In this case your opponent is cheating, nowhere in the Bezerker profile is a hand weapon listed.

I stand corrected (what a waste of space that elven glaive rule is), luckily i play with friends and we play it as have a 2h use a 2h.
Thank you for the page reference.

Makes perfect sense to swap weapons from turn to turn.

Not to mention we all have to agree that's what the rules say you can do!

For starters, many heroes (eg. Gimli) have multiple weapons.
Archers can swap to close combat.
Men on horseback can dismount and swap weapons.
I don't see what the problem is?

From a points perspective, they aren't really costing you more than your opponent.
For example, check out an Elf Warrior and a Warrior of Numenor, same points value, but look at the stats.

In medieval times (and I assume today too) warriors change weapons depending on their enemy.

I've always kinda assumed the Elven Glaive rule was mostly for flavour and also their higher fight score kinda implied to me that they were particularly good at fighting as the opportunity presented itself, one handed or two handed.

_________________
My LotR and 40k blog, Realm of Battle board, dwarves, gobs, space wolves and battle reports. http://simbattleboard.blogspot.com/

There was a time when Elven Blade rule did make sence. In the old rules warriors with 2H weapons couldn't use 1H weapons, so Elven Blades made elves special!

_________________
/Linkan
http://lotr.bandysidan.nu

I agree entirely. Elven blades are now no different to any other 2-hand weapon. It also makes bladed bows a little pointless as well (though, I suppose they always were). I prefer the little bit of variety the game gets by letting your 2-hand weapon guys carry nothing else (while saving a point under my own house rule). As a result, I like to enfore WYSIWYG for hand weapons. This means that when I play as dwarves I always field both my metal 2-hand axe wielding dwarves (the plastic ones carry visible hand weapons as well!)

I always play with orcs having 2H weapons that they only use 2H weapon. It makes it a bit more interesting IMO.

_________________
"War does not determine who is right, only who is left."
- Bertrand Russel

What's the point of two handed weapons, if you don't use them?

Err.. you do use them just not all the time.

_________________
"War does not determine who is right, only who is left."
- Bertrand Russel

I generally play if its got a 2 handed weapon in its hand, then that is what its using unless it is CLEARLY specified in its entry. (not like those dodgy Berserkers in my previous topic) An example would be Gimli, whose profile cleary says he carries his large 2 handed axe and an assortment of smaller axes (hand weapons).

Thats not the exact entry just trying to make a point; but like many areas of the rules, everyone can interpret them how they wish.

_________________
Sun is by sea-men always hoped for,
when they fare away over the fishes' bath,
until the brine-stallion they bring to land.
OERP

It's not an interpretation though, the rules say "All warriors carry a hand weapon." - Page 42. It can't really be clearer than that

Further on the page it then goes on to say "some may be unarmed and if this is the case will be clearly specified in it's entry." Again, pretty clear.

The berserker does not say its unarmed and therefore has a hand weapon. This has also been clarified in FAQ's

Well problem solved.

It's very hard to look in the rulebooks you know..

Yes I know the problem has already been solved. I was just pointing out what rules I tend to use; which emphasised before. It can't have been that clear or else the problem wouldn't have been asked in the first place, and there wouldn't be 2 pages of replies.

I am aware the rules have been clarified and that it is in the rulebook.

_________________
Sun is by sea-men always hoped for,
when they fare away over the fishes' bath,
until the brine-stallion they bring to land.
OERP

Now i think you are taking that too far. Saying all warriors carry a handweapon is simply stating that nobody is unarmed unless it specifically states unarmed. If the model has a handweapon LISTED in its profile along with a 2h weapon then sure it can swap, but if it doesnt have a hand weapon listed and carries a 2h weapon then it only has a 2h weapon.
Uruk-Hai Bezerkers DO NOT carry hand weapons.

I'm sorry, but that actually is the rule these days. In the days of the Return of the King, they did need a hand weapon to be explicitly mentioned to count as having one, but now everyone has one. I personally don't like it, but that is the rule. Nothing stopping you from using a house rule if your regular opponents agree, of course.

Good grief man, just go read the FAQ already. I know the argument is new to you, but it's actually been resolved for a few years now. And fwiw, hithero has been around here for ages and to the best of my knowledge has never been wrong yet.

and which FAQ might that be? The one with this question:
"Q: Some profiles imply that a warrior doesn't have a hand weapon - for example, those for Elf Warriors say they have "no equipment" in their base profile. Does that mean they're unarmed?
A: All models have a hand weapon unless they're specifically described as being "unarmed". So elf warriors do have hand weapons."

Is this the line which you think resolves this issue? Because in my mind it does not. It simply resolves the issue behind models with no melee weapons listed in their profiles without the "unarmed" tag attached. It mentions nothing about models already armed with melee weapons and you should not assume it applies to them because they were not part of the original question.

So unless there is another FAQ which addresses this problem directly you can have your interpretation and ill have mine.

Hithero has pointed out exactly where in the rule book you can find the answer to this (I assume he is referring to the "The Lord of The Rings Rulebook", which is the most recent):

Anc, you are trying to put a condition to the rule that doesn't exist to make it fit your point of view. If the 'all have hand weapon rule' was mean't to exclude those already with some other weapon then it would have said so. An example of this can be found in the Clansman of Lamedon profile where it stipulates that he does not have an alternative hand weapon for his two-handed weapon.

Questions carry on or get repeatedly asked because players do not read or do not believe the written rule, this is a big problem when those who answer rules querries don't check before replying. The biggest example ever is wild wargs counting as cavalry; every month this will get asked because the player doesn't believe the writing on the page or does not know the definition of cavalry.

So how many profiles are there which have a 2h weapon in it but don't have a hand weapon in their profile? Im not talking about the option to take a 2h, i mean models who get a 2h included in their base profile.
I only have the main rule book so i could only find the Uruk-Hai bezerkers with only 2h weapon listed. Everything else in the book had a hand weapon listed. (the elves in there dont count as they were covered in the FAQ).

Looks like a pretty clear intention to me that Uruk-Hai bezerkers are only armed with 2h weapons. You are taking the rule on page 42 too literally.
Anyway i know you wont see it this way and i wont see it yours, im going to have to agree to disagree