Marauder Attack Stance

I really really want to play a warrior/marauder as my primary class, but I just can't seem to get passed how he stands with an axe in his hands. It looks ridiculous. Particularly if you've ever even held an axe, let alone used one before. All they would have to do is rotate the character about 90 degrees and, ta-da, he doesn't look awkward anymore.

Does this bother anyone else? Is there enough of a response to gather some traction for the Devs?

Ridiculous: http://imgur.com/EnKzfq4,RGJYDGQ#0

Not Ridiculous: http://imgur.com/EnKzfq4,RGJYDGQ#1

I actually can barely focus on playing because I just keep staring at my dude thinking, "no one would ever hold a 2-handed axe like that..."

Is this really what you are worried about with Warriors?

rofl.... im with Dalok.. wtf xD

I'm not "worried" about anything. It's simply an aesthetic issue that aggravates me. All the "we aren't viable" wildfires are over dramatized considering the issues SE has had to deal with.

I think if you went into battle with the heavy end of any weapon pointed AWAY from your foe (as you seem to think is appropriate), you would be slaughtered by anything fast and light (like a rapier or katana). The original axe stance seems correct to me because you would need the axe head in front of you to parry or the bluntly strike your opponent, so you have an opportunity to wind up and attack.

I'm just extremely disappointed that Warriors' eyes don't glow red during combat, like Curious Gorge and other Warriors of old.

Actually the stance marauders/warriors currently have is a much more defensive way to hold an axe since it allows for a quick and blunt thrusting motion and sweeping motion to fend off attacks while still allowing for the wind up for an all offensive attack.

I'm with rpgbro on this'n. The stance doesn't bug me, but my eyes not glowing....

I want my 1.0 stances back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyen

I really really want to play a warrior/marauder as my primary class, but I just can't seem to get passed how he stands with an axe in his hands. It looks ridiculous. Particularly if you've ever even held an axe, let alone used one before. All they would have to do is rotate the character about 90 degrees and, ta-da, he doesn't look awkward anymore.

Does this bother anyone else? Is there enough of a response to gather some traction for the Devs?

Ridiculous: http://imgur.com/EnKzfq4,RGJYDGQ#0

Not Ridiculous: http://imgur.com/EnKzfq4,RGJYDGQ#1

---

it's called a defensive stance. You're a tank, not a DPS.

you probably think the defensive stance for a greatsword is stupid as well.

You'd actually end up using the butt-end of the axe to parry. The head would be too heavy and unwieldy to properly parry a blow, and you'd risk damaging the axe-head. And it's not exclusively the head that is to be used as a weapon either, the entire body of it would be able to be mobilized (for example, the feared "murder stroke" ended up turning a sword around and using the hilt as a cudgel).
Having the axe held in a way the OP suggest would give the user quick and easy access to mobilize the butt-end to parry/bash, while allowing for optimal force for swinging attacks with the head.

Not to mention a lot of your parrying and blocking is going to be exactly like wielding a quarterstaft, you'll be using the center of the weapon and not the axe head.

the stance we have now for marauder actually reflects a half sword fighting stance, which allowed the entire weapon to be used defensively and offensively with reletively little opening for the enemy to exploit.

It was mostly utilised due to the fact that heavy armor at that time had become too difficult to penetrade with cuts and so stabs and bludgeons had to be used more, you'd wrestle with the sword.

i digress a little, but still, the stance is possibly the most realistic of the weapon stances in the game.

For a sword. Which is true, armored sword fighting was closer to wrestling than anything you'd see in most movies.

But I've never heard of that being the way to hold an axe (granted, the only diagrams I've seen for axes were for pole-axes). Especially since that stance was used for thrusting, not slashing like an axe. Not to mention the heft that an axe brings with it should give it an inherently easier time getting through armour.

Yes, let's talk about "realism" in stances in a game with cat girls, elves, dragons and moogles and how that's somehow valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiteless

You'd actually end up using the butt-end of the axe to parry.

---

No, you wouldn't. Axes are designed to have their center of gravity incredibly lopsided. This allows you to have very powerful strokes with the axe since you're getting more weight behind the attack. The blunt end would be a *terrible* part to defend with because it would be easy to push around. On top of that, blocking with the haft is an equally bad idea because it's made of *wood*. Any steel weapon is going to completely demolish a wooden weapon if you actually try to block a blow (the same is generally true of swords; the only thing you really "blocked" with was a shield, because it was designed to block things, though the reason you didn't block anything with a sword was to protect the edge).

One of the primary tactical uses of an axe in combat, since it really doesn't take as much force as you'd think to cleave through someone (a full 2 handed blow was effectively overkill on any human sized target; the only time you'd use full wind up is when you need to take down something big, like a charging horse), was hooking and grabbing. Axes were given a crescent shape for multiple reasons, both to increase cutting pressure by reducing area of effect but also to allow for the "inner" edge of the crescent to hook around your opponent's weapon/shield/arm/leg/neck so that you can trip them or pull them off balance.

You can't do this effectively with the head held to the back, which is why you won't find any historical axe fighting guides that suggest you actually use it as your default stance. As as stance that you *shift* into, on the other hand (which the game actually does; look at the big attacks: they have the wind up desired *after* they use a quick stunning strike to given them time to do so), it's entirely appropriate, and stance shifting based upon your attacks is actually one of the most important things to learn when using medieval weapons: some are better for offense, some for defense, some are better for shifting into *other* stances, and some are where you're going to end up after the resolution of one of your attacks.

Quote:

---

the feared "murder stroke"

---

The murder stroke didn't use the pommel as the weapon. It used the guard, since it was, effectively, the shape of an axe and, based upon how you were supposed to hold the weapon for it, you were reversing the center of gravity such that you could get greater force, as previously mentioned. On top of that, it wasn't really used as a basic attack. It was a coup de grace for when you had your opponent down on the ground and already beaten. The more appropriate attack would be the counter parry where, when your blade was pushed to the outside, you swung in and punched with the pommel, using your opponent's weapon as a point of leverage.

It's also no as if Langschwert is the only school of sword combat. The English school of longsword combat is *completely* different, though much of that is based upon a difference of prioritization for defense over offense (Langschwert is *all* about offense; the English longsword is focused very heavily on defense) as well as equipment (Langschwert used a 2-handed sword and, sometimes, a buckler; the English longsword was intended for a 1-1.5 handed sword and shield).

Well the above guy just saved me a lot of typing. +1 good sir or 'mam.