Is Longer Better?
 

All things being equal --- excluding ambidextruosity --- is a longer weapon always better than a shorter one? Or, it occurs to me, do longer weapons come with more encumbrance to balance?

Re: Is Longer Better?
 

Longer weapons don't come with any built-in encumbrance. There's often some form of att/def penalty on them, but yeah, the whole ability to fend off attacks is pretty big, and is the reason why axes, hammers etc. are basically bottom-of-the-barrel weapons, even dual-wielded.

To quote CEO Nwabudike Morgan, 'Gentlemen, disregard the words of your courtesans. Size does matter.'

Psh! Everybody knows it's how you use it. See those Broman Legionaries? They have skill with their short swords and I can tell you that they are very good at what they do.

Ohmygod, I should add Abroham Lincoln in a mod as a vampire slayer.

Re: Is Longer Better?
 

Once you go Black Halberd, etc...

Re: Is Longer Better?
 

i wonder if jon brave really wondered about in game effects, or just wanted to give you guys the greatest set up of all time...

Re: Is Longer Better?
 

:confused:? Of course I'm asking about in-game effects.

Re: Is Longer Better?
 

Longer is not necessarily better. A lot of women don't like it when you're banging up against their cervix. It can make coitus painful.

Re: Is Longer Better?
 

dude that's gross as hell, who uses a spear on a cervix

Re: Is Longer Better?
 

Repel sadly makes very little difference in most situations, don't make it a major strategic consideration. Most arguments for repel being useful is wishful thinking and it has been extensively discussed over the years.

There are some exceptions. First repel can be useful for a SC or thug to defend against the spell swarm, this depends on the thug/SC in question having a high attack score. The reason is of course that dragonflies have only 1 hp and are instantly killed by the repel.

Second, units with very high attack scores combined with a fire bless and long weapon can sometimes score enough repels to matter, one example is EA Ulms steel warriors with fire bless against length 2 and below weapons. I'm sure there is other examples.

My theory for why repel has so much weaker impact than you would expect in theory, is that most regular troops with long weapons have mediocre attack scores. If you tried making pikeneers with 20 attack you could see what happens to the amount of repels.

Re: Is Longer Better?
 

Interesting, two questions about repel:

1) Does flaming weapons work (deal damage in addition to repel damage)

2) Can one-use only weapons (like lances) be used to repel attacks? Then it seems like demon knights could get good use out of it, with lances + fear making the extra morale check more valuable.

Re: Is Longer Better?
 

I think it's more the att/def differential that counts, rather than just the repeller's attack score. If so, darkvision might be a good substitute for high attack occasionally.

Now that I think about it - the one and only time I've seen mass repel used effectively was by basalt spear-equipped Deep Ones (supported by Kokythiads spamming Terror from behind) fighting Niefel giants, with Darkness on. The Deep Ones by themselves didn't do much damage to the Earth-blessed, regenerating giants, but it was almost comical to watch the little guys' repels connecting consistently (thanks to their 100% darkvision, and the Niefels' lack of), and the big blue guys failing their morale checks just as consistently (I think they were starving and fighting out of dominion as well, it certainly didn't help them.)

All that just because Niefel giants think that Jotun spears are for pussies and use shorter axes instead.

Re: Is Longer Better?
 

Now that we seem to be back on the track of the OP (after a weird digression), if we assume different length weapons possess similar stats, then all other things being equal I should select the longer, right...?

Re: Is Longer Better?
 

For shizzle.

Re: Is Longer Better?
 

Thank you! (Though I had to Google to understand your word!)