Empire Spearmen: Worth it?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Rommel44**

Hey guys. After taking a long hiatus from playing fantasy, I decided to get back into it and although I have considered playing another army and trying new things (Currently have a Bretonnia Army at the moment), I keep finding myself drawn back to the good old Empire, as if there is one thing I love about these guys besides the fluff of them being surrounded and fighting for there lives all the time, is that they are one if not the most flexible army in the game when it comes to building an army. Although the glory days of the Mortar are now gone

, they still have a lot going for them, which was why the first thing I did when I came back to the Empire was order 50x of the Older Spearmen with the Lion Shields from ebay

. Now that being said, back with my old Empire Army I had mainly Halberds in my Army and they performed pretty well, but what has been peoples success with a horde unit of Spearmen? I do plan to run them as a horde formation of 10x5 w/my BSB and a WP, and currently Im debating of running a more aggressive army, with a big horde of 30x Knights and a lot of State Troops to start, with the usual artillery support.

Anyways, what are some successes people have had with running spears over halberds and if so, what detachment do they run with them? Appreciate the help guys and never forget, Son's of Stirland, ADVANCE!!!

**pities2004**

I run 50 Halberds in horde formation, packs a punch and with all the buffs they do pretty good.

Spearmen don't pack the same punch and it's not worth the extra rank.

50 halberds with 20 swordsmen detachment on each side.

I usually put Wizard lvl 4, bsb, witch-hunter, warrior priest all in the Halberd unit.

**Inquisitor Jex**

They do have the "extra rank" rule, so they attack in 3 ranks instead of 2, but for that they will have to take the charge or DO the charge and have the rule apply come the next turn; it is a cheap anvil to hold with str 3 attacks while your halberd/sdwordsman detatchemtn flank

**Stoupe**

Not at all worth it. Too pricey for what they do competitively. I'd rather have halberds. Intact I think only halberds, archers, and knights are decent. Makes my 100+ handgunners/crossbowmen cry. Not to mention my completely converted militia and swordsman hordes. Sigh.

**Rommel44**

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
They do have the "extra rank" rule, so they attack in 3 ranks instead of 2, but for that they will have to take the charge or DO the charge and have the rule apply come the next turn; it is a cheap anvil to hold with str 3 attacks while your halberd/sdwordsman detatchemtn flank

If Im in a horde formation and since Spearmen fight in an extra rank already, wouldn't I get 40x attacks? Also, I know Halberds are more killy but Spearmen are cheaper pointwise and since Im running an Army from Stirland, it makes since as it fits the fluff of the province. I have seen many people doubting Spearmen, however I have seen many examples where Spearmen have done well and held there own against stronger units. Sure they need support, but same can be said by Halberds. I used to run a number of them but they died just as easily without any support from other units. I could be wrong but thats how I see it, but I d plan to run Halberd Detachments to support them as I feel Sowrdsmen are a waste of points now as your not getting much for the extra points.

**pities2004**

Guess your best bet is just to try it and see what happens.

**Inquisitor Jex**

Rommel: Yes according to the BRB, if you have a Horde, you support attack with 3 ranks, so your 4 rank horde will basically have troops in all ranks attack.

Thought keep in mind that those who can attack must be in direct base to base (or corner-to-corner) so you may not get all 40 attacks going at the same time, but if you're facing a standard 5 wide infantry block, that still gives you 28 attacks (7 in the front, and then 3x7 for support).

**Goldshield**

I don't know what your local meta is, but I tend to be up against more buses then hordes, so those extra attacks are not as effective as they might seem at first. The current groupthink is that higher str is always a good thing over any extra attacks at base str. Whether or not you agree with that is entirely up to you. Also, Spears were more viable in older editions when people use to be able to kill your front rank pretty easy, but Step Up has allowed people to not have to worry as much about people in the back.

Another thing about Halberds is that you are just effective on the offense as the defense, while Spearmen seem to make you want to consider playing more defensively to hold while waiting for the attacks, which in this game of movement and positioning can be the difference for the game. And then there is the thing of getting hit in the flanks.

I understand if you want to run Spears though for fluff reasons. I do the same thing for my Tilean Pikemen even though I have tried both ways. But if you do plan to run Spears then they need support, otherwise they really are more akin to a speed bump. They need Warrior Priests at least and a buff wizard and/or a Captain is always a good thing. Detachments is practically a given especially with Prayers and HtL, and the Halberd Detachment will probably work pretty good for you.

**Rommel44**

Goldshield wrote:
I don't know what your local meta is, but I tend to be up against more buses then hordes, so those extra attacks are not as effective as they might seem at first. The current groupthink is that higher str is always a good thing over any extra attacks at base str. Whether or not you agree with that is entirely up to you. Also, Spears were more viable in older editions when people use to be able to kill your front rank pretty easy, but Step Up has allowed people to not have to worry as much about people in the back.

Another thing about Halberds is that you are just effective on the offense as the defense, while Spearmen seem to make you want to consider playing more defensively to hold while waiting for the attacks, which in this game of movement and positioning can be the difference for the game. And then there is the thing of getting hit in the flanks.

I understand if you want to run Spears though for fluff reasons. I do the same thing for my Tilean Pikemen even though I have tried both ways. But if you do plan to run Spears then they need support, otherwise they really are more akin to a speed bump. They need Warrior Priests at least and a buff wizard and/or a Captain is always a good thing. Detachments is practically a given especially with Prayers and HtL, and the Halberd Detachment will probably work pretty good for you.

That was the plan. the Idea is to have at least 2x Regiments of 50x to 60x Spears, each with a Warrior Priest in the unit and each with a Halberd Detachment to support them. From there, I plan to gather Knights, Cannons, Hellblaster (this thing is so ridiculously good now why wouldn't you take it), as well as Crossbowmen along with a Celestial Hurricanium. From there I plan to expand my army to see where it can go, but having 2x units Spearmen can actually be very nasty combined with a Celestial Hurricanium.

**bu11etmagn3tt**

Yes. Worth it.

**Rommel44**

bu11etmagn3tt wrote:
Yes. Worth it.

Im aware of that mate. However this was just one option I was considering on fielding my Spearmen. I have also considered fielding 2x units of 35x Spearmen in a 7x5 formation, as not only does it give me extra attacks but still gives me a solid number of bodies to work with in terms of ranks and Steadfast. Seen many DE and HE players run there Spearmen this way with great success so I think it would work out, especially when supported by detachments of 15x Halberds for more killing power. Thoughts?

**Ailaros**

Why wouldn't you want to got for horde? You can get 4 ranks attacking then. 40 spearmen set up that way would be a hell of a horde-killer in its own right, what with everyone stabbing.

The fact that your opponent would more likely have steadfast would be countered by the fact that you'd just straight kill them faster.

**Inquisitor Jex**

Actually in a melee only the models in base contact or corner-to-corner can attack, so if you're not facing a unit that is somehow touching each and every one of your 10 spearmen out front, you won't be attackign with all 40 attacks.

**Ailaros**

Sure, but there are other horde units in the game.

Not saying you'd do this every time, but it's an option.

**Evertras**

Certainly depends on the other horde. And if the frontage is smaller, then the enemy has fewer opposing attacks and you're still getting that extra rank anyway. If you're facing a 5 wide unit of 20mm troops, you're still getting in 7*4 = 28 attacks. Not bad. And if you were just using a 5 wide of your own, you'd only be getting 5*3 = 15 attacks. Nearly doubled!

Of course, that's a pretty big investment, and it's only S3 attacks. Consider the halberds instead. You'd be getting 7*3 = 21 attacks. Is 21 S4 attacks better than 28 S3? In most cases, I'd take the S4. If you do some buffing shenanigans (mindrazor) or in some fringe cases having more attacks can be better, but for the most part having essentially +1 to wound and -1 to armor saves is worth taking a 25% hit in number of attacks. Plus it's a bit more durable. If you have 40 models of each, the halberds can take 10 casualties before they start getting fewer attacks against another horde. Once the spearmen take any casualties they're going to start suffering in damage output.

**Ailaros**

Well, this would be solved with a dollop of stats. A halberd hit against something T3 with a Sv5+ kills .56 to the spear's .333, or about 2/3rds more. Against something without a save at T3, it's a difference of .666 vs .5, or about 1/3rd better.

Ignoring the fact that the spears are cheaper (because you'd probably rather spend more points to actually win the fight, rather than saving a few points and losing it), you've got to consistently get into situations where you're doing something like 1/3 to 2/3ds more attacks with the spears than than the halberds.

Less than this, and the halberds are better. More than this and the spears are better. Against smaller infantry, that is. Against bigger stuff with heavier armor...

**Evertras**

What's the price difference between them? I don't have an Empire book, so I'm going purely off the stats I know. It might still be worth it to bulk up on spears if they're significantly cheaper. I think halberds are the generally agreed 'better option', but I'm always open to changing things up if the math backs it up. Plus a giant horde of spears always looks cool.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
For kicks, I ran my sim program. 30 halberds and 40 spears, assuming they all get full attacks (not a safe assumption, but they'll get proportionately the same if they're not facing another horde anyway).

Against T3 with no armor, they both do ~6.67 wounds.

Against T3 with 2+ armor (basic knights), halberds do ~2.2 wounds while spears do ~1.1.

Against T5 with no armor, halberds do ~3.3 wounds while spears do ~2.2.

Against T5 with 3+ armor, halberds do ~1.67 wounds while spears do ~0.74 wounds.

Interestingly, I figured the one spot spears would win out due to volume of attacks is against ward saves (such as parry). Turns out halberds stay even there too. T3 with a 2++ gives ~1.11 wounds for both.

So basically halberds are always equal or better when it comes to raw damage output. It comes down to point costs. Can you give them shields? That might also make a bit of a difference in survivability, though not by terribly much.

**Ailaros**

Nah, spearmen are only 1 point cheaper than halberds. And you can give both of them shields.

I suppose where you can look for spear goodness is in 5-file ranks where you get 15 instead of 10 attacks (so, 50% more, which breaks the threshold against unarmored targets), but oddly enough, it's actually better to take the halberds in the horde case, because it's 30 vs. 40, which looks bad, as you note.

So, I guess what spearmen are good for, then, is steadfast breaking. Spearmen are going to be good enough against the lightly-armored units who will be relying on steadfast. Meanwhile, in a unit of 40 in a column of 5x8, meaning you have more ranks, and with the extra attacks, you could still do damage (with a small enough footprint to prevent incoming damage) to actually win combat.

Of course, you could also do this with halberdiers, which would also be good against other stuff. But at this scale, the spearmen would be actually cheaper. That's the real question, here - would you rather have 40 halberdiers, or 40 spearmen and 5 musketeers?

**Evertras**

To be fair, the spearmen could actually use the shields in CC while halberds could not (two handed). They'd only get to use them against shooting. So there's that. If they have light armor as well then they'd have a 5+ armor save compared to halberds' 6+. But I assume that would then also make them the same point cost.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, some more sim. This time with 15 spear attacks vs 10 halberd attacks.

Against T3 with no armor, spears do ~2.5 while halberds do ~2.2. Now they're pulling ahead, as you predicted.

Against T4 with no armor, they break even at ~1.67 each.

Against T5 with no armor, halberds pull ahead with ~1.1 vs ~0.8 for spears.

Against T6 with no armor, though, things get interesting! Spears still do ~0.8, while halberds drop to ~0.55. Here's where the volume of attacks kicks in, when both need 6s to wound anyway.

Of course, armor is usually a factor. T6 with a 4+ save (scaly skin, let's say)... well, spears win again. ~0.41 wounds for spears, ~0.37 wounds for halberds.

So here's where spears can shine as well: monster killing. Or at least, monster poking. Kill might be a bit strong of a word.

**akaean**

I have considered this in the context of Bretonnian Men at Arms before,
To sum up here were my thoughts on the matter

akaean wrote:
Lately, I have been fascinated with running spears on my Men at Arms, to the point where I am considering moving past proxy, and convert my Halbreds into Spears. A brief overview, Men at Arms come stock with weapon skill 2, strength and toughness 3, light armor, shields, and halbreds. They may exchange their Halbreds for spears at no cost.

The reason for this is two fold.
1) Men at Arms are primarily a defensive unit in my mind. They just lack the stats and equipment to truly deal with enemy infantry blocks head on, without some really good luck in the magic phase, and even then that is dice not put into dwellers or regrowing knights! In my lists, Men at Arms are in Ranks of 5, as deep as I can afford it, at 2K I plan on running 10 ranks of 5. They get a Damsel with the Prayer Icon, and they slam into enemy units and strip away their steadfast, while limiting their own casualties as much as possible with small frontage and the Ward from the Blessing. Where Spears come in is that they are one handed, which means while you still cannot parry (which doesn't matter because you get a Ward Save from the blessing of the lady), you CAN add your shield to your light armour giving them a 5+ save in close combat and ranged, Which increases their protection against strength 3 and 4 attacks. Every made save helps preserve ranks, allowing your M@A to both keep their own steadfast when you need them to tarpit, and giving up as little combat resolution as feasibly possible so the Knights can charge in and sweep the enemy away, who doesn't have steadfast thanks to 7-8 or so ranks of M@A.

2) The trade off of course is lower offense, since you lose out on the +1 strength offered by Halbreds. Truthfully, in my games proxying spears in I didn't really miss the Halbreds, and I found that the drop in strength was mostly mitigated by picking up another rank of supporting attacks.

Ultimately, from that thread, and from continued experience, I have to go with Halbreds now (thank god I didn't convert!)
The overall theme is that Halbreds with that extra point of strength are crucial if you want a block to help fight against more elite opponents who typically have toughness 4, and an armour save that can be reduced by the Halbreds and when combined with Wildform you can get up to s5, which is leaps and bounds better than s4.
The other huge advantage of Halbreds is they retain their effectiveness when you are charging, or when you are fighting in the flank. This I feel is the nail in the coffin- The Halbred offers more tactical flexibility. Being able to charge and get the benefit of your weapons is a huge point in favor of the Halbreds.

**Evertras**

akaean wrote:

The other huge advantage of Halbreds is they retain their effectiveness when you are charging, or when you are fighting in the flank. This I feel is the nail in the coffin- The Halbred offers more tactical flexibility. Being able to charge and get the benefit of your weapons is a huge point in favor of the Halbreds.

That's an excellent point as well. All my calculations were done with the assumption that the spears either took a charge or were in the middle of a combat, not that they had charged in the first place.

**Ailaros**

So... spears and halberds are basically the same, but spears can take +1 armor in close combat, and halberds are killier against low-mid T targets with armor?

**Evertras**

In a not-horde formation, yes. With no armor, spears are as good or even better against T3/4 troops. With armor, halberds start to pull ahead.

Spears do significantly worse if they charge (as pointed out above by akaean), and there's also the problem of losing attacks more quickly. If you have a unit of 20 halberds and a unit of 20 spears with shields, you get 10 attacks from the halberds and 15 from the spears. All's well. Now let's say you lose 10 from each from shooting. The halberds still get 10 attacks, while the spears are dropped to 10 as well. So if you're going for a block of spears, you need more buffer room, as you lose attacks more easily.

**akaean**

Ailaros wrote:
So... spears and halberds are basically the same, but spears can take +1 armor in close combat, and halberds are killier against low-mid T targets with armor?

For Bretonnia, whose infantry comes with shields built into their cost, Empire Spearmen have to pay additional for Shields, and since you cannot get a Parry Save unless you are wielding a sword, it is generally seen as not worth it.

**Ailaros**

Well the spearmen just are more survivable, though, right? I mean, a spearman with a shield costs the same as a halberdier without one. They start losing out to casualties faster, but they also are more resistant to casualties.

I guess the question is what's the kinds of targets you're most likely engaging with your infantry, T3/4 with Sv 4+/5+/6+ or T3 Sv-/T6?

It seems like those big, heavy targets would be taken out by cannons or something, rather than left to the spearmen. On the other hand, if we're talking big numbers here, you've got to compare the 40 spearmen with a squad of armor-piercing gunners to 40 halberdiers for the same cost...

**Evertras**

Assuming they have light armor, it's a 5+ vs a 6+ armor save. This is a 6+ against S4, and goes to nil at S5+. Very slightly more survivable against a reasonable range of incoming attacks, and a little more durable against shooting.

Definitely agree on the heavy targets being brought down by cannons. The fact that the spears beat halberds at that point is a little overshadowed by the fact that on average, you're lucky to do a single wound at all. Really more of an interesting curiosity to me than anything else.

**Ailaros**

So, then what's the conclusion? Only looking at targets against which spearmen and halberdiers are at least reasonably good against...

The halberdiers do more damage, but spearmen, are a cheaper or more effective way of breaking up steadfast-based units charging into you?

**Evertras**

Very short version: Spearmen are the anvil (+1 armor), Halberds are the hammer (slightly more damage against most units, much better on the charge).

**Ailaros**

So, spearmen are good for if your opponent charges you with steadfast units, and halberdiers are good for everything else (that can be handled by either).

**Evertras**

Well, if you're fielding them with shields and that makes them the same cost as halberds, then you won't necessarily have a bigger unit to break steadfast. If you go naked with spears, then yes, you could probably have a bigger unit for steadfast breaking purposes.

The more I look at it, the more I'm trying to come up with excuses for spears to be a better choice. Halberds just seem better in 80-90% of situations. Yes, you can field an extra rank in a big unit maybe with spears, but you'll kill more with halberds, so your enemy will end up with less ranks anyway which also helps break steadfast.