Replacing hand weapons/special strikes topic

JamesR · **Posted:** Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:34 pm

cereal_theif wrote:

Hasn't lost a game? Have you played big tournaments? Or even left your gaming group to play?

There are no big tournaments in this area unfortunately, if there were I wouldn't hold a perfect record. I'm trying to put one together but we'll see.

And as to gaming group yes I've left my usual before. But with the limited play in this area I've played only about 15-18 different people in LOTR

JamesR · **Posted:** Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:10 am

As I said earlier I have no problem with weapon conversions that stay within the game mechanics (ie if a faction has its readily available then by all means). But what about factions that do but units that don't? I'm interested in any opinions but especially Dr Grant's as we seem in agreement on most of this.

Fair or foul?
Moria Goblins to carry axes (prowlers are what makes it perhaps "fluffy")
Dwarf Warriors to carry swords (Iron Guard intro swords)
Haradrim to carry Daggers (Watchers, Mahud etc have these)
Rohan Royal Guards to carry axes
Sons of Eorl to carry swords (etc)

Coenus Scaldingus · **Joined:** Sat Aug 17, 2013 9:14 am **Posts:** 1121

Several Dwarf Warriors already carry swords actually (the archers and some of those with two-handed axes).
Even better, they are described as having swords in the Hobbit. Additionally, Goblins are equipped with axes there, so that should be allowed as well - either some made themselves or looted from dwarves.
As for the others, axes and swords are interchangable for Rohan as far as I'm concerned, and I've seen plenty of Haradrim converted to have swords/daggers before these special strikes were added (to represent Haradrim with just a hand weapon, or as conversions with a bow or spear in the other hand), it's fitting and looks good. So yeah, wouldn't have problem with either of those, although I prefer my Royal Guard with swords (being the more noble weapon).

Dr Grant · **Joined:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 pm **Posts:** 1339

JamesR wrote:

I'm interested in any opinions but especially Dr Grant's as we seem in agreement on most of this.

Fair or foul?
Moria Goblins to carry axes (prowlers are what makes it perhaps "fluffy")
Dwarf Warriors to carry swords (Iron Guard intro swords)
Haradrim to carry Daggers (Watchers, Mahud etc have these)
Rohan Royal Guards to carry axes
Sons of Eorl to carry swords (etc)

Well then it would be rude of me not to reply!

I know I sound like a broken record but, again, for me, it all comes back to the intent of the rules. There was a video with Adam Troke talking about the new game on the website in December 2012 and he said the point of the weapon rules was to get people to get up close with their models and have a look at what they're holding to make each combat a little different. The intent was not there to encourage players to convert models, converting models for fluff and theme is a great thing to be encouraged but doing it for a competitive edge just seems dodgy to me - you'll note that no-one talks of giving all their wood elves hammers or staffs for 'fluff', it's always axes as they give the biggest advantage.

For me the line is what the original models holds so, in your examples above, they are all a 'no' for me as the models don't have them. Moria goblins are meant to fight with swords, the fact that prowlers have axes doesn't make it OK, same with the dwarf warriors, same with the Sons of Eorl. The Haradrim (I presume you mean the spear armed warriors without weapons) are slightly different as they aren't modelled with a hand weapon but to me that just means they shouldn't be able to special strike. Gluing axes/swords to their sides is just cheesy in my opinion.

The Rohan warriors (and other similar troops with 2 different weapons) is an interesting one, as I've said before I wouldn't grumble about people converting them all to have axes but equally it just seems unnecessary. I've got about 36 Rohan warriors painted, I might well pick the models with axes when I set up my army but I'd never consider converting the sword ones to have axes, if I run out of axes I'll just start using my sword models. I come back to what I said (I think) a few pages back, I never saw people converting their models like this before the special strike rules came out so people are clearly doing it for the in-game advantage.

To use DomyHIll's football analogy, I actually think converting models in this way is like diving - it's going against the spirit of the rules to get an in-game advantage.

There's no doubt that the special strikes aren't perfect (I don't think I've ever seen anyone Bash, Stun or Whirl) but I really like the added edge that feinting and piercing strike bring to the game, I also don't think that they slow the game down to any noticeable degree.

For me, if you're swapping the hand weapons of large blocks of your basic warriors then 99% of the time you'll be doing it for the wrong reasons.

Coenus Scaldingus · **Joined:** Sat Aug 17, 2013 9:14 am **Posts:** 1121

Dr Grant wrote:

For me the line is what the original models holds so, in your examples above, they are all a 'no' for me as the models don't have them. [...] same with the dwarf warriors [...]

As I said in the very post preceding yours, several Dwarf Warriors already have swords. Indeed, if I'm not mistaken that's all the 4 archers and two of those with two-handed weapons: half the total number of guys, so a relatively high proportion (compared to the number or Rohirrim modelled with axes for example).

Quote:

The Rohan warriors [...] I never saw people converting their models like this before the special strike rules came out so people are clearly doing it for the in-game advantage. [...]

For what it's worth, I've converted most of my Rohirrim with swords to have axes (and several archers and spearmen have one hanging from their belts), as it made much more sense for a group of militia to be armed with axes rather than swords. The special strikes, sadly, would make this army look like it was made just to benefit from the rules for axes, but the force was converted and painted some 4 years ago (April 2010).
http://i43.tinypic.com/rqxcig.jpg

Quote:

For me, if you're swapping the hand weapons of large blocks of your basic warriors then 99% of the time you'll be doing it for the wrong reasons.

Yay, part of the 1%!

Lord Hurin · **Posted:** Sun Jan 26, 2014 2:25 pm

I've done a few conversions (most of them well before these rules came out) due to various things. I've converted Haradrim to have swords so I don't have to pay for spears for my entire front rank. I've converted Goblins to have all sorts of weapons because I've bought lots where their swords are snapped off and I'd like some variety. I've converted Dwarves to have swords because the books make mention of them using those. Most recently, I converted a "Fine"cast Blackshield to have an axe. Mostly because I happened to have a bit that would convincingly blend in with the remaining spear shaft.

So, sometimes it's not just for powergaming purposes. I rarely even get a game in these days.

DomyHill · **Posted:** Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:14 pm

How would people like to see the rules FAQed to make these rules more watertight (like I have said before, if GW fixed the rules to make it illegal to give everyone an axe I would be right on the bandwagon to complain about it if I played competitively)?

Something like writing specifically in each profile which 'hand weapon(s)' a model can use. Eg: Warrior of Minas Tirith, Wargear: Sword and Heavy Armour.

Or maybe giving each faction an 'armoury' list. Eg: Warriors in the Rohan list may take either a sword or axe as their hand weapon. (Although this means people could still get away with a little more than some people would like, for example being able to give Swan Knights axes because some Warriors of the Dead have them.) This, IMO, would be the same way of dealing with the problems as the first way but less water tight and wouldn't encourage model type specific variation. I like that all Sons of Eorl have axes, for example.

Or maybe a change in the way the rules are worded would work. I don't know how you would do that short of banning conversions which no one wants.

I really don't have an axe to grind either way but I feel like people are missing my point. Dr Grant said that it is like diving in football. Whilst I agree that in terms of being a 'morally dubious' strategy the point is that it is explicitly illegal and therefore players who do it should be punished and berated. However, my keep point is that converting models to have axes (at the present time) is not specifically banned nor is it even hinted at that it is, in any way, an incorrect or illegal way of playing the game. And therefore there are no grounds (in terms of competitive gaming) on which players who chose to take advantage of this rule should be criticised.

Feel free to tell them that you think their axe armed WoMT look silly and are unfluffy. Actually, if they really like mace armed Ents then be nice, they might have worked really hard on those! But when it comes to gaming time, just be quiet and feel smug knowing that even if you lose, one day they might need to go and cut all of those axe heads off.

Lord Hurin · **Posted:** Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:18 pm

I would just have it as part of their wargear. As in "A Knight of Dol Amroth is equipped with a sword, heavy armour and a shield." In the case of Rohirrim "Warriors of Rohan are equipped with armour and a sword or axe (hand weapon)." Minis like Orcs and perhaps even Goblins (certainly the Goblin Town ones) would just have "hand weapon" in their gear.

VandalCabbage · **Joined:** Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:12 pm **Posts:** 286

DomyHill wrote:

I really don't have an axe to grind either way but I feel like people are missing my point. Dr Grant said that it is like diving in football. Whilst I agree that in terms of being a 'morally dubious' strategy the point is that it is explicitly illegal and therefore players who do it should be punished and berated. However, my keep point is that converting models to have axes (at the present time) is not specifically banned nor is it even hinted at that it is, in any way, an incorrect or illegal way of playing the game. And therefore there are no grounds (in terms of competitive gaming) on which players who chose to take advantage of this rule should be criticised.

This is less like diving and more like when that guy put his hand in front of the ball when it was headed for the goal. It was counted as a handball, but it was unsportsmanlike behaviour for him to do that. Competitive gaming is working really hard to win a game, not being cheap. Taking Isildur and Aragorn at the same time is cheap as well. It cannot be barred, but it can be criticized by hard-working competitive gamers since it is using the rules otherwise than how they were intended. The handball rule is not meant to allow a one time goal block, it's meant to say "never use your hands if you're not the goalie". Same for this; warriors of minas tirith, bar Osgiliath Vets, would not have used axes. Same for wood elves. Dwarves have axes, and clearly suffer the downside of low defense - this was probably intended.

But I would also like it FAQ'ed by GW to make it clear only certain models can take certain weapons.

Dr Grant · **Joined:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 pm **Posts:** 1339

Coenus Scaldingus wrote:

several Dwarf Warriors already have swords. Indeed, if I'm not mistaken that's all the 4 archers and two of those with two-handed weapons....

True, I've just had a look at the models but bear in mind they were sculpted before the Special Strike rules were written so when sculpted they had no impact on the game whatsoever and were completely aesthetic. I think they're intended as a secondary weapon and are meant to represent a dagger rather than a sword (although they are pretty big). There are none of the dwarf warriors holding swords, whenever they have a hand weapon in use it's always an axe.

Some very reasonable people wrote:

For what it's worth, I've converted most of my Rohirrim with swords to have axes (and several archers and spearmen have one hanging from their belts), as it made much more sense for a group of militia to be armed with axes rather than swords....I've done a few conversions (most of them well before these rules came out) due to various things. I've converted Haradrim to have swords so I don't have to pay for spears for my entire front rank. I've converted Goblins to have all sorts of weapons because I've bought lots where their swords are snapped off and I'd like some variety. I've converted Dwarves to have swords because the books make mention of them using those. Most recently, I converted a "Fine"cast Blackshield to have an axe. Mostly because I happened to have a bit that would convincingly blend in with the remaining spear shaft.

These are obviously perfectly reasonable ideas and made for the right reasons. I think in my last post I wasn't particularly clear, I'm exclusively talking about the lazy approach. All of these things sound like you've converted your models for theme reasons within the style of their factions. My 99% stat wasn't particularly levelled at that kind of thing, it was the gluing axes to the back of archers that I don't like. Ultimately they're your toys and you should do whatever you want with them, I just think there's a clear difference between "converting my Rohirrim with swords to have axes (and several archers and spearmen have one hanging from their belts), as it made much more sense for a group of militia to be armed with axes rather than swords" and blu-tacking axes to the back of Wood Elf archers.

DomyHill wrote:

I really don't have an axe to grind either way

Pun intended!?!? :-D

DomyHill wrote:

However, my keep point is that converting models to have axes (at the present time) is not specifically banned nor is it even hinted at that it is, in any way, an incorrect or illegal way of playing the game. And therefore there are no grounds (in terms of competitive gaming) on which players who chose to take advantage of this rule should be criticised.

Absolutely, this is the whole problem, you're absolutely allowed to do it but you're clearly not supposed to do it.

DomyHill wrote:

How would people like to see the rules FAQed to make these rules more watertight...Something like writing specifically in each profile which 'hand weapon(s)' a model can use. Eg: Warrior of Minas Tirith, Wargear: Sword and Heavy Armour.

Lord Hurin wrote:

I would just have it as part of their wargear. As in "A Knight of Dol Amroth is equipped with a sword, heavy armour and a shield." In the case of Rohirrim "Warriors of Rohan are equipped with armour and a sword or axe (hand weapon)."

I think this would be an excellent idea and would of course resolve the issue entirely. The only reason it hasn't happened is because the sourcebooks were written before the Rulebook and so it didn't need clarifying. If you look at the DOS book each unit has the weapon clearly described as 'sword' never 'hand weapon' - That to me makes the intent of the rules clear, GW don't want you swapping hand weapons around, Laketown Guards specifically have swords, they can't have axes. It seems pretty clear to me that were GW to ever release new sourcebooks (which sadly I don't think they will), the hand weapon would be clearly specified.

cereal_theif · **Posted:** Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:38 pm

I'm going to be contraversial
I actually think that if the model has a hand weapon then do what you want.
If your consciounce allows a wood elf to weild an axe... why not? Someone cut up the wood needed to make lothlorien and mirkwood fortresses. Being elves they would prefere a sword or dagger but they love diversity and mastery.

I am sure that rohan would use all the weapon types because they are based on saxons and saxons used all weapon types. Swords were dominant and axes to break shield walls
Gondor would use all weapon types as based on middle ages warriors such as the French (losers) during the 100 years war. They used all manner of weapons. Again sword dominant but maces and malls would be common.
I could go on... but I wont

In my view having a mix is the best because it adds to the game. I prefere people to use the original weapons as a majority rule.

If you hate it...
Maybe make it compulsory that if you convert models to have different hand waepons then 1 in 3 must have a flail.

LordoftheBrownRing · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:54 am

cereal_theif wrote:

I'm going to be contraversial
I actually think that if the model has a hand weapon then do what you want.
If your consciounce allows a wood elf to weild an axe... why not? Someone cut up the wood needed to make lothlorien and mirkwood fortresses. Being elves they would prefere a sword or dagger but they love diversity and mastery.

I am sure that rohan would use all the weapon types because they are based on saxons and saxons used all weapon types. Swords were dominant and axes to break shield walls
Gondor would use all weapon types as based on middle ages warriors such as the French (losers) during the 100 years war. They used all manner of weapons. Again sword dominant but maces and malls would be common.
I could go on... but I wont

In my view having a mix is the best because it adds to the game. I prefere people to use the original weapons as a majority rule.

If you hate it...
Maybe make it compulsory that if you convert models to have different hand waepons then 1 in 3 must have a flail.

2 things.....
1: Lol at the 100 years war comment
2: I thought this exact thing if I were to run a league.

I would cleary state in the rules two things....

A- Your limit can be only 1/3 like bows for hand weapons other than what the army comes with. Meaning if Hunter Orcs all want maces its ok because they have them in the box. If you want to give them all axes though, you can only do 1 in 3.
B- Additionally, these weapons work in terms of war gear in the same manner as a spear or shield. For each weapon added, you must spend 1 point to your army.

Dior · **Posted:** Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:31 am

Isn't Gilgalads special spear a two handed glaive?

Trick is... e.g

A moria goblin can it have a two handed mace or hammer?

As far as know only prowlers have two handed weapons (excluding spears).

So I would take exception if the converted model had a weapon outside its profile.

E.g .. how much would I like to arm my Rohirm outriders with a str 4 great bow...

JamesR · **Posted:** Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:46 am

Dior wrote:

Isn't Gilgalads special spear a two handed glaive?

Trick is... e.g

A moria goblin can it have a two handed mace or hammer?

As far as know only prowlers have two handed weapons (excluding spears).

So I would take exception if the converted model had a weapon outside its profile.

E.g .. how much would I like to arm my Rohirm outriders with a str 4 great bow...

Gil-galad has a special +1 to wound, nothing beyond that.
As for the great bow example, that's a clear rule breach. What is more specifically being referred to are the new special strikes with axes, swords etc. It gives different attack options but doesn't impact in the same way giving a Uruk Crossbowman a Pavise Shield or your rider of rohan example

VandalCabbage · **Joined:** Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:12 pm **Posts:** 286

The French are described as "losers", yet they actually won. After years of England having such a dominant hand. Really no-one comes off well from that war...

Slightly off topic, does any model have a great bow? Was bard given it? Cause it seemed he would be the likely candidate...

SouthernDunedain · **Posted:** Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:11 pm

Yes Bard is currently the only model with a great bow.

LordoftheBrownRing · **Posted:** Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:29 am

I think that's so stupid......not even the kings huntsman? Makes no sense to even have that option till then

JamesR · **Posted:** Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:05 am

LordoftheBrownRing wrote:

I think that's so stupid......not even the kings huntsman? Makes no sense to even have that option till then

They didn't until the Hobbit core rules

LordoftheBrownRing · **Posted:** Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:16 pm

Ah ok that makes sense. Still would like to see some other long bow troops now.

rumtap · **Posted:** Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:48 am

Don't citadel guard have the longbow option?

Replacing hand weapons/special strikes topic

Who is online