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.

I submitted this to Gamefaqs@gwplc.com and thought I'd open up a discussion on it. (some details removed to preserve GW secrecy)

The new GK Halberd change from an increase in initiative to an increase in strength struck me as odd. Let me show why:

Codex: Space Marines
Power Sword
Power Axe

The above is a free exchange and gives a distinct choice between 2 different battlefield roles.

Codex: Grey Knights
Force Sword
Force Halberd

The above seems strangely balanced vs the generic SM option. Also, from an army construction standpoint it’s a somewhat bland choice that doesn't represent significant change in battlefield roles

Given that previous GK codices (and the fluff) represented the GK as highly trained/skilled even by astartes standards I assert that a move to the following profile would be desirable.

+2 pts - Force Halberd: S user AP3 WS+1

Reasons:

1. It would give GK players a clear distinction in battlefield roles between the wargear options presented.
2. Increased WS was a hallmark of GK units in the past.
3. Fits the flavour and fluff of the army.
4. Reach often confers an advantage in combat between equally skilled opponents.

Not sure how holding a weapon would make you better at using weapons.

A large two handed weapon making your weapon hit harder, makes more sense to me.

WS should be based on the unit, not what weapon they use.

WS in 40K equates to your ability to hit your opponent.

Think about it this way:

Astartes with combat knife
vs
Astartes with halberd

The SM with the halberd has the advantage in who's going to hit who because he can strike from range and dictate the fight.

Also consider reach in boxing or martial arts. Same principle.

As far as hitting harder:
Makes sense for axes, two handed hammers, etc. Halberds? Not so much. Polearms are typically about reach, not applied force.

It doesnt make him better at using the weapon, it just gives him a stronger weapon

Hence the strength. The applied reach also made sense with initiative with the old version as longer reach meant you could hit the other guy first before he hit you

In no version do I see giving a guy a better weapon means he knows how to hit the other guy better

So you're saying that reach has no effect on martial arts? That's demonstrably fallacious.

I didn't say it made someone better, I said it changed the nature of the fight in that having reach confers an advantage that then leads to an increased probability to hit your opponent.

In 40k terms that would be represented by a WS advantage as shown in my Astartes vs Astartes example. Equal in all respects but give one a reach advantage and what do you expect?

I agree that the init bonus did make sense. But as GW saw fit to remove that particular battlefield role I propose this option as an alternative.

Reach=/=martial arts.

I point you towards that Space Elf chick standing over there in nothing but her underwear wielding two short knives, who just happens to be more skilled in combat then your entire army...x3.

I'd personally agree with the additional strength added. Simply because that is the effect of the Helbeard in Warhammer Fantasy and it seems consistent to let it do the same here.

Well the current Halberds are actually more like "Glaives"
Having used them in real life having a S+1 is quite reasonable.
As for reach, +1 to Initiative would not be out of line or Counter Attack.

As for WS5, Grey Knights should have that in general, but so should Vanguard Vets and Wolf Guard.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
snip

I point you towards that Space Elf chick standing over there in nothing but her underwear wielding two short knives, who just happens to be more skilled in combat then your entire army...x3.

snip

Sure, she's highly skilled. But if there were 2 of them and one had longer knives?

She'd have the reach advantage.

Reach in martial arts is HUGE. That's why they call it a reach advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Well the current Halberds are actually more like "Glaives"
Having used them in real life having a S+1 is quite reasonable.
As for reach, +1 to Initiative would not be out of line or Counter Attack.

As for WS5, Grey Knights should have that in general, but so should Vanguard Vets and Wolf Guard.

I'm with you, again. Init makes sense, counter attack too would make sense.

But +1 str from a game stat isn't very distinctive from a wargear selection standpoint.
Counter attack would somewhat overlap with falchions

I'd have expected any change to go to +1 init on the halberds.

Again, the reason I pitch +1WS on this particular option is that (as I demonstrated) it makes some sense and also fits the theme of the army to restore access to WS5.

Gildred wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Well the current Halberds are actually more like "Glaives"
Having used them in real life having a S+1 is quite reasonable.
As for reach, +1 to Initiative would not be out of line or Counter Attack.

As for WS5, Grey Knights should have that in general, but so should Vanguard Vets and Wolf Guard.

I'm with you, again. Init makes sense, counter attack too would make sense.

But +1 str from a game stat isn't very distinctive from a wargear selection standpoint.
Counter attack would somewhat overlap with falchions

I'd have expected any change to go to +1 init on the halberds.

Again, the reason I pitch +1WS on this particular option is that (as I demonstrated) it makes some sense and also fits the theme of the army to restore access to WS5.

The right weapon only make you a better fighter if that is "Your Weapon of Choice" to use a D&D term.
And reach is very important, until someone gets under your reach, then you are the one with an issue no mater how good you are.

This is why I think they should have just been WS5 across the board, or at the very least Elites

Reach doesnt make you more skillful, using a different weapon doesnt make you more skillful in using a weapon.

Weapon Skill is how good you are in melee, a weapon shouldnt increase that.

Purifiers should be WS 5 though, along with the already WS 5 paladins, as they're they "Elites"

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Reach=/=martial arts.

If anything it should just let them fight 3" rather than 2" from a friendly in base

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Reach doesnt make you more skillful, using a different weapon doesnt make you more skillful in using a weapon.

Weapon Skill is how good you are in melee, a weapon shouldnt increase that.

Purifiers should be WS 5 though, along with the already WS 5 paladins, as they're they "Elites"

BRB "The higher the characteristic (WS) the more likely the model is to hit an opponent in close combat."

Again, I'm not saying they get magically "better" by picking up a halberd. I'm saying they get an increased chance to hit their opponent. I think I've demonstrated this sufficiently.

Putting purifiers to WS5 just widens the gap between them and GKSS which almost no-one will use anyway as GKTA got so much cheaper.

Gildred wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Reach doesnt make you more skillful, using a different weapon doesnt make you more skillful in using a weapon.

Weapon Skill is how good you are in melee, a weapon shouldnt increase that.

Purifiers should be WS 5 though, along with the already WS 5 paladins, as they're they "Elites"

BRB "The higher the characteristic (WS) the more likely the model is to hit an opponent in close combat."

Again, I'm not saying they get magically "better" by picking up a halberd. I'm saying they get an increased chance to hit their opponent. I think I've demonstrated this sufficiently.

Putting purifiers to WS5 just widens the gap between them and GKSS which almost no-one will use anyway as GKTA got so much cheaper.

How does using a halberd give you a higher chance to hit? Reach doesnt mean you're more likely to hit, just that you'll most likely hit before the other guy, for more damage as its a large weapon.

So I disagree how using a halberd would give you a better chance to hit something, as opposed to hitting something first, or hitting it harder.

You have still yet to demonstrate why that specific weapon would give you a higher chance to hit something than any other weapon, how that weapon would increase your skill with weapons.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

How does using a halberd give you a higher chance to hit? Reach doesnt mean you're more likely to hit, just that you'll most likely hit before the other guy, for more damage as its a large weapon.

So I disagree how using a halberd would give you a better chance to hit something, as opposed to hitting something first, or hitting it harder.

You have still yet to demonstrate why that specific weapon would give you a higher chance to hit something than any other weapon, how that weapon would increase your skill with weapons.

Let's break it down

" Reach doesnt mean you're more likely to hit, just that you'll most likely hit before the other guy"
This is only true if thinking in terms of jousting. My lance is longer so I'll hit first!
Imagine yourself, with a steak knife trying to hit someone who's got a polearm. Good luck. It's not that he's going to strike first, it's that he's going to dictate the combat because you are at a disadvantage in not being able to reach him. Hence the term REACH ADVANTAGE.

" for more damage as its a large weapon"
This is not necessarily true. A quarterstaff is a rather large weapon. Does that mean it does more damage than a hatchet? Negative.

Want it even simpler?
Imagine you had a long sword, and I had a short sword. Let's assume only 8" difference in length. That 8" translates in me having to close an 8" gap that you can strike from and I cannot.

Reach doesn't necessarily mean you get to strike first. It can be the difference between striking AT ALL.

That still fails to point out how it would make you better at hitting something.

All you have said still doesnt explain how a weapon would make you more skillful. The move from WS 4 to WS 5.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
That still fails to point out how it would make you better at hitting something.

All you have said still doesnt explain how a weapon would make you more skillful. The move from WS 4 to WS 5.

P1. A normal astartes is WS4.

P2. Astartes vs astartes each have an equivalent chance to hit each other.

P3. If one of them had a weapon with superior reach, he would have a superior chance to strike the other.

P4 .According to the basic rulebook the chance to hit an opponent in close combat is represented by WS.

P5. In order to represent an increased chance to hit your opponent you would have a higher WS.

C. Halberds could represent an advantage by increasing the WS of the wielder.



Now, the only premise here you can possibly dispute is P3. But I think I've covered it extensively. If you'd like to refute it, please provide a solid argument why you believe reach does not give an increased chance to hit your opponent in close combat.

P3 is untrue. Having longer reach does not mean you have a higher chance to hit someone.

Lascannons have a longer reach than bolters, but Lascannons do not increase your BS.

Longer reach does not mean you're better with a weapon, which is what WS represents, your skill with weapons

Please explain how longer reach = increased skill.

You continue to not prove that having a longer reach has a higher chance to hit.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
P3 is untrue. Having longer reach does not mean you have a higher chance to hit someone.

Lascannons have a longer reach than bolters, but Lascannons do not increase your BS.

I have demonstrated that longer reach does translate into a better chance to hit an opponent in close combat.

Those are not close combat weapons.

Gildred wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
P3 is untrue. Having longer reach does not mean you have a higher chance to hit someone.

Lascannons have a longer reach than bolters, but Lascannons do not increase your BS.

I have demonstrated that longer reach does translate into a better chance to hit an opponent in close combat.

Those are not close combat weapons.

No you havent, its your opinion, that longer reach gives you a better chance to hit.

Longer reach does not make you more skillful, why would it increase your WS, which is your chance to hit, which is how 40k shows how skillful a user is with a weapon.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


No you havent, its your opinion, that longer reach gives you a better chance to hit.

I can't believe this is even in debate. If this is insufficient for you, maybe try google.

http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f2/statistics-reach-advantages-mma-2078289/

Yes, long reach gives you advantage. But the advantage is not making you a better fighter.

You havent demonstrated how long reach makes you a better or more skillful fighter, which is what the WS skill stat represents.

Neither does that MMA thread.

Better fighters have higher WS, specalized melee fighters have a higher WS. Thats innate, their weapons dont make them more skillful.

In fact I cant even think of a weapon currently that increases your WS when you take it in 40k.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Yes, long reach gives you advantage. But the advantage is not making you a better fighter.

You havent demonstrated how long reach makes you a better or more skillful fighter, which is what the WS skill stat represents.

Neither does that MMA thread.

Better fighters have higher WS, specalized melee fighters have a higher WS. Thats innate, their weapons dont make them more skillful.

In fact I cant even think of a weapon currently that increases your WS when you take it in 40k.

I'm glad that we agree that long reach give you an advantage.

BRB "The higher the characteristic (WS) the more likely the model is to hit an opponent in close combat."

If reach gives one combatant an advantage to hitting the other, how else could it be represented in 40k than by the WS stat?

We agree it gives an advantage

We dont agree that it makes him more likely to hit.

Equipping a different weapon shouldn't make you better at hitting stuff in game.

Real world examples aside, 40k has frequently shown it doesnt follow real world examples

The advantage is that it gives +1 str, because you wield it with two hands, per its rules.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
We agree it gives an advantage

We dont agree that it makes him more likely to hit.

Equipping a different weapon shouldn't make you better at hitting stuff in game.

Real world examples aside, 40k has frequently shown it doesnt follow real world examples

The advantage is that it gives +1 str, because you wield it with two hands, per its rules.

Axes give +1 str but are one handed weapons. Why does it follow that halberds would be +1 str because it is a two handed weapon?

Ok maybe that using it with two hands isnt the reasoning why its +1 str, though to mean that you can swing a 2 handed weapon with more force, without having to go at initiative one like an axe does

Or it could be GW rules dont make a whole lot of sense some times.

But there arent any examples of equipping a weapon that makes you better at it (WS higher), which at least goes to show that different weapons dont make you a better fighter

I'd direct you back to the 5 premises I presented to show why I think it's a logical choice for the halberd to increase the wielders WS by 1. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since you find the evidence for my reasoning insufficient.

In any case, now we're coming back around to the initial point of the post...

That being, if you (GW) aren't going to make halberds identical to axes, then why would you settle on +1 S?

It seems like a very bland choice that neither gives a distinct change in battlefield role, nor a distinct change in terms of flavour seeing as how GKs already have a means to increase their strength through psychic powers.

That will teach me to take a nap...

Once more from real life experience:
>Reach does not give you a better chance to hit someone.
>Reach gives you extra chance to hit as your opponent closes on you.
>If he can get in close you are at the disadvantage if he has a shorter weapon.

Wren, I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Nobody is arguing that picking up a weapon increases your "skill." What Gildred is saying is this:

A: Having reach advantage gives a fighter a statistically higher chance of landing a blow.

B: The game mechanic that represents this is called WS, so the suggestion is to increase that characteristic, regardless of what "Weapon Skill" represents in fluff terms. This is a basic principle of abstraction. Increasing WS does not have to mean that a character "got better" at something - it can be a purely mechanical improvement to alter a technical aspect of gameplay, not fluff.

Now, you disagree with statement A. Fine. But consider this: Two identical fencers start a fixed distance apart. One is given a noticeably longer blade. In fencing, the match ends when one side scores a touch. Now if these fighters were to fence 10 times, I would bet that 9 out of 10 times the fencer with the longer sword would score. So statistically speaking, the longer weapon provided a higher chance of hitting.

Of course, in general 40k terms, fights do not end just because one side got hit - this is why I think the Initiative bonus made more sense for the halberds. However, GW has decided to go with the incredibly bland S+1 route for pretty much every special power weapon in the game, which is why we're here discussing it. EDIT: Anpu seemed to hit the nail on the head. Perhaps Counter Attack or Hammer of Wrath would be a more interesting choice for halberds.

 Xca|iber wrote:
Wren, I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Nobody is arguing that picking up a weapon increases your "skill." What Gildred is saying is this:

A: Having reach advantage gives a fighter a statistically higher chance of landing a blow.

Yes, but only to a point.

B: The game mechanic that represents this is called WS, so the suggestion is to increase that characteristic, regardless of what "Weapon Skill" represents in fluff terms. This is a basic principle of abstraction. Increasing WS does not have to mean that a character "got better" at something - it can be a purely mechanical improvement to alter a technical aspect of gameplay, not fluff.

I can see that.

Now, you disagree with statement A. Fine. But consider this: Two identical fencers start a fixed distance apart. One is given a noticeably longer blade. In fencing, the match ends when one side scores a touch. Now if these fighters were to fence 10 times, I would bet that 9 out of 10 times the fencer with the longer sword would score. So statistically speaking, the longer weapon provided a higher chance of hitting.

Yes, but give the Short Bladed Fencer a second Blade and that numbers immediately reverses.

Of course, in general 40k terms, fights do not end just because one side got hit - this is why I think the Initiative bonus made more sense for the halberds. However, GW has decided to go with the incredibly bland S+1 route for pretty much every special power weapon in the game, which is why we're here discussing it. EDIT: Anpu seemed to hit the nail on the head. Perhaps Counter Attack or Hammer of Wrath would be a more interesting choice for halberds.

I had not though of HoW

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
In fact I cant even think of a weapon currently that increases your WS when you take it in 40k.

There's that Exalted Reward in Codex: Chaos Daemons that no one ever takes.