How is that any different from the 2h problem?



Basicly, but if your'e willing to make an effort, and make a decent conversaton, good for you, you deserve to use it. Otherwise I just see it as cheesy point-maxing.

Well, just because someone is holding an ax with 2hands doesn't make it a 2handed ax. So you essentially AREN'T proxying a model if you are just saying "These guys with just axes only have a hand weapon" which is very different from saying "These guys with shields actually have bows."

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

Isn't that kinda how two handed weapons are defined in the rulebook?

The plastic uruk bezerker from siege set holds his sword (2-handed weapon) in one hand.....

I would let him say that all the warriors with 2-handed axe count as hand weapon only. Not with shields, as that could be confusing, but it should be easy enough to remember that they don't have 2-handers. I actually do that for my woodelves, all the ones with elven blade have throwing weapons, and no blades. Never had a problem with it.

Ohh, I get it, you're one of those as well...

So why ask the question if all you wanted were people to back up your "cheese" ideas?
You sound like a very negative person to play against.
"cheesy point making" "one of those"...
Oh well, try have fun anyway =)

_________________
My LotR and 40k blog, Realm of Battle board, dwarves, gobs, space wolves and battle reports. http://simbattleboard.blogspot.com/

I am sorry, I might come across as negative and what. And I am genuinly interested in hearing your opinions. Then we make arguments for why we believe what we believe and discuess those arguments, and so forth. The "one of those" comment was intended to be a little humourus as indicated by the smily. I guess the only reason why I am being this way is because I follow the WYSIWYG rule very tightly myself, like spending that extra point on a 2h weapon when I would rathe not have the 2h weapon and have an extra point to use.

More fool you then. Its a bit silly to put such restrictions on oneself and one's opponent when its something that can be very easily applied and remembered. Example, is it really so hard to ignore the 2Hand Weapons rule throughout a game, as long as its applied to all the models? Or to use all Orc Archers on the table as Orc Trackers? etc. It is not "cheesy point maxing" to count 2Hand Weapons. Some people don't like 2Hand weapons - it may not suit their playstyle. Its also not reasonable to expect an opponent (or yourself for that matter) to have to go to the expense of converting X number of models just to comply exactly with WYSIWYG when its such a simple and trivial issue.

(oh, and btw, emphasis on easy to apply and remember. I draw the line at proxying things like pretending 2hand axe men have shields, or foot models as cavalry etc. Generally, its easy to ignore certain things when applied across the board, like counting all 2Hands as 1Hands, or ignoring cavalry Lances as just using H Weapons).

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

This may be a bit off-topic, but at least in my gaming group, your suggestions would lead to the death of 2h-weapons, since they aren't really worth their extra point. At least that's the consensus in my group.

Just to pipe in on the reasoning that models that hold their axe/sword with two hands have to be armed with 2h-weapons - there are several instances where this is definitely not so: Elendil holds his sword with two hands, yet it is one-handed, same for the Helm's Deep Aragorn.

And if High Elves aren't 'supposed' to carry swords and shields, why is that precisely the armament their captain model has?

I believe fluffy-ness has nothing to do with it - it's just that ten+ years ago when, when the HE models were released, they were only a minor part of the greater movie (only seen in the prologue) and thus just fringe models to put in the starter box. They haven't been touched since, except for some new heroes, they really do need new plastics (cavalry, sword/spear & shield, bows, NO useless Numenoreans). Until they do (or at least until shields become available seperately), I'll keep proxying S&S Elves with differently-painted 2-handed Elves. I've never had anyone complain about it.

On the topic: I'm lenient with WYSIWYG as long as everything is made clear before the game.

_________________
Rohan - as it should have been. A house rule project.

The HE captain is a wierd case in himself since he seems to armed with a spear even though he can't buy one. I have always lolled at him

Do you mean this one? Thats not a spear he's holding, thats an Elven Blade, a weapon typically used with both hands, being wielded in one hand.

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

Well, I think that's the point for most people. At the very least, in regards to all the Rivendell armies out there, half your army being armed with 2h-weapons is NEVER going to be worth it, so why not allow a simple proxy of "Elven Blades = Hand Weapon/Shield" as to not force someone to play with something so bad, because they really like these models?

nah there is/was actually a 1st Alliance Elf Capt with a spear, same pose as the one above just has a spear instead of an Elven Blade. There is a question about it in a FAQ on GWsite, might be in one of the old JourneyBook FAQ.

.....My personal answered to the question of this post. Bottom line, its what makes you happy. If you are rigid you'll break (find few people to play with. possible be avoided); flexible, but not be stepped on, and you'll find more to play with. Just have to find a happy medium where you will have the most joy.

My personal opinion is you will find more that agree with you, and play in the way you want, in a Historical Gaming Group than in a Fantasy Gaming Group.

-

_________________
Free speech carries with it some freedom to listen. -B.M.

Just to sweep to the defense of 2H weapons, I do occasionally find them to be useful- hence, I do pay the point for the elven blade in my elven armies. But not so useful that I have yet gone forth to buy more Clansmen of Lamedon.

So, to sum up- keep everything friendly, mutually agreeable, easily remembered, and apply the same distinctions across the entire army (going back to the easily remembered rule of keeping everything easily remembered). At least, that's how I tend to use things. Best of luck to you in your endeavors!

_________________
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”

I agree. Elven blade-armed high elves (or any two-handers, for that matter) may not be viable as the bulk of the battle line because of being D5 and not being able to shield block, but they do have their uses, especially against high-D opponents (monsters, ringwraiths, etc.). I usually field them in a ratio of 2:1 or 3:1 with Sword & Shield elves, supported by spear-elves.
My more or less standardized melee warband is:
Hero (H)
5 HE /w Sword & Shield (O)
2 HE /w Elven Blade (E)
5 HE /w Spear & Shield (S)

Deployed like this...

S S S S S
OEOHOEOO

...they form a very flexible front, with two of the spear-elves supporting either the blade-armed (in situations where winning the fight is more important than wounding) or the shield-bearing elf in front of them (in situations where the blade-armed elf wants to 2-hand). Considering the abundance of trolls and other monsters, having that little extra hitting power is well worth it.

_________________
Rohan - as it should have been. A house rule project.

2h issue: I definitly agrre that 2h weapons are not uselss, I will however say that I (and my gaming group) find them to be the worst/least good weapon out there, at least of the normal ones. As a consequence most of us tend to awoid them, as examplified with dwarves and wood elfs mentioned in this thread. I however really enjoy my prowlers with 2h-weapons, allthoug I might change my mind if I where allowed to proxy them as prowlers with shield.

Here is another WYSIWYG issue, alltohug hypotetical. Say you play Gondor and are going up against Isengard. Would it be allright to use unconverted (W/K)oMT and say that they don't have shields? I believe I saw it suggested on this forum a some months/years ago.

I'd say no. The main thing about using a proxy is it has to be easy to remember. If someone says their dwarves posed with 2H don't actually have them, it's easy to imagine they just happen to be swinging them that way (examples already given). It wouldn't to be okay (IMHO) to say "this group has 2H but that group doesn't"...too confusing. I'd say the same about elf blades, as long as *all* the models are considered the same...and am even okay with "all my bows have a spear in addition to their bow".

But when it's completely different equipment visually it's more confusing. In your example I would rather acknowledge that the rule mechanics cheat Gondor when playing Isengard (uruk hai only), forcing Gondor to spend points on a useless D6, and allow an extra warrior or two to make up the difference.

Interesting idea about the extra guys, but the D6 won't be entirely useless, Uruks often have an Uruk Hai hero or two with strength 5.

True, but in my experience, when Isengard flattens Gondor it is because the normal uruks are doing their job, while the heroes keep Boromir from doing his.

_________________
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”