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.

So I hope everyone will agree with me that spears are at least a bit underpowered at the moment. I propose that they deal additional damage vs cavalry, monstrous cavalry and any units with fly special rule.

It seems pretty obviuos that as the cavalry charges and exerts a force on the unit they charged , the same force is exerted back at the cavalry. Although mounts are more fit at absorbing the force upon impact, traveling at high speeds they are vulnerable to spears. Therefore I propose that spears grant +1S to the wielder AGAINST cavalry, monstrous cavalry, or any models with fly special rule on the turn they charged the spearman.

What do you guys think?

Remove supporting attacks > spears' issue solved

 TanKoL wrote:
Remove supporting attacks > spears' issue solved

That would be step 1.

+1S when charged by cavalry, monsters, monstruous infantry & cavalry (as suggested by the OP) would be step 2.

Step 3 would be to revamp the whole close combat system and make every and each weapon type have its usefulness, as well as WS being actually important.

I agree, on all but removing supportive attacks, units would not do many attacks if supportimg attacks where to be removed.

devestator 7777777 wrote:
I agree, on all but removing supportive attacks, units would not do many attacks if supportimg attacks where to be removed.

They didn't in the previous 7 editions and I don't remember it being a problem.

It's all subjective. Personally I find it that it would highly increase the use of multiattack models, while mundane big blocks of single attack models not armed with spears would deal half the damage output.

That might shake the balance.

Spears are just fine. If you have trouble against charging cav and gak, invent a new weapon, like pike(i think DoW have it).

However, to me it seems it's more a matter of consistency. If spears give +1S when mounted during charging turn, why would't they give +1S for infantry against cavalry the turn it charged?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
However, to me it seems it's more a matter of consistency. If spears give +1S when mounted during charging turn, why would't they give +1S for infantry against cavalry the turn it charged? Newtons third Law is still true.

I'm fine with supporting attacks. What should really go is step up. By actually killing models to get rid of attacks, that DOES have an impact on the effectiveness of both spears and multiple attacks, making those models more valuable. It also makes initiative far more important than it is now.

edit: for spelling

I think the problem is also that the S+S option is cheaper and better, an option would be that you have a hand weapon whits has no special rules, and fine weapons whit have the parry rule but are more expensive .
This way you can have is cheap, a hand weapon, more attacks , the spear, or more survivability, a parry weapon like a sword of dwarves axes.

I agree that the hand weapons that confer the parry save are too cheap in comparison to spears.

Manfred von Draken what do you mean?

In previous editions, models didn't pile in immediately, you waited until the end of the round to do so. So for instance, if you were fighting a unit that's 5 models wide (and for ease of example, the unit has no champion) and inflicted 5 wounds on the unit before they got a chance to swing, those 5 front models did not get to attack that round on account of being dead.

These days, with 'step up', they still get to fight. This lessens the importance of having a high initiative - it's allfine for elves to go first, but that advantage is wasted because the enemy is still going to attack back with full strength (assuming again large units), and the elves are to squishy to really withstand that.

The advantage of spears, therefore, had been that they can throw more attacks, and so offset losing guys, and so had importance over guys armed with just hand weapons.

Thy try to balance it whit ASF and the re-rolls that come whit it. whit does not help against WOC but that what you get by continuely updating bit by bit

It also doesn't help against hordes of goblins, who still hit basic elves on a 4+, wound on a 4+, and have to contend with at best a 5+ armor save.

Sure, the elves get a few kills more than they used to, but they now suffer more wounds than they used to.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
In previous editions, models didn't pile in immediately, you waited until the end of the round to do so. So for instance, if you were fighting a unit that's 5 models wide (and for ease of example, the unit has no champion) and inflicted 5 wounds on the unit before they got a chance to swing, those 5 front models did not get to attack that round on account of being dead.

These days, with 'step up', they still get to fight. This lessens the importance of having a high initiative - it's allfine for elves to go first, but that advantage is wasted because the enemy is still going to attack back with full strength (assuming again large units), and the elves are to squishy to really withstand that.

The advantage of spears, therefore, had been that they can throw more attacks, and so offset losing guys, and so had importance over guys armed with just hand weapons.

I really like this mechanic. That would undoubtedly make spears more usefull. Although it might be necessary to rebalance asf and perhaps remove the rerolls not to make the elves op like Detobias said.

Of course, the down side to that setup, which is I think why they changed it: its very possible, especially with fairly killy high-initiative units, like warriors, for you to basically make it a no-reply situation where you sit there killing off the front rank or two of his unit, and he gets the frustrating experience of having his unit have no attacks back...

Playing without step-up was horribly frustrating at times, especially against elven cav, warriors, and things of that nature.

Which makes me believe the current system is good, maybe it would be better if weapon skill became more viable so things like goblins would no longer hit 2ws more things on 4+.

 Thunderfrog wrote:
Playing without step-up was horribly frustrating at times, especially against elven cav, warriors, and things of that nature.

My vampire goes 1st. Murders your front rank. You can't strike back. I win combat. I outnumber you due to I have 50 zombies behind me. I cause fear. You auto break. My M7 vampire runs you down.

Ah the joys of playing 7th ed VC.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Thunderfrog wrote:
Playing without step-up was horribly frustrating at times, especially against elven cav, warriors, and things of that nature.

My vampire goes 1st. Murders your front rank. You can't strike back. I win combat. I outnumber you due to I have 50 zombies behind me. I cause fear. You auto break. My M7 vampire runs you down.

Ah the joys of playing 7th ed VC.

Exactly.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Thunderfrog wrote:
Playing without step-up was horribly frustrating at times, especially against elven cav, warriors, and things of that nature.

My vampire goes 1st. Murders your front rank. You can't strike back. I win combat. I outnumber you due to I have 50 zombies behind me. I cause fear. You auto break. My M7 vampire runs you down.

Ah the joys of playing 7th ed VC.

Hence one of the reasons they dropped auto-break, which few people are truly call for a return to.

Why not just have an upgrade of Spears to pikes for +2 Points per model?

This something I have actually been thinking about a lot for the past few months. I totally agree that spears are underpowered. Pole weapons were the dominant battlefield weapon for the almost the entirety of human history until Napoleon. The last major victory for a predominantly spear army was 1879! (admittedly they had a huge numerical advantage) The advantage of reach is huge and massively under appreciated but the WHFB rule set. For a basic line troop the pole arm should always be the 1st choice. At the moment this is true only for elves, humans (halberd) and chaos warriors (halberd). In fact this should be even more true for less skilled warriors and small warriors (looking at you goblins!)

I want to say I am aware this is a game so rules should such that if given a choice over realism and simplicity/ fun the latter should rule. Largely for that reason I agree with

 Korinov wrote:

make every and each weapon type have its usefulness, as well as WS being actually important.

I'm not totally sure how I feel about the WS, I think hitting on 3s rather than 4s is already pretty good. I also think step-up is a good rule. It makes the game more balanced, the increased kills allows HtH to be more decisive and elves are already sufficiently OP.

I think spears should generally be the best option (if you can't take halberds) but be worse in certain situations depending on eg. terrain, size of unit, quality of the soldiers.
Idea: spear and shield gives 6+ ward and fight in extra rank when fighting to the front in open terrain. Spear alone gives fight in extra rank to the front regardless of terrain. HW+S give 6+ ward no matter the terrain.
Possibilty: HW+S gives 5+ ward if WS of bearer is better and/or in rough terrain and/or the bearer is attacking his enemy in the flank.
Possibility: if two units are fighting (to the front), one has a pole-arm and the other doesn't the pole arm unit gets asf.

I don't have a problem with pikes exactly but I don't think they have a place in WH.
Firstly pikes are great but only if you have A LOT. Grand armies seem to be rare so pikes should similarly be. In addition those large units would be very vulnerable to magic in much the same way pike squares were abandoned due to the power of quality cannon.
Second pikes are great at killing men. I suspect they would also be good at killing T3 and T4 infantry and cavalry but maybe not monsters or the steel encased chaos warriors

Two hand-weapons should be exceedingly rare. Its a very difficult technique and adds only a tiny benefit to the wielder at a massive cost when compered to HW+S. On the other hand its very cool and this is a fantasy game. Leave it to elite skirmishers and frenzied psychopaths only. In reality spear wielding units should massacre these guys without breaking a sweat.

Two-handed weapons are currently first choice, when possible for most units. In terms of game play i think its good there is a weapon choice that exists as a counter to monsters etc. Two-handed weapon is a very broad category but spear units should destroy twohanded weapon units in open terrain. I am not sure how best to do this in terms of the game though

The zweihander was a two-handed sword used by specialist troops to open holes in spear walls. So...yeah. Saying "Weapon X should beat Weapon Y" is opening a tedious and pointless argument.

Spears have longer reach. Halberds often had hooks and spear heads, as well as axe blades. Flails could disarm an opponent. Picks and hammers faired better against armour...

...if you try to capture a more realistic view of one weapon, you have to do so with them all. And that way lies madness.

Spears should be a free upgrade, as they are with Saurus--the one unit we see being given spears. An extra rank of attacks is a fair trade for a 6+ Ward save. Nuff said.

Always strikes first and +1S against a charging cavalry unit would be a massive improvement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thunderfrog wrote:
Playing without step-up was horribly frustrating at times, especially against elven cav, warriors, and things of that nature.

Oh dont. My regular opponent at the time ran Brettonians. BIG columns of knights smacking into my spear blocks and wiping close to half of them out, me getting zilch in the way of return attacks. It was NOT a fun era.

Probably wasnt helped by my Warplightning cannon having a tendency to catastrophically detonate on turn 1 either. I think it fired successfully a total of twice in that entire edition.

Warpsolution wrote:
The zweihander was a two-handed sword used by specialist troops to open holes in spear walls.

Except it most likely wasn't. This is repeated often and while it is possible to bind 6 pikes with a Zweihänder said wielder would have a life expectancy of about 0.8 seconds. All the evidence we have suggests such large swords were used in incredibly small numbers as an area control weapon to protect the flag carrier AKA standard bearer AKA ensign

Warpsolution wrote:
Spears have longer reach. Halberds often had hooks and spear heads, as well as axe blades. Flails could disarm an opponent...

There is almost no evidence of the use of flails in a military context (outside of adapted agricultural implements in peasant rebellions), the 'disarm' ability was invented for D&D.

Warpsolution wrote:
Spears should be a free upgrade, as they are with Saurus--the one unit we see being given spears. An extra rank of attacks is a fair trade for a 6+ Ward save.

Agreed, with current rule set they should be a free upgrade. If it was a fair trade though I think more people would take it, Saurus aren't the only unit it is a free upgrade for.

Warpsolution wrote:
And that way lies madness....

You are right it can get out of hand and gameplay should be the principal concern, so lets stick to just the spear rules. Head to head spears beat shields by a super slim margin. No one takes it, I think because: Spears lose that bonus if they charge and letting your enemy charge gives them the CR to tip the scales in their favour, if you are fighting superior troops shields become better and the units this discussion is relevant to are anvils. Principal responsibility of anvil is to not die so shields are better. I think making it a free upgrade & keep Fight in Extra Rank when charging is the minimum change necessary for spears to see more play.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Always strikes first and +1S against a charging cavalry unit would be a massive improvement.

Do you mean universal ASF or just against incoming cav?

@SavageEricFluffy: fine. Let's get technical. Two-handed swords should grant some kind of bonus when used to protect characters.
And flails should be better in an extended fight, since the impact of the attacks are absorbed by the chain, instead of down the handle and into the wielder's arm.

And, hey, one-handed swords barely utilized the wielder's strength at all, relying more on precision and the fighter's understanding of space and timing.

Anvil units need to not die. True. But if my Night Goblins are stuck in a fight with some Chaos Warriors, I'd rather lose an extra 6 of my guys to take down one of theirs, anvil or no.
I'm all for units having a specific purpose on the table, but active results are always better than passive ones. You win the game by killing the enemy. Not by surviving.

The only reason I could see taking away the "...on a turn they didn't charge" caveat is to make it simpler.
But then you need to show me how Extra Hands Weapons are still competitive.

Warpsolution wrote:
@SavageEricFluffy: fine. Let's get technical. Two-handed swords should grant some kind of bonus when used to protect characters.
And flails should be better in an extended fight, since the impact of the attacks are absorbed by the chain, instead of down the handle and into the wielder's arm.

And, hey, one-handed swords barely utilized the wielder's strength at all, relying more on precision and the fighter's understanding of space and timing.

Anvil units need to not die. True. But if my Night Goblins are stuck in a fight with some Chaos Warriors, I'd rather lose an extra 6 of my guys to take down one of theirs, anvil or no.
I'm all for units having a specific purpose on the table, but active results are always better than passive ones. You win the game by killing the enemy. Not by surviving.

The only reason I could see taking away the "...on a turn they didn't charge" caveat is to make it simpler.
But then you need to show me how Extra Hands Weapons are still competitive.

.... I thought we decided not to get technical...

Extra hand weapons is still competitive because you get the bonus with a single model (rather than needing at least three ranks) and you also still get the bonus when flanked (not just to the front)

Extra hand weapons costs more and does not grant +1 armour. Even with the other bonuses (which are minor, since they only come up in non-ideal conditions), I don't think it'd be balanced.

Really, show me a unit where Extra Hand Weapons are an option, and people take them. All I can think of are Orcs, and even then it's a toss-up, unless they're Savages.

And what other units get spears for free?

Not many units have the choice between Spear or XHW. Besides SavageOrcs there are Orcs. In my experience XHW is the most common choice on OrcBigUns. Yes they are non-ideal conditions but those non-ideal conditions happen very regularly. In addition to that and the charge issue WHFB in its current incarnation puts a large emphasis on S so you lose your amour anyway -----> XHW > Spears

XHW will still be competitive for scouts & skirmishers; the units are too small to get the spear bonus and Orcbiguns (esp savage) because of Choppas