Since gbhl has started their "rules we'd like to see" series, I have been thinking a lot about some rules I'd like to see change as well. The one sticking to my mind right now is two handed weapons. As we've seen them start to evolve by allowing spear support and the addition of burly, I have also seen an increasing number of models with the burly rule. In fact, it seems to me that every new hero with a 2h weapon has burly. This got me to thinking, why don't we just abolish the -1 duel penalty for two handed weapons? The obvious arguement against it would be game balance. Well, we can drop that arguement, because monster power atks threw game balance out the window.

Additionally, the number of growing profiles with 2h weapons and burly show us that, the game didnt break and it is already on people's minds.

Finally, what other weapon (hand or ranged) comes with a penalty AND a point cost? The bow, sure, but that is more of a reason of function, it is difficult to run and fire at the same time, and in the case of the crossbow, it is impossible to run and load. However, these penalties are mitigated by not moving. There is no way to mitigate the 2h duel penalty.

The original "reason" for the penalty for using a two handed weapon was that the weapon is difficult to manage and swing. I call foul. When someone attempts to manipulate something with their hands and struggles, do we saw, "let go and use only one hand?" No, we tell them to use both hands to improve stability. Look at the english long sword, or the katana of the samurai, both two handed weapons, used gracefully by their wielder for hundreds of years. With that in mind, I would like to see burly removed from the game in addition to the minus one penalty for using two handed weapons. It just doesnt make sense. If needs be, one can increase the cost of 2h weapons to "rebalance" the game, but I don't see a need as the game already includes plenty of models with burly and 2h weapons.

I guess their could be a culture bonus, for example, if your force is comprised entirely of wildmen, they all gain burly (kind of like how the haradrim get a bow bonus). I just think the 2h weapon penalty is none sense. We are already using up our points to field the improved hand weapon, why are we in turn being penalized for it as well?

Just food for thought.

the game did not break because the number of units who suffers no penalties from 2 handed weapon is limited. So far, the only warrior unit is the abrakhan guard (I spelled it wrong, didn't I?), some named dwarven heroes, Azog and Bolg.
the +1 to wound needs a drawback of some kind. A orc warrior with 2 handed axe calling a piercing strike would be able to wound a Minas Tirith warrior on 4+ or 3+ istead of 6 for no penalty, which is too much. A hunter orc would need the same rolls to wound a D7, and it would have 2 attacks to do it.
I'm fine with a whole dunland army having +1 to wound on 2 handed, because that army would have low fight value and no spear support. But if can avoid those weakness, like in a mordor or an isengard army, it suddently becames overpowered.

The fact is, GW used a wrong term. A lot of weapons can be wielded one or two handed. A Katana can be wielded with one or both hands (Miyamoto Mushashi recommended the dual wielding Katana/Wakizashi combo) and even a sword meant to be used with one hand can be used with both, by grapping the pommel or putting one hand on the other. Pikes need both hands to be used efficiently, but nobody would ever dream of adding a +1 to wound on a pike. Aragorn uses his [word deleted] sword two handed from time to time. On that basis we could say that every melee weapon has the potential to be used with both hands.
What the game means when the world 2 handed is used is a weapon so heavy and/or long it needs extra momentum to be used efficiently. A Claymore is at least 30 cm longer than a katana and weights at least twice as much, so it requires a different fighting style. Some zweinhander are over 180 cms long (way taller than me, sadly): try swinging those around in a melee, when you are pushed from every side! That's why Romans used a short sword, the Gladius.

I think, they should keep the penalty or just remove everything.
Or, they could follow the gbhl advice and make the two handed strike a special strike, since it already has a gain/loss system, like all other special strikes.

Bare minimum, its an outdated rule which needs addressed. We already have two handed orcs using piercing strike on gondor warriors. That to me, is nothing compared to hurl. I Would be willing to say a minus 1 to fight, but I would like to see more 2h weapons on the table. Currently, the penalty for using them is too harsh. Otherwise, we'd see them more often.

I would not say that the penalty is to harsh its just that no one likes to play the odds. I play elves quite a bit and I use elven blades are two-handed weapons when I have reasonable certainty that I can win without the die that gets the -1. Most people have just been conditioned by there experience to mistrust the -1 to a die because of how important they think winning the combat really is. Well that and being traumatized by shades. Where are people still think the possible negative from the piercing strike is negligible by making sure the can win anyway.

_________________
"Draw your sword with a heavy heart, but swing it with a heavy hand"

the piercing strike needs to be changed and, according to the rumors, special strikes will be modified (correct me if I got the rumor wrong).
A +1 bonus to wound cannot be given indiscriminately to every unit without some sort of drawback. Even lances have limits: they work on charges only and they are lost when the wielder is dismounted.

2 handed attack could be a special strike. in this way, one would not be able to use both 2 handed and piercing strike, to avoid very annoying and unbalanced results.

as for monsters, I understand your point. I think they need to be toned down simply because they seems to favor evil player more than good players (easy access to monster without the need to ally, cheaper monsters, FELL Beast...why is a full powered/named nazgul on fell beast cheaper than a wizard on a horse?).



I put two elves with blades in each fighting warband to have someone to deal with D6 units.

In some ways I agree with you and some ways not.
It is actually a very well and simply balanced mechanic at an even -1 trade off. Not too powerful and not too weak/risky. I'm happy as it is.

I know I have a stigma about the -1 duel roll, but really there is no reason to as its quite balanced. The real issue is that I have no experience playing high attack/damage but low defence armies, which make up a significant amount of those who can wield 2 handed. I prefer other tactics but thats not to say it isn't balanced.

It does seem like every model has burly, but its not that many in the context of all the profiles available. I think Azog does not need it in the profile and thats what sticks out to a lot of people - that both good and evil in the hobbit have burly.
Its not really a "special" rule anymore as its not so unique but we will eventually come to that stage in the hobby unless we expect to make dozens of unique rules.
I'm happy to leave it as is but otherwise would be ok with increasing the cost by 1 to remove the -1 penalty.

Piercing strike is revolting. Special strikes should only be available to heroes. It would help the combats between captains etc vs big heroes to be a bit more climactic and risky but also give greater reward if they were tweaked right.

_________________
My trade thread
http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=25957&p=325932#p325932

I would rather see a high point cost as opposed to a roll penalty