War axe vs Battle axe

[☯WK☯]

Which is better?

[TotallynotaBot]

Down to taste.
Battleaxe is more versatile,has decent range,has alt grip that changes its play style etc

War axe is more about getting up in peoples faces and lopping off heads.It has zero range but high damage and is fairly fast for how much damage it does.

Use both for awile to get the feel for which suits your play style best.

[ImHelping]

War axe feels more manly but you gotta learn to deal with the fact it's only like, 5cm longer than a shortsword (Most people you would think are "Doing Drags and Accels" are merely trying their best to hit you in the first place with such a short weapon).

Battle axe is the best at causing people to make "WHY DOESN'T LIGHT ARMOR LET ME RUN AWAY FASTER!?!?!" threads. Because everyone forgets it's one of the weapons that can decapitate in one hit through T1 hats.

Overall, I prefer the War Axe as much for style reasons. But the Battle Axe is the weapon I use to play around with the Rat perk (Now if only I could stomp smashing V constantly out of reflex).

[Bry]

Try the basic axe. All that delicious axe flavor, at a fraction of the calories.

[ImHelping]

Originally posted by Bry:

Try the basic axe. All that delicious axe flavor, at a fraction of the calories.

2 point axe is so hot.

I still use the Arming sword more, but I've been using the little axe even more of late. As much to fill in gaps with "Claimed PR statement meta vs reality meta"

Like bringing the 2 point axe with the 4 point mace. You can mewl "But mace kills in TWO HITS!" all you want. Axe is so fast, the fact it needs 3 hits vs full plate more than makes up for it, and it instant kills vs bare skulls, rather than the Mace's awkward "some of the worst headshot damage outside of joke/baby weapons 65 damage vs bare skulls.

And as always, the comedy factor that it deals more damage to chest full plate than the warhammer. No matter how many times people cry "But the warhammer's pointy side deals good headshot damage! (nevermind it's only 20 if you hit their shoulder instead).

Seriously, buff blunt damage TYPE. Eve star and maul are only good because they are HUGE, not their damage type.

[KingDaddy]

War has hilariously short range. I would go battle axe if I was picking between the 2.

[Bry]

Originally posted by ImHelping:

Originally posted by Bry:

Try the basic axe. All that delicious axe flavor, at a fraction of the calories.

2 point axe is so hot.

I still use the Arming sword more, but I've been using the little axe even more of late. As much to fill in gaps with "Claimed PR statement meta vs reality meta"

Like bringing the 2 point axe with the 4 point mace. You can mewl "But mace kills in TWO HITS!" all you want. Axe is so fast, the fact it needs 3 hits vs full plate more than makes up for it, and it instant kills vs bare skulls, rather than the Mace's awkward "some of the worst headshot damage outside of joke/baby weapons 65 damage vs bare skulls.

And as always, the comedy factor that it deals more damage to chest full plate than the warhammer. No matter how many times people cry "But the warhammer's pointy side deals good headshot damage! (nevermind it's only 20 if you hit their shoulder instead).

Seriously, buff blunt damage TYPE. Eve star and maul are only good because they are HUGE, not their damage type.

2 point axe is probably my favorite weapon. I take it with most builds with the intent to pick up a bigger weapon, but I often find I don't need to. Its speed and strike power make it a great weapon, especially if you know how to employ some decent footwork.

[Cat®]

While I prefer playing with the battle axe, the war axe simply has much better break points. It requires only one hit to the head against t0 and t1, and two against t2 and t3. It never takes more than two hits to kill an armoured opponent in the chest, and it will only require 3 strikes to kill someone if you hit them in the legs and they have heavy armour. Incidentally hitting them in the leg and then the chest will kill them as well.
Basically this weapon never faces an opponent it is not favourable to fight.

Now the battle axe has only 10 less damage against the chest of t3 than the war axe, but this translates to needing 3 hits to kill them unless you strike the head. It also does significantly less damage to legs which is what people for some reason neglect to shield currently. Basically unless you are hitting heads perfectly or fighting t0 and t1 you are going to need 3 hits to kill someone. That isn't hard because the battle axe is faster and has adjustable range, but in the end it comes down to the one great evil; that single extra point.

Since the battle axe costs 6, and the war axe only 5, I would pick the war axe every single time despite preferring the battle axe. It only requires 3 hits to kill if you intentionally play poorly, it one-shots more people, it's better against barricades, and it has the uncanny ability to transfer a leg sweep to a headshot. I have no idea why it is 5 points.

I'd say once the meta shifts away from 3\3\X the battle axe would be a better choice, but really, will it ever?