Hand weapons are free.
Spears are 2pts for most armies and 1pt for some cheap troops (e.g. goblins).

I'd say it's far more important the spear has an advantage over the hand weapon with point cost in mind as opposed to the other way around.

Currently, the hw/s option is better than using a spear in almost every situation for S3 troops, despite being much cheaper.


I really don't see the need for hand weapon/shield to grant a bonus armour save. I don't like the general increase of armour in this edition. It is what is responsible for killing expensive infantry (who can no longer get as many kills in).

The outnumber bonus was sufficient to help cheap infantry IMO.

The hw/s rule just swings the balance too far the other way. I'd like to see it either removed or it replaced with some kind of other bonus for hand weapons instead.

proximity
24-08-2005, 03:54
heavy armour, shield and hand weapon blocks make baby jesus cry, I vote that it should go, but i dont play armies that get any bonus from it.. :o

Trunks
24-08-2005, 04:03
After reading through part of the Halberd thread, I think dropping the Hand Weapon and Shield rule from troops with less than WS4 would be a good change due to elite infantry effectiveness arguments.

Hasmed
24-08-2005, 07:23
If you paid for the bonus it would be OK.
Now it is free and more effective than the other options.
IMO that is why halberds and spears are uncommon.

Cenyu
24-08-2005, 08:37
My vote goes for option 4:

Parry bonus only for troops with a weapon skill of 4 or more.

Avian
24-08-2005, 09:55
Some folks think halberds/spears need to be tougher. This is my fix.
Makes Halberds / spears better against HW+SH, but still rather bad against everything else.

Adlan
24-08-2005, 10:14
Could halberds nutralise the benefit of Hw&S?
and for a kinds justification you could say that the huge axe blade often smashes through shields (wether it does or not I don't know, I'll ask my renenactor buddies next time i see them)

and when i say nutralise i mean troops using Hw&S no longer gain the bonus when facing halberds.

Enazel
24-08-2005, 10:31
My vote goes for option 4:

Parry bonus only for troops with a weapon skill of 4 or more.

agreed, giving the extra armour save in combat to only WS 4 or more.

athamas
24-08-2005, 11:10
but then you get the chosen chaos warrior mincing machine...

they can a 2+ save in combat, with 2 attacks each...

thats cavalry standards.. yes they are expensive, but....

Cenyu
24-08-2005, 11:16
I know, I know, one big flaw in this proposal. Nobody wants better Chosen Chaos Warriors (no, seriously) - they should be moved to an elite slot anyways. Or simply be except from the parry rule - they surely are too mutated to use a shield properly anyways, arenīt they? :rolleyes: *sneaks away*

Mad Doc Grotsnik
24-08-2005, 11:36
Cenyus idea, of limiting the save to an improved WS certainly appeals to me.

It's much along my new line of thinking that perhaps the Shielding ability (where you get an extra point to your save) should be more of an ability given to certain troops.

It does make a certain amount of sense to gain extra protection from a shield. I mean, a Breastplate is all fine and well, but about as much use as tits on a duck is someone takes a swipe at your kneecaps. A Shield however, whilst offering roughly the same protection, is manouverable.

Making shielding a special rule for certain troops would represent the soldiers having suitable training and discipline to use it appropriately. I get the feeling Orcs and Goblins would be more keen on beating you round the head with it!

Avian
24-08-2005, 11:57
Making shielding a special rule for certain troops would represent the soldiers having suitable training and discipline to use it appropriately. I get the feeling Orcs and Goblins would be more keen on beating you round the head with it!
But it doesn't really make much sense. Shields were pretty damn common because they were easy to produce (though they didn't last long) and gave you effective protection.

The current system is actually quite good, pretty much everyone can have a shield, most people can get light armour, but heavy armour is quite restricted.

If you remove the HW+SH bonus (this does not appear to be happening, so there! :p), why take a shield at all if you are a cheap horde unit? It would be more effective to take more guys.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
24-08-2005, 12:06
Then either the unit comes with HW&S, or buy more troops!

Bear in mind that against Missile Heavy armies, those shields are doubling you save potential.....

Is just a suggestion, and one I think whilst not perfect, could correct the system enough.

Commissar von Toussaint
24-08-2005, 12:47
HW/S as it now stands clearly doesn't work. Either it should cost points or it shouldn't be given.

From a historical perspective, shields weren't all that effective - they just were better than nothing.

Looking at the armies of the pre-gunpowder era, hand weapon was usually a back-up. The Romans were an exception, but their dominance was because of maneuverability and discipline (and don't forget numbers).

In straight-up fights against legions on open ground, the phalanxes usually won.

I think the rule is unrealistic and poorly priced - and it has the effect of making low WS troops really hard to kill, which I think is pretty silly.

Setting a threshold for WS might work and certainly would solve some of the problem. Chosen Chaos Warriors already benefit, so I can't get too excited about it. If they had to pay for the "parry", it would be quite fair IMHO.

Adlan
24-08-2005, 13:23
What about reducing the cost of halberds and spears?

A few pages of errata in WD and online should do it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
24-08-2005, 14:08
But HW&S does cost something....a point. Take my Dark Elves. 7 points gets me an Elf with Hand Weapon and Spear. And additional point buys them a shield, or I can swap the Spear for a Repeater Crossbow for an additional 4 points.

As such, buying the shield costs a point.

Boomstar
24-08-2005, 14:13
Spears and halberds need to made better rather then making hand weapons and shield useless.Taking away the hand weapon and shield bonus would make dwarfs really awfull in paticular.

How bout just make it so spears always strike first if charged and take away the 2 fighting rank bonus, and then give halberds the ability to fight in 2 ranks if stationary with only the first rank gaining the +1 str bonus?

Just my 2 cents.

Commissar von Toussaint
24-08-2005, 14:42
As such, buying the shield costs a point.

Right, but the bonus is free.

You pay extra for a spear and halberd, but not extra for the bonus save you get with a hand weapon.

We could discount halberds and spears - which would help.

I'm not wedded to the idea of a rules chance (that's why I voted undecided) but I'd like to see the points redone.

If "Parry" becomes a special rule, then units can be charged an extra point for it and it can be common (like cavalry, skirmisher, chariots) but certain units wouldn't get it (like horde troops).

Adlan
24-08-2005, 15:01
Seems fair to me.

And it will add a bit more variety to armies. You could have disciplined or undesciplined armies.

Hebron
24-08-2005, 15:08
The idea of WS4 units being the only ones getting the advantage of HW/SH is just going to open a whole 'nother barrel of worms...

Drakemaster
24-08-2005, 15:40
I don't think that the HW+S bonus should be removed altogether, but I do think it needs to be toned down for cheap troops to help balance out the poor cost effectiveness of many 'elite' infantry units, particularly those wielding halberds, spears and the like rather than hand weapons. Limiting it to WS 4 and above troops could work, but I think a better solution would be for it to be removed if your opponent has a higher WS. This would fit with the 'background' justification (it is supposed to be a form of 'parry' bonus, and it makes sense not to recieve it against troops that are more skilled). In addition it would help make 'elite' infantry more capable of causing casualties against cheap blocks of fodder - like they should be. Finally, it would help make WS a more important stat, whereas these days it is far less influential in combat than S and T.

Commissar von Toussaint
24-08-2005, 16:01
You know, that's a pretty good idea.

Boomstar
24-08-2005, 16:03
Yeah I like that idea quite a bit.

Adlan
24-08-2005, 16:47
Thats a really nice solution.
you still get if if your opponent has the same ws right?

Katastrophe
24-08-2005, 16:53
Actually i would just limit it to the ws 4 thing without having to look at the comparison of weaponskills. why would a ws5 guy lose it because the opponent is ws6. a ws5 guy should be competent at fighting defensively even if the opponent is better. I was actually discussing this at length recently and we would have limited it to ws3 troops only since that would basically eliminate gobbos, skaven slaves and skellies, trash troops that ought not have the rule but would keep any TRAINED troops such as skaven clansman.

GranFarfar
24-08-2005, 17:12
Wow Drakemaster. That is actually and both quite simple and genius idea. If the HW/S bonus is to be changed in anyway, I would vote for this option right now.
The more I think of it, the more I like the idea.

Gaius Marius
24-08-2005, 17:20
Looking at the armies of the pre-gunpowder era, hand weapon was usually a back-up. The Romans were an exception, but their dominance was because of maneuverability and discipline (and don't forget numbers).


in straight-up fights against legions on open ground, the phalanxes usually won.

CVT - The Romans may be an exception. However, they almost never had numerical superiority in their foreign wars, and they almost never lost to spear wielding phalanxes. Maneuverability, dicipline, and short upward stabbing sword used from behind a wall of shields was what worked for them.

On open terrain, the legions, whether using Pre-Marian Maniples or Post Marian Cohorts (maniple = 120 men vs cohort = 600 men & Lgegion = 600 men or 10 Cohorts) were more maneuverable than any other infantry opponent. What got them into grief on open terrain was cavalry, (Persian Cataphracts in particular)

Against a big Phalanx the Cohorts would mutually support one another, flanking and enveloping the big phalanxes, and destroying them.

Commissar von Toussaint
24-08-2005, 17:31
CVT - The Romans may be an exception. However, they almost never had numerical superiority in their foreign wars, and they almost never lost to spear wielding phalanxes.

Not true on both counts.

The Romans had manpower resources that allowed them to take punishing losses and keep coming back.

Also, the wars in Italy (Magna Graecia), particularly against Pyhrrus were not exactly brilliant victories for the Romans. They defeated phalanxes through discipline, maneuver and tenacity - but in a head-on fight they lost.


On open terrain, the legions, whether using Pre-Marian Maniples or Post Marian Cohorts (maniple = 120 men vs cohort = 600 men & Lgegion = 600 men or 10 Cohorts) were more maneuverable than any other infantry opponent. What got them into grief on open terrain was cavalry, (Persian Cataphracts in particular)

You're all over the place. Republican legions in fact used spearmen - this was where the Triiari came into play.

The later legions always sought to outmaneuver their opponents. Against the less competent Macedonians - whose armies were also inferior in troop quality, training and morale - it was easy to exploit gaps and tear them apart.

WHFB reflects this by giving flank troops bonuses and negating spears.


Against a big Phalanx the Cohorts would mutually support one another, flanking and enveloping the big phalanxes, and destroying them.

In a head-on fight they lost, though.

And let us not forget that the legions also had pila to throw - adding a further disruption.

The legions specialized in ensuring it was never a fair fight between them and the phalanxes. When it was, the legions usually lost.

Almost forgot: On topic, I like the WS differential. What this does is really emphasize WS without making it overpowering. Gobins on goblins would get to parry, no problem. Goblins against skellies would get it, too.

What it would do is give people who've been pushing for WS to mean more a real edge without adding much complexity. HE spears and particularly their other troops would really benefit.

Dwarves wouldn't suffer that much because they have a decent WS anyway.

The more I think about it, the more I like it.

One final thing: it makes the Empire swordsmen truly an elite unit, fitting perfectly with the fluff.

Though I'm not one for tactical options (my guys use the weapons they're given), I can see where this also opens up new ideas for troops to use secondary weapons. Elite troops might want to go HW/S if they get a 4+ and their opponents drop to 5+.

A final effect would be that high WS characters would be a little more effective against HW/S grunts, but also against other characters. Just taking a HW/S would mean a bonus against lesser skilled characters.

I see Kat is back and one of the things that has been stated ad nauseum on Portent was the need for Elves to actually reflect their fluff.

Well, here it is. Instead of jacking up the "to hit" table, you get a real, solid benefit with minimal fuss.

Somebody call GW!

Neknoh
24-08-2005, 17:53
On one hand, goblins and Skeletons with a 4+ save is a no-no in my book... on the other, Swordsmen, Chaos Wariors, Marauders and other more trained units should have it.

So, I gues it is Undivid... err... Undicided for me

brother_fandango
24-08-2005, 21:37
going off of that, i think if a unit gets hit by a flaming attack, their sheilds should burn. burn. burn. expect ogre ironfists. theyd get nice and toasty.

Trunks
25-08-2005, 00:15
What if I make my shield from metal?

Sarevok
25-08-2005, 00:32
Hand weapons are free.
Spears are 2pts for most armies and 1pt for some cheap troops (e.g. goblins).


Spears used to be 1 point for everyone. They increased cost of spear AND intrduced the HW/Shield. Classic GW overkill.

Gaius Marius
25-08-2005, 19:13
;) Point taken about the loses to Pyhrrus, my bad. ( I was thinking about Ceasar, Marius & Sulla against barbarians - especiallly Lucullus against the Parthians - 2 legions vs 100,000+ troops in one battle) During the Punic wars in the middle republic the Romans often had numerical superiority against the Cartheginians and later the Greeks, especially when fighting in Italy. Also during the early to mid republic the mixed foot types of the legions did in fact sport long spears (hasta), and part of the soldiery did in fact fight in a semi-phalanx themselves. By the late republic (post Scipio Africanus, and really post Marius) the variously armed legionaries had been replace by the standard, archetypal Legionary with a big shield (rounded at the top or not) a short stabbing sword, a big dagger and a pair of pila, with the hasta relegated to siege work. They were the boys I was thinking about.
On the point about never fighting fair, and in a fair fight the phalanx would win... who the heck fights fair? :angel: I don't charge pikes in the front in Warhammer and the legions tried not to in real life.

I really like the idea of the HW & Shield bonus only working for higher WS. It gives added value to the WS stat, making it more advantageous for elite troops. This is good for seemingly overpriced elvish foot in particular. ANd for my empire swordsmen too of course.

Sanjuro
25-08-2005, 19:33
I don't charge pikes in the front in Warhammer and the legions tried not to in real life.


Maybe you should charge pikes in the front - you actually have an OK chance of winning if you can muster up some T4 troops (I'm thinking flagellants, since you play Empire).

nurgle_boy
25-08-2005, 20:00
'hey guys, i know! why not drop combat res altogehter and make the game more like 40k!'

i know, how about we keep the had weapon shield bonus, as its a good rule, and is balenced, instead of turning fantasy into 40k....


silly poll...

Commissar von Toussaint
26-08-2005, 15:03
i know, how about we keep the had weapon shield bonus, as its a good rule, and is balenced, instead of turning fantasy into 40k....

Right, so in the 20+ years of WHFB before the HW/S rule came out, the two systems were identical. :rolleyes:

As I pointed out on the other thread, HW/S gives you something for nothing. Hand weapons are free. Everyone gets one.

Shields and other weapons cost extra.

If you buy a shield and spear, you pay for both and get a bonus.
If you buy shield and halberd, you pay for both and get a bonus.

But if you buy a shield by itself, you only pay for half - and still get a bonus.

That is the problem.

IkuTurso
26-08-2005, 15:20
hmm.. maybe it should... or atleast it doesnt make any sense if you dont get the bonus with magic hand weapon and shield as well.

brother_fandango
26-08-2005, 17:26
i hate the system of 40k so much, but its sooo simple after a 15 hour day at work

Misfratz
26-08-2005, 17:43
I voted no, but something needs to change when you have troops often using hw+s instead of the spear/halberd that they came with automatically.

However, as previously stated, going back to 5th edition isn't desirable. I await, with interest, what Gav et al come up with...

Commissar von Toussaint
26-08-2005, 20:42
I await, with interest, what Gav et al come up with...

Interest? Perhaps. Another word that comes to mind are "dread."

mageith
27-08-2005, 02:05
What about reducing the cost of halberds and spears?

A few pages of errata in WD and online should do it.

Leave hand/weapon shield as is (or just give a hand weapon a parry save, (one to a customer).

Free spears and halberds for St 3 troops (essentially reduce all infantry costs by one or two points if they already have spear or halberd).

+1 point for troops that fight in an yet an additional rank, each additional rank.

+2 for St 4 troops, +4 for St 5 troops, etc.

Multiply by number of attacks.

If troops take a weapon upgrade, they have to use it.

Commissar von Toussaint
28-08-2005, 13:54
No one's forcing you to play with the rules they write.

You're telling this to the guy who still plays 2nd edition 40k. :p

Cenyu
28-08-2005, 15:28
No one's forcing you to play with the rules they write.

Stereotype posts like this tend to ruin every discussion and make me want to poke the poster with a stick.

mageith
28-08-2005, 16:06
Stereotype posts like this tend to ruin every discussion and make me want to poke the poster with a stick.
IMO, the comment to which you refer is just a meaningless comment. Everybody knows they can play any game they want with any modifications to any rules. It's just necessary to find someone else willing to go along. This goes without saying (and should go without saying).

OTOH, a question like whether hw/s should go away has behind it the hope that an overwhelming tide of opinion will make its way to the powers that be that are, right now, in discussion over the rules for the 7th edition.

In the case at hand, the overwhelming opinion appears to be that the hw/s rule is fine as is.

Mage Ith

Commissar von Toussaint
28-08-2005, 16:24
IMO, the comment to which you refer is just a meaningless comment. Everybody knows they can play any game they want with any modifications to any rules. It's just necessary to find someone else willing to go along. This goes without saying (and should go without saying).

Pretty much. And given that I've been pretty strident about my support for 2nd ed., it seems singularly odd for him to write that.

Moreover, my point is true. If an army is discontinued, a core rule is changed, good luck finding opponents that won't switch.

I enjoy playing 2nd ed. but it is an uphill battle to find new opponents (no pun intended).

I can't go into the local hobby shop and engage in pick-up matches.


OTOH, a question like whether hw/s should go away has behind it the hope that an overwhelming tide of opinion will make its way to the powers that be that are, right now, in discussion over the rules for the 7th edition.

Hopefully, they're paying attention.


In the case at hand, the overwhelming opinion appears to be that the hw/s rule is fine as is.

Mage Ith

Not true. The overwhelming opinion is that they would rather have it than not - but there is a narrow majority that would like to see it changed.

mageith
28-08-2005, 16:40
Not true. The overwhelming opinion is that they would rather have it than not - but there is a narrow majority that would like to see it changed.
I was referring to the poll where 73.45% Say NO to the question "Should the HW/S bonus save go away?" That looks overwhelming to me.

Only 16.81% say Yes.

Now may be you have other information on where the true majority stands but of the 113 folks you took the time and energy to vote, only about one is six think it should.

I suppose a more graduated poll my yield your result -- or not.

Personally I think it's fine and horde infantry is fine and balanced with most other units in the game. Certain unit types, namely Expensive infantry, bows and possibly Heavy Cavalry need some adjustment. But I think if Expensive Infantry were boosted to reflect its cost and bows either cost less or were slightly boosted (shoot in an additional rank), then Heavy Cav falls into line.

Boosting Expensive infantry is the number one problem and would include (and might even be limited to) boosting the infantry weapon upgrades.

Since changing costs is unlikely in the BRB, this means either waiting for each armybook to come out or actually upgrading the weapons.

As you know, great weapons, handguns, and hw/s shield were upgraded for 6th but none of the other weapons were. This is now known to be an error.

Mage Ith

Commissar von Toussaint
28-08-2005, 16:49
I was referring to the poll where 73.45% Say NO to the question "Should the HW/S bonus save go away?" That looks overwhelming to me.

Only 16.81% say Yes.

Now may be you have other information on where the true majority stands but of the 113 folks you took the time and energy to vote, only about one is six think it should.

I suppose a more graduated poll my yield your result -- or not.

I was referreing to the subsequent poll on tying HW/S to the WS of the combatants. That proposal commands a majority.

My point is that you cannot say that 70+ percent want "no change," only that they prefer the current form to its total deletion.

Given other alternatives, that 70 percent will likely fracture, depending on the kind of changes proposed. There's a post on Nurglitch's thread that indicates some of those that voted against the WS proposal have since come over.

So there may well be a majority who want to see it changed, but the change has to be worth it.

Which I suspected from the get-go.

Misfratz
28-08-2005, 22:19
No one's forcing you to play with the rules they write.
...
CvT: You aren't the only person on this thread. However I should have been more specific. I was replying to Misfratz's comments in post #50. Perhaps now my comment makes more sense.No, indeed. In fact I have often been a cheerleader for people modifying the rules as they see fit or just for experimentation.

However, it seems to me that the basis of this discussion is what the official rules are and I simply stated that I prefer the 6th edition weapon rules to the 5th edition rules [the main differences being hw+s and great weapons on the charge], in agreement with a previous poster. I'm confused how this precipitated your response.

@CvT: Given the vast number of things about which I might feel dread# I find it hard to include the rules of a tabletop miniatures battle game within that category. For me, 'interest', will do perfectly fine, even if it is interest in the sense of the Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times".

# These would be:
- The response of my boss on Tuesday when she discovers that I effectively wasted 3*13*9000*0.5/15 [=195 minutes gulp!] seconds of "insanely expensive machine" time, because the data wasn't archived correctly from my experiment, because it wasn't set up properly [I think it was, in hindsight, a most ingenious way that I made my mistake]. I'm going to sneak into work tomorrow evening to try to repair some of the damage [Bank Holiday Monday!]. Oh, and she was hoping to present some results from my experiment later on Tuesday as well...
- Prospects for a quiet time at home given that my wife's MSc deadline is less than three weeks away.
- The advisability of leaving my daughter [3.5 yrs] in London, hundred's of miles away from her parents, at *this* time of mentalness.
- Thermo-Nuclear War
NB. The above are in no particular order...

RGB
29-08-2005, 09:39
Yes, it should. It's a needless abstraction that does not represent anything and a wrong way to fix things.

The alternative would be a complete revision of teh armour save system.

Whenever a Greatsword in full plate is as well-armoured as a half-naked goblin with a saucepan and a club made of gnawed foreleg, it's wrong. The concept fails to meet the rules, jarring inconsistency, spoils the game.