Here's a question.. many Vikings (circa 1000 CE) used a broad axe as a personal weapon (rather than a sword). Supposedly, a warrior armed with this weapon was capable of decapitating a horse with one stroke. Does the Hand Axe archetype accurately convey this capability?

Sneaky Git wrote: Here's a question.. many Vikings (circa 1000 CE) used a broad axe as a personal weapon (rather than a sword). Supposedly, a warrior armed with this weapon was capable of decapitating a horse with one stroke. Does the Hand Axe archetype accurately convey this capability?

Jake Norwood wrote: Honestly, this sounds mythological to me.

I know that various forms of hand axe were used massively by the vikings, but no axe with a head wide enough to decapitate a horse would be functional in the real world.

My understanding of the Norseman's axe was that it was a two-handed war axe that could fell a horse with one blow, a very different thing than outright decapitation, noteworthy because of how often Vikings on foot faced cavalry opposition.

Best,

Blake

OTOH, I'm betting this is a better weapon for chopping wood than people.

Mokkurkalfe wrote: OTOH again, axes where common partly because of how common it was as a tool. They used it for everything; ship building, board making, fighting, woodcutting and so forth.

Mike Holmes wrote: I completely agree. I'm just poointing out how such a generalized tool may not be particularly effective as a weapon. Just a bit unwieldy in the heat of combat. But fine for calm swings at logs.

Vikings used the sword, if they had a choice. However, the poor lad on the farm going to plunder England probably has to take his spear or axe.
Some think that the viking travels started because of overpopulation. Thus, somebody without land goes of to kill the christian man.
I'm not sure if the axes they wore in battle where specialized or general purpose. However, it was cheaper than the (preferred) sword, as where the spear.

Okay.. let me see if I can clear things up. After a little research, I've discovered that I'm talking about the broad axe, also known as the Dane-Axe. First seen during the 10th century CE, it was introduced by the Danes and adopted by the Saxons. The blades from existing museum pieces are of lighter (less bulky) construction than one-handed axes, and one theory is that they were derived from axes used to slaughter animals, rather than chop wood. These weapons had cutting edges between 9"-18" and had a long (4'-6') haft of ash (no one-handed use here!).

The Bayeux Tapestry and accounts from the Battle of Hastings depict these axes (wielded by Saxon huscarls) cleaving through both men (mailed Norman knights) and horses. This was a fearsome weapon, indeed!

Obviously, one would be unable to make use of a shield in concert with this weapon, leaving one relatively vulnerable to missile attack (and the odd spear thrust, etc.). I cannot see anyone doing this out of necessity.. as arming yourself with a shield and short thrusting spear would be cheaper (or at least close in cost). It seems to me that one would choose (rather than be forced) to wield such a weapon.. and that being the case, wouldn't it be safe to expect that the weapon worked?

So.. back to my original question. The Hand Axe archetype.. a little on the soft side for this weapon? Or does it cover such a weapon as this (two-handed)?

Now, I will also be the first to admit that I really have no idea what a poleaxe is.. so could that be used to simulate a broad axe? Or are they completely different?

You're definitely looking for a poleaxe. Definitely.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: You're definitely looking for a poleaxe. Definitely.

Just picked up the game, so I don't have much of a feel for the mechanics yet.

While using poleaxe stats would certainly be adequate for handling broadaxes (and perhaps bardiches, etc), historically they were two fairly different weapons. In a viking type campaign, it could be worthwhile to come up with separate stats for the latter.

I was thinking, maybe something along the following lines...

Danish Broadaxe

• Grip, Length: 2H, Long• ATN: 6• DTN: 8• Damage: ST+3c• Notes: as for Hand Axe



Some of the thinking/assumptions behind this...

Long, approx. 12" axe blade on about a 5' haft. The blade is extremely thin and light however, solely a weapon, and not intended for use as a tool--therefore, actually a bit quicker in use than a Hand (Battle) Axe.

Lacking the langets/foregrip of the later period Pole Axe, as well as the armour defeating pick/hammer. Therefore, a bit quicker, but lacking the defensive capability, 'half-sword-like' abilities, and heavy armour penetration.

Often used for 'hooking'--including pulling aside shields.

A truly fearsome weapon, but one geared towards the offensive, and requiring a fearless warrior to wield it in battle.

Note: Given the great sweep required, I was also considering raising the DTN to 9--halfway between the 1H and 2H Hand Axe. But, I thought the longer haft would allow some 'staff-like' maneuvers that would bring it back on par (at least) with the 2H Hand Axe.

Thoughts?

Activity seems to have picked up (because GenCon ended?) so I thought I'd bump this to get some feedback from those more familiar with the system.

Is the above reasonable, or is there some problem with it that I'm overlooking?

Thanks.

Depending on the weight of the axe and it's manueverablitly I'd jack up the ATN to 7, but only maybe. Other than that, it looks good.

Jake

Given that the length is given as long and the weapon is clearly for swinging I think the ATN could indeed be moved to 7.

In our game at Gen Con I was playing a Savraxen armed with one of these axes using the Pole Axe stats. Damage of STR+3 is seriously nasty. I was longing for an ATN of 6 in my game...because then I would have been a truly mighty death dealing machine.

I would LOVE to have a brutal damage axe wielding Frisian with an ATN of 6 to chop down those rapier guys like firewood...but it would really make the axe very devastating from a game perspective.

The DTN of 8 might help to mitigate this though...would have to play it out to know for sure...it would ensure that such weapons would have to be used in a truly aggressive berserker style which might itself be interesting to fight against.

How does your description of a broadaxe differ from the in-game description of the halberd, minus the pointy top?

I also don't agree that a pole with an axe head (any kind) should have an ATN of 6. In-game, that's reserved for the short staff, quarterstaff, and spear, and I think that's the defining feature of those weapons versus other forms of polearms.

-Jeff

Fair enough :)

I'll go over some of my thinking behind it...

I envision it being in the Axe and Mass Weapon category, rather than the pole arm category--so the ATN isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility.

My original thought was to treat it as a 2H Hand Axe with damage increased to ST+3c, but then I thought, "Why would anyone choose it over the Pole Axe with its lower DTN and armor piercing capabilities?". Of course, you could simply make it inferior, especially since the Pole Axe wasn't a contemporary of it in early periods--but I wanted there to be some reason to choose one over the other if they do exist side by side in a campaign.

Compared to the Halberd, it would tend to be a bit shorter and with a lighter head, thereby making it a more wieldy weapon. I can see it being less useful in a defensive role however, so perhaps the DTN could be raised to 9. The only problem there, is that I don't see the 2H Hand Axe being a better defensive weapon--but I could concede the point for balance if it's neccessary.

All in all, it's certainly open to a lot of interpretation--much of which is highly subjective.

My prefered version would be the one I presented, but if it proved to be unbalanced, I might go with the following...

DANISH BROADAXE

• 2H, long• ATN: 6• DTN: 9• Damage: ST+3c• Notes: as for Hand Axe

Hello Kviks,

In truth, TRoS isn't concerned with balance. If a weapon is inferior, give it inferior stats. If it's equal, then give it equal stats. If it's superior... You get the message, I'm sure.

Fact is though.. You're giving it an ATN of 6, which puts it on par with most swords for speed and ease of use in the attack. I think the objections to the stats were based on the reality of it. It doesn't seem very feasible that a large axe is going to have the ease and speed of a sword. Even if it did, it would be necessarily much lighter, which would kill it's mass, and therefore much of it's damaging capability. Fact is though.. With my recent experience with a poleaxe, it and many other such mass weapons do not have anything resembling the balance of a good sword. They are very much tip-heavy. Nothing like this could even compare with a sword in ease of use, and the primary virtues it would have would be sheer mass and damaging capability.

Hey Wolfen,

I guess my response to that would be that quickness and ease of use are only a couple of the things that go in to ATN. The Mace, for example, has an ATN of 6, but it's hardly a finesse weapon.

Part of the sword's handiness is reflected by its generally superior DTN--it's responsive and relatively easy to get in to position to defend. It's also versatile, and easy to carry.

As I see a lot of the mass weapons, their ATNs are pretty good, there's not a lot of finesse involved, but it's pretty simple to swing one, and they're hard to brush aside with anything but a solid defensive maneuver. However, they are not responsive, and are therefore difficult to get in to position to defend.

Anyway, that's how I envision things working, and I'm trying to come up with stats that reflect these perceptions--as I said, it's all very subjective and open to individual interpretation.

Thanks all for the feedback!