axemen of lossarnarch or clansmen of lamedon

bormir the true king · **Posted:** Sun May 23, 2010 4:19 pm

whicj is better

whafrog · **Posted:** Sun May 23, 2010 4:59 pm

Axemen, IMHO. Clansmen have no hand-weapon, so are always at -1 on the fight roll. Use of them would be minor.

bormir the true king · **Posted:** Sun May 23, 2010 5:19 pm

k cheers was thinking them anyway thanks

The_Dúnadan · **Joined:** Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:28 am **Posts:** 5

I thought they were already at -1 fight for having 2handed weapons? Is it culminative??

whafrog · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:10 am

No, it's because they don't have a hand weapon to use instead of the 2H weapon, so they're always at -1. Other models might take a 2H weapon, but they still have a hand weapon they can use if they want.

ShadowMaster26 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:35 pm

Clansmen look much cooler though.

spuds4ever · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:32 pm

ShadowMaster26 wrote:

Clansmen look much cooler though.

Definetely. I think Axeman are much better defensive wise, but as kamikazes and monster slayers go, Clansmen are your best bet with high courage to pass terror, and able to wound easily, they are a good choice. Also, as Clansmen of Lamedon will generally have a higher fight, so using a 2H weapon effectively just makes your FV lower than theirs.

@Whafrog: it says in the SBG faq that every model comes with a hand-weapon unless specifically stated other-wise (which kinda makes elven blades nothing special) correct me if I'm wrong, though.

whafrog · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:40 pm

spuds4ever wrote:

@Whafrog: it says in the SBG faq that every model comes with a hand-weapon unless specifically stated other-wise (which kinda makes elven blades nothing special) correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Right, but for clansmen it specifically states they *only* have their 2H weapon, and are otherwise unarmed.

spuds4ever · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:43 pm

whafrog wrote:

spuds4ever wrote:

@Whafrog: it says in the SBG faq that every model comes with a hand-weapon unless specifically stated other-wise (which kinda makes elven blades nothing special) correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Right, but for clansmen it specifically states they *only* have their 2H weapon, and are otherwise unarmed.

Really? That's unusual. Soz :oops:

.

The_Dúnadan · **Joined:** Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:28 am **Posts:** 5

ShadowMaster26 wrote:

Clansmen look much cooler though.

Agreed. I'd also rather have them as I want to include a unit in WotR and I don't want to pay for different metal models/units.

Beowulf03809 · **Posted:** Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:13 am

spuds4ever wrote:

...Also, as Clansmen of Lamedon will generally have a higher fight, so using a 2H weapon effectively just makes your FV lower than theirs.

This isn't really a good way of saying it. If winning a Fight was calculated by F + 1d6 then yes, but the Fight only comes into play on a tie. Meanwhile, the -1 is all the time. So the only time your higher Fight will have an effect is if you tie because of the -1. If you roll a 4 and your enemy rolls a 4, you get the -1 and loose the Fight. If you roll a 5 and your enemy rolls a 4, you get the -1 and tie, and you may win now via that higher Fight but you could still have a roll off.

Look at how many times in a game a Fight comes down to a tie, regardless of -1 or not. You'll see it's only a fraction when compared to the number of times you roll to determine who wins a Fight. I wouldn't risk a -1 for anything more than a small number of "shock troop" units and then only if I have a reasonable chance of teaming them up with some normal units.

spuds4ever · **Posted:** Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:45 am

Beowulf03809 wrote:

spuds4ever wrote:

...Also, as Clansmen of Lamedon will generally have a higher fight, so using a 2H weapon effectively just makes your FV lower than theirs.

This isn't really a good way of saying it. If winning a Fight was calculated by F + 1d6 then yes, but the Fight only comes into play on a tie. Meanwhile, the -1 is all the time. So the only time your higher Fight will have an effect is if you tie because of the -1. If you roll a 4 and your enemy rolls a 4, you get the -1 and loose the Fight. If you roll a 5 and your enemy rolls a 4, you get the -1 and tie, and you may win now via that higher Fight but you could still have a roll off.

Look at how many times in a game a Fight comes down to a tie, regardless of -1 or not. You'll see it's only a fraction when compared to the number of times you roll to determine who wins a Fight. I wouldn't risk a -1 for anything more than a small number of "shock troop" units and then only if I have a reasonable chance of teaming them up with some normal units.

I was just pressuming you would be fighting the typical FV3 guy. I probably didn't word it very well, though.

Lord Hurin · **Posted:** Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:58 pm

spuds4ever wrote:

I was just pressuming you would be fighting the typical FV3 guy. I probably didn't word it very well, though.

Sadly, Fv3 is hardly the average anymore. More and more new models are getting Fv4...

On another note, I always thought it was weird how Fight value rarely, if ever, factored into things.

whafrog · **Posted:** Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:09 pm

Lord Hurin wrote:

On another note, I always thought it was weird how Fight value rarely, if ever, factored into things.

If the models are uneven, it's 16.7% of the time

But yeah, I wish the Fight score also reflected how many enemies you could take on.

Lord Hurin · **Posted:** Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:23 pm

whafrog wrote:

If the models are uneven, it's 16.7% of the time

But yeah, I wish the Fight score also reflected how many enemies you could take on.

The post you directed me to is very interesting. I think it needs more thought, but it shows a lot of promise.

axemen of lossarnarch or clansmen of lamedon

Who is online