Axe/sword combos are iffy for me as well. Generally people that have shown skill IRL with two weapons are using similar weapons. Two swords, sword + dagger, things like that. Swords and axes are pretty different in usage. If someone did both I would feel it's just to game the rules.

As far as accepting someone's conversion work it to me comes down on gut feeling. Organized standing armies like Gondor, Uruk Hai, Elves and a few others I just feel are more "right" using standard equipment. Rabble forces (Orcs, Wild Men) and militia (Rohan, Clansmen, maybe Harad?) I'm far more open to random weapon assignments. There are exceptions. For example if someone had some Osgiliath (sp?) Veterans I could see them using almost any weapon available to the Orcs they are holding back. Dwarves thematically could have sword, axe or hammer.

If someone wanted to give a couple of their Elves axes then the had better put in the effort to make them look as nice as possible.

I personally think the weapon rules could have been left out. Yes they add another dimension to the game but I have never seen such a factor in SBG for trying to game the system as these introduce. For some players it doesn't mean a thing but others such as myself and many on this board are in the game first for the theme and "questionable" weapon swaps to get as much advantage on the table just spoils the theme...

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

I think the biggest issue isn't that these rules exist, but that they are unbalanced. Swords are the universal weapon of choice in SBG for most armies: the special strike should reflect that. Entire armies of goblins now being able to feint is silly, but also I dislike the idea that feint is best for profiles with low fight.

Swords should have a new special strike, or at least say that swords can use ANY special strike if the wielder has a higher fight than his opponent. To me this makes sense; historically swords are the weapon of the elites because they takes years to learn and practice, and are so flexible for battle.

If new rules had a new special strike for swords that was superior to the axe's special strike (or we went with my second option), I do not think there would be any more problems with the balance. Like I said earlier, I have changed some of my goblin models- I like the idea that different weapons give different options. However swords are the choice of the Elves and Men for a reason, and the rules should reflect that.

Crikey, now you are asking, Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales??

I think some of the elves of Gondolin also used hammers.

Idk if you could say that the elves in SBG would though XD

This is the angle I take. I myself run a small group of Osgiliath Veterans every now and again, and the group I've converted have a wide range of weapons to represent how they're fighting with whatever they can get a hold of.

I also think that the game is better without special strikes. If you had converted those models before these rules you would not be asking if people have a problem with it and people would just be telling you they look great, which they do. Now thanks to the special strikes if you do anything different it gets questioned and frowned upon. That isn't cool.

_________________
I think a drug habbit would be cheaper...

Thanks for your comments everyone. And thank you rumtap for the compliment.

That is the problem. They had to have known this would change a lot of the game. Honestly when they created it they should have put rule lists out with which races could use what.

_________________
BLACKHAWK 2010 2013 2015 DYNASTY

I agree that you shouldn't really use two different weapons on a multi-weapon model, but there are two counters to the using similar weapons idea that got mentioned (by Beowulf).

1) Iron guard have axe and short sword.

2) I find it much easier to fight axe and sword than dual axes and a fair bit easier than dual swords. Axe and mace works quite well as well.

#2-How is that?

_________________
BLACKHAWK 2010 2013 2015 DYNASTY

The thing about feint is that if, say Aragon is fighting just regular goblins, he can feint and still have higher fight. If goblins feint against elves the elves can also feint and still have higher fight.

I think that warriors should be limited in conversions to what they carry - no maces for khand, no axes for wood elves, but orcs can scavenge everything. I think captains and such like should be given a bit more freedom though.

Things like battle companies benefit greatly from special strikes because there are so few models - that one ordinary warrior of rohan is now the "axe guy" and is kept back to crack high defense models.

I also feel that Iron Guard should be able to use either, but that's just cause I like the models.

_________________
"Release the Kragle!"
They were waiting 45 minutes to make that pun.
Totally worth it.

LordoftheBrownRing: I use the axe predominantly offencively, whilst using the offhand weapon (sword or sometimes mace) defencively. I still defend with the axe and attack with the off-hand, but the different use of the weapons makes it easier to focus on dual-wielding.

That all being said, I'm semi-ambidextrous - most dual-wielders have to teach themselves any level of ambidexterity and so probably have to focus on one style at a time. I'm what's known as balance-brained, so I use both halves equally, which means I struggle to focus on one thing, so the shield/off weapon makes me a more potent combatant and I'm better at two/more on one fights than a duel.

^yeah exactly. I dont see how anyone can complain about orcs having all maces and flails really. I mean, theyre orcs. Its like a militia. Its not Isengard.

Same with captains.

_________________
BLACKHAWK 2010 2013 2015 DYNASTY

Just a point, but remember that a player with models wielding two different hand weapons MUST declare which hand weapon he wishes to use for special strikes throughout the entire game - unless there is a special rule in the profile (such as hunter orcs 'many blades' rule) which allows them to flip between the two.

So an iron guard must choose… piercing strike or feint, before the start of the game. And it would be sportsmanlike to have all doing the same strike as not to confuse your opponent (this iron guard is using an axe, whilst this one that looks the same is feinting)

As for replacing hand weapons, most of the new profiles explicitly state what weapon a warrior is carrying.

I have to admit, when creating my corsair reavers, I cut the axes from the dwarves, which fit very nicely. And I have intentions of having dwarves swords modelled that resemble Thorin's and Balins with the diamond head for the warriors of erebor who are now axeless. Makes no sense sacrificing their high defence with piercing strike, yet spear support with swords feinting in the front rank does make tactical sense.

Is this cheesy? I'm not so sure.

_________________
Subscribe to the GBHL YouTube for daily SBG content http://Www.youtube.com/gbhlpodcast
*5th in 2014 GBHL

It's playing to the rules of the game and I find converting models is one of the most fun parts of the hobby.

That being said, I've taught you well with spear-feinting, it seems

It is odd that you have to specify which they'll use, but I guess it's to prevent people giving (as an example) corsairs with axe and mace, have one knock down and another hack up. I'd say models that come with two different weapons already can use either as long as it's declared at the right time - but that would be a houserule.

Just me, but I find all the special strikes cheesy, poorly thought out, and game bogging.

There, I just had to say it

Why don't you tell us how you really feel about it, whafrog?

_________________
Respectfully,
Jonathan

Do what is right, love mercy, and walk humbly

Battle Companies

I agree. I support using them in a game if my opponent wanted to because they ARE in the rules, but if it was my call we don't use Special Strikes or the -1 when applied to Throwing Weapons.

Maybe if Special Strikes get an errata either in how they work or giving harder defined guidelines on models I'd look at them again.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

I don't think they bog down games much, since either they are rarely used (bash) or are only used when no rolling is needed (fight value is more important than rerolling 1s so only fient when it doesn't effect the former).
I've never really had a major cheese effect coming from them either cos' they have so little real effect.

_________________
"Release the Kragle!"
They were waiting 45 minutes to make that pun.
Totally worth it.

Definitely doesn't bog the game down in my experience but i agree, some of them need tweaking

_________________
Subscribe to the GBHL YouTube for daily SBG content http://Www.youtube.com/gbhlpodcast
*5th in 2014 GBHL

What if weapons aren't explicitly listed in a profile's wargear, but the model is clearly sculpted with one?

e.g. Warriors of Arnor in the Kingdoms of Men book. Their wargear lists spear, shield and heavy armour but they are clearly modelled with a sword too. IIRC this dates from the days when the ORB instructed you to assume that all models were equipped with a Hand Weapon unless they were explicitly stated to be unarmed (this was before different Hand Weapons were differentiated in the Hobbit).

Was this ever addressed in the FAQ's?

_________________
My (more regularly updated) painting blog:
https://www.facebook.com/Pindergorn/