In 8th we knew the clear difference between weapons - Hand weapons and shield wound on base strenght but gave an armour boost. - Halberds add'ed 1 strenght on cost of using two hands. - Greatweapons add'ed 2 strength on the cost of using two hands and getting "Always strike last". One was good as a can-opener One was good for defensive units Now we need to re-adjust, and I am not entirely sure on how to do so, as the game has changed. Take the Oldblood for instance When I look at his weapon options, I have no clue why I should pick one over the other. You will have the shield no matter what, and there is nothing that changes the speed in which you strike. This leads me to think that rend, damage and amount of attacks is what is the true difference, as to hit and to wound is more or less the same. Lets start by sorting by "potential damage" Suntooth maul: 6 dmg (on average 4dmg) warblade: 4dmg War-spear: 4dmg Greatblade: 4 dmg Potential damage doesn't vary that much, which means we have to look at hit and wound rolls. These however, baring the war-blade, is exactly the same. The values might be reversed, but to my knowledge this doesn't change the outcome in actual damage (Math me someone) We have range, but since you must be a fool to not pile into reach of 1'' the spears extra inch only helps if you want to hit something standing behind the front line So far only the suntooth and warblade makes sense (biggest potential dmg and best hit/wound scores) But when we take rend into account I would say everything BUT the warblade is viable. I see no reason not to go with the Suntooth Maul, as it potentially have the biggest output, and is on par with the others on rend. As there is so much "re-roll to hit and wound" in our army I think that those rolls become less important...but thats just me thinking in synergy outside these actual values. What is your thoughts? I really dont see that big a difference.