Grimstonefire:
Would this be unbalanced do you think?
Thommy H:
Explain how Slayer Axes work and I’ll tell you…
BilboBaggins:
Slayer axes allow the player at the start of combat choose whether to use them as two hand weapons or can hold them together in both hands as a Great Weapon.
It would be interesting.
Thommy H:
I don’t see any reason that that would be unbalanced. Weapons that can be used in several ways are a feature of a number of units.
Grimstonefire:
I was thinking it may be unbalanced given their high movement rate. They would be highly versatile. Which wouldn’t be a bad thing actually.
Fluffwise the only issue would be that the BC would have to be using their weapons practically every day (like slayers and Black Orcs with armed to da teef).
Thommy H:
I would recommend rationalising it as Bull Centaur units containing a mix of weapons rather than having a single weapon with multiple uses. I hardly think versatility is a balance issue either - it’s not like they can use it as a crossbow. They either hit harder or more often - both make them superior close combat troops, which is their intended role anyway.
Just add the points for both weapons to the base cost and you’re done. It’s no more powerful than that.
Grimstonefire:
Considering you can only use one option at a time, I would actually only add on the cost of the great weapons (+2pts) rather than both (+3pts). I’m probably wrong, but I think adding on the cost of both is what they did to black orcs???
Thommy H:
Yes, probably. They should pay for both - they have both. Yes, you can only use one at a time, but the versatility is enough to make up for that. Units with great weapons or halberds and shields pay for all the equipment, even though they can’t use them at the same time.
BilboBaggins:
I don’t think GW raised the point level of the Slayers because of Slayer Axes and the two hand weapon/great weapon was formerly a free swap so my feeling is to pay for the higher option to get both.