I thought that it would be better to make hammer knights charg-ey, not grind-ey.
Why did you think that? Lances are certainly more of a charging weapon over hammers. Hammers, romantically feel powerful on the charge, but really they are a bit more grindy than lances because they are not as long reaching and use less momentum.
Ho hum. hmmm.
Grinds are typically an infantry thing. It didn't seem to fit the role of a knight unit to be grindey, instead they do the make-it or break it charge. Especially core knights.
Isn't S4 in later rounds grindey-enough? I had thought it was, though now I am still unsure.
The AP of maces and morningstars and flails and similar weapons is represented in Warhammer by an addition to strength in the first rounds of combat. That could easily be represented by the +2S on the charge. AP doesn't exist on any other melee unit that I can think of, so I am very reluctant to implement it. That said, it seems to be by far the best (most balanced) option. Is this another one of those lesser of evils things I hate so much?
Perhaps we could make Cav. hammers +2 S on the first round of combat? Or is that too strong? It certainly removes the chargey-ness I was trying to preserve.
Laribold: You make a good point. KoWW aren't the only ones who use great weapons any more. Removing the orders thing entirely from the rules is definitely the best choice, though for nostalgia's sake I think I will still call them cavalry hammers.
Wow. This post contains too many questions.
On +1I, I don't think this is a reasonable, useful addition to the knights. Models without helmets often have the same initiative as same-race models with them. Helmets (excepting magical ones) rarely provide any advantage or disadvantage in Warhammer.