Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Berserker's Rage: A Chaos Gift that gives a character +1Strenght when he is Frenzied or affected by Blood Greed.
The +1S is lost whenever a cc is lost.

Spiked Buckler: a defensive weapon that does Strenght damage but also gives the character a parry save on a 5&6. Unlike a shield the Spiked Buckler does NOT add +1 to their armour save.

Defensive use of Many Limbed-Fiend: a character can opt to use a shield with his extra limb instead of gaining a +1 attack.

The Gift seems a little convoluted. A flat +S would be easier (though better and more expensive).

The Buckler is too good. It's an Extra Hand Weapon and a better version of a shield (+1 to Parry is far better than +1 Armour). Bucklers have their advantage and disadvantages over shields; they're not straight-up better.
Really, they should function kinda' like an Ironfist. Maybe it gives you a Parry or an Extra Attack?
The difference between a spiked bit of what-have-you and a non-spiked one is negligible in this game.

I dig the idea of having a great weapon and a shield, though. Some people might argue that's too good, but I think it's just as good as the ideas of getting an extra attack with your claymore because you have a third arm.

Warpsolution wrote:
The Buckler is too good. It's an Extra Hand Weapon and a better version of a shield (+1 to Parry is far better than +1 Armour). Bucklers have their advantage and disadvantages over shields; they're not straight-up better.
Really, they should function kinda' like an Ironfist. Maybe it gives you a Parry or an Extra Attack?

How about the Spiked buckler gives you a normal parry save + an extra attack?
The price should then be 2x of an extra handweapon?

Eh, that could work. I'd just as soon see it be worse and simpler, though.
Bucklers take some skill to use, but they're not heads-and-shoulders above other weapons.

True, but the only reason to choose a buckler is for the parry savy with an xtra weapon.

And how about Berserker's Rage giving a +1Strenght for each victory in close combat to a maximum of 2x its original strenght?
It should then cost at least 30 points.

No, the only reason to choose a buckler is if you want to choose between a 6+ Ward save and an extra attack. If you gave them to a cheap unit, they could last as long as possible with the Parry, and then increase their output of attacks right before they bite it.

So Berserker's Rage would be like Bloodgreed, but with S instead of A? I just don't like it. Minotaurs had to pay a ton for an ability that can stack with itself multiple times, which lead to an expensive unit that either performs amazingly or terribly.
I think the pricing is fair, but I don't think the rule works well in Warhammer.

I like the idea of the buckler granting the parry save, but not the armour save. The problem is in deciding what other minor benefit to grant to offset losing +1 armour.

Perhaps, to represent the buckler's light and nimble fighting style, it could grant +1 initiative?

Warpsolution wrote:
No, the only reason to choose a buckler is if you want to choose between a 6+ Ward save and an extra attack. If you gave them to a cheap unit, they could last as long as possible with the Parry, and then increase their output of attacks right before they bite it.

True, but it does not increase the armour save. The difference between a Shield and a Buckler is that the Buckler also is an offensive weapon.
Kinda like a Sai.

 sebster wrote:
I like the idea of the buckler granting the parry save, but not the armour save. The problem is in deciding what other minor benefit to grant to offset losing +1 armour.

Perhaps, to represent the buckler's light and nimble fighting style, it could grant +1 initiative?

That would be a good idea for the Sai. So I would keep the Spiked Buckler as is because giving it a +1I would give the wielder (at least) 2 attacks at different initiatives rounds.
While giving it to the Sai would make no difference since it is a paired weapon.

So a Spiked Buckler costs 2x ehw and gives a parry save & extra attack.
The Sai is like the Spiked Buckler and it gives a +1I bonus, but must be taken as a paired weapon (so a character can only wield 2 Sais).
And the Sai should only be avaible to the fast & nimble races.

Warpsolution wrote:
So Berserker's Rage would be like Bloodgreed, but with S instead of A? I just don't like it. Minotaurs had to pay a ton for an ability that can stack with itself multiple times, which lead to an expensive unit that either performs amazingly or terribly.
I think the pricing is fair, but I don't think the rule works well in Warhammer.

Why not?
Besides, since Berserker's Rage is a Chaos Gift only 1 character can have it.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
True, but it does not increase the armour save. The difference between a Shield and a Buckler is that the Buckler also is an offensive weapon.
Kinda like a Sai.

I do not think that a buckler should increase a model's armour save at all. They're usually about as big as a dinner plate, if that. You swat your opponent's attacks out of the way and/or bash their face in with it. They look like shields and achieve the end result of shields, but you use them in an entirely different manner. Plus, shields can be offensive weapons. Not ideal, but still a potentially lethal attack.
Overall, though, I'd say the shield is a better piece of equipment: it's useful against missile fire, can potentially protect you from more powerful attacks (like cavalry), covers a larger area of your body, and it's way easier to use. There's a reason swords, spears, and shields were the go-to items, rather than swords, spears, and bucklers.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
I would keep the Spiked Buckler as is because giving it a +1I would give the wielder (at least) 2 attacks at different initiatives rounds.

Wha-huh? I think Sebster is suggesting that it increase your Initiative in close combat by 1, not of the attack you gain from it. The buckler lets you respond faster and with greater effectiveness.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
So a Spiked Buckler costs 2x ehw and gives a parry save & extra attack.
The Sai is like the Spiked Buckler and it gives a +1I bonus, but must be taken as a paired weapon (so a character can only wield 2 Sais).
And the Sai should only be avaible to the fast & nimble races.

If a buckler is better than a dagger, why weren't they more common? Look at the rules for the Ironfist. Tell me how that isn't an ogre-sized buckler. If you want to make rules different from theirs, you'd need to change how Ironfists work too. The armour bonus aside, of course; an ogre-gauntlet offers a bit more protection than a regular cestus or buckler.
And as far as the Sai goes, I think they would perform in the same way as a buckler in Warhammer. In a game where swords, axes, maces, daggers, etc. all count as one type of weapon, I think the "quick and defensive" weapon category only has room for one set of rules.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
Why not? Besides, since Berserker's Rage is a Chaos Gift only 1 character can have it.

I don't like it because of the reasons I gave before I said I didn't like it: since it can stack multiple times with itself, the ability has to cost a lot more, and the potential to lose all the benefits can only lessen that increase by so much, since the conditions you lose it in become less and less likely the more the ability stacks.
And because it's expensive since it stacks with itself, you need to make those situations where it will stack occur to justify the cost. If you do, the unit's awesome. If not, they're very expensive.

You know what? I suppose I have to retract what I said; I think Berserker's Rage is fair (just change the name to something less similar to part of the Frenzy rule). I just don't like how Bloodgreed works, because I think Minotaurs are awesome and should see more field-time, so I'd rather fix their rule than make another one like it. But yeah, it's for a character, and if you're okay with Bloodgreed, have at it!

The Horned Messiah wrote:
That would be a good idea for the Sai. So I would keep the Spiked Buckler as is because giving it a +1I would give the wielder (at least) 2 attacks at different initiatives rounds.
While giving it to the Sai would make no difference since it is a paired weapon.

So a Spiked Buckler costs 2x ehw and gives a parry save & extra attack.
The Sai is like the Spiked Buckler and it gives a +1I bonus, but must be taken as a paired weapon (so a character can only wield 2 Sais).
And the Sai should only be avaible to the fast & nimble races.

I'm saying you don't get an extra attack, you just get the parry and a 1 point bonus to your initiative. I mean, if the buckler gave an extra attack and a parry, why would anyone ever take extra hand weapons?

And before you answer that by pointing out it costs twice as much in points, I mean in terms of the fantasy Warhammer world, why would anyone choose to run around with two hand weapons, when a hand weapon and buckler is as effective in attack and better in defence?

Warpsolution wrote:
Overall, though, I'd say the shield is a better piece of equipment: it's useful against missile fire, can potentially protect you from more powerful attacks (like cavalry), covers a larger area of your body, and it's way easier to use. There's a reason swords, spears, and shields were the go-to items, rather than swords, spears, and bucklers.

True, the Buckler & Sai are useless against ranged weapons.
So the extra attack should be warranted for a Buckler & Sai since the downside is no added protection whatsoever against ranged weapons.

Warpsolution wrote:
If a buckler is better than a dagger, why weren't they more common?

Because a Sai (or Buckler) isn't as easy to master for combat as a dagger or knife?
So for the normal footsoldier the Sai would cost too much time to learn how to use it effectively.
Kinda like the Nunchaku.
Which also is the reason why I stated that only nimble & fast races could choose a Sai.
The Spiked Buckler should be more commonly available, but a model should either equip a shield or the Spiked Buckler.

 sebster wrote:
I'm saying you don't get an extra attack, you just get the parry and a 1 point bonus to your initiative. I mean, if the buckler gave an extra attack and a parry, why would anyone ever take extra hand weapons?.

Because not everyone should be able to take the Sai or Spiked Buckler.

 sebster wrote:
And before you answer that by pointing out it costs twice as much in points, I mean in terms of the fantasy Warhammer world, why would anyone choose to run around with two hand weapons, when a hand weapon and buckler is as effective in attack and better in defence?

Because once a character chooses to use a Spiked Buckler he can't equip a shield too?
That it should either be one or the other?
So a model who chooses to equip with a shield (as defense against ranged attacks) should be unable to equip a Buckler too.
He could still choose te Sai tho.

I'll admit that a buckler probably takes more skill to use than a dagger, but as an off-hand weapon/armour piece? I dunno. That whole style, regardless of weapon choice, is pretty difficult.

Either way, the difference is very slight. The difference between a buckler and a shield is about as big as the difference between a sword and a warhammer. And that latter pair function exactly the same in this game,
The perspective granted by Warhammer is pulled way back. The details like this are lost.

If you really want to make rules for a buckler, make them simple, and make them equal to those of the other weapon choices.

Also, for the record, all of the "kung-fu" weapons are difficult to use because they were adapted from farming implements and common tools, so people could gain combat training without swords and spears.
In some cases, this was so that the social classes above them remained unaware of their preparations. In others, it was because such tools were all they had access to.
None of them are hard to use because they're inherently better than the longbow and the pike.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
Because not everyone should be able to take the Sai or Spiked Buckler.

Yeah, you answered before you read the whole of the post, meaning you missed the point entirely.

Because once a character chooses to use a Spiked Buckler he can't equip a shield too?
That it should either be one or the other?
So a model who chooses to equip with a shield (as defense against ranged attacks) should be unable to equip a Buckler too.
He could still choose te Sai tho.

Yes, but to repeat myself again, who are these idiots that are out there training with extra hand weapons when a buckler is absolutely superior? Sure, for some folk maybe there isn't the training time, or maybe they're just to uncoordinated to manage it... but Chaos Warriors can get extra hand weapons. They're WS 5, you telling me they lack the time or the ability to instead use the absolutely superior buckler? To say nothing of all the characters who could take such a load out.

There are only two ways you can bring in a weapon that is absolutely superior to an already existing and very common set up like extra hand weapons, and that is to give it to everyone and just accept that there's no longer such a thing as extra hand weapons (because no idiot would take it) or just declare that this option is available to some units but not other because they're too stupid to use an obviously superior set up.

Or, you know, you can give it rules that aren't completely superior to an already existing weapon load out.

 sebster wrote:
Yes, but to repeat myself again, who are these idiots that are out there training with extra hand weapons when a buckler is absolutely superior? Sure, for some folk maybe there isn't the training time, or maybe they're just to uncoordinated to manage it... but Chaos Warriors can get extra hand weapons. They're WS 5, you telling me they lack the time or the ability to instead use the absolutely superior buckler? To say nothing of all the characters who could take such a load out.

The thing is that using a buckler means that one prefers speed over armour, so I'm guessing that these 'idiots' who train with extra hand weapons instead of Bucklers are heavily armoured and / or also frenzy.
So, I guess it depends on whatever the Chaos Warrior would focus on: armour (save) or speed (parry).
I think that Chaos Knights would favour a sword & shield (armour) over a light weapon & buckler (speed).
Chaos Warriors who frenzy should be unable to use the buckler anyway because they would not get the parry save while frenzied.

 sebster wrote:
There are only two ways you can bring in a weapon that is absolutely superior to an already existing and very common set up like extra hand weapons, and that is to give it to everyone and just accept that there's no longer such a thing as extra hand weapons (because no idiot would take it) or just declare that this option is available to some units but not other because they're too stupid to use an obviously superior set up.

Define superior.
To a midieval samurai the light-armour & katana would be a superior set-up, while the midieval european knight considers (very) heavy armour & a heavy sword +shield the superior set up.

So I guess that it would also only be logical to restrict the use of Spiked Buckler & Sai to models wearing light armour or less.

Warpsolution wrote:
I'll admit that a buckler probably takes more skill to use than a dagger, but as an off-hand weapon/armour piece? I dunno. That whole style, regardless of weapon choice, is pretty difficult.

Either way, the difference is very slight. The difference between a buckler and a shield is about as big as the difference between a sword and a warhammer. And that latter pair function exactly the same in this game,
The perspective granted by Warhammer is pulled way back. The details like this are lost.

If you really want to make rules for a buckler, make them simple, and make them equal to those of the other weapon choices.

True, but I guess that the choice of weapon also depends on the choice of armour.
Equiping yourself with a buckler while wearing heavy armour completely negates the buckler, because you would be too heavily encumbered which would negativily affect your reaction speed.

I mean, there is a reason why the midieval samurai prefer speed over heavy armour, while the midieval European knight prefers heavy armour and heavy swords over speed.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
The thing is that using a buckler means that one prefers speed over armour, so I'm guessing that these 'idiots' who train with extra hand weapons instead of Bucklers are heavily armoured and / or also frenzy.
So, I guess it depends on whatever the Chaos Warrior would focus on: armour (save) or speed (parry).
I think that Chaos Knights would favour a sword & shield (armour) over a light weapon & buckler (speed).

No. Read what I am saying. I am not talking about shield vs buckler. I am talking about buckler vs extra hand weapon. The buckler, by your rules, gives you an extra attack and a parry. An extra hand weapon just gives you an extra attack. There is nothing to prefer in the extra attack. It is absolutely inferior. The only reason to take two hand weapons when a buckler is available is because you're an idiot who likes dying.

Chaos Warriors who frenzy should be unable to use the buckler anyway because they would not get the parry save while frenzied.

And for all the Chaos Warriors that don't have the Mark of Khorne, and therefore don't frenzy? I'm guessing they're just idiots who like to die.

Define superior.

An equipment choice that gives all the benefits of another choice, plus additional benefits. As in, your buckler rules give all the benefits of an extra hand weapon, and grant a 6+ parry save as well.

To a midieval samurai the light-armour & katana would be a superior set-up, while the midieval european knight considers (very) heavy armour & a heavy sword +shield the superior set up.

Which was a product of a basic like of steel in Japan. Which meant no metal armour, and therefore blades that were formed to focus on cutting exclusively, with little consideration of durability.

Both groups were responding to the resources available to them and their enemies. But no-one could argue that any group in the Old World lacks access to the resources to make a buckler. And it's even less practical to argue that a group would have the resource to make extra hand weapons, but not make a buckler.

 sebster wrote:
No. Read what I am saying. I am not talking about shield vs buckler. I am talking about buckler vs extra hand weapon. The buckler, by your rules, gives you an extra attack and a parry. An extra hand weapon just gives you an extra attack. There is nothing to prefer in the extra attack. It is absolutely inferior. The only reason to take two hand weapons when a buckler is available is because you're an idiot who likes dying

My point is that if you have chosen to wear heavy armour the buckler should no longer be an option.
So if one has chosen to wear heavy armour you cannot use a buckler so the extra handweapon or shield become the only 2 options.

Instead of viewing the buckler as giving an extra attack, you could say that wearing heavy armour costs you 1 attack.
I only find it logical that a dagger wielding person has more attacks than someone wearing a heavy armour or using a heavy sword.

And for all the Chaos Warriors that don't have the Mark of Khorne, and therefore don't frenzy? I'm guessing they're just idiots who like to die.

If they are wearing heavy armour and insist on using a buckler then they indeed are idiots.
If you are already wearing heavy armour the added weight of a buckler becomes too heavy which prohibits a buckler from using it properly to parry incoming blows; it would then only function as another bludgening weapon.
Since a buckler costs 2x that of an extra hand weapon using a buckler while wearing heavy armour (which negates the parry save) would indeed be idiotic.

Which was a product of a basic like of steel in Japan. Which meant no metal armour, and therefore blades that were formed to focus on cutting exclusively, with little consideration of durability.

Both groups were responding to the resources available to them and their enemies. But no-one could argue that any group in the Old World lacks access to the resources to make a buckler. And it's even less practical to argue that a group would have the resource to make extra hand weapons, but not make a buckler.

True, the evolution of combat is largely defined by the resources available, but even then you completely ignore the weight of the equipment carried.

Heck, the European Musketeers stopped wearing heavy armour simply because the musket already was heavy.
Another reason is that firing a musket without wearing armour is a lenghty and slow process.
Now imagine this while wearing heavy armour.
I guess they would be idiots if they kept wearing heavy armour while still using their muskets.

1.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
Instead of viewing the buckler as giving an extra attack, you could say that wearing heavy armour costs you 1 attack.

No, you couldn't say that. Heavy armour doesn't cost you 1 attack. Your point would be valid if the buckler-rule as you've written it was in the BRB, but it's not. Because it's not balanced and it's nonsensical.

2.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
I only find it logical that a dagger wielding person has more attacks than someone wearing a heavy armour or using a heavy sword.

A man wielding a dagger may technically be able to execute more attacks/minute than a man with a sword or armour, but due to reach, footwork, and other such stuff, that's not how it actually works. The dagger-guy can't charge into the fray, because his opponent's sword will end him before he can land the blow, or his opponent's armour will make the target too narrow an area. So he has to stay moving, picking and choosing his engagements, to ensure his own safety.

3.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
If you are already wearing heavy armour the added weight of a buckler becomes too heavy which prohibits a buckler from using it properly to parry incoming blows; it would then only function as another bludgening weapon.

If that's true, how can a warrior in heavy, plate, gromil, or chaos armour gain their parry save with a shield?

4.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
Since a buckler costs 2x that of an extra hand weapon using a buckler while wearing heavy armour (which negates the parry save) would indeed be idiotic.

Think of it in terms of actual, real-life price. Did a buckler cost twice as much as a dagger? No. The idea just. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
True, the evolution of combat is largely defined by the resources available, but even then you completely ignore the weight of the equipment carried.

5. What? That has nothing at all to do with Sebster's point. Katanas were made to be extremely sharp. Broadswords were made to give and take a beating. These differences arose because of resource-availability. Who, then, in the Warhammer world, could make a buckler? Everyone. Who would make them, if they were better than other weapon/armour choices? Everyone.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
Heck, the European Musketeers stopped wearing heavy armour simply because the musket already was heavy.
Another reason is that firing a musket without wearing armour is a lenghty and slow process.
Now imagine this while wearing heavy armour.

...or because muskets all but defeated the purpose of wearing armour?

Also, for the record, many an armoured knight favored the rapier and main gouche or buckler, especially when plate mail was on its way out.

Here's my case and point: can you really explain to me how a buckler is better than a dagger? It's a better defensive weapon, sure. But the dagger offers some defense, at least. And the buckler is an offensive weapon. But not so effective as the dagger in that department.
I don't mean to rain on your parade here, but now it just seems like you've dug in your heels for no reason beyond a desire to do so. Let's think this through, and consider everyone else's view carefully.

Warpsolution wrote:
1.No, you couldn't say that. Heavy armour doesn't cost you 1 attack. Your point would be valid if the buckler-rule as you've written it was in the BRB, but it's not. Because it's not balanced and it's nonsensical.

It would make perfect sense if the weight of all the carried equipment would play a factor in the initiative.
If I'm not mistaken that is not the case right now.
So, if I understand the battle system correctly Initiative is based on the race and equipped weapon?
So a human equipped with a longsword wearing heavy armour would be just as fast as when he would be wearing no armour at all.
While I believe that wearing no armour (or light armour) should give a model an Initiative bonus and that wearing heavy armour would also cost a person 1 attack to the minimum of 1 attack per round.

2.A man wielding a dagger may technically be able to execute more attacks/minute than a man with a sword or armour, but due to reach, footwork, and other such stuff, that's not how it actually works. The dagger-guy can't charge into the fray, because his opponent's sword will end him before he can land the blow, or his opponent's armour will make the target too narrow an area. So he has to stay moving, picking and choosing his engagements, to ensure his own safety.

True, but I was only speaking of the number of attacks and the dagger having a higher initiative than a sword
I've made no statement on the success rate.

3.If that's true, how can a warrior in heavy, plate, gromil, or chaos armour gain their parry save with a shield?

They can parry, but unlike the buckler they just do not gain an extra attack because it is too heavy.
Fact is that in the current system encumbrance doesn’t play a factor at all.
And I’m fine with this, but then see no reason why a buckler shouldn’t give the parry bonus + extra attack because of it.

4.Think of it in terms of actual, real-life price. Did a buckler cost twice as much as a dagger? No. The idea just. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

What has real-life price to do with the subject?

5. What? That has nothing at all to do with Sebster's point. Katanas were made to be extremely sharp. Broadswords were made to give and take a beating. These differences arose because of resource-availability. Who, then, in the Warhammer world, could make a buckler? Everyone. Who would make them, if they were better than other weapon/armour choices? Everyone.

Correction, no samurai would use heavy plate mail since it would a) greatly slow their response time and b) restrict their movement with the katana, which altogether would make the katana less than effective.
The reason why the katana has evolved into the way it is, is because in feudal Japan the nature of close combat had changed where the quicker draw of the sword was well suited to combat where victory depended heavily on fast response times.
Heck the only reason a samurai wears (light) armour on the battle field simply is because it offers protection vs. ranged attacks.
In close quarters they would prefer no armour at all over the combat restrictions even light armour offers.

Also, for the record, many an armoured knight favored the rapier and main gouche or buckler, especially when plate mail was on its way out.

Were these armoured knights wearing full armour (which would make it heavy armour) or just partially heavy armour (which would make it light armour).

Here's my case and point: can you really explain to me how a buckler is better than a dagger? It's a better defensive weapon, sure. But the dagger offers some defense, at least. And the buckler is an offensive weapon. But not so effective as the dagger in that department.
I don't mean to rain on your parade here, but now it just seems like you've dug in your heels for no reason beyond a desire to do so. Let's think this through, and consider everyone else's view carefully.

Yes well, I simply don’t agree with you.
I believe that a buckler should give a parry save (like the shield) and give an extra attack like an extra hand weapon. Besides the fact that it would cost 2x the cost of an extra hand weapon, using a buckler should prohibit the use of heavy armour.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
So a human equipped with a longsword wearing heavy armour would be just as fast as when he would be wearing no armour at all.
While I believe that wearing no armour (or light armour) should give a model an Initiative bonus and that wearing heavy armour would also cost a person 1 attack to the minimum of 1 attack per round.

I see what you're saying. But I'm telling you man, that's not how it actually works. Put on some armour and try it. Or take it from someone who has.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
True, but I was only speaking of the number of attacks and the dagger having a higher initiative than a sword I've made no statement on the success rate.

Okay, I'm clearly not getting my point across. Here it is:

1. What is an attack? Is it you lashing out with a weapon? No. It is a deliberate strike at an opponent that involves timing, position, stance, guard, etc. So yes, I can stab a dead pig in the side faster with a knife than I could with a poleaxe. But that's not an attack.

2. What is initiative? Is it your physical speed? No. It's response time and awareness. If you want rock-hard evidence of that, look at Ogres. I2, with A3. Ogres are big and slow. You can easily get the jump on them, but once they get their bearing, they can take out several soldiers with one swing of their clubs.

They can parry, but unlike the buckler they just do not gain an extra attack because it is too heavy. Fact is that in the current system encumbrance doesn't play a factor at all.

Encumbrance doesn't play a factor in attack speed or response time in any game. Look at table-top role-playing games. In the World of Darkness games, armour decreases your Defense (your ability to dodge blows), but not your ability to attack, or your Initiative modifier. In Dungeons and Dragons, wearing heavier armour lowers your speed, the extent your Dexterity can effect your Armour Class, and any skills involving agility or deftness.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
And I’m fine with this, but then see no reason why a buckler shouldn't give the parry bonus + extra attack because of it.

*sigh* Because that would make them better than Extra Hand Weapons in every possible way. And they're not. I mean, really, this would make them better than Shields in most situations, too. 1 armour versus 1 attack isn't an even trade. Extra Hand Weapons almost always cost more than Shields.
You say they'll cost twice as much? Okay, that might make sense, mechanically. But it makes no sense, practically.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
What has real-life price to do with the subject?

Don't you think Warhammer-points are related to real-life-money? If you wanted to hire a White Lion as a security guard, you'd have to pay him more than a Night Goblin. Shields are cheaper to make than claymores. They're also easier to use, and less impressive when the latter are used properly.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
Correction, no samurai would use heavy plate mail since it would a) greatly slow their response time and b) restrict their movement with the katana, which altogether would make the katana less than effective.

Do you know this, or do you think this?
I'll admit, my experience in armed and armoured combat is sadly limited, but it exists. And I've had many a conversation with historians and professional stage combatants and instructors. Not a one of them has ever talked about how how armour did all of this stuff.
I mean, does it? Sure, of course. A little. But not by much.

The katana and the style used with it evolved together.
And, for the record, o-yoroi (or however you spell it) and similar types of armour are lighter than plate, but by no means are they light. 65lbs, I believe.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
Were these armoured knights wearing full armour (which would make it heavy armour) or just partially heavy armour (which would make it light armour).

Warhammer's "light" and "heavy" armour is extremely vague. They usually wore chainmail, to my knowledge. So it was more flexible, but still damn heavy.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
Yes well, I simply don’t agree with you.
I believe that a buckler should give a parry save (like the shield) and give an extra attack like an extra hand weapon. Besides the fact that it would cost 2x the cost of an extra hand weapon, using a buckler should prohibit the use of heavy armour.

Well, go ahead, I guess. Just know that history and physics don't even remotely support your idea at this point.
I think a Buckler could offer a Parry save or an Extra Attack, and be reasonable and fair.
Bucklers could be (and were) used with many types of armour. Bucklers were not twice as hard to come by than other weapons. These are facts, plain and simple. If you want to ignore them and do your own thing, that's fine. This thread can be closed then.

The Horned Messiah wrote:
My point is that if you have chosen to wear heavy armour the buckler should no longer be an option.
So if one has chosen to wear heavy armour you cannot use a buckler so the extra handweapon or shield become the only 2 options.

Instead of viewing the buckler as giving an extra attack, you could say that wearing heavy armour costs you 1 attack.
I only find it logical that a dagger wielding person has more attacks than someone wearing a heavy armour or using a heavy sword.

If you find that logical, then you better get to re-writing the whole damn rulebook. Because a guy in light armour with a halberd gets just as many attacks as a guy in heavy armour with a halberd.

If they are wearing heavy armour and insist on using a buckler then they indeed are idiots.
If you are already wearing heavy armour the added weight of a buckler becomes too heavy which prohibits a buckler from using it properly to parry incoming blows; it would then only function as another bludgening weapon.
Since a buckler costs 2x that of an extra hand weapon using a buckler while wearing heavy armour (which negates the parry save) would indeed be idiotic.

Yes, very good. Now invent some reason why an Empire militia would wield two hand weapons, when a buckler and hand weapon is a clearly superior weapon? Is it because he's an idiot who wants to die?

True, the evolution of combat is largely defined by the resources available, but even then you completely ignore the weight of the equipment carried.

Heck, the European Musketeers stopped wearing heavy armour simply because the musket already was heavy.
Another reason is that firing a musket without wearing armour is a lenghty and slow process.
Now imagine this while wearing heavy armour.
I guess they would be idiots if they kept wearing heavy armour while still using their muskets.

I don't ignore the weight of that armour, I just know that the weight of that armour is massively overstated by internet experts. Your claim that a musket was so heavy that armour was given up is a new one, though. Completely and utterly wrong, though, as the heaviest of muskets came in at around 10 pounds.

The actual reason for the decline in armour was because... the other guy was using the musket as his primary weapon as well. As the accuracy and range of muskets steadily improved over a period of around 300 years, armour steadily declined in use as the amount needed to stop a ball got impractically heavy.

And you ignored the main point - weapon preference is a question of balancing different features, and with preference given to the most important features in that environment. So in Europe, where armour was extremely common, long swords were made to be durable as well as sharp. In Japan, where metal armour was extremely rare and therefore armour non-existent, the blade was made to be as sharp as possible, as it didn't matter much that it become very brittle in the process. The point being that where various options exist, it is because each is good in its own way.

But in your case, the buckler is simply superior to two hand weapons in every possible sense, giving as much value in attack, but also greater defensive ability. In a world where that was true, there would be no reason for anyone to bother training with two hand weapons unless he was an idiot who wanted to die, he would always be better off training with the buckler and hand weapon.

And, after all of this, the answer is still just as obvious as it was at the beginning, write some rules for your favourite little weapon that don't make it completely superior to an existing weapon option.