Flails

[Durgil]

I found that under the Anti-Shield section in the Armor and Shield chapter, articulated weapons are brought up, but there aren't any such weapons listed or any skills. Therefore, I thought I'd take a shoot at it, so here you go:

Flail 2 (Run-of-the-Mill Articulated Weapon)
Power: 2 Add: 2 WSpd: Unwieldy VA: 2
Strike Dist: Short Shield Penalty: +2 Ob

War Flail 1,2 (Superior Quality Articulated Weapon)
Power: 3 Add: 2 WSpd: Unwieldy VA: 2
Strike Dist: Long Shield Penalty: +2 Ob

I know that the section about articulated weapons in the Main Rule-Book has these weapons ignoring shields completely, but I feel that these weapons are really just harder to defend against, so I gave them a VA of 2 and raised the required Obstacle of the shield user by +2. This pretty much makes parrying one of these blows with a sword impossible, but someone with a Great Shield could still fend off a blow, maybe. :wink:

As for the skill, once again like the sling, I'm suggesating something a little different. I think that the weapon is close enough to the mace so as to just use that, but there is enough of a difference, that there should be Articulated Weapon Training. The Ob should be doubled for someone using one of these weapons without this training, and that 1's roled on a miss should count as successes against the user. These types of weapons are very unforgiving if you screw up with them. :twisted:

Just my opinion.

[donbaloo]

I like them. I'm pretty sure abzu and Thor have said in previous posts that flails should be treated as having a mace's stats. You've pretty much duplicated them with some minor tweaks that differentiate them from the maces, which is good. I would rather see the standard flail with a slow speed rather than unwieldy though. The +2Ob should effectively nullify all shields but the Great Shield after you figure in the 2 VA, just like you said. Looks good...

[Durgil]

That's a good point about the WSpd, donbaloo. These things are both pretty fast weapons if you've ever seen them in action. I was just afraid of making them too powerful. Both the flail and the war-flail should have a WSpd of Slow.

Thanks for the input.

[donbaloo]

Just noted your addition concerning the Training. I like that too. Everything I've seen about the flail talks about how destructive they can be but also how difficult to control they were. I take it the penalty for 1's only applies to those without the training?

So basically we've got a mace (whose superior quality version is more damaging instead of more armor "piercing") that can wrap around shields. The trade off is that it costs an extra two skill points to get started with it. Good.

[well-dressed gentleman]

There were stats posted for flails in the 1e game; but I think these more bone-crushing versimillitude.

[Thor Olavsrud]

The rule of thumb I use for weapon speed goes something like this (although exceptions probably exist):

* Thrusting weapons get Fast weapon speed. These are weapons that can deliver three strikes in three heartbeats.

* Weapons that you swing get Slow weapon speed. Slow weapons are still incredibly agile and effective, but you probably have to reposition at least slightly after each swing to bring the weapon back in line.

* Weapons that rely on serious mass, like a hammer, or that are difficult to control, are Unwieldy.

As for training, why not just use them with a Flail skill? Knights, Men-At-Arms, Foot Soldiers, Bannermen, Sergeants, Cavalrymen, and so on all get the Appropriate Weapons skill. There's no reason they can't take the Flail skill.

[donbaloo]

As for training, why not just use them with a Flail skill? Knights, Men-At-Arms, Foot Soldiers, Bannermen, Sergeants, Cavalrymen, and so on all get the Appropriate Weapons skill. There's no reason they can't take the Flail skill.

My knee-jerk answer to this would be so as to provide a trade-off for the extra benefit of the articulation. Why would I not want to take a mace that can wrap around a shield versus one that can't? But like I said, that's a reactionary answer that stems from playing D&D. I know Burning Wheel is less concerned with balance in that regard.

[Thor Olavsrud]

My knee-jerk answer to this would be so as to provide a trade-off for the extra benefit of the articulation. Why would I not want to take a mace that can wrap around a shield versus one that can't? But like I said, that's a reactionary answer that stems from playing D&D. I know Burning Wheel is less concerned with balance in that regard.

Heh! How about because that hinged mace (flail) is Unwieldy? :lol:

Anyway, if I were going up against a guy with a flail, I'd use a spearman or six against him. He probably wouldn't get close enough to touch me. Or better yet, I'd let my longbowmen take him down. :lol:

Seriously though, as you note, Burning Wheel is not concerned with balance in this regard. This is why the weapon list is so small. We're just not interested in the fetishization of weapons.

[well-dressed gentleman]

Sounds like he's calling you a pervert for making these Durgil.

And I was all fired up to submit a katzbalger...

[Durgil]

Sounds like he's calling you a pervert for making these Durgil.
That's all right, I'm still going to use what I originally put out, only with a WSpd of Slow. I think it will work and that with the chance of getting yourself whacked by your own weapon, and that it isn't so overwhelmingly powerful, it will be a useful addition to my gaming environment without it becoming too overly used. By the way, I think that a player should count up the rolled 1's in the attack and apply them to tagging their own character with the flail even with Articulated Weapon Training if they also did not roll any successes.

As for your katzbalger, I once put all of the TRoS weapons into the original BW weapon stats before the publication of TFoB, and thought I had done a pretty good job with it. Now though, I finally see the point of the BWr designer's view to not over complicate the Fight!

Saying that, I do reserve the right to submit a few tweaks down the road on long, medium, and short bladed swords, but otherwise, I really don't see the point. :wink:

[Thor Olavsrud]

Don't worry Tony, I'm not trying to stop you! :P

I just don't want this point to be lost: the mechanics of BW are more interested in the choices you make as far as what to do with your weapons than they are in what type of weapon you have.

[Durgil]

Don't worry Tony, I'm not trying to stop you! :P

I just don't want this point to be lost: the mechanics of BW are more interested in the choices you make as far as what to do with your weapons than they are in what type of weapon you have.
No problems, Thor. I understand what you're saying. :wink: