Topic: So I finally looked up Yeoman Guard and I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

[commandant]

Can somebody please explain why everybody here is raving about them. I expected to see great things but the are basically state troops with shields, worse base leadership and rules which contradict their own usefulness.

So for 5 points you get a state troop with -1 leadership and a shield.  They also have horde, warband and shieldwall.
Shieldwall is only useful if they are charged and are using their shields. With normal men-at-arms it makes perfect sense to use their shields when charged because they have spears as well. Admittedly Yeoman Guard can use halberds but if they do then they don't get to use shieldwall.

There is a big difference in a 2d6 game between Ld 7 and Ld 6 so in reality Yeoman Guard are relying on horde and warband. One of the things that Warband lets you do is re-roll your charge dice (which promotes a more aggressive strategy) and lets you add your  ranks to your leadership.

Assuming that you want all +3 possible to your leadership you need at least 20 models (if deployed in 5*4 formation) or 25 models (if deployed in 5*5 formation) in order to have some wounds to soak.
In order to maintain this +3 to both ranks and leadership it makes it difficult to deploy wide, 6 wide or 7 wide.   In order to deploy 6 wide you need 23 models (with no wound soakage) and 7 wide you need 26 (again with no wound soakage.   Therefore it is my suggestion that maintaining the +3 leadership and ranks will be difficult. 
Even +2 leadership gives you a better leadership than state troops but this +2 leadership is quite fragile. The old world have a reasonable amount of cavalry with first charge and a large number of US5 flyiers thay can hit your flanks.

Admittedly they also have access (as do all men-at-arms) to stubborn for +25 points.

On the whole I find them interesting but you are trading the ability to bring detachments for a shield (and/or halberd) and 1 leadership for a situational +1-+3 leadership. It is not immediately obvious to me that they represent a great improvement compared to state troops and certainly I am confused as to why they have the reputation that they have.

Admittedly for +1 point they

[drweir4]

Polearms mean you get the best of both worlds spears and halberds and don’t even have to pick! Plus they have veteran for free and can have 2 champions which is amazing for holding up dragons

They are better in literally every way. They are also peasants so don’t panic nearby knights and if they lose their ranks can always use any knights leadership within 6 so have multiple ways to shore up their Ld not to mention that brets get a bsb for free (notwithstanding being veteran which is amazing)

Essentially for not many points you actually get a versatile and reliable unit without needing to over invest which is the complete opposite of state troops

[commandant]

They are basically +1WS men-at-arms at +25% the cost.

They are better in literally every way.

This is the bit I find difficult to understand. People say things like this and it clearly isn't correct.
Their cost is the same.
Their leadership is situationally better and situationally a lot worse.
Yes they can use a Knight's leadership (which I assume is 8) but that constrains what your knights can do.
Admittedly having 2 champions does give you an extra turn of not losing against dragons but (unlike empire state troops who can generate enough static CR to wib a combat against a dragon) it is a turn of not losing so badly.

I'm not saying they are not good. They are good but they are not better in literally every way. They are the same in most ways, worse in some and better in some.

What they are not is a versatile unit.

[Athiuen]

They are so much better than state troops.
They're usually leadership 8 or 9 for the first few turns with a re-roll.
You can keep them cheap by just giving them spears and not paying for polearms.
If you need to charge they do it more consistently.
And they're at least 3 points cheaper per model than state troops (1 for veteran, 1 for weapon, and 1 for shields) and this doesn't even account for warband, shieldwall, horde, and peasantry.

They also don't panic your knights (who are also veterans and stubborn for free due to exiles upgrade and don't need drilled because they have the lance) and can use the knights leadership.

And you can screen them with skirmishing crossbows for 70 points.

Also Bret cannons are basically just better cannons.
Only () strength 8 (most things cap out at 7 toughness and rarely), -3 ap, better misfire table that can actually still fire the cannon and only 2 chances to not fire next round rather than 4, and 25 points cheaper!

I mean, I know you take some alternative views on what is good. But this is a slam dunk.

[Skyros]

I mean, they are better than state troops across the board.

They have horde, for +1 CR

They have warband, for +3 leadership (so much better leadership than state troops), and able to operate on the flanks outside their general's leadership bubble better AND lets them reroll charges. 
They have easy access to stubborn, which renders cavalry with first charge pointless at breaking their LD by reducing ranks the first round.
They have inherent shieldwall, which is even better than stubborn. If you think you're going to need it when charged, use spears and shields and automatically give ground. Fantastic rule, can't believe state troops don't have it, which also makes them functionally immune to cavalry with first charge removing their ranks.
They have built in Veteran, which means they can reroll failed leadership tests (not break tests) and gives them a much better chance of passing an LD test than empire infantry.
They have peasantry, which means they can use the leadership of any nearby knight unit, and , most importantly, don't give up any banner VP. Which makes a HUGE difference for line infantry.
They can take two champions, and tie up a dragon for twice as long without losing any ranks.

They have an absolutely fantastic set of rules that complement each other, and easily mitigates whatever weaknesses the unit might have.

And in exchange for all these benefits they are.... much cheaper (5 points for spear/halberd, light armor, vs 7 for a similarly equipped state troop). It's no problem to run these guys in a block that is 25% bigger than a state troop block for exactly the same amount of points, and just be literally superior in every way. Better rules, better leadership, better ability to operate outside the leaders bubble, better tactical flexibility because of the shield wall and stubborn, etc.

They are bonkers good as far as infantry goes. Anyone who doesn't look at them and say wow hasn't played enough games IMO.

They are just better than state troops at everything. Better as a hammer unit with the extra CR and better charging ability, more likely to pass leadership tests, MUCH more likely to pass break tests thanks two two champions/shieldwall/stubborn. A yeoman guard block is going to be hanging on like two or three rounds after an empire state block fled in disgrace.  To shift yoemen guard you've gotta chew through two champions, shieldwall/stubborn, and then their huge numbers, higher leadership, and higher static CR.

Better offensively, better defensively, better operating on the flanks, give up fewer VP, they are the whole package. They are literally better at every single battlefield role than state troops. They are just so, so much more versatile than state troopers.

[Skyros]

What they are not is a versatile unit.

Yeomen guard are literally the most versatile line infantry in the game and it isn't even close. When compared to empire infantry, yeomen guard are :

-Better defensively. They are cheaper, have shieldwall, have stubborn, and horde and warband for better leadership.
-Better offensively. They are cheaper, have warband, and horde. More likely to make the charge, can go wider for more attacks than empire troops, and have more CR to win the combat. Since their units are cheaper, they are more likely to have extra units nearby to flank the enemy.
-Better against dragons. They can get two champions, which effectively means another entire turn before the dragon can start eating ranks. They can also use shieldwall and stubborn.
-Better against cavalry that charges them in the flank (or cavalry with first charge). They just use shieldwall or stubborn. Empire troops might run away.
-Better operating on the flanks out from the general's leadership. They have a higher base leadership, and can use the leadership of any knights nearby
-Better against enemies who cast spells that say you can't use the general's leadership. They could always use the leadership of nearby knights, and anyway, they have a higher base leadership with warband
-Better against undead, or any other faction that's going to cause lots of leadership checks. Not only do they have a higher base leadership, but they can reroll leadership tests. They are much more resilient against fear and terror than empire troops
-Better in suicidal last stands. They are cheaper, so you invest lest. They don't give up banner points, and with shieldwall and an extra champion, they are likely to last an extra turn or even two.

I don't see a single use case where the empire state troops are better. Not one. Maybe I missed one. That would mean bretonnian yeoman guard are more versatile in  9/10 cases instead of all cases.

If empire state troops were the same price as yeomen guard (instead of two points more expensive if armed with the same spears/LA/shield combo), and if detachments could charge with the parent unit in an attack OR detachments could auto charge the flank if they can see it, you might be able to make an argument that there could be one or two situations where empire state troops were better, despite the massive advantage in special rules that yeomen guard get.

[Noble Korhedron]

What they are not is a versatile unit.

Yeomen guard are literally the most versatile line infantry in the game and it isn't even close. When compared to empire infantry, yeomen guard are :

-Better defensively. They are cheaper, have shieldwall, have stubborn, and horde and warband for better leadership.
-Better offensively. They are cheaper, have warband, and horde. More likely to make the charge, can go wider for more attacks than empire troops, and have more CR to win the combat. Since their units are cheaper, they are more likely to have extra units nearby to flank the enemy.
-Better against dragons. They can get two champions, which effectively means another entire turn before the dragon can start eating ranks. They can also use shieldwall and stubborn.
-Better against cavalry that charges them in the flank (or cavalry with first charge). They just use shieldwall or stubborn. Empire troops might run away.
-Better operating on the flanks out from the general's leadership. They have a higher base leadership, and can use the leadership of any knights nearby
-Better against enemies who cast spells that say you can't use the general's leadership. They could always use the leadership of nearby knights, and anyway, they have a higher base leadership with warband
-Better against undead, or any other faction that's going to cause lots of leadership checks. Not only do they have a higher base leadership, but they can reroll leadership tests. They are much more resilient against fear and terror than empire troops
-Better in suicidal last stands. They are cheaper, so you invest lest. They don't give up banner points, and with shieldwall and an extra champion, they are likely to last an extra turn or even two.

I don't see a single use case where the empire state troops are better. Not one. Maybe I missed one. That would mean bretonnian yeoman guard are more versatile in  9/10 cases instead of all cases.

If empire state troops were the same price as yeomen guard (instead of two points more expensive if armed with the same spears/LA/shield combo), and if detachments could charge with the parent unit in an attack OR detachments could auto charge the flank if they can see it, you might be able to make an argument that there could be one or two situations where empire state troops were better, despite the massive advantage in special rules that yeomen guard get.

You're saying The Old World has basically screwed over Empire Detachments; removing one of the main strengths of the Empire army...?

[Dazgrim]

You're saying The Old World has basically screwed over Empire Detachments; removing one of the main strengths of the Empire army...?

Yes absolutely. We've been saying it since the previews of the armylist dropped.

Empire state troops are garbage and detachments are free points for your opponents.

commandant had views to the contrary, but look at the 10 Empire lists being run in the online tournament and count the instances of basic state troops and detachments.

[Footpatrol2]

I think empire has the most easy access to detachments and drilled in the game. Detachments is not crazy powerful but not horrible. Drilled could easily be game winning thou.

[Athiuen]

Yeah, drilled knights are great!

[commandant]

-Better against cavalry that charges them in the flank (or cavalry with first charge). They just use shieldwall or stubborn. Empire troops might run away.

This is the sort of thing that I find most interesting. Sure it is possible that they could FBIGO if they are charged in the flank (or with by something with first charge) but it is not likely and it is certainly less likely than state troops.
Because of dice probabilities LD6 is just considerably worse (3/36 or 1/6) than Ld7.

It is true that they can (at a cost of 31 points) have stubborn. However in order to use it the monk needs to be in the fighting rank where attacks can be directed against him. As he is WS2 (I think unless the Yeoman Guard Grail Monk also gets the WS3) T3 with a 5+ (or possibly 6+ save) directing 2 attacks at him would likely kill him
2 attacks (assuming 3+ to hit) is .44 wounds at Str 3 (assuming. 5+ save). It is .74 wounds at Str 4 (assuming AP 1 so a 6+ save) and it is 1.1 wounds at Str 5 (assuming ap2). Obviously there are lots more conditions and ways these attacks could be configured but I think these are enough to show that there is a reasonable chance (at least 50%) of the grail monk dying and the stubborn going puff. Then you are relying on your LD6 leadership.

-Better offensively. They are cheaper, have warband, and horde. More likely to make the charge, can go wider for more attacks than empire troops, and have more CR to win the combat. Since their units are cheaper, they are more likely to have extra units nearby to flank the enemy.

Firstly compared to empire units with detachments they are not more likely to have extra units nearby to flank the enemy. They are substantially less likely to have extra units nearby to flank the enemy and the units they do have nearby to flank the enemy are likely to be worse at the job of flanking the enemy.  However leaving that aside you also don't get to say they are cheaper and have warband and horde and therefore can go wider for more attacks. Either they don't have horde (or some of warband) or they are not cheaper. For example a Yeoman Guard unit that is 6 wide needs 23 models to maintain horde.  A state troop unit needs 17 models (deployed 6 wide) to maintain all its advantages. Therefore deployed 6 wide the Yeoman Guard unit needs an extra 30 points of models to gain horde (and more if it wants to keep it). It needs 26 models to maintain horde if deployed 7 wide. A state troop unit needs 19 models. Therefore to deploy 7 wide you need an extra 35 points of models. 8 wide costs you 40 points of models and so on (an extra 5 points or one model).
However to maintain their ranks are more important to the Yeoman Guard than they are to the Empire State Troops. If you bring the minimum Yeoman Guard then you lose 1CR and 1Ld compared to just 1CR. Therefore Empire troops csn be brought closer to the bone as it were. They are less susceptible to small arms fire and the like.
Re-rolling charge range (the other aspect of warband) does make it more likely you will make long charges. This does give them opportunities for aggression. This is contrasted with the ability to bring concentration of force.

-Better against dragons. They can get two champions, which effectively means another entire turn before the dragon can start eating ranks. They can also use shieldwall and stubborn.

Sure they can last an extra turn against a dragon by using their extra champion. However what they can't do is defeat a dragon in combat. Empire State Troops with detachments can defeat a dragon with static combat res. I know people are going to respond that the dragon will just charge the detachments but in that instance the dragon will just charge the flank of the Yeoman Guard and suddenly you are a lot less likely to FBIGO on your LD6. To be truthful neither are very good at dealing with dragons but state troops (because they can win the combat and dice game aside the Yeoman Guard can't) are better.  They are pretty much equal at losing (the Yeoman Guard get an extra turn of champion) but the state troops are a lot better at winning.

If empire state troops were the same price as yeomen guard (instead of two points more expensive if armed with the same spears/LA/shield combo), and if detachments could charge with the parent unit in an attack OR detachments could auto charge the flank if they can see it, you might be able to make an argument that there could be one or two situations where empire state troops were better, despite the massive advantage in special rules that yeomen guard get.

Detachments can charge with the parent unit and (unless your positioning is really really impossibly bad) will automatically charge into the flank of any unit which charges the parent. Now that disruption is back to being US5 some of the old 3*3 detachments might make a re appearance so they can add +2 CR to combat rather than the 7-8 wide I have been using.


Finally I want to consider the matter of price. How much does horde cost. Well on Yeoman Guard Horde costs 25 points. Warband also costs 25 points.  That is to say that you need 5 extra models in order to make use of the rules. However Yeoman Guard get both so therefore they cost 12.5 points each. Well maybe, maybe not, because access to warband and horde isn't all you get for the 25 points.

If you compare units in the following fashion;
How many attacks?
What armour save?
What strength?
What weapon skill?

Then a state troop block deployed 6 wide with halberds is: 6 attacks WS 3 Str 4 Ld7 SCR (Static Combat Res) 3.  US 17 Save 6+ Cost 102 points.

Yeoman Guard:
6 attacks WS3 Str 3 Ld 6(8) SCR3 US 17 Save 5+ cost 85. Special rules: re-roll charges, veteran
Yeoman Guard can then be upgraded to:
6 (12) attacks WS3 Str4 (3) Ld6 (9) SCR4 US 22 save 5+ (6+) cost 132 points. Special rules: shieldwall, horde, warband, veteran

State Troops could then be upgraded to
Attacks 6(11) WS3 Str4 Ld 7 SCR 3(5) US 17(22) save 6+. Cost 132 points. special rule: detachments.

This is not the extent of this but (aside from the re-rolling of charges and veteran) if you want to use the other rules Yeoman Guard are not cheaper than state troops.

[madeinitaly1]

Are you guys serious? Yeoman guards are better than state troopers in any way! they cost the same of a state trooper but they have equipments and special rules, same statline nothing else to add
Cheapest veteran unit in the game

[commandant]

I edited my reply to make it easier to read but its worth noting that yeoman guard are more expensive than staye troops if you want to use all their rules. There is an explanation above.

[drweir4]

I have beaten a dragon with men and arms let alone yeoman

Dragon can do max 7 CR and you have 5 base with bret inf so it only takes a few unlucky rolls for the dragon and they lose to the musician, plus you get 2 rounds to try it guaranteed

[commandant]

You remember of course that the dragon charged the flank of the men-at-arms for any dragon that is capable of charging a detachment is capable of charging the flank of a men-at-arms.

It being a dice game means that the dragon may not be successful in gaining the full 6 CR possible but this relies on your dragon missing its attacks as opposed to against state troops where even if the dragon gets all its attacks it loses.

It is worth noting that against dragons Yeoman Guard are simply more expensive men-at-arms

[drweir4]

I think what your analysis overlooks is the tactical flexibility and therefore actual utility a unit like yeoman guard provide in core which state troops do not, and instead something like empire knights are more comparable

For a reasonable cost and with no support or extra expense yeoman guard can independently hold a part of the board or protect war machines or take charges for then knights to flank. They have all the rules to achieve this for a cheap cost (eg 24 for 169 with pole arms and 2 champs), and aren’t even really a liability if they fail

State troops can not be relied upon to fulfil any role with extra investment or support. Ld7 means they have to be supported by characters in some way or they just flee the first time a dragon looks at them, and they have a high chance to flee from combat instead of fbigo. State troops are like goblin level bad but somehow cost twice as much. So yes you could spend 140ish for 21 halberdiers with command but it has gained you nothing and has just provided easy points for your opponent, including a banner!

TLDR state troops are bad because they do almost nothing for their cost whereas yeoman guard can actually fulfil a role and are very cost efficient as a choice

[drweir4]

You remember of course that the dragon charged the flank of the men-at-arms for any dragon that is capable of charging a detachment is capable of charging the flank of a men-at-arms.

It being a dice game means that the dragon may not be successful in gaining the full 6 CR possible but this relies on your dragon missing its attacks as opposed to against state troops where even if the dragon gets all its attacks it loses.

It is worth noting that against dragons Yeoman Guard are simply more expensive men-at-arms

This makes no sense? In my turn I can always face my single unit to face the enemy dragon to prevent flank charges. The problem with detachments is even if they and the parent face the dragon in their turn the dragon just charges the detachment, suffers no penalty for doing so and then either overruns or reforms to be facing wherever it wants (and probably forces panic on the state troops). This is why detactments are so hard to use

[Skyros]

-Better against cavalry that charges them in the flank (or cavalry with first charge). They just use shieldwall or stubborn. Empire troops might run away.

This is the sort of thing that I find most interesting. Sure it is possible that they could FBIGO if they are charged in the flank (or with by something with first charge) but it is not likely and it is certainly less likely than state troops.

I think it's more likely than state troops, because the peasants can use the leadership of not just the general, but any knight unit nearby.

And if you absolutely want to ensure the FBIGO, you can just get stubborn. If you're being flanked, or going wide (easy to do if you are cheap) then the monk surviving is usually not hard to do. Esp since you have a separate guy that can issue challenges.

 

-Better offensively. They are cheaper, have warband, and horde. More likely to make the charge, can go wider for more attacks than empire troops, and have more CR to win the combat. Since their units are cheaper, they are more likely to have extra units nearby to flank the enemy.

Firstly compared to empire units with detachments they are not more likely to have extra units nearby to flank the enemy.

Of course they are, because they are cheaper. And thanks to higher leadership and veteran, they are much less likely to flee away in terror.

However leaving that aside you also don't get to say they are cheaper and have warband and horde and therefore can go wider for more attacks. Either they don't have horde (or some of warband) or they are not cheaper. For example a Yeoman Guard unit that is 6 wide needs 23 models to maintain horde.  A state troop unit needs 17 models (deployed 6 wide) to maintain all its advantages.

Totally incorrect. State troops are not viable at 17 models. As yeomen guard have horde and warband, they can choose to adopt the formation that they need in a given situation. If they need static CR, they can go deeper. If they need more attacks, they can go wider. This gives them more tactical flexibility than state troops, who can not go deeper for more static CR. 

I'm not sure why you are arguing bigger (and thus much more resilient) units of yeomen guard aren't cheaper than tiny unusably small units of state troops. Totally irrelevant. For any size block of state troops you bring, you can bring an equivalently sized (or larger) unit of yeomen guard that does everything the state troop block equally a well or better, whether that's going wide for attacks (yeomen guard are cheaper = more models = more attacks) or going narrow for maximum preserved static CR (yeomen guard get warband and horde, so will have more static CR and higher leadership).

A 25 man unit of yeomen guard is still cheaper than 20 man unit of spearmen, which is the absolute minimum sized unit I'd even consider for state troops.

My experience has been that blocks of 20 guys can get quite often knocked down the "half as strong as my attacker" size where they automatically break and run on the charge.

25 is a LOT harder because the opponent effectively needs an additional TEN unit strength to automatically break them which is a massive amount.

-Better against dragons. They can get two champions, which effectively means another entire turn before the dragon can start eating ranks. They can also use shieldwall and stubborn.

Sure they can last an extra turn against a dragon by using their extra champion. However what they can't do is defeat a dragon in combat. Empire State Troops with detachments can defeat a dragon with static combat res.

Lasting an entire extra turn against dragons is a huge deal. And men at arms are just as capable of defeating a dragon in combat as empire state troops are, as they have identical combat profiles, and are cheaper.  As a dragon player, detachments are a non issue. You just charge the detachment. At LD7 (or even less thanks to my necromancy spells) it's likely to just flee away. Then you redirect into the main block.

Yeomen guard are much better at actually defeating a dragon in CR, because they have extra combat res and more bodies (more likely to maintain full ranks after the dragons initial charge)

And as they don't give up banner VP if they die, yeomen guard are just superior in every respect when facing dragons. More likely to win than state troops, more likely to hold for longer even if they lose, less VP given up if they lose. There's not a single category state troops win out on here.

any dragon that is capable of charging a detachment is capable of charging the flank of a men-at-arms.

That's not true at all.

[commandant]

The argument is not that a 17 strong unit of state troops is a good idea, it is that 17 is the number you need to access all of the Static Combat Res and other rules of the state troops assuming that they are deployed 6 wide.
Therefore at 17 models (deployed 6 wide) the state troops are at peak combat efficiency.   Any models you add to to the unit does not increase their efficiency, they just increase their ability to stay at that peak efficiency. (This is not completely true because you can add combat efficiency by adding detachments to the parent model, for example a 6 man detachment (also deployed 6 wide) doubles the combat efficiency of the parent unit. 2 of them triple the combat efficiency but we'll leave that aside for now.

A Yeoman Guard (or men-at-arms for that matter) is not at peak combat efficiency at 17 models. A Yeoman Guard unit is not at peak combat efficiency unit 23 models. Therefore in order to reach peak combat efficiency you need to pay an extra 25 points. Now halberdiers (who are my go to state troop) are only 1 point more expensive than Yeoman Guard so at peak efficiency they are cheaper by 8 points.

[drweir4]

But what you continue to not recognise is that your theoretical “peak efficiency” halbardiers have almost no practical use

[commandant]

At peak efficiency they provide 7 WS3 Str 4 attacks. (19 if you manage to get both detachments in, 21 if you deploy the detachments 8 wide.).

There are few enough infantry units that produce 20 Ws3 str 4 attacks for 174 points.

Now it could be argued that getting halberdiers to peak efficiency is more difficult than getting Yeoman Guard to peak efficiency and that Halberdiers at peak efficiency are more expensive than Yeoman Guard but it can't be argued that halberdiers at peak efficiency wouldn't wipe the floor with Yeoman Guard at peak efficiency.

Halberdiers at peak efficiency are a danger to every unit in the game and have a reasonable chance of victory against every other unit in the game. There are few other core infantry units about which that is true.

[drweir4]

I can run down the units in the tournament armies doing well and almost none are threatened by 21 halberdiers in anyway and they often cost a fraction of the points

[commandant]

I'd be very interested by what units in any sort of army are not threatened by 21 WS3 Str 4 attacks and cost less than 180 points.

[drweir4]

But it’s actually 7 attacks and to get those to work you have to get a ld7 unit that has m4 across the board

So nothing in a wood elf list cares, nothing in a tk list, nothing in a bretonnian list, scream lists etc etc. just browse down all the tourney lists

Eg

Deepwood scouts - don’t care, you can’t catch them and will kill or panic you from range
Sisters - don’t care, you’ll never catch them, will kill you with pillars and even if you do get close enough to charge they’ll win the combat easily
Glade riders - you’ll never catch them
Wizards - obvs don’t care
Eagle - obvs don’t care
Dragon - mmmm a free unit + banner, why thank you

And that’s without considering how these lists work together and synergise

There’s a reason none of the empire players took state troops. There is simply no role they can fulfil for their points

Whereas I watched a game yesterday with yeoman guard vs a wood elf tourney list and the yeoman guard were a real threat because they can act independently to push the wood elves without any realistic risk of being panicked and have in reality much higher combat res (plus warband to help those tricky charges into cover) (the exiles list won)

[Skyros]

The argument is not that a 17 strong unit of state troops is a good idea, it is that 17 is the number you need to ... the state troops are at peak combat efficiency. 

No they aren't.
If they were, people would run units of 17 halberdiers, but they don't.
This 'peak combat efficiency' metric you've invented in your head doesn't actually exist.
Or rather it does, but not as you've described. It's about winning combats, not making use of all your rules.
If Halberdiers want to win the same combats that yeomen guard are winning, they are going to have to spend more points.