Warhammer

[Moderator]

11:17, 8th May 2016
The_Silent: Not sure if this is upside down, haha. Always thought the hammerhead was the weapon, and not the spike. Although the spike makes a lot more sense I guess. Anyway, interpretations is not preventing this from being approved. Good job!

 

[aeman]

It's hammer time. This hammer reminds me of some games

 

[Legal_Ease]

Noice! Simple but useful. I like it!

 

[Arad MNK]

Neat and lovely.

 

[General Frank]

Lovely model, cool adaptation from Diablo.

But isn't that model backwards? I mean, you are supposed to hit things with the blunt end, aren't you?

 

[Blood Raven]

Lovely model, cool adaptation from Diablo.

But isn't that model backwards? I mean, you are supposed to hit things with the blunt end, aren't you?

Actually no, the blunt part is only there to add weight so the spike pierces more efficiently. There were actually only a few medieval weapons that are blunt, most are piercing/shashing, because blunt weapons were heavy, slow and not very effective against armor, and piercing weapons were usually superior.

 

[General Frank]

Actually no, the blunt part is only there to add weight so the spike pierces more efficiently. There were actually only a few medieval weapons that are blunt, most are piercing/shashing, because blunt weapons were heavy, slow and not very effective against armor, and piercing weapons were usually superior.

I see.

 

[SNIper of DARKness]

I see.

Even the typical mace wasn't just a block of iron on a stick, some had thicker "blades"/sharpies and as you know some had spikes (Morning Star).

Though that obviously doesn't mean there weren't blunt weapons at all, even in this example the blunt part could be used, it all depends on the situation.
Blunt weapons were "favoured" against Plate Armour as blades could "Theoretically" just slide by (there are obviously variables), but just as example you would have a better chance hitting a Pig face Bascinet with a Hammer (even with that there could be a bounce).