Claymores

[raisildur]

Was just wondering, i had a little read through the rules but didnt see anything regarding the use of Claymores, because of the size of such weapons it makes it incredibly difficult to wield in such a small space, have you added this into the rules to give such a 2 handed beast a weakness?

[eBob]

Such a small space as what? I don't understand your question.
Claymores are two-handed swords, but they may be used in close quarters fighting without handicap.

[raisildur]

Swinging a two handed sword in a confined space (in a battle line) is difficult and harnesses the warrior from performing the strikes that he wants, im just saying that a "friendly units must be no closer than 1 inch to a model wielding a claymore" rule may be in order.

[eBob]

No, I disagree. In close combat the Claymore is used as a club. Using the pommel, the sword is punched into the enemy, the blade also has two areas that are not sharp so the blade can be held.

[raisildur]

Shouldnt its inability to work as a proper sword in close combat act as a negative modifier?, if i had a 3 foot long sword, id want to be able to swing it around, not just use the hilt and pommel to club and gouge

[scarandy]

the two handed sword was designed to be used as a defance and attacking weapon. usually the fights were over very quickly.

[eBob]

Too many rules for one sword would just be confusing and hard to remember. Best just to say it's a good weapon and better than a normal sword. You might have 20 or more battles going on at any given game turn - you won't want multiple rules for each weapon type.

If you were playing D&D or a similar role playing game and only had 1 warrior to worry about then you could go into more detail.

[Toshach]

I think the Claymore is fine as it is. Remember, "small-space" does not mean in a small room with a low ceiling. Most attacks were likely overhead to maximize the weight of the sword and to attack the most vulnerable spot on the enemy. A two-handed blow by such a heavy sword from the top would be very difficult to stop effectively. Even if the defender was able to haul his shield up over his head, his arm might still be injured or even broken by the impact, and the shield driven down onto him.

I imagine too, that the average wielder of a claymore was not a 97# weakling.

[Rab]

The slight problem here is that the claymore is a late 15th/16th century weapon. Prior to that some knights would have used two-handed swords, but the Highland charge of kilted claymore-wielders is from a far later period than 1300. Your common or garden highlander or isleman would have used single-handed swords, axes, spears etc.

Sorry.

[David Guest]

It's all an evolution. the word 'Kilt' doesn't appear until 15th century but plaid was word since Roman times similarly a 'Claymore' is a specific term used to describe the later two handed swords - but virtually identical swords were used before this. Strictly speaking Wallace didn't use a claymore, but he did use a virtually identical two handed sword.

Most of the eBob highlander models have short swords.

"Claymore: This type of sword was said to have been used by William Wallace, the legendary Scottish warlord portrayed by Mel Gibson in the 1995 movie, Braveheart. Although Wallace did use a large sword similar to a claymore, his was a bit different from the blades we normally think of when we hear the term claymore. The actual sword used by Wallace, on display in Stirling, Scotland, has no leather-wrapped ricassa and has a blade that angles to a more acute point. It is entirely possible that Wallace used a standard Claymore during his years of battle, but the sword that is regarded as his primary weapon is not the claymore most people think of."