Alternate Club/Axe Setup: Which Would You Use More?

alternate take #1

Club 5gc common
Bash: +1 Strength vs. enemies knocked down.

Axe 5gc common
Cleave: +1 Strength vs. enemies with Thoughtness or more 4 on profile.

Biggest minus I can think of in this setup would be that Heroes would be carrying Clubs far more often than Axes in order to kill-steal XP.

(First pointed out by Master.)

looks like to be that clubs would be favored more starting up but once T3 warbands start advancing, the axe would be more and more appealing.

I'd use the club more, since its ability triggers more often. Later in the campaign, or if I was playing against a good number of orc and/or dwarf warbands, I'd use the axe. That is assuming the axe's ability works on models with 4 or greater Toughness not just 4 Toughness.

edited axe to four or more

too bad that they arent balanced

Id say the cleave rule actually should be on low T models. I mean, to "cleave" someone, it is easier the softer the thing youre trying to cleave is. A goblin would be much easier to cleave than an ogre. That way, I'd say the Axe has a +1S vs all T3 and below. That means the axe is a medium-to-small sized slayer weapon, but it gets weaker after a while, when some warriors reach T4. However, some still have T3, like most animals. That feels more correct to me at least.

Giving the axe +1S vs 3 or lower toughness doesn't help balance out the two weapons any better though, it just reverses whats going on now. It makes the club a better choice for fighting high toughness models and the axe a better choice for fighting low toughness models. I do agree that fluffwise the change would make sense but either way both versions presented would still make for a more useful weapon then the core axe.

Personally, i think the core rules are good as they are. Maybe give the club a +1 S vs models without helmet, and give the axe +1 on any critical hit rolls (chopping off a body part)?

Quote :

Personally, i think the core rules are good as they are.

you use a lot of axes, then?

Actually yes, mostly as fluff though. I am a very fluffy person

That also means, of course, that my Marienburgers wont use axes even if I wanted them to, as that isnt fluffy. And my Middenheimers go Mace/Axe in a two weapon combination as that would be more fluffy for them. Some call me stupid, I say I am stupid, but the games are much more fun, and requires more strategic thinking as well

BossFacePunch wrote:

Giving the axe +1S vs 3 or lower toughness doesn't help balance out the two weapons any better though, it just reverses whats going on now. It makes the club a better choice for fighting high toughness models and the axe a better choice for fighting low toughness models. I do agree that fluffwise the change would make sense but either way both versions presented would still make for a more useful weapon then the core axe.

But as long as we're trying to keep things "realistic" - how about adding a "gets stuck" rule to balance that out since axes do tend to stick in their targets from time to time...

For example: If a model armed with an axe takes an opponent out of action with a natural roll of 6 on the injury table, the axe has embedded itself in the victim's flesh/armour/whatever. The wielder of the axe cannot attack again until he passes a Strength test OR abandons the axe (in which case it is lost permanently).

How about giving the clubs +1S bonus only to < T3 this would make them good early on in the campaign, then when T4 starts to pop up, they lose value.

I don't think the weapons themselves need changing. The special rules in the core rulebook cover what the weapons are intended for for the most part (axes for piercing armour, clubs for concussion). I think clubs and (flanged) maces could do with being separated out as they combined concussion as well as armour piercing capability.

I think the issue is more down to the armour/critical/injury rules again, rather than adding conditional abilities to weapons. I dislike conditional rules. Too much remembering if you get +2S under a full moon on Tuesdays but only while attacking pigs and you're carrying the correct toll for the bridge.

Popmouth wrote:

How about giving the clubs +1S bonus only to < T3 this would make them good early on in the campaign, then when T4 starts to pop up, they lose value.

That was what I was suggesting earlier, but I didnt explain as simple as you
I always use too many words and make things much more complicated than they need be.

Anyways, the idea was discarded. I still feel the original rules are best, though.

And yeah, adding conditions just make things as complicated as my posts. I always go by "Less is more". If anything, i'd let the blunt weapons be, and just make the axe a +1 on any ciritcal hit table instead of armour piercing.

*waiting for wyldhunt or master to join this thread*

I as well deem the rules good as they are now... but if you must add to the axe's useability, then try applying the "cleave" rule to the armour... (use as armour piercing) as it has a nice little edge to cut trough that, and after that, it's all the same, weather you are toughness 2 or 5, you will suffer the pain...
it does not help however to increase the fluff side of them being used earlier on in the campaign, as no-one will have armour yet...

you could give them a crit roll on 5/6's?

alternate take #2:

Club 5gc common
Concussions: Treat Injury Rolls of 2 as stunned

Axe 5gc common
Cleave: +1 Strength vs. enemies knocked down.

You know what I was actually thinking of doing is taking away armor penetration based on strength (with appropriate adjustments!). Then shields and stuff become more useful and so do black powder weapons and axes. Would probably add armor penetration special rules to some other weapons like halberds and great weapons, maybe even give it to crossbows. This way armor never just gets out-scaled by strength gain and such.

I haven't thought this through or playtested it even slightly so who knows it could be a game wrecker.

Quote :

You know what I was actually thinking of doing is taking away armor penetration based on strength

comming in the next version of coreheim

strength negation is an heirloom from warhammer that only clutters up mordheim

With alternative take #2, I'd give the clubs to my henchmen and axes to my heroes - I like that result much better than "+1S vs KD" on clubs. I do like this - much more strategic than my suggestion of "+1S on a hit roll of 6" for axes.

If some of your players really want a cheaper melee weapon, then split club from mace, and remove Concussion from club, leaving it with mace.

However, since the "+1S on a hit roll of 6" is part of a larger Critical Hits system we're adding to our rules set, unfortunately I won't be using your adjustments in our rules (at least not this go-around). If you do use alternative take #2, please let us me know how it goes after a campaign - I'd like to see the playtesting results.

I think +1 strength makes a weapon too powerful, especially in relation to swords, halberds and double-handed weapons. Why not make a club stun on 2-5 on the inury chart? That way it has a drawback compared to axes and the axe makes for a more viable choice.

tralli wrote:

I think +1 strength makes a weapon too powerful, especially in relation to swords, halberds and double-handed weapons. Why not make a club stun on 2-5 on the inury chart? That way it has a drawback compared to axes and the axe makes for a more viable choice.

I'm with you, I see no sense in changing them. They're cool as they are... Clubs stunning on 2-5 on the injury chart and Axe giving an additional -1 to the ward save of the enemy...
Giving +1 Str to any warrior fighting against a kd enemy for the cost of 5 gc is too cheap and pretty unbalancing, if this happens no one will ever buy a sword again in my campaign.
Despite I find that the real issue from official rules equipment is armor (too elevated costs for too low results) I would not change their rules because in our group we find no need on retouching this rules, as we find the armor as an ultimate chance of saving your hero and only leaders and some heroes benefit for wearing this.
I would only modify to the official rules: playing shield + weapon should give a +2 bonus against melee attacks and +1 bonus against missile.

I like them fine as they are - and see a good mix of
clubs/maces/hammer/table legs, axes, and swords in our warbands.
These changes would make swords fairly uncommon. Currently, as
warbands become more affluent, it tends to be swords and axes that
predominate in our groups, but that is OK with me, too, since I think
your average melee dude would rather pack a axe and sword than a big
stick. They look sexier, and posturing for the ladies is
important, you know.

I have recently playtested some rules revisions that I want include in my group with a friend of mine which included shields at +2 save in cc and armor modifiers starting at str 5.

This made axes more useful though clubs still seem more useful.

I like the clubs making 2-5 stunned idea

mweaver wrote:

They look sexier, and posturing for the ladies is
important, you know.

And that is what makes the difference on a campaign: the ladies
Hehehe

Dmig wrote:

I have recently playtested some rules revisions that I want include in my group with a friend of mine which included shields at +2 save in cc and armor modifiers starting at str 5.

Is it doing fine?