Topic: By Goodness !! I think I may have solved the Halberdiers problem !

[Northern Child]

"Halberdiers are the most numerous state soldiers, thanks to the Emperor's requirement that each Elector Count maintain a standing force of Halberdiers..."

In turn each Elector expects the Barons, estates and towns in his province to raise their own standing force for their own protection and to be called on in times of war.

These regiments of well drilled soldiers are often raised from a single town. As halberd and armour is passed from father to son, a new generation of friends, brothers and cousins volunteer for service together to protect their families or in search of riches and adventure. Though they may never posses the training or equipment of some of the more elite State soldiers from the cities such as Nuln, these locally raised regiments form a strong bond with their detachments meaning that whenever the regiment is called to war their "battle brothers" inevitably follow.

Battle Brothers

Any Halberdiers unit may take a single detachment worth up to a quarter of the points cost of the unit (Including upgrades, but not character or magic items) for free.

This detachment may be of Halberdiers, Free company or Archers.

A second detachment of any type may be added as usual representing the general supplementing the regiment with more skilled soldiers or less common weapons.

For example:

A Regiment of 20 Halberdiers costing 100 points may take a 25pt detachment for free i.e. 5 free company

A regiment of 28 Halberdiers with Full Command costing 160 points may take a detachment worth 40pts for free i.e. 8 Halberdiers or 5 archers.

Hopefully this does a couple of things:

1 - It gives Halberdiers a points break in a similar style to dark elf spearmen.

2- It makes halberdiers, particularly in large regiments with command, more appealing without reducing the effectiveness of other units

3 - Limiting the detachments available for the free detachment to Malitia and Halberdiers feels fluffy for "Local regiments" and prevents the rule being to overpowering.

4 - Because it does not alter the Halberd itself, it will not boost the Black Guard (God forbid!) and the like. It simply gives the empire Halberd a fluffy boost.

Do people think this could work ?

[Perforated]

Do people think this could work ?

Yeah, if Halberdiers option for shields are replaced with Heavy armour. Otherwise, no...

[patsy02]

Apply this to Swordsmen and Spearmen and you've made them competitive. But Halberdiers need something more.

It is a really good idea though.

[Ganymede]

Do people think this could work ?

Yeah, if Halberdiers option for shields are replaced with Heavy armour. Otherwise, no...

How do you plan on the average gamer modelling heavy armor on their halberdiers without extensive conversion or expensive kitbashing?

[Perforated]

How do you plan on the average gamer modelling heavy armor on their halberdiers without extensive conversion or expensive kitbashing?

How do you plan on the average gamer modelling full plate armor on their plastic great swords without extensive conversion or expensive kitbashing?

[patsy02]

Do people think this could work ?

Yeah, if Halberdiers option for shields are replaced with Heavy armour. Otherwise, no...

How do you plan on the average gamer modelling heavy armor on their halberdiers without extensive conversion or expensive kitbashing?

Agreed. There are better and fluffier things to do with halberdiers than throwing +1 AS on them and calling it a day.

[Union General]

I'd take S4 any day! 

[Perforated]

Agreed. There are better and fluffier things to do with halberdiers than throwing +1 AS on them and calling it a day.

Well, let's put it this way, no matter if it's fluffy or not no sane person will take halberdiers over swordsmen even with a free 40pt detachment.

Why?

Because they will die in droves, 6+ AS combined with WS3 is doing them no favours S4 or not. They will still lose the combat versus the very much average WS4 enemies out there.

So, fluffwise the Halberdier should be in every army, the reason they are not is because they are pretty much worthless as parent units. So how do we fix that?

1. Make sure they survive by providing some more armour (and the conversion argument doesn't apply as I've quite clearly pointed out with the plastic greatswords)

2. Give them some nice special rule that sets them apart from the other state troops.

[Blauer Nebel]

4WS and heavy armor upgrade instead of shields. 0-1 Core. Can only be a parent unit if upgraded in this way.

Swordsmen still have the higher armor in close combat as well as the 4 Initiative, but the Halberdiers would still be useful for fluffier armies. It might not be as competitive, but at least people wanting halberdier wouldn't be wasting the points.

[Perforated]

4WS and heavy armor upgrade instead of shields. 0-1 Core. Can only be a parent unit if upgraded in this way.

Swordsmen still have the higher armor in close combat as well as the 4 Initiative, but the Halberdiers would still be useful for fluffier armies. It might not be as competitive, but at least people wanting halberdier wouldn't be wasting the points.

So now we can have only one unit of Halberdiers? That's... even worse, but I agree on principle on the "veteran upgrade you propose", but it should not prevent normal halberdiers from taking detachments.

[Blauer Nebel]

I meant limiting it to one veteran halberdier unit. You can have as many as you want, but only one veteran one that cannot be used as a detachment (like IC, but not Special). They can have detachments, but cannot be detachments (like Greatswords - they're veterans, after all).

[Perforated]

I meant limiting it to one veteran halberdier unit. You can have as many as you want, but only one veteran one that cannot be used as a detachment (like IC, but not Special). They can have detachments, but cannot be detachments (like Greatswords - they're veterans, after all).

My bad, it makes a lot more sense that way. Still, the 0-1 thing is something of the past if the latest army books are anything to go by, so some other fix for that is in order, perhaps one per 2000 points.

[Blauer Nebel]

Then they're Special. Unless you have a General of the Empire (formerly Elector Count), in which case you may take one - and only one - as a Core choice. Ta-da. Used the whole Warrior Priest/Flaggie rule.

[Ganymede]

1. Make sure they survive by providing some more armour (and the conversion argument doesn't apply as I've quite clearly pointed out with the plastic greatswords)

The plastic greatswords look like they are wearing full plate armor to me.

If you want to go that route, why not simply allow the halberdiers (and possibly spearmen, for that matter) to benefit from the parry special rule as if they were armed with a hand weapon and shield? That'll give you your 5+ save in melee combat without the connundrum of having a light armored halberdier that is actually in heavy armor.

[Inarticulate]

Well I think the easiest way to get round the no heavy armour is for GW to replace those disgusting new models.

[Rodman49]

I think this rule is a little too complicated - I feel they need an upgrade to themselves, not the addition of free units.

[patsy02]

Well, let's put it this way, no matter if it's fluffy or not no sane person will take halberdiers over swordsmen even with a free 40pt detachment.

Why?

Because they will die in droves, 6+ AS combined with WS3 is doing them no favours S4 or not. They will still lose the combat versus the very much average WS4 enemies out there.

I am aware of this. I simply think that giving them heavy armour makes no sense and is a poor solution compared to the many other suggestions out there.

(and the conversion argument doesn't apply as I've quite clearly pointed out with the plastic greatswords)

You say that because greatswords look lightly armoured when compared to their rules we can just ignore both state troop fluff and range of miniatures? You haven't clearly pointed out anything.

[Ganymede]

(and the conversion argument doesn't apply as I've quite clearly pointed out with the plastic greatswords)

You say that because greatswords look lightly armoured when compared to their rules we can just ignore both state troop fluff and range of miniatures? You haven't clearly pointed out anything.

I agree... his argument is basically that inconsistency is ok as long as the inconsistencies are consistent. What kind of argument is that?

[Perforated]

The plastic greatswords look like they are wearing full plate armor to me.

If you want to go that route, why not simply allow the halberdiers (and possibly spearmen, for that matter) to benefit from the parry special rule as if they were armed with a hand weapon and shield? That'll give you your 5+ save in melee combat without the connundrum of having a light armored halberdier that is actually in heavy armor.

Well, you really should study what the term Full plate armour means.

Full plate is plate armour that covers the entire body of the wearer, the plastic greatswords do not have Full plate armour by that definition, their armour is more in line with the Almain rivet which do offer very good protection but not on the same level as a full plate.

The common Empire soldier is wearing armour very similar to Munition armour which is mass produced armour made from lower quality materials. Depending on the actual setup this could include both light and heavy armour.

As far as I'm concerned the types of armour in warhammer would be of the following types:

Light armour (one of the following + helmet)
Leather, riveted leather, chainmail jacket

Heavy armour (one of the following + helmet)
Chest plate, chainmail hauberk

4+ armour (a combination of the following)
Full plate, helmet, chainmail, leather

So by that definition most Empire state troops are wearing something between light and heavy armour.

You say that because greatswords look lightly armoured when compared to their rules we can just ignore both state troop fluff and range of miniatures? You haven't clearly pointed out anything.

I'm not ignoring any fluff, there is no fluff in the Empire book that says that State troops can only wear light armour.

I agree... his argument is basically that inconsistency is ok as long as the inconsistencies are consistent. What kind of argument is that?

If inconsistencies are consistent they make the norm. Just look at the current range of miniatures. Outriders/Pistoliers are almost wearing full plate, Greatswords are wearing something in the line of heavy armour and state troops are wearing something between light and heavy armour depending on the particular model.

So yes, I've pointed it out enough clearly enough.

[Ganymede]

If inconsistencies are consistent they make the norm.

Dude, that's madness. The prevalency of errors is never their own justification.

The problems with your position are twofold (threefold, if you count your attitude problem). For one, and despite the cognitive blocks of your preconcieved notions of what is and isn't heavy armor, state troops are armed with light armor and that's what people associate with when they look at the state troop figures. Whether or not it looks heavier or lighter than it should is absolutely immaterial.

Secondly, there is no feasable way to up-armor halberdier models that are equipped with heavy armor. Such produces a WYSIWYG problem. When someone sees a unit of 'bog standard' halberdiers composed of bits found on their own sprue, an opponent will assume that they are armed with light armor as that's what they are modeled with.

Basically, this is a change that requires either extensive conversion work and kit bashing, or requires a brand new set of state troop plastics. Neither of these are viable options for improving the halberd so more people take them. As we can only make rules here and not minatures, my philosophy is to "make rules that fit the miniatures."

[Inarticulate]

I re-iterate what I said earlier.

Its a good excuse for GW to make some more models that actually look good as opposed to the dire ones that they're selling right now.

[Perforated]

Dude, that's madness. The prevalency of errors is never their own justification.

GW has for some reason decided to 'relax' the armour standards of the Empire miniatures. Because of this we have a discrepancy between what we see on the model and what we get in the rules, i.e. Outriders get light armour when they're wearing something akin to Full Plate, Greatswords get Full Plate when they're closer to heavy armour and the state troops (Halberdiers, Swordsmen, Spearmen) can't decide what they're wearing.

I'll get into more detail later on...

The problems with your position are twofold (threefold, if you count your attitude problem).

I don't care much for personal insults so leave them out of the discussion as they only serve to diminish your own arguments.

For one, and despite the cognitive blocks of your preconcieved notions of what is and isn't heavy armor, state troops are armed with light armor and that's what people associate with when they look at the state troop figures.

Again with the insults...

Anyways, unless GW is making a new standard on armour classifications the only analogue is that of real armour and I stand by that. And by that analogue state troops may very well be wearing heavy armour already. But considering the range of models this "WYSIWYG" way of looking at things won't last very long.

Back to what I was referring to above. It's not only Empire that is having problems with the appearances of their troops. Chaos marauders for example can have light armour even though they are practically naked on the torso save a few leather straps and the odd metal bit. And this problem appear in most armies.

So the notion of armour save in the world of GW might not only be about the appearance of the models it might also be a more abstract term outlining a general fighting prowess and not just the thickness/coverage of the armour they may or may not be wearing. So unless GW are to redo ALL models to exactly match their equipment the only logical argument is that the amount of actual armour is irrelevant, the armour save represents more than meets the eye so to speak.

And fluffwise state troops are no hatchlings but professional soldiers, perfectly capable of defending themselves.

Whether or not it looks heavier or lighter than it should is absolutely immaterial.

You said it yourself.

Secondly, there is no feasable way to up-armor halberdier models that are equipped with heavy armor. Such produces a WYSIWYG problem.

They don't have to, GW has already sorted that problem out.

When someone sees a unit of 'bog standard' halberdiers composed of bits found on their own sprue, an opponent will assume that they are armed with light armor as that's what they are modeled with.

What was that about "preconcieved notions" again? You think that they are modeled with light armour, that is your image of them. In my eyes they can be both with no problem, and with the abstract armour save argument above they must be.

Basically, this is a change that requires either extensive conversion work and kit bashing, or requires a brand new set of state troop plastics. Neither of these are viable options for improving the halberd so more people take them. As we can only make rules here and not minatures, my philosophy is to "make rules that fit the miniatures."

There is no conflict right now, and please, if you really dislike the current proposals would you mind being more constructive than just picking them apart?

I re-iterate what I said earlier.

Its a good excuse for GW to make some more models that actually look good as opposed to the dire ones that they're selling right now.

Too bad that is not likely to happen anytime soon...

EDIT: Cleared it up a little...

[Ganymede]

Are you just skimming and not actually reading the posts here? Your responses make me think that you don't even really understand what I wrote. Hell, you keep bleating on about personal insults when there were none at all.

As you clearly didn't get most of what I said in the previous post, and I don't know how to make it any clearer, we are at an impasse. I'll go ahead and address the only comment of substance from your previous post.

...if you really dislike the current proposals would you mind being more constructive than just picking them apart?

I felt I was plenty constructive. I even offered an alternative proposal (the parry rule) that addressed your inherent concern with the armor save of the halberdier while conveniently dodging any issues raised by giving them heavy armor. I believe your response to that constructive feedback was for me to go study full plate armor.

[Perforated]

Are you just skimming and not actually reading the posts here? Your responses make me think that you don't even really understand what I wrote. Hell, you keep bleating on about personal insults when there were none at all.

Since when is calling me out on my "attitude problems" when there are none not an insult?

But let's stay on topic.

As you clearly didn't get most of what I said in the previous post, and I don't know how to make it any clearer, we are at an impasse. I'll go ahead and address the only comment of substance from your previous post.

I read and understood it perfectly, it would however seem that you did not read mine or just didn't understand it or perhaps I've made some sort of typo mucking up my arguments? (I've made my previous post a bit clearer).

While you are very much stuck in the WYSIWYG part of Warhammer Fantasy, which at best is rather relaxed. I've moved on to a more abstract view of armour that manages to explain the discrepancy in appearance and actual equipment/armour save. Care to address that?

I felt I was plenty constructive. I even offered an alternative proposal (the parry rule) that addressed your inherent concern with the armor save of the halberdier while conveniently dodging any issues raised by giving them heavy armor. I believe your response to that constructive feedback was for me to go study full plate armor.

My bad, forgot about that post.

But there really aren't any issues, We cannot solve the issues we already have with the current range of models without resorting to extensive conversion. Thus by your philosophy of making rules that fit the models we must make some drastic changes in the empire list. And how would we solve the issues with people using older models?

My "abstract armour fix" solves these problems without so much of the fuss around the actual models.

[Lord Maurice Thayer]

firstly, i love my halberds and never play my empire without 28 of them and their captain... most people think im crazy, but i get 10 attacks on the charge and the S4 is more than helpful... when i need it they still get a 4+ save and can hold out until my knights get the flank charge... so they work for me is all im saying, even if they do need the help of a captain but fluff wise what better unit for him to be in?

overall i dont think the halberds need to be better, i think the "+1 AS with shield in combat" rule needs to be killed or changed... all across the game it is more than overpowering, it has made it so basic stregnth 3 and in a lot of cases 4 is not enough to do damage and kill... my proposed change is that IF the extra +1 is used (or going to be used) there is either -1 WS or -1 to hit to show how much harder it is to strick from the defensive position...

i also dont think they need heavy armor, and if they get it i wont use it... the points spent on HA is better used buying more models for your unit... empire generals need to realize our army is basically a human horde, let the commoner state troops die; its what Sigmar brought them into this world to do...

another big hang up people seem to have is the fluff, maybe GW should just change it like they have done so many times before... all they really have to do is say Swordsmen are the preffered weapon since always and that Karl reuires them and not halberds...