Return of Reckoning

YUKO wrote:The image you posted is a Executioner, a class unrelated to Blackguar. However the Blackguard should be able to use spear and shield if anything closeby.

As you can see (screenshot ^) having 2 hand sword is okay. Okay, for the GM. Mortal humans not allowed to have one.
I am just imaging why we can not have one too. Why it's forbidden

Becuase a blackguard a trademark weapon is a glaive and so from a lore prespective that why
No other real reason

Don't see why you would want to go 2h on a Bg any way, playstyle is weak

daniilpb wrote:

YUKO wrote:The image you posted is a Executioner, a class unrelated to Blackguar. However the Blackguard should be able to use spear and shield if anything closeby.

As you can see (screenshot ^) having 2 hand sword is okay. Okay, for the GM. Mortal humans not allowed to have one.
I am just imaging why we can not have one too. Why it's forbidden

It's okay if you're a Executioner, but you're not, you're a Blackguard. There's a wide difference.

The lore is important to maintain, and to respect, especially those who loves Warhammer fantasy. Much of the recent Skaven dungeon quests which Devs have so extremely good at to develop was taken out of the lore, with interesting backstory and set-up. Likewise it is extremely important that BG is not to becoming anything like the other classes and if anything BG should have spear and shield rather than just a polearm- and that would make BG more unique and complex much rather than mirroring towards SM.

TenTonHammer wrote:Becuase a blackguard a trademark weapon is a glaive and so from a lore prespective that why
No other real reason

Don't see why you would want to go 2h on a Bg any way, playstyle is weak

So GM spits on it, but we can`t, yes?
Can we have a choice? Choice of playstyle and apperiance just for justice.
If community can`t have it, so no one should have it. GMs are not an exception.

daniilpb wrote:

TenTonHammer wrote:Becuase a blackguard a trademark weapon is a glaive and so from a lore prespective that why
No other real reason

Don't see why you would want to go 2h on a Bg any way, playstyle is weak

So GM spits on it, but we can`t, yes?
Can we have a choice? Choice of playstyle and apperiance just for justice.
If community can`t have it, so no one should have it. GMs are not an exception.

Where exactly has GM spitted on Warhammer Online trademark? The game as we play has not changed the least, they're using a EMU to correct certain quests, skills and everything.

YUKO wrote:

daniilpb wrote:

TenTonHammer wrote:Becuase a blackguard a trademark weapon is a glaive and so from a lore prespective that why
No other real reason

Don't see why you would want to go 2h on a Bg any way, playstyle is weak

So GM spits on it, but we can`t, yes?
Can we have a choice? Choice of playstyle and apperiance just for justice.
If community can`t have it, so no one should have it. GMs are not an exception.

Where exactly has GM spitted on Warhammer Online trademark? The game as we play has not changed the least, they're using a EMU to correct certain quests, skills and everything.

Umm, he is using 2hand sword. Is it okay for trademark? Is he a chosen one?

Lore...lore...LORE. HA!

Don't make me laugh, this game stopped respecting the lore the moment it announced that it's going to have two major factions consisting of four races allied with each other.

Or when they decided to let male Sorcs running about (Malekith is the only male Dark Elf allowed to practice sorcery, all the others would get hunted down and mercilessly executed).

Or when they decided the White Lion should work around a pet Lion mechanic.

Or when they decided to have Swordmasters and Blackguards use anything aside from two handed weapons (they never wield swords or/and shields in lore)

Or when the Choppas received bigger models than the Black Orcs. Or basically all Elves had elite troops running around in their thousands. Or the different chaos gods and their worshippers uniting under the banner of Tzeentch and not butchering themselves in the streets of the Inevitable City.

The examples could go on, but seriously, the discussion should end after the first one. In any case, I think most of us stopped caring about the lore the moment we started playing this. I'm not saying we should accept things like having leader armours for players but alternate weapon models wouldn't hurt as long as they're easily recognizable.

In any case, arguing against it is pointless since Torquemadra has already stated that they're going to add executioner blades for the BG.

Also, friendly reminder.

The difference is those breaks in the lore where authorised by GW

The game was never lore friendly you couldnt keep greenskins from attacking their allies after a fight. I dont see why this server needs to be and I was a huge TT nerd.

Toldavf wrote:The difference is those breaks in the lore where authorised by GW

So were the concept art pieces I linked above your post

Murmur wrote:Also, friendly reminder.

Besides, GW only accepted them cause it meant more money for them. Everything the did after still contained the same lore they've originally written (up to End Times where the lore drastically changed and now AoS - which doesn't exist).

Like I said, there's no use arguing on this subject, we're getting the weapon in a few patches and that's that.