#1:I keep seeing that CDs use swords and maces, wich to me anyway, is odd, as Dwarfs don’t like those weapons, how do I know this? look at Gotrek and Felix: Ork Salyer pg… Ah damn it! now I can’t rember what pg it is, but it’s there! in the book it says that you should have a axe that way if you slip and start to slide towards a cravas (or however you spell that) or whatever you can slash your axe down to to stop you from slideing. Any ideas about why this is (other that GW made all dwarfs with swords back then btw).
Thats all right now feel free to post some of your beefs with odd things here too.
in the book it says that you should have a axe that way if you slip and start to slide towards a cravas (or however you spell that) or whatever you can slash your axe down to to stop you from slideing.
I think that claim is frivolous in the extreme. Why would hacking your axe into the earth stop you falling down a hole better than sticking a sword in it? I find it highly doubtful that either would stop you falling down a hole anyway. :)
Swords are usually considered 'elfy' finesse weapons by western Dwarfs, reliant on speed and reach. Dwarfs like stout weapons you can put some welly behind. Chaos Dwarfs (big hat era) have been seen to use curved swords, which I think suits them fine. If CDs were redone I doubt this would continue though.
I think it odd that we still don't have a freaking army book. :)
I think the reason for the curved swords in the big hat era is that the models were supposed to be loosely based on ancient persians and the swords are a lot more persianish than axes. Do think that axes are way cooler though.
Why would hacking your axe into the earth stop you falling down a hole better than sticking a sword in it? I find it highly doubtful that either would stop you falling down a hole anyway. :)
Baggronor
It's a technique used in mountaineering called "self arrest" see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-arrest
Ice axe heads are not the conventional axe shape though. See: http://www.swarpa.net/~danforth/graphics/axe_evolution.jpg
The pickaxe some of the 6th edition plastic dwarf warriors carried is ideal for self-arrest…
You want to slam the pike on the axe into the snow/ice/dirt, and put your full weight on the handle by lying on it… in that way you can stop yourself sliding further down… trust me, I’m a mountainclimber, I have experienced this sort of thing…
In the later background of the Dwarfs (circa 4th edition), only apprentice smiths made swords. They did this to better their crafting skill before being allowed to work on ‘real’ weapons (hammers & axes). These swords were then sold to other races as high quality dwarven weapons.
Perhaps the CD’s still forge according to this ‘belief’. Besides selling all those weapons must be worth a small fortune in slaves. So why would a CD hold a sword? They’d keep it as a trophy? Or it’s a status symbol within the CD society. Perhaps it’s to display a certain military rank.
Let’s take look at the miniatures of the CD’s. During the 3rd edition a good portion of the troops held swords, as did the Dwarfs. While in the 4th/5th edition only a handfull of CD figures did, most of which were command troops. The majority of the CD troops during 4th/5th carried 2-h axes.
Imo only a real Dwarf fights with either an axe or a hammer, unless he’s a CD.
Why would hacking your axe into the earth stop you falling down a hole better than sticking a sword in it? I find it highly doubtful that either would stop you falling down a hole anyway. :)
Baggronor
It's a technique used in mountaineering called "self arrest" see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-arrest
Giftzwerg
A.k.a. the suicide technique, a.k.a the Last Desperate Effort, a.k.a. Whoops I Should Have Taken A Different Route :p
Personally I like to see dwarfs with sword. To steroitypical (spelling?) that all dwarfs should only have axes and hammers. Like, where are the spears?
Personally I like to see dwarfs with sword. To steroitypical (spelling?) that all dwarfs should only have axes and hammers. Like, where are the spears?
Nazhur
Sheesh, those are made of wood. What are you, an elf?
I think one could make a logical argument for the "no sword" policy, it is fantasy after all, it is difficult to say anything about what Dwarfs think is proper. Maybe in thousands of years they've learned what works?
A sword relies on reach, Dwarfs lack this, as well as speed and agility. An axe or hammer seems to be a good use of the resources the dwarf has, strength and endurance. He won't be weaving his weapon around a lot but when does hit you he wants a solid weapon that does damage.
from a tactical point of view, dwarfs with spears would be much better at defending their tight mountain passes…
I think making a warhammer is quite difficult…
When making a sword, you beat/heat all imperfections from the metal… when you’re making a hammer, you have to take care that you don’t get any imperfections on the inside of your weapon.
This ofcourse all depends on your type of hammer… if it really is a realistic warhammer, you don’t need so much metal to mould.
If it’s a GW dwarfhammer, then I think you’d be moulding about 10 kilos of metal.
On the other hand, dwarfs should be technologically evolved (hell, they got steamphones!), so I don’t see why they wouldn’t make everything mechanically.
dwarfs fight in shield walls and the main wepions used in them was a spear and sword ( and big shield) kind of goes against the grain of dwarf tactics useing hammer and axe wepions that you can only attack with you cant parry with a axe or a hammer
dwarfs fight in shield walls and the main wepions used in them was a spear and sword ( and big shield) kind of goes against the grain of dwarf tactics useing hammer and axe wepions that you can only attack with you cant parry with a axe or a hammer
richard barby
The shield wall of the Dwarfs reminds me a bit of the Roman turtle formations. The main defense in this formation is the shield. The weapon is mostly used to attack, not to deflect the incoming blows. Surely a sword/spear is much handier in such a tight formation. For both the reach and the stabbing ability it can provide.
That being said, I'm more of a hammer fan myself. Feeling the weight of the swing and impact is much more pleasant then that of a sword or a spear. If the wielder has some skill, it can easily be as deadly as a sword. Although it's easier to master a sword or spear then to master a hammer. Now we all know that Dwarfs and CD's are expert warriors (in the rules this is reflected in the WS/LD stat). So perhaps they have trained so hard as to overcome most of the downsides of their weapons.
One reason I can see the use of maces/hammers over swords is that a sword may have only one to two edges respectfully. While a mace on the other hand doesn’t require the edges to do damage. Hammers, such as warhammers rely sending energy from a concentrated point using the momentum and weight of the hammer head to do damage. Impact causes concuss which can potentially do more damage to a victim than a wound caused by a cut.
While on the other hand it puzzles me that dwarf warriors in warhammer can survive as a fighting nation with out the use of pole arms. I know its not real, and its to help keep the Dawi in character, but with the lack of pole arms, the Dawi really are at a disadvantage in warfare. Understandably they have guns, cannons, and all sorts of neat little toys, but it just tactically seems incredibly stupid to not implement such a cheaply made and versatile weapon.
Also, bludgeoning weapons are only effectively stopped by plate-style armour - against things like chainmail, etc… they still retain the ability to do most of their damage. As the dwarfs primary enemies are orcs, goblins and skaven, who don’t seem to wear a lot of plate armour, perhaps the choice of hammers as a primary weapons makes sense.
Also, as miners there’s probably a cultural thing there as well - if you swing a pick or hammer all day, you’d get pretty good at it.
From what I remember dwarf weapons are based on tool for construction and hunting to represent construction and progress instead of just destruction. Were as you cannot build or gather with a sword it is only ever for killing others.
While a mace on the other hand doesn't require the edges to do damage.
ClawLeader
It doesn't *require*, however...
The most destructive maces I've understood are those which are of a "flanged" type. Which ironically as lots of "edges" as putting the whole weight of a mace and swing into a small surface will enable it to pierce armour better.
Check these examples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mace_%28club%29 all of those pictured actually have edges.
Hunting with a spear isn't unheard of... On the other hand, I'd like to see someone try to hunt with a crossbow.
Zuh-Khinie
I thought that was common? Even nowadays. Why would hunting with a crossbow be specially difficult?
because, if you miss, you have to reload it, which takes the better part of 2 minutes. By that time, your target will have fled. Hunting with a normal bow is a much more common practice.
Ofcourse, I’m talking about medieval crossbows here… nowadays it doesn’t really matter seeing as a new crossbow can be reloaded in less than one minute.
If you do it properly, then what you have hit with the bolt should be dead anyway so you won’t need to reload. How many shots are you expecting people to take when hunting?
