Battleaxe worth it?

[Decipher]

NEW HOUSE RULE for me: If engaged in combat, the player may NOT switch from a currently equipped weapon to a different weapon he is carrying.

[knightkrawler]

I do that, too.

[chaoticprime]

I let them switch, otherwise 9/10s of the information in the game is useless. Also, what would the logic be in still allowing potions to be used at any time?

[Daedalus]

Switching equipment is allowed in the game without restriction, but many Evil Wizard players prefer to sensibly limit this to varying degrees.

I wouldn't say it's allowed as much as the rules simply doesn't cover this issue.

Is switching allowed because the rules doesn't explicitly forbid it?
Or isn't it allowed because there isn't an explicitly explained mechanic in the rules?

Compare it to wielding two shields. Is it allowed? Well...?

Hah! That's a good one--dual-weilding shields. You never see that in movies or read of it in literature, of course, while switching weapons is pretty common. But your point is made, everything that isn't stated isn't necessarily allowed. I would have done better to say changing weapons isn't prohibited by the Instruction Booklet [edit] rules. My take is different, so I instead made a basically positive statement about it. I think the line that knightkrawler quoted from page 14 had reinforced my belief in this, but I can also see how it could be taken to prohibit dual-weilding, too. I think it comes down to what feels right to the individual.

Aside from the useful basis of your objection, I'd say the dual-wield shield example is sufficiently prohibited in the Armory descriptions of both chainmail and plate mail: "May be combined with the Helmet and/or Shield." All of the allowable combinations with mail armor are stated here, and they are singular (nonplural) pieces: 1 armor, 1 helmet, and 1 shield. Equipping 2 shields is out, just as are equipping 2 helmets, 2 chain mails, 2 plate armors, or 1 chain mail and 1 plate mail together.

If you wanted, it could be said that if the shield and/or helmet was equipped without chain mail or plate mail restrictive text, then it would be possible to equip a second shield. This would rest on the basis that there isn't a description in the Armory contradicting these non-mail inclusive combinations. However, this would go against the original premise that there must be an explicitly stated rule to support it--and that's not what you are saying. I'm not sure if this is all clear, but does it really matter? I'm just responding to the nerd challenge. Such are the rules we play by.

[Daedalus]

If you allow for the expansions, there is a precedent in the rules for switching weapons. A Mercenary Crossbowman may switch from a crossbow to a shortsword when adjacent to a monster. Took me a bit to remember that one. Where is Blackthorn when he's needed?

[Goblin-King]

But even then, that is a special rule regarding mercenaries. It STILL takes some interpretation to make the leap.
Also the EU crossbowman can't do this!

[Daedalus]

Fast response. Man, we spend too much time here! Already found the EU error while checking the card and just edited it.

[knightkrawler]

And you say it correctly: it's an error.
Like many many things in the European rules and card texts...

[Blackthorn]

I didnt really give it much thought up till then about switching weapons. But, in the long run it didnt really affect the outcome of the game.

There you go! You can argue this point, try your best to interpret the rules as written, develop a bunch of extra rules to make it more "realistic", but in the end does it really make that much of a difference? I made it a house rule that switching weapons costs a hero one action. Makes sense, right? Then the crossbow wielding elf, a veteran of an many an adventure, was ambushed by a wandering monster. He kept trying to disengage so he could fire his ranged weapon, but eventually he spent an action to switch to his shortsword once cornered. His brave tale ended there and all of his equipment and treasure were lost to the monster that dealt the fatal blow...and all for the sake of realism in what is by design a simplified abstract of dynamic hand-to-hand combat. Phooey! Back to simplicity for me...let 'em switch weapons.

Daedalus mentioned earlier in this thread how the mercenary crossbowman can switch from a crossbow to a shortsword when adjacent to a monster in the BQP. Yes, this is a NA rule, but the EU man-at arms crossbowman can fire at an adjacent foe, can he not? It never says he can't, and this restriction seems to apply only to a hero wielding a crossbow as outlined on the equipment card. Otherwise, what is the crossbowman to do when cornered? As my unfortunate elf discovered, there is only so much room in the dungeon to disengage during combat.

Summary: Orc down the hall=crossbow. Orc in the next square=sword/axe. Switch as needed, use 'em if you got 'em.

[TMU]

We play so that the player can only take two weapons to the quest, so the switching of the weapons is a free action