Topic: Halberds bad? Why?

[CaptScott]

I like halberds because of fluff. That and the models are neat. Sure I might not win much in this edition. But a little birdy told me to wait until next edition.

Given the fluff aspect of halbs, and that alot of people prefer swords/spears, I can definitely see GW giving them a boost in 8th.  If only to make people go out and buy more state troop boxes.

[ZeroTwentythree]

After assembling & painting 70+ swordsmen, and approaching that number of spear/pike men, if they make those as useless as halberdiers are now, the only think I'll buy is some new nut-kicking boots for the developers.

Ideally (and I know, this is a bit of a dream world sort of wish) they'd make them all equally as useful, just in a different way.

I sometimes think that the developers must deny the existence/relevance of "mathhammer" the way some players do.

[Old Stonebeard]

While I don't deny the relevance of Mathhammer, I believe there's something to be said for taking what you enjoy and roll with it...

For example, I play an all-girl Sisters of Battle army in WH40K. If you go on Warseer and ask for Witch Hunter tactics, they'll tell you, mount all the girls in Rhino tanks and run them at the enemy as fast as you can. I don't; I mount two small, hard-hitting squads in flamethrower tanks, but there rest of my infantry footslog in units of 12. I have had an incredible amount of success with this list over the years, even tho, according to Warseerites, it is tactical suicide.

Don't not take Halbies jus' because they have such a bad rep; if you want 'em, see if you can' make 'em work despite the conventional wisdom

- Z

[ZeroTwentythree]

they'll tell you, mount all the girls in Rhino tanks

 


I suppose it's no less comfortable a place than a VW Rabbit...

[Old Stonebeard]

The girls are veeery friendly...

- Z

[Derek Contyre]

Lol,

I was gonna start a witch hunters army. . . But I realised the price 

[Old Stonebeard]

I got lucky and found a huge box of unopened blisterpacks for $20 around '03 or '04... its what got me into Warhammer, initially. So then I managed to get most of the rest of the army before they re-released them as Witch Hunters and jacked all the prices through the roof... ah, the curse of an all-metal army.

But, we're derailing ye olde thread, now

- Z

[Mathi Alfblut]

Sweet stuff, Zandur!
I am wondering when Soth is gonna tell me I shall finally ship his Sisters to him...

I made a regiment of 29 halberds. Looks awesome.

[Lord Solar Plexus]

While I don't deny the relevance of Mathhammer, I believe there's something to be said for taking what you enjoy and roll with it...

Absolutely. I do take Halberdiers. I do mix and match infantry with mechanized elements. I do take medium magic and so on. Sometimes, it doesn't matter at all because this supposed metagame is asleep or busy elsewhere. I do realize that it often needs some extra effort but hey.

All of that notwithstanding, it would be awfully nice if what looks cool and/or is cool conceptually is useful on the table, too. I don't think that is too much to ask.

Oh, and I opted for Stirland, so Halberdiers as parents fir much better than, say, a unit of Handgunners.

[Irisado]

Isn't that sad though?

It's more than that, I would say it's rather tragic myself.

I remember people used to make lists based more on the background than what was particularly effective.  Mayhap it's just the people I used to play with, I don't know.

No, I remember such times too, but GW's philosophy is so far removed from background oriented army composition now that background players have to find like minded people to play against (and they do still exist, in spite of GW's efforts), in order to have an enjoyable gaming experience.

As for Halberdiers, I still use mine, and they can work if you manage to get the charge with them, and support them with detachments, but defensively they really do struggle rather badly, so they are something of a glass cannon in my opinion.

[VladimirDeathblade]

I find a nice warrior priest helps make them nastier

That and a bit of sneaky tomfoolery with archer detatchments and flaggies to let me get the charge, and they can take on even orcs... With the help of their swords detachment to get rid of ranks, of course!

[ZeroTwentythree]

That's actually another point... the detachments. If you're running fairly small detachments and you rely on them to get rid of ranks and give you the flank bonus (accounting for a potential +4 CR vs. other ranked units), their most important duty is to stay in place and keep a minimum US5. Thus, unless they're capable of dealing out enough wounds to make the +4 CR irrelevant, you need something that's better at living than at killing. Any decent opponent is going to target the detachment first, especially if they're the easier target.

[Swan-of-War]

True Zero, but your Halberdier detachment will be striking first since they counter-charged.  A situation where their halberds will shine with Str 4.  In theory, this should limit the number of attacks back and offset the low armor disadvantage.

That said, I think every General on these boards should at least have one unit of Halberdiers.  I've started building mine this week.

[Mathi Alfblut]

Indeed! You ain´t gotten yourself a true Empire army before you got a hefty unit of halberdiers!
Good luck with your new regiment, Swan-of-War.

[ZeroTwentythree]

Actually, I'll retreat even further, state that WFB7th has been the death of rank & file troops, and that all state troops are near useless, it's only a matter of tiny degrees of difference. 

[Shadowlord]

Actually, I'll retreat even further, state that WFB7th has been the death of rank & file troops, and that all state troops are near useless, it's only a matter of tiny degrees of difference. 

Well in the tournament and competitive gaming you are spot on, and why I suspect the rumoured rules of basic infantery being crucial to win games in the next ed.

[Syn Ace]

It'd be nice if game performance matched the fluff.

I like all the different troop types, but I kind of wish GW required an army to have a minimum and a maximum of different troop types. A lot of historical games will do this -- like such and such an army has to take a minimum of  x amount of halberdier units. You might get more balanced games rather than everyone finding out what the most killy unit is and then fielding nothing but that. Can't remember the last time I saw a halberdier on a Warhammer battlefield in my area.

[Old Stonebeard]

Well in the tournament and competitive gaming you are spot on, and why I suspect the rumoured rules of basic infantery being crucial to win games in the next ed.

If that's the case, I'll be rocking down Electric Avenue with my all-core-choice Dwarf army

- Z

[Syn Ace]

Actually, I'll retreat even further, state that WFB7th has been the death of rank & file troops, and that all state troops are near useless, it's only a matter of tiny degrees of difference. 

Well in the tournament and competitive gaming you are spot on, and why I suspect the rumoured rules of basic infantery being crucial to win games in the next ed.

I hope this rumor is true!

[Skyros]

OK.  I think I understand.  Why does Emperor Karl Franz want every province to have a standing number of Halberdiers then?  Wierd.

The forces of chaos suborned one of the Emperor's trusted advisors and tricked him into issuing this decree.

Wormtongue to Theoden: "What Rohan needs is a large standing force of halberdiers!"

[Old Stonebeard]

And, just for lulz:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmNTKy8LJiY

The best part is, they're wearing about as much armor as the average State Trooper 

- Z

[Skyros]

It's not really halberds that are the problem as halberdiers.

Some halberd armed units do just great.

but empire halberdiers are not survivable enough to withstand much of a charge (+6 AS, toughness 3, WS3) nor really killy enough to punish the enemy when they charge (1 attack, strength 4, WS 3)

If halberdiers were WS4 I feel that would make a big difference. I would be much more likely to take them as detachments.

[Shadowlord]

I hope this rumor is true!

I think it is, mostly because of the rumours of better bonuses for outnumbering and an extra rank bonus, and the objective and mission thingies.

Also sales for larger blocks is one factor.

Over at Warseer, it seems that the most reliable rumour mongerers are removing O&G and Empire in the next starter set and including HE and Skaven instead (something with the fluff that Ulthuan is the only place Skaven tunnels don't exist on/in).

[Mathi Alfblut]

Yes, I read those rumours aswell. So no new cheap access to boost our precious Empire armies with more core.
Neither to get true bargain for starting a future greenskin army.
But I makes some sense in that it would boost the skaven sales. After all, getting decent sized skaven infantry units are expensive since they are cheap pointwise but have a bad ratio between that and money.

A BfSP NG style starter army would provide some exellent starting points, since enlarging the infantry units will not feel as costly as getting them to begin with.

And them Helf whiners will get cheap spears that will turn ROXOR next ed and will be followed by new boxes of HE infantry replacing Hamfists and his brothers.

Sigh... I guess I can make some new Eternal guards from those spears. But I wanted a cheap as dirt Warwagon or something. Or another regiment of stout halberdiers.

[ZeroTwentythree]

Over at Warseer, it seems that the most reliable rumour mongerers are removing O&G and Empire in the next starter set and including HE and Skaven instead

I'd actually really dig that. I've got the equivalent of a second Empire army unpainted, waiting in boxes in my basement. On the other hand, I can use some more Skaven.