Re: (TFT) Ax/Mace v. Sword

[stan rydzewski <srydzews@ix.netcom.com>]

grabowski wrote:
> 
> This is not really an answer to your statement but I don't know why they
> would class two totally different weapons (AX/MACE) as a single talent.

I think it's a precursor to the GURPS notion of balanced vs. unbalanced
weapons.  Axes and maces, both being unbalanced, are apparently very 
similar to Mr. Jackson.

> There is a big difference between hitting a person with a mace-like weapon
> as opposed to an axe.  The same could be said of the use of a mace vs. the
> use of a flail, which would both be under the Ax/Mace Talent definition.
> The main difference between the use of an ax or mace is a control issue when
> swinging them.  The ax has a specific edged striking side, whereas, a mace
> is almost club-like and generally easier to control.  Perhaps they should
> two separate talents each worth 2 IQ points.

Aren't they all covered by a single 2 IQ talent now?  It would seem that two
1 IQ talents would be more reasonable.  (Purely from a game-balance point
of view, mind you.)
 
> Another thing is how many player characters choose the sword and pole
> weapons talent before ever choosing ax/mace.  In a real medieval society,
> how common was it to have training with a sword vs. an ax or mace?  I
> believe the ax/mace wins because of of the expense of buying swords as well
> as social mores.

Well, I'm sure axes, maces, and clubs were more common than swords, especially
considering the role of agricultural devices pressed into service as weapons.
But whether their peasant wielders really had "spent the 2 IQ points" to master 
their usage is another matter.  Probably only soldiers who spent a fair amount
of 
time with a weapon would fall into the "trained" category, and I suspect that
there
swords would have been in the majority (at least until the prevalence of heavier 
plate-type armors made warhammers and maces relatively more suited to the task
at
hand).  
 
> Also related to above, I don't believe there is a "balance of power" between
> a sword or an ax or mace.  Swords have it all over those weapons because of
> their balance, speed of use, and control in a combat situation.  Remember,
> even till this century, the sword has been used as a weapon and a symbol.
> The only Ax you see is Il Duce's symbol with the ax and fascine.

Perhaps true, but that wasn't the "balance of power" I was speaking of.  
Real-world considerations are quite a secondary concern to me when it comes
to games like TFT.  If I'm concerned about simulating anything, it's the reality
of fantasy literature, where axes and similar weapons are quite common.  Also, I 
like for the players to have meaningful choices when it comes to weapons, just 
because I think it makes the game more interesting.  I dislike the AD&D
situation
where everyone uses a longsword because it's clearly the best HtH weapon.  

So those considerations are the balance I'm concerned about upsetting.  Of
course, if you're trying to run a more realistic game these matters may not be
of
much importance to you, and perhaps swords should rule the roost - although even
there I would think that the fact that bashing and piercing weapons (warhammers
and maces) are relatively more effective against the heavier armors is something
that should be taken into account.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"