Warhammer-Empire.com
The Empire at War ... The Gamers Guild => WHFB The Electors' Forum => Topic started by: bornbm01 on May 02, 2012, 04:18:23 PM
-
When building my list I'm sold on running 2 horde units to fill up the core points
I'm also planning on running Shadow for okkams and reduce T
so the question is: is 50 spearmen a better or worse buy than 42 haberdiers ?
has anyone done the mathhammer/theory on this and I missed it?
I'm really debating hard between 2 units of 50 spears,
2 units of 42 halberds,
or one unit of 50 spears and one unit of 42 halberd
-
well halberds will kill more due to their S4, against T4 opponents, then niether spears or swords come close.
spears only benefit in horde at 40+ and even then, only against S3 opponents will the survive much longer.
tbh, if you want to survive, take swordsmen, if you want to kill, go halberds. spears are a weird half -way house between the two.
i'd personally use spears for cheap bodies. keep them in bus formation (5 wide) and use them for steadfast.
-
The mathhammer on this is endless even before any buffs (Initiative, charged or not, enemy formation, your formation, hatred, prayers, Lumi or Hurri, enemy characters...), so I'll restrict myself to two examples:
#1: 50 WS, T3, S3, LA, HW, shield
#2: 30 WS 4, T 4, S 4, HA.
Everyone in horde, opponent charges:
50 Spears vs #1: 5.6 kills / 6.25 losses. Enemy wins more often by 1-2. No steadfast. Unit killed to a man assuming equal K/L ratio after 6 rounds (practically a lot sooner since many strike before them). Charging leads to abysmal results.
42 Halbs vs #1: 7 kills / 6.25 losses. Enemy will often tie on the charge and lose when charged. No steadfast, so one freak round will see them running.
Spears vs #2: 4.4 / 13. Steadfast, but not for very long, and the damage output drops right away. Much worse if opponent is higher I.
Halbs vs #2: 6.25 / 13. See above, but increased attrition on enemy.
-
Spearmen in bus, enemy #1 in horde charges:
2 kills / 4.4. You'll lose every round. Spears will be run down on their own and hold out forever with one or two Ld buffs.
Spearmen in bus, enemy #2 in horde charges:
1.7 / 9.3. You'll lose every round, by much more, which is not so relevant since they're steadfast. Still shows that you're well advised to use a bus if you wish to lose fights.
And just for kicks, Halbs in bus vs #1:
2.3 / 9.3. A wee bit better again than Spears but still utter crap. Don't use.
What are you likely to encounter?
-
Mindrazor would make spears better. Provided
a. enemy attacks
b. you get it off in the previous turn.
c. Your enemy is dumb enough to a. let it go through in the previous turn b. attack your spears with mindrazor up.
So the answer is: theoretically spears have better multiplyer for any buff, but you wont see that happen, or not too often. Halberds are better because they are more mobile, kill more.
spears are only better in pinning enemy simply because they are cheaper and you can field more of them.
-
Sixth edition spearmen convert to halberds pretty easily. I bought a bunch of 8th halberd heads and a quick cut and paste later, another 32 halberds. The shafts are a little longer than the 6th edition multi-parts but there's not much in it.
-
Halberdiers everyday mate. The strength and armour save modifier alone makes them worth it.
-
I could see a use for spears with no shields in a bus formation. The idea here is that you throw them at something you know will kick the crap out of just about anything in your army in an even fight. Steadfast for a round or two to pin and hopefully earns you a nice flank/rear charge or two. If you really want to win combats, go with Halberds every time.
Halberds work well with the easiest to get buffs like Hatred from a Warrior Priest and the re-rolls to wound prayer, ward save prayer, etc...
-
Mindrazor would make spears better. Provided
No, Botor, not provided anything. 30 S7 attacks are better than 30 S4 attacks, period.
spears are only better in pinning enemy simply because they are cheaper and you can field more of them.
Again, not true. A unit that actually wins is the best tarpit - there's not even the slightest chance it will run.
-
I am strongly in favor of halberds over spears, and I'll try and supply some of my personal mathhammer.
As I see it, halberds can do everything spears can do at least 80% as well. And there are some things that halberds can do 300% better. So halberds are the most robust, all-around, fail-safe, all-purpose, all-comers, etc. The stuff that spears are better against are the stuff that doesn't matter because you'll win anyways (fighting gnoblars or skinks or having mindrazor), while halberds help in the fights that are life or death for your line/army. I'll also focus on the attacking, because I likely would never give shields to my spears, and against the opponents I consider it wouldn't matter. No parry saves for the spearmen.
1a) Horde of Spearmen vs. Horde of Chaos Warrior (hand weapon, shield)
Spears kill 1.8 warriors (40 attacks, 50% to hit, 33% to wound, 33% get through armor, 83% not parried)
1b) Horde of Halberds vs. Horde of Chaos Warrior (hand weapon, shield)
Halberds kill 3.1 warriors (30 attacks, 50% to hit, 50% to wound, 50% get through armor, 83% not parried)
2a) Horde of Spearmen vs. (T6!!) Doomwheel
Spears do 1.1 wounds (20 attacks, 50% to hit, 16% to wound, 66% get through armor)
2b) Horde of Halberds vs. Doomwheel
Halberds do 1.0 wounds (15 attacks, 50% to hit, 16% to wound, 83% get through armor)
3a) Horde of Spearmen vs. Mournfang with Wyssans Wildform
Spears do 0.4 wounds (40 attacks, 50% to hit, 16% to wound, 16% get through armor, 83% not parried)
3b) Horde of Halberds vs. Mournfang with Wyssans Wildform
Halberds do 1.8 wounds (30 attacks, 50% to hit, 33% to wound, 33% get through armor, 83% not parried)
I grant that these are situations which strongly favor the Halberds. However, these are the situations which often are very important and also very likely to occur in practice. They certainly did in some recent battle reports. And I can't conceive of a situation where a spearmen is twice as effective as a halberdier, but as you can see the reverse is very common. And then we have the current shift of the metagame is towards monstrous cavalry, knights, etc.; which is definite halberds territory. Spears also have additional strategic drawbacks. They don't get extra ranks when they charge, when they're hit in the flanks, or when they've suffered losses due to attrition (which I ignore in my analysis, assuming conditions are ideal for them).
-
Can anyone hash out the mathammer for halberds vs spears when it comes to taking enemy spells like final transmutation, dwellers, or purple sun?
In the few games I've played my hordes tend to get hit by a big spell at least once per game.
Pretty hard to dispel when your opponent throws 6 dice and gets an IF.
First game he final transmuted my 35 swordsmen. After that my swordsmen are never deployed above 20models.
-
Well, the mathhammer on that is pretty straightforward. As spears, swordsmen and halberds all have the same strength, toughness, and initiative, they're all going to lose the same amount from these sorts of spells. If you're running with hordes of 50, expect to lose 25 to dwellers.
These spells are deadly, but what I fear most about them is losing the characters embedded inside (most tournaments stipulate something about this). Now while losing 25 men to a super spell is certainly not good, as halberds are only 6 point models, it's not so bad. A 150 point loss to a super spell isn't so bad in the scheme of things. That much is lost when I cannon a doomwheel. So I'd caution against overreacting. Fielding small squads will protect you against dwellers, but cripple your fighting effectiveness in general. As for halberds versus spears, I don't think this makes much of a difference either way. It's much more important when deciding, say, general-in-horde-unit or general-not-in-horde-unit.
The big loser, it seems to me, when one starts to think about dwellers is greatswords. Losing 25 halberds is one thing, but losing 25 greatswords is another. Now one can always field smaller greatsword units, but once the greatsword unit dips deeply below 40-50 models, none may be left to strike when fighting any serious enemy horde.
-
Forgotten Beast, I'm pretty sure the DW is T6.
Of course these plain numbers - mine as well - only show half the picture. It's often relevant to know how a fight goes on - will you lose attacks faster than the opposing unit, will it matter or do you have enough of a padding and so on. It doesn't help much to kill two more guys but lose the fight faster because you're run down.
-
Should we regard a level 1 wildform wizard as a more important unit upgrade than a captain?
-
Ah good point about the T6 Solar, I'll fix that above.
I definitely agree that it's important to analyze the opponents strikebacks and later rounds. I'm embarrassed to admit how many times/ways I've calculated state troops fighting an ironguts deathstar all the way to the bitter end. But in these particular examples I don't know if it would change anything very much. If spearmen were radically cheaper than halberds, like 3pt goblins compared to 6pt orcs, then I can see it mattering. But only 16% cheaper? Can't see why one wouldn't pay 16% more to do 160% damage to tough/armored foes. That said, I can see situations where having 16% more bodies means you're steadfast another round, or another turn, which could win or lose games.
-
@Freeman: Of course. There's no reason to take a captain other than the BSB and/or Captasus.
Having said that, Wyssan's really benefits from an L2.
@Forgotten Beast: A single point can change the outcome dramatically. Swordsmen for example were better than Spearmen at the old cost and regardless of the cost difference. At 7:5, they are worse in almost every instance, even on the charge because they cannot suck up the casualties and their stats and gear does not compensate anymore.
As to Halbs vs Spears, I also think that Halberdiers are still the better choice, both offensively and defensively and no matter the target (until you meet T6 no armour). I'm just exercising some formal caution because the possible matchups, if's and when's are sheer endless.
It really begs the question if there are situations in which Spears or Swords could shine. 5 Spears are the cheapest diverter...and 20 would make a decent enough wiz bunker perhaps. Even the role of unit filler is better suited to hand- and crosspoopers.
-
Ok, my thoughts. What was said about the old book still remains true. Halbs are better as an offensive unit, and swords are still better as a defensive unit; however, there are other considerations now.
You can get 40swords -> 48halbs -> 56spears for the same points; and this to me is a big factor. When planning my army list with the new book, im finding it really difficult to free up enough points for all the toys i need/ want, so this is pushing me towards spears.
In terms of survivabilty, or offensive power, they are marginally behind the other units, but as before, this difference is marginal, and balances out even more with the multitudes of buff we can apply to our units.
The way im looking at it.. you can get 39 spears, with a WP and basic gear for the same price as 40 swordsmen.. thats a huge difference in effectiveness.
-
I tend to take a level 1 beasts wizard on a horse Jo runs around behind my lines with a dispel scroll. He has been invaluable. Wissans can be dangerous to the opponents plans which usually draws some dispel dice out and leaves me a chance to get the wp buffs off. Take a level 2 and there is a chance that you could be using the +3 str and attacks on a wp or arch lector with van horstmans. I've found that having multiple choices of low casting but effect buffs deters an opponent. Bloodthirsters fear my arch lector thus making my spear horde able to frighten off bigger units through fear of their losing the character or champion that will undoubtably be in a challenge.
I've been mathhammering some stats with kills per point spent for the first rank militia nearly always came out on top with greatswords being more point efficient at taking out higher armour opponents. Halberds get a few wins on the table as well. I've still got to translate this to common units and unit builds but militia seem to be showing promise as they get the equivalent attacks of spears without losing to much in further rounds and keeping mobility. I'm going to number crunch some more later but I'll post up some results once I've done so.
Either way halberds beat spears on kills per point and on sheer killing power.
A
-
@Solar. It definitely is a shame about the swordsmen being 7pts. I can imagine a perfect world where the swordsmen are the tanking anvils (and the enemy is exactly WS 4) and the hammers of the empire come crashing in on the flanks for glorious victory! In my experience, though, I usually have less battlefield control than my opponent. Just can't keep up with all the ratdarts and sabretusks. So part of my preference for halbs is a conservative/pessimistic/worst-case type of reasoning. If I get the charges I want the way I want, maybe spears and swords as battleline units. If the opponent can choose dear god give me halberds.
Definitely interesting to think about other roles. The only place I can see for free company is in 5 man sabretusk hunting squads. Or possibly a watchtower. Or maybe even a throwaway mindrazor unit. But nothing else! Spear wizard bunkers I can get behind, but I'm leaning towards archers personally.
@ Hetelic, I wouldn't describe the offensive advantage of halberds over spears marginal. I'd call it massive! Going up against a standard warriors of chaos block you're going to do nearly twice the damage. And may Sigmar protect you if you're up against knights or tough beasties with spears! What I'd call marginal is the points saved by going to spears, or the value that 56 spears will bring you over 48 halberds. Keep in mind that 48 halberds is going to beat the 56 spears one on one. (Halberds kill 9.9 a round, spears kill 8.3, and once the spears drop below 40 they lose attacks while the Halberds stay strong until 30 guys.)
@ Commissar, I can definitely believe that militia do well when you look at the first rank. But what when you look at the whole unit? When considering a whole unit, they're just spearmen which can charge (which is indeed very nice but halbs can do also).
But in the interest of full disclosure, I should mention I work for a Halberd factory..
-
Forget hordes with state troops, invariably you'll get magicked/shot up/smacked around and end up forming a bus anyway to better negate/get steadfast etc. Same with the magic buffs as they've been pointed out you can't rely on them and if you're opponent is smart enough they are going to stay away from mindrazored anything if they can.
instead of 2 hordes, I'd go for 3 units of about 35 if you can find the points, more tactically flexible, will do about the same damage frontage wise (if run 5-7 wide, yes a few less attacks but as most hordes wont get all models into contact it's not a huge loss) and go for the buffs you'll always get, e.g. hatred, hold the line and (dare I say it...) those from the new gypsy wagons.
My thoughts, feel free to pick apart, I can't be bothered with math hammer, just think about where you deploy and what the likely result or match up may be :)
Middenheimer
-
A bus of the same size is going to be the target of just as much magic as a horde - they're worth the same after all. The former is also drastically more likely to get "smacked around". You must remember that a bus does not reduce incoming attacks. In fact, it increases incoming attacks, not in absolute numbers but in relation to what it puts out. You're going from 1:1 (30:30) to 2.1:1 (21:10). This is only a good idea if your unit would lose no matter what, eg. against White Lions, CW or BigUns.
Against units of the same "class" - Clanrats, Marauders after round 1, Gobbos, many Undead, some Elves - horde on horde or bus on bus is often likely to result in a draw or +/- 1 perhaps. Going bus against these units would be folly. Yes, you're likely steadfast but your unit WILL lose now. I can only recommend this with a good plan at hand because despite all the re-rolls and benefits, losing usually remains the worse option compared to winning a combat and not needing to fall back upon any safeguards to start with. Even a single small buff will often completely tip the scales in such fights - and killing more means you can rid them of steadfast in round 1 if the starting numbers were kind of equal. And this goes for all core combat State Troops.
One thing to consider is that you might not be able to reform much deeper when you commence combat in horde since you cannot end up with less models fighting.
-
@ forgotten beast. You are entirely correct when I move to working out the units I'm interested to see if that front rank actually is a bonus in later rounds. The extra point for a mobile unit that in a lot of cases will keep the same if not more attacks surely is worth a point. As I said I'll look more into it but I think it's all going to end up quite marginal.
A
-
A few posts up from here I made a small Excel program that may ease the hand calculations, I'll be adding an armor save portion here soon.
-
Mindrazor would make spears better. Provided
No, Botor, not provided anything. 30 S7 attacks are better than 30 S4 attacks, period.
spears are only better in pinning enemy simply because they are cheaper and you can field more of them.
Again, not true. A unit that actually wins is the best tarpit - there's not even the slightest chance it will run.
Alright, then mindrazor is better on 40 spears hitting in horde than on 30 halberds hitting in horde. provided...
Or putting it another way: 40 S7 attack are better than 30 S7 attacks. But 40 attack has some prequisits. Need another explication? Human race is the only one what needs to tell the obvious after all.
Your second objection is obvious too. Only it is just part of the truth. As we all know there are fights that cannot be won by either of them. Its then only the bodies that count. It aplies to your mocking of the bus formation also, by the way. Bus is a must in impossible situations, and there are plenty of them.
-
In my opinion/experience, most often the bus formation is a terrible idea. A horde of state troopers can achieve great things, especially with magic buffs and prayers, but in a bus you can't achieve anything combat-wise. In a bus it doesn't really matter if you have hatred, Wyssans, or whatever, for as Solar pointed out, you're getting 21 attacks at you (at least) for only 10 in return.
Now I agree being in bus formation can keep you steadfast longer. But I think the value of this is overestimated. It will keep you steadfast for at most one or two more rounds and you're really banking on other hammers coming in to bail out your state trooper anvil. In my experience, this is a pretty easy plan for the enemy to interfere with, and seldom do we empire types have more maneuver units than the enemy. Furthermore, since a bus of spearmen is so incredibly weak, it is a really low target priority. If I saw a bus of spearmen sitting next to a horde of greatswords, I wouldn't think twice about charging the greatswords. Yeah the bus of spearmen will hit me in the flank and have.. 10 str 3 attacks :unsure:
-
So, I think I dont really get what are you talking about. The bus formation is a formation. You can change formations that is point of being able to change the frontage during the game. Your bus does not sit anywhere, your halberd horde manouvers through the battlefield and when its appropriate you change its formation to bus. You do not gain anything by recieveing a combo charge with 10 wide frontage just because mathammer shows you that you will kill 3 more. Deffensively bus denies atacks against your unit offensively bus denies steadfast. Insisting on horde formation in all situations is so evidently dumb, that I must assume that you are talking about something else: running the unit in bus all the time. And of course that is equally dumb. But people, you can and eventually should change formation even during close combat.
-
Personally, I'd just endeavor to get my Halberds in a situation where they would never have to leave Horde formation in the first place. If that's your only beefy unit, it's not hard to do.
-
Personally, I'd just endeavor to get my Halberds in a situation where they would never have to leave Horde formation in the first place. If that's your only beefy unit, it's not hard to do.
Even if you run only 1 horde unit (I regulary ran 3, with the new book I still run 2) this is cannot be granted. You roll badly on a dawn attack scenario and your master plan of runing the horde against apropriate target is ruined. Charge of monstrous infantry especially horde of monstrous infantry you dont want to recieve ever in horde formation. But also offensive use of a bus formation cannot be underestimated. When assisting an IC kninght unit a bus is far more effective than a horde because it breaks steadfast on charge and the knights will run down the fleeing enemy.
But actually I am surprised that I have to argue about this, for me its the abc of 8th edition warhammer, maybe I play this game differently.
-
Hi Botor,
I'm definitely not insisting on horde formation in all cases, or denying that there are any situations where the bus is superior. I'm just saying that, in my experience, these situations are rare. The one you bring up, where a horde is combo charged, I think is a good example of the bus being superior. And it goes without mention you have to leave horde formation if you need to fit through gaps, or you have a big army deploying in a battle for the pass.
Charging monstrous infantry along with cavalry support as you mention is an interesting example. In this case I don't see the advantage of the bus so much, you'll break the monstrous infantry steadfast with a horde just as easily (and be much more likely to win combat), as they're seldom more than 3 ranks. Now in receiving a charge from monstrous infantry, being in a bus could well be better if the monsters are six wide.
Another case to consider is monstrous cavalry. 4 Mournfang are going to do just as much damage to a bus as a horde, we're going to be steadfast nearly as long, and in a horde we'll at least grind them down some.
-
I wouldn't consider us to be at odds - my statement implied that you were correct, though I would endeavor to avoid the situations where the Horde would be at a disadvantage, because it weakens the Halberds' combat potential.
-
A monstrous infantry charge you mention is an interesting example. In this case I don't see the advantage of the bus so much, you'll break steadfast with a horde just as easily (and be much more likely to win combat), as they're seldom more than 3 ranks.
No, in this case I thought of a defensive use of the horde, you dont have the slightest chance to break a horde of monstrous infantry with halberd horde, ever. In fact if you recive a charge of 18 trolls or ogres in horde formation they will break you in one turn. Bus wont be much better either, but will have a chance to counter charge in next turn.
I wouldn't consider us to be at odds - my statement implied that you were correct, though I would endeavor to avoid the situations where the Horde would be at a disadvantage, because it weakens the Halberds' combat potential.
That is quite sure, I just say we cant always be on the winning side of a close combat and sometimes have to sacrifice a horde to win the game.
-
I overall agree with you Botor. I meant to say that when charging the monstrous infantry along with cavalry, I'd rather be in horde. You're absolutely right that if the ironguts deathstar is charging my halberds alone, I'd rather be in a bus, although there is a good chance I'm doomed in either case.
I also agree that the halberdier hordes really have no chance of beating the monstrous infantry hordes outside of magic. But with magic it certainly seems possible. And even if you don't get any magic off, you have a chance of grinding them down some with the horde.
-
Botor's got it, think about it people and deploy/change formation as required.
The comparisons do make for insightful reading and good tactical insights, bit the mathhammer here assumes units arrive in CC untouched, and how often does this happen that you can depend on it.
There's no reason you can't horde a unit of 35 + priest, just combat reform when you get smacked. Think of it from your opponents point of view, hmmmm, horde or bus? which will I reduce first? the answer is almost always the horde
there is however an appreciable difference in the 35 man bus compared to a 50+ horde points wise, i'd rather take an extra unit than rely upon one or two large shoot/magic me targets.
Middenheimer
-
Or putting it another way: 40 S7 attack are better than 30 S7 attacks. But 40 attack has some prequisits. Need another explication? Human race is the only one what needs to tell the obvious after all.
Mindrazor + Spears is always better, no provisions, no when's and if's. You either have more attacks and more bodies or just more bodies or you've spent less points.
Your second objection is obvious too. Only it is just part of the truth. As we all know there are fights that cannot be won by either of them. Its then only the bodies that count. It aplies to your mocking of the bus formation also, by the way. Bus is a must in impossible situations, and there are plenty of them.
You confuse mocking with objective facts. I explicitly stated that a bus is useful when you're going to lose regardless so this isn't really an issue. Spears are better in pinning those particular heavy units but not better at pinning in a vacuum as you stated. That's not an obvious omission, that's misleading, so we need some further explanation.
So, I think I dont really get what are you talking about.
...
Insisting on horde formation in all situations is so evidently dumb, that I must assume that you are talking about something else
It's quite evident that you don't get it, Botor, and forgive me my openness but it seems just as evident that you are not even trying very hard. Nobody mentioned to use a bus "all the time". In fact, and once more, I explicitly mentioned when a bus is useful. It's there in black and white. What in the world can be so difficult to comprehend?
Many players overlook the drawbacks of a bus and justify its use for all the wrong reasons, eg. reducing attacks. Being able to change formation during a game doesn't even come into play here.
-
the mathhammer here assumes units arrive in CC untouched, and how often does this happen that you can depend on it.
Well, what does that matter? I don't see any reason why we should assume more casualties on the way in for either Halberdiers or Spearmen, so it's legitimate to cancel out anything that effects them to the same extent. Of course you might arrive with less Halberdiers than Spearmen against heavy fire or magic but we know that the Spearmen need the extra bodies in combat, so they will hardly perform much better when we assume losses.
There's no reason you can't horde a unit of 35 + priest, just combat reform when you get smacked.
I really ask myself why I am debating this at all when everything I mention at the start is going to be ignored either way. :eusa_wall:
-
Or putting it another way: 40 S7 attack are better than 30 S7 attacks. But 40 attack has some prequisits. Need another explication? Human race is the only one what needs to tell the obvious after all.
Mindrazor + Spears is always better, no provisions, no when's and if's. You either have more attacks and more bodies or just more bodies or you've spent less points.
Mindrazor is initially in the litle mind of your shadow wizard model, or in your rulebook, or in some possible world other than this actual one. The wizard have to utter some mystic words, you have to drop dices, your opponent have to miss his or her dispell, the potentiality have to became actuality. That is an IF.
Your unit of spearmen only attack 40 times when they are charged or from second round of battle. To have 40 attacks with mindrazor you either have to buff them in your turn and wait for attack or buff them in the second turn provided that you still have 4 ranks in that turn. Not to mention that in the 2nd turn you wont have hatered. Here is your WHEN.
Mindrazor+spear is better IF it is actually happens and is not only in your army list WHEN the spears are in the right moment to use it.
Mindrazor+halberds have the same effect if the above restrictions dont apply.
QED
Now your "spent less for spears" argument is also flawed because you need more spears than halberds to maintain combat effectiveness after casualties. You need at least 40 halberds or 50 spearmen to have full attacking ranks after 10 casualties. thats 10 points of difference.
I would never take spearmen just because I'd use a shadow wizard. In fact most of the time I bring shadow with halberd hordes. Spears have so many "ifs" and "whens" in a real tactical situation that they quickly become a burden.
Otherwise I admit I have read too hasty your later posts. My answer with the formation change was intended to Forgotten Beast.