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.

It doesn't cap your ward save and it makes you invulnerable to all non-magic weapons, it's not gak. The only downside is you can only join ethereal units.

It also allows you to move through impossible terrain.That's why a cost of 50 points would be reasonable for this item.

That's a tricky one. For armies without Ethereal units (almost all of them), I think 35pts is a decent price. Sure, you're ethereal, but you're all by yourself, waiting to eat a Fireball or the like.

But if you have the option to join a unit, it becomes substantially better.
Even though most of those units are pretty fragile anyway.

Talisman of resilence.
80 points
A bearer is granted a 2+ ward save vs magical attacks not including spells.

New version for new book

Widowmaker, the Sword of Khaine, Elfbane

The legendary sword of Khaine, as wielded by Aenarion himself. Woe betide the elf who draws this, for their line is forever cursed by the God of Murder. For the Lord of War is not wont to give away his blessings without due payment, and payment to Khaine is always made in blood.

300 points

High Elves only. Storm of Magic only.

Magic weapon. The bearer's Strength and Attacks are doubled. Successful ward saves taken against the Widowmaker must be re-rolled. Multiple Wounds (D3). Flaming Attacks, Ignores armor saves. Against Chaos forces (Beastmen, Chaos Warriors, Chaos Daemons) has the Heroic Killing Blow rule. At the end of the game, the bearer is removed from play with no saves of any kind allowed, as though he had been killed in-game. The opponent gets all victory points for the character, except the 300 points for the WIdowmaker.

CalasTyphon216 wrote:
its a 6+ ward save and it caps your armor save at 4+ max, assuming you get barding/mount, and caps your ward at 6+
its gak

It should be 26 points just so daemon princes don't get it.
But seriously, it needs to be at least 50 points, more likely 51+ so it's lords only.

CalasTyphon216 wrote:
New version for new book

Widowmaker, the Sword of Khaine, Elfbane

The legendary sword of Khaine, as wielded by Aenarion himself. Woe betide the elf who draws this, for their line is forever cursed by the God of Murder. For the Lord of War is not wont to give away his blessings without due payment, and payment to Khaine is always made in blood.

300 points

High Elves only. Storm of Magic only.

Magic weapon. The bearer's Strength and Attacks are doubled. Successful ward saves taken against the Widowmaker must be re-rolled. Multiple Wounds (D3). Flaming Attacks, Ignores armor saves. Against Chaos forces (Beastmen, Chaos Warriors, Chaos Daemons) has the Heroic Killing Blow rule. At the end of the game, the bearer is removed from play with no saves of any kind allowed, as though he had been killed in-game. The opponent gets all victory points for the character, except the 300 points for the WIdowmaker.

I like this actually it would fit nicely into large SoM games.

The Phoenix Crown

Only Caledor II had the legendary arrogance to wear the Phoenix Crown into battle. Though a superb swordsman, he was felled by Gotrek Starbreaker after the High King's rune axe snapped Caledor's lighter Cothique-style rapier. The Phoenix Crown to this day resides in the vaults of the Dwarves.

High Elves only. Storm of Magic only.

200 points

Type: Magic armor. Helm. Grants +1 to armor save. All friendly High Elf units within 24 inches gain the Unbreakable special rule and +1 attack. The wearer's Inspiring Presence is increased to 36 inches.

The Phoenix Cloak

The other sigil of the Phoenix King. A cloak of Phoenix feathers, woven with the protection of Asuryan. The original was also worn into battle by Caledor II, and whether the one currently worn by Finubar was retrieved from Caledor's headless corpse, or a new one was woven as a replacement, no one knows.

High Elves only. Storm of Magic only.

150 points

Type: Talisman. Grants a 4+ ward save, and the Fireborn rule. Furthermore, the weaver and any unit he joins is gains a 2+ ward save against all magical effects, including magical attacks.

Cothique blade

High Elves only. Storm of Magic only.

This particular style of blade was designed for court-based duelling. Caledor appreciated it because it allowed him to demonstrate his skill with a sword. He was a fool, however, for wielding it in combat, where it snapped against Gotrek's axe and cost the King his head.

150 points

Type: Magic weapon. Gives +3 attacks, +1 initiative, and the Killing Blow special rule. Furthermore, in a challenge, Killing Blow takes effect on a 5+.

Soul sapper. Magic vortex.One use only. If the bearer is in contact with enemy models he must determine which enemies to chalange. He can chalange all models in contact with him, two or only one. The controlling player of a bearer rolls a dice and so must the opponent. Opponent adds his dice roll to the total ammount of wounds owned by the challanged models and so does the controlling player with the wounds of bearer. For every point of advantage of the bearer ,challanged models lose a wound with no saves allowed and the bearer gains a wound. This works the other way if bearer loses. Models can not gain more than 3 wounds then they would have normaly.
90 points.

So did Caledor II declare himself the Phoenix King moments before the battle? Because then I'm not really surprised he was defeated.

Anvildude wrote:
So did Caledor II declare himself the Phoenix King moments before the battle? Because then I'm not really surprised he was defeated.

I don't understand the question
Caledor II was elected Phoenix King after Caledor I died at the end of the wars against the dark elves. He was Phoenix King for a while before the beginning of the war of the beard, which was in part instigated by his arrogance
The BL book series about the war of the beard so far has described the start of the war, where Caledor kills Snorri Halfhand in single combat. It is specifically noted that Caledor was wielding a lighter, rapier-style blade. I am extrapolating that this factor is what got him killed against Gotrek, since a rapier isn't exactly the best weapon for parrying an axe

Banner of decimation. Magic banner. Cavalry, monstrous cavalry and flying cavalry only.
50 points. One use only, declare at the beggining of the phase. Both riders and the mounts are granted devestating charge special rule for a duration of one phase.

The Blood Shield

This peculiar weapon is an arcane combination of shield and glaive. It resembles a large circular shield with a mirrored pair of scimitar-shaped blades protruding from the lower edge of 1 facing, and the upper edge of the opposite facing. The edges of the entire weapon are sharp beyond compare. When strapped to the wielder's forearm, it can be used in a wildly unpredictable, and therefore, effective, combination of parries, stabs, and slashes. First wielded by Sythus the Blooded, it passed on to Xanthus Hearteater after he defeated the former in a dazzling 15 hour duel. Since then, it has been passed down by a series of Khorne's favored champions. Notoriously difficult to use properly, many would-be wielders have injured or slain themselves on the blade, notably Xanthus Hearteater, who, after defeating Sythus, picked up the Blood Shield, and, in an attempt to flourish it in a display of martial prowess, neatly decapitated himself in front of his entire army. This made little difference to the outcome of the battle, since his army mistook him for having sacrificed himself to Khorne.

Warriors of Chaos only.

Magic Weapon.

Mark of Khorne only.

85 points

Functions as both a shield and a hand weapon when it comes to equipment, IE you cannot take a shield as well as this item. Gives +1 to armor save and a 5+ parry save. Gives +1 Strength, +1 attack, and the Armor Piercing and Killing Blow special rules. For any roll to hit of a '1' in combat, resolve that hit against the model bearing the Blood Shield. Due to the difficulty in parrying such an unusual weapon, any enemy model hit by the Blood Shield must re-roll all successful saving throws, and parry saves may NOT be taken.

CalasTyphon216 wrote:
The Blood Shield

This peculiar weapon is an arcane combination of shield and glaive. It resembles a large circular shield with a mirrored pair of scimitar-shaped blades protruding from the lower edge of 1 facing, and the upper edge of the opposite facing. The edges of the entire weapon are sharp beyond compare. When strapped to the wielder's forearm, it can be used in a wildly unpredictable, and therefore, effective, combination of parries, stabs, and slashes. First wielded by Sythus the Blooded, it passed on to Xanthus Hearteater after he defeated the former in a dazzling 15 hour duel. Since then, it has been passed down by a series of Khorne's favored champions. Notoriously difficult to use properly, many would-be wielders have injured or slain themselves on the blade, notably Xanthus Hearteater, who, after defeating Sythus, picked up the Blood Shield, and, in an attempt to flourish it in a display of martial prowess, neatly decapitated himself in front of his entire army. This made little difference to the outcome of the battle, since his army mistook him for having sacrificed himself to Khorne.

Warriors of Chaos only.

Magic Weapon.

Mark of Khorne only.

85 points

Functions as both a shield and a hand weapon when it comes to equipment, IE you cannot take a shield as well as this item. Gives +1 to armor save and a 5+ parry save. Gives +1 Strength, +1 attack, and the Armor Piercing and Killing Blow special rules. For any roll to hit of a '1' in combat, resolve that hit against the model bearing the Blood Shield. Due to the difficulty in parrying such an unusual weapon, any enemy model hit by the Blood Shield must re-roll all successful saving throws, and parry saves may NOT be taken.

This item is underpriced. As it is counted as hand weapon and grants additonaly extra attack. SO it grants 2 attacks. Weapons granting to 2 attacks costs 40 points in brb, armour piercing 10 points, 5+ parry would be like 10 points, killing blow would be like 25 points, weapon granting +1 sterngth cost 20 points, shield increasing armour by 2 cost 5 points, weapon that forces opponet to reroll successful saves(including ward and regeneration) would cost 30 points, another 5 points for negating parry saves and finally at least 25 points for having so many properties in a single item. This makes 165 points. Of course we need to substract some points for any roll to hit of a '1' in combat, resolving hit against the model bearing the Blood Shield. How much points can you subtract for this? I would say 45 at most. Even if you substract 65 the item will still cost 100 points.

Let it be hundred points.

Calas Typhoon. Every time you create an item look to brb at the magic items there, look at the weapons that have similar properties to the ones of your weapon and try to adjust a suitable point cost. Remember that if the item has many properties it's point cost is going to be higher.

@CalasTyphoon216: actually, a lot of heavily armoured knights wielded rapiers instead of broadswords. I don't claim to understand it all m'self, since I don't fence, but there's potential for a small weapon like that to deflect a much heavier strike, thanks to some fancy terminology involving leverage, metallurgy, and such.

On that note, I feel like the Blood Shield is way too complicated. A simple "this shield grants +2 Attacks, +2 Strength, and the wielder takes a hit at his Strength+2 whenever he rolls a 1 to Hit" type thing would do, wouldn't it?
Furthermore, "the difficulty in parrying such an unusual weapon" doesn't actually make much sense, and the mechanic is really awesome and also overly complicated (also, how is it "difficult" to parry if it ignores parry saves all together? That's not hard, that's impossible). Any weapon can be parried.
Bonuses to hit/more attacks reflect weapons that are difficult to parry. You deflect one attack? Okay. Here comes a dozen more.

@devastator7777777: the above weapon has the Extra Attack (1) special rule for being an Extra Hand Weapon, and has a magic property that grants +1 Attack.
Granted, a device that performs as a shield and a sword is worth more than 3+3pts base. But not too much more.

Actually, the only reason a knight would use a rapier is because it's a small stabbing point- plate armour is pretty much proof against any single handed sword's blade- The major techniques for single-sword combat involved grapples and takedowns to allow you the opportunity to stab the enemy through their visor or under the arm.

I don't know where you're getting that info, but that is not at all what I've learned from the historians and stage/reenactment fighters I've talked to.

First: plate armour can be bashed and bent (by longswords, maces and hammers, not just two-handed versions of them) until the joints no longer functioned. You finished them off once they were immobile, or they succumbed to the jagged bits of their own broken armour.
Believe-you-me, my broadsword is easily capable of messing up steel plate, one-handed or no.

Second: rapiers saw a lot of used because few people went into actual battle covered head-to-toe in plate (with besagews and jousting helms and all that). Because of the restrictions it puts on your vision, movement, and finances.
So most soldiers had a decent amount of exposed mail/leather, and the advantage of a lighter, easier to use weapon was greater than the disadvantage of it being more delicate.
Because that disadvantage was apparently a lot smaller than people normally make it out to be.

Yeah, but compared to a blunt weapon or using a small dagger once up close to hit the joints a sword is not very effective against full plate.

And full plate was not restrictive on your movement, nor was it so heavy you found it difficult to move. You could sprint, run, do push ups, mount your horse, etc... while wearing it.

Re the Caledor issue
He was using a rapier in combat, which is fine normally, except he ended up fighting Gotrek who was wielding a hammer. Parrying a blunt force weapon with a sword is a bad idea in any case, let alone parrying a warhammer with a rapier. Simply put, they fought, Caledor's sword snapped parrying Gotrek's hammer, Caledor died

@Grey Templar: 1. if that's true, then why was the sword the standard go-to weapon of armoured knights? The smiths at Angel Sword have confirmed that a well-made long sword could shear through steel plate, flesh, and bone in one swing.
I mean, sure, a dagger is more lethal and easier to use. Once you get a sufficient upper hand to allow your squire to close with it and finish the job. Hence smashing your opponent's armour until he couldn't move.

I've worn plate armour, I know full well that it doesn't stop you from moving overmuch.
The bottom line is: no, it wasn't so heavy you couldn't move. But the simple fact is: a man with an extra 50+lbs on his body is going to be slower and tire easier than without it.
It does restrict your range of motion, though. The more protective layers you add, the less nimble you become. Again, not nearly as much as some would think, but still an amount.

@CalasTyphon216: I thought he died because he tried to end the fight quickly, but Gotrek outlasted him.
A rapier would do fine against a hammer. You'd keep your opponent on the defensive, for the most part.
And swords parry weapons like maces, hammers, and axes via the haft of such weapons.

A well made sword could shear through badly made steel plate, maybe. Proper spring steel plate, though, was nearly impossibly to destroy with a bladed weapon, and devilishly hard to harm with even a blunt weapon. Later period armour was normally even sold with a huge dent in it- from where they shot a musket or pistol, point blank- and the bullet didn't punch through.

Swords were generally the go-to weapon for Knights, because a sword was a symbol of status- a well made sword was expensive, and peasants generally went into combat with hammers, spears and axes because they were cheap. And even then, later period knights (14th century- about the only time you'd actually see full plate) preferred fine picks, warhammers and flanged maces to deal with enemy knights- weapons that concentrated all the force of the swing to one small point or points.

Even with those weapons, most of the damage was done from the sheer force of the hit, not from any sort of slash or puncture- hitting limbs encased in steel could still break them (again, maces and axes helped with this) and you could still concuss someone in a plate helm.

Again, I'm not claiming to know everything ever. This is just what I've heard/seen for myself.
I've seen a sword chop through a cow skull. The world record for tatami mat-cuts is 27. That's the equivalent of 27 human thighs--bones n' all--in one swing.

And swords are good all-around weapons, where as axes, picks, and hammers excel in their given uses. I've heard some people talk about blades with chiseled edges, designed to crush and batter more than cut, but I've heard others say that's not true.

ANYWAY, my point was simply this: the advantage of larger weapons is smaller than many people think. Rapiers and other such equipment were capable of holding their own against heavier weapons.

Oh for sure. They woudn't exist if they didn't work. But they were certainly used differently.

Sigh, no love for the spear in this talk of more realistic weapons. :p Spears and its cousins ruled medieval melee, and don't let anyone ever tell you anything else.

Except against Mongol horse archers. Those guys were pretty much hacking life.

Bone is way different than a suit of high quality steel that's been shaped using centuries of experience to be the perfect counter to the sword. The rounded curves of plate armor would deflect any but the most square of blows, and those would still almost certainly be stopped cold.

The only sword that would have a hope of cutting through full plate would be something like a Zweihänder, and that was actually developed to cut through pike formations not steel plate.

Swords were designed to kill unarmored or lightly armored opponents, of which there was plenty at the time. Over time, they become more of a symbol of wealth that doubled as an effective weapon at cutting down the common soldier, but it was not used against an opponent of equal status who was as fully armored as he was. That would only needlessly dull the expensive sword for little gain, thus Knights preferred maces, polearms, and other blunt or chopping weapons when facing an opponent in full plate.

@currant12: I agree whole-heartedly. They're dirt-cheap to produce and get more effective the more you have. I hope that future editions of Warhammer will make spears worth taking.

@Grey Templar: even extremely thick plate mail isn't comparable to the thickness of a man's femure. But you are right, bone is not nearly as strong, since it can't really bend.

I'm certainly not saying that swords carved through plate armour as if it were nothing; there was a point to wearing the stuff, after all. But you couldn't just stroll through a battlefield, content in your knowledge that you're immune to swords.

I actually just talked to a medieval weapons-instructor last weekend. He had some really interesting things to say.

Like that almost all sword wounds are caused as you push or pull the blade along your opponent's body, rather than chopping at them like you're holding a baseball bat ("think about the way you cut your steak", he said.

And that the sword was the weapon of choice because of it combined a good reach with good speed (relative to its size), and that so much of the weapon's mass was capable of delivering lethal strikes.

The great two-handed swords were different, though. They were highly specialized, to defend a ship from boarding, create openings in pike formations (in which case, they were used more like pry-bars, since you'd usually lack the leverage to hack through the haft), and in street defense/crowd control.

He referred to axes, maces, and hammers as "mass weapons", that relied on their weight and the simple impact of their strike to work, versus the push-pull of a sword.
These weapons were greatly feared, because they reduced the time between attack and blow, but were extremely difficult to use, because of the time between a missed strike and recovery. He quoted one of the great masters, saying something like,
"the Axe is ponderous, cruel, and mortal. If my first strike is true, than victory is mine and all other weapons shall fall before me. But if my first strike is false, then I am dead, and the Axe is lost to me forever".

It was that same factor of time that made daggers something no one ever fought with/against (and why no one ever tried to wrestle with you on the field; it was too easy to loose track of your opponent's long knife). With weapons like daggers and axes, the fight becomes shorter and shorter, until life and death hangs in the balance of just a few attacks.
The sword was preferred because it's a much easier weapon to defend with, and as such, much easier to defend against. The primary objective of fighting is to not die. Defeating your opponent comes as a very distant second. Otherwise, your victorious career would be short indeed.

Warpsolution wrote:
Second: rapiers saw a lot of used because few people went into actual battle covered head-to-toe in plate (with besagews and jousting helms and all that). Because of the restrictions it puts on your vision, movement, and finances.
So most soldiers had a decent amount of exposed mail/leather, and the advantage of a lighter, easier to use weapon was greater than the disadvantage of it being more delicate.
Because that disadvantage was apparently a lot smaller than people normally make it out to be.

Sort of. Rapiers came in to use over the 16th century, as armour was steadily disappearing from the battlefield due to the increasing dominance of firearms. Even then rapiers weren't a major feature of battlefields of the age, pikes and other weapons used in mass formations dominated the age.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anvildude wrote:
Swords were generally the go-to weapon for Knights, because a sword was a symbol of status- a well made sword was expensive, and peasants generally went into combat with hammers, spears and axes because they were cheap. And even then, later period knights (14th century- about the only time you'd actually see full plate) preferred fine picks, warhammers and flanged maces to deal with enemy knights- weapons that concentrated all the force of the swing to one small point or points.

I don't think status alone ever really works as an explanation. War, more than anything, is a life and death thing. Status is important, but fall in to second place when you're about to end up either victorious or dead.

I think the sword held an important place on the battlefield because for a time, against armour of a certain quality, it did a fine job. As armour improved past it then knights moved to other weapons like picks, as you said, before the use of armour began to decline as a result of firearms, leading to the return of swords, albeit in a lighter, faster form.

I had a master fencer tell me that chainmail eventually replaced full plate, because it offered nearly as much protection while restricting movement a lot less, and that this trend also lead to rapiers and the like being more widely used, but that information is at odds with a lot of other stuff I've read and heard.
Hands-on experience is great, but I think it still has to bow to historical record when the question is, well, historical.

But yes. The ideal weapon in trained hands is not the one we see everywhere. It's the one that's cheap and quick to make, straightforward in use, and that can be used well by a whole bunch o' dudes.
I imagine the footwork of a pike or even a smaller spear would be really small? They could make lethal strikes with very little movement up/down/left/right, so having a few dozen of your friends doing the same thing next to you wouldn't be a problem.

Can you give a source of that on chainmail, Warp? Having worn chainmail, I have to say that it is extremely bulky and hard to wear, even small amounts. Chainmail has HORRIBLE weight distribution, it's like wearing a few phonebooks that are all hanging off of your shoulders. While full plate is, by weight, heavier, a genuine suit of plate would be fitted to its wearer for ideal weight balance, making the person in it quite maneuverable. But I am ignorant of that period of history, so I could be totally wrong.

But as far as spears and pikes, the primary advantage of them was that of reach. In order to threaten a spearman or unit of spears with any other weapons, you have to place yourself at great risk to get close enough. If you are dead before you can even get there, your sword is not worth anything.

The same principle applies to greatswords. While there were a few out there meant for swinging, the majority of greatswords were intended as piercing or thrusting weapons. The estoc, for example, had no edge, but it was wonderful at piercing heavy armor. Sadly, the fantasy world and game world loves the image of the giant caveman swings, but greatswords were usually NOT swung, they were used like large daggers, the size offering an advantage in reach.

Greatswords were often actually used as a sort of 'Everyweapon' in a way- due to the commonness of metal hand protection, and the usual lack of sharpened edges on their blades, much Greatsword work was actually done holding the blade with one or both hands- using it as a short spear, a small staff (one hand on blade, one on hilt) or striking and swinging with the crossguard as a sort of war pick (both hands on blade).