PDA

View Full Version : Seems like spears are completely outclassed by XHW



jamano
18-06-2010, 03:52
lets say you have 10 wide rank of 40 guys. spears with 1 attack vs XHW for 2 attacks, you get 4 ranks worth for a total of 40 attacks. XHW gets three ranks worth(with one at two attacks) for 40 attacks. XHW still does its bonus if in the flank or rear, and with the change to casualties not removing from combat, spears are actually worse at making sure your attacks go through(in the forementioned example if the unit went second and lost 10 guys the spearmen would lose 10 attacks back, and the XHW guys would lose none) The one advantage spears have is you can pay extra to use a sheild, which with most units that can take spears would give you a 6+ or 5+ save. 8th has inadvertently made them even worse than in 7th when noone but saurus used them anyway. :(

Paraelix
18-06-2010, 03:55
Want to clarify your army? Not every army pasys for shields, some pay for the spears instead. Similarly, not every army can get XHW.

Hard to outclass a spear with... nothing.

papabearshane
18-06-2010, 03:57
sad but true i just was looking at this with my savage orcs 10 wide 4 deap............

XHW is good for attacks but not much defence..............

jamano
18-06-2010, 04:00
Im not talking about an army in particular, and i know few can choose between the two, but why did they take one of the interesting weapons(though usually not worth it) and make it strictly worse than another weapon option they included. Like if they had made lances two handed, they would become the same as flails but worse.

Mudkip
18-06-2010, 04:01
They both have their advantages. As long as you have the additional ranks to compensate for losses, spears are better because you get a better save with a shield (so you'll keep those ranks longer). The additional hand weapons on the other hand can be taken on smaller units, saving points on not having to have lots of extra ranks.

Paraelix
18-06-2010, 04:01
sad but true i just was looking at this with my savage orcs 10 wide 4 deap............

XHW is good for attacks but not much defence..............

But in the case of Orcs it is +1S in the first round, isn't it?


Im not talking about an army in particular, and i know few can choose between the two, but why did they take one of the interesting weapons(though usually not worth it) and make it strictly worse than another weapon option they included. Like if they had made lances two handed, they would become the same as flails but worse.
... Because not every army can have both. If lances were two-handed, they would be the same as flails... Except you could only use them on horse. But they'd still be the same.

Now let us do a tally.
Goblins- no XHW
Night Goblins- no XHW
Skaven- no XHW
Saurus- no XHW
High Elf Spearmen- no XHW (no suprise there)
Dark Elf Warriors- no XHW (and cheaper than Corsairs)
Skeletons- no XHW
Ungors- no XHW

In fact, virtually the only unit that has a choice of the two is Orcs >_>

Ramius4
18-06-2010, 04:02
Yeah, you've made a very poor point here. Not everyone pays the points for shields, spears or extra hand weapons. And not everyone has the options for all of these either. Different strokes for different folks.

SamVimes
18-06-2010, 04:02
Because they aren't the same either?

You can use a shield with a spear. You can't with XHW. Seems like viable and different options to me.

Edit: man, super ninja'd!

Seth the Dark
18-06-2010, 04:07
How many people are actually going to go with ten wide units?

Mudkip
18-06-2010, 04:10
Those who have access to troops that are either extremely cheap allowing for both horde and ranks (skaven slaves), or fairly cheap and possessing great offensive power (like khorne marauders) who'll be taken for their massive damage output.

Paraelix
18-06-2010, 04:10
Edit: man, super ninja'd!

Sorry man... I had a spear and attacked from a supporting rank.

EDIT-

Those who have access to troops that are either extremely cheap allowing for both horde and ranks (skaven slaves), or fairly cheap and possessing great offensive power (like khorne marauders) who'll be taken for their massive damage output.
Haha... What? Have you seen the size of 10 wide Marauders? Small base Inf yes, but I doubt it is seriously feasible to run larger base Inf effectively.

jamano
18-06-2010, 04:11
i ninja'd myself by saying that in the original post. being able to get a slightly better bad armor save(because aside from a couple cases, only lightly armor infantry get spears) is the ONE advantage they have, (and some armies have to pay for them) while XHW has many advantages over spears. Fact of the matter is, spears received a definate nerf when they weren't used commonly to begin with. (cant get more than one attack from spears, and only attacking in three ranks when everyone fights in two makes them about half as useful as they used to be,and what i said earlier about removing casualties)

edit: also 10 wide doesnt matter, at a smaller size they're the same, a 20 man unit of XHW has to lose 11 guys to get less attacks back while a spear unit has to lose 6. And in the big horde of guys with spears being able to lose more guys can be just as important as losing a one or two less from a slightly better save.

Dai-Mongar
18-06-2010, 04:14
How many people are actually going to go with ten wide units?

Most Goblin, Skaven, Zombies, Gnoblars and other horde infantry already get fielded in 30+ strong units. It's more likely than you'd think.

Kuja
18-06-2010, 04:18
I think that it is ok. You can combine spears with shields, and spears seems to be cheaper in general than extra hand weapons. For example, empire free company (only equipped with two hand weapons) and empire spearmen (equipped with spear and light armour) cost the same, and, even, militia has the militia special rule, while spearmen have the empire detachment special rule.

Mudkip
18-06-2010, 04:19
Haha... What? Have you seen the size of 10 wide Marauders? Small base Inf yes, but I doubt it is seriously feasible to run larger base Inf effectively.

It's only about an inch and a half wider. It's nothing that can't be managed with proper list construction and deployment.

LaughinGremlin
18-06-2010, 04:22
Am I correct in saying that spears are boosted slightly(?), because in 7th edition, they only fought in extra ranks when they were charged. Now, they can fight in extra ranks, regardless if they charged or not (IF their initiative is higher).

Eh? Maybe?

Paraelix
18-06-2010, 04:24
Am I correct in saying that spears are boosted slightly(?), because in 7th edition, they only fought in extra ranks when they were charged. Now, they can fight in extra ranks, regardless if they charged or not (IF their initiative is higher).

Eh? Maybe?

I'm not 100%, but I believe so. Although Initiative doesn't factor into that at all.

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 04:27
If only mauraders are allowed the choice of extra hand weapons.

Bac5665
18-06-2010, 04:48
Most Goblin, Skaven, Zombies, Gnoblars and other horde infantry already get fielded in 30+ strong units. It's more likely than you'd think.

For the next few months after release. Then people will realize how little then gain compared to the cost and will go back to 5 wide for core infantry, with more ranks.

Dai-Mongar
18-06-2010, 05:14
With free musician reforms, you can use whichever formation is the most useful at the time.

Paraelix
18-06-2010, 05:18
If only mauraders are allowed the choice of extra hand weapons.

You really want massed S3 attacks? :/

Petey
18-06-2010, 05:23
How many people are actually going to go with ten wide units?

it will be foolish not to

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 05:27
You really want massed S3 attacks? :/

At 5pts each, weapon skill 4 initiative4, why not? They can prove very useful when need while expandable at the same time.

Paraelix
18-06-2010, 05:28
XHW and no other equip :/

Pretty sure MoT, HW, Sh is the way to go... Or just MoK with flails in small units.

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 05:32
Well, its an expandable unit that can pack quite a punch and you don't really lose much for losing it either, therefore the term expandable.

Arkh
18-06-2010, 07:07
So here's a random question... do Marauders of Tzeentch that have hand weapon shield get a 5+ parry ward save? If so that seems pretty damn good.

And as far as the XHW vs. Spear... if you want to compare weapons that do the same thing as one another, but one is worse than the other look at mounted halberds vs. mounted great weapons in 7th edition... THERE are functionally identical weapons where one is strictly better than the other.

R Man
18-06-2010, 07:20
jamano, you are aware that most troops also have to pay for the Extra Hand Weapon right? In most cases the extra cost of a shield will be moot, because you'll still pay more for the extra hand weapon.

The ranks thing is also moot, because most troops that can take them are easily capable of being fielded in 5-6 ranks and still remain affordable.

Also, orc's don't get extra hand weapons, they get additional Choppa's. The distinction is subtle, but equal to 1 point of Strength in the first turn of combat. They are not quite the same and are better than their HW equivalents, so the comparison isn't a fair one.

Arbiter7
18-06-2010, 07:49
How many people are actually going to go with ten wide units?

Moreover, how many times will there actually be a 10 wide unit fighting another 10 wide unit in order to get the maximum amount of attacks?

Has there been a new rule that says you use the full complement of attacks in a rank? If not, then it's still base to base contact i.e. not that insane amount of attacks.

Urgat
18-06-2010, 08:10
sad but true i just was looking at this with my savage orcs 10 wide 4 deap............

XHW is good for attacks but not much defence..............

You want a useless option of savage orc boyz? Look no further than shields, since the parry save is redudent with the tatoos. So yeap, a 6+6++ save is the best you'll ever get with savages on foot now.

Dokushin
18-06-2010, 08:19
Beware of 7th-edition thinking. In 7th, you had to either max out on killing power (to prevent return attacks) or max out on defenses (to weather maxed-out killing power). More moderate approaches got rolled by the former and stuck by the latter.

In 8th, since you'll always be taking return attacks and there are going to be generally more attacks floating around anyway, there isn't a "tipping point" for offense where it suddenly becomes unbeatable (by not allowing a significant number of return attacks). As a result, sacrificing more and more just to get that last bit of offense -- in this case, taking 20% more wounds to get extra attacks even without the third rank -- will probably hurt you more than help you.

Extra HW have a place in 8th in getting your extra attacks unconditionally, but with shields you'll be saving another 17% of your wounds and still get your attacks as long as you have at least 3 ranks. I'd hardly call either one "outclassing".

ChaosVC
18-06-2010, 08:20
Errata? Beacon of hope for savage tattoos? Though not really needed since the shield still confers 6+ armour save against shooting and attacks at strength 3. Yes I know...rare foil, not worth jumping for joy. Good with spears though.

destroyerlord
18-06-2010, 10:00
Beware of 7th-edition thinking. In 7th, you had to either max out on killing power (to prevent return attacks) or max out on defenses (to weather maxed-out killing power). More moderate approaches got rolled by the former and stuck by the latter.
Which is why I think chaos warriors will start becoming more popular than marauders again. Extremely killy AND incredible armour save for infantry. Small units (12 men) of warriors will be able to steamroll hordes of S3/T3 troops.

Spiney Norman
18-06-2010, 10:04
How many people are actually going to go with ten wide units?

Yes, I certainly am on my Empire state troops, 3 ranks of 10 wide halberdiers playing host to a hatred-inducing warrior priest sounds pretty tasty to me, you're talking about 11 wounds on average on T4 opponents before saves. I'm also trying to figure if its feasible to field my Greatswords 10 wide as well, although they are pretty expensive.

I can see hordes being more attractive on single attack troops though, it feels like a waste to field your elites in those kind of numbers when they're only getting a single attack in subsequent ranks

Fredox
18-06-2010, 10:57
I played with 2 units of 50 strong spear night goblins a couple of days ago and plan to play a unit of 50 black orcs at some point just for fun. My next unit of night goblins will be HW+S. I'm not sure what way to go with the orc boyz but will probably have multiple options modeled and ready to go. I'm thinking twin choppas would be a nice supporting unit to charge a flank after the shield guys receive a charge.

As others have said 10 wide will depend on unit cost and what function they are going to perform. Want a unit to block a section of board put a 10 wide HW+S with 5+ ranks in there and your good to go (just watch out for templates).

rtunian
18-06-2010, 14:22
dont you only get the 2nd hand weapon attack in the first rank anyway? i thought subsequent ranks were limited to 1 attack. or is that only 1 profile attack, and if you ahve a ahw you get 2nd attack anyway?

Odin
18-06-2010, 14:55
How many people are actually going to go with ten wide units?

I'm certainly going to try it at some stage. 30 Flagellants in 3 ranks is a hell of a lot of S5 attacks, re-rolling to hit and possibly to wound as well. Not cheap though!

Might try it with marauders with great weapons or flails as well.

twistinthunder
18-06-2010, 15:11
Im not talking about an army in particular, and i know few can choose between the two, but why did they take one of the interesting weapons(though usually not worth it) and make it strictly worse than another weapon option they included. Like if they had made lances two handed, they would become the same as flails but worse.

ah but you don't think about the flip side of your argument. if they are high elves spearmen (cause they always go first) they will likely bring your attack amounts down and you don't have anything to defend with.

brynolf
18-06-2010, 15:20
... Because not every army can have both. If lances were two-handed, they would be the same as flails... Except you could only use them on horse. But they'd still be the same.


Not quite, lances only add S on the charge, while flails work regardless of who charged.

Dark Aly
18-06-2010, 15:44
Am I correct in saying that spears are boosted slightly(?), because in 7th edition, they only fought in extra ranks when they were charged. Now, they can fight in extra ranks, regardless if they charged or not (IF their initiative is higher).

Eh? Maybe?

you still only get the extra rank if charged, not when charging. saw it yesterday

Skyros
18-06-2010, 18:08
I can see hordes being more attractive on single attack troops though, it feels like a waste to field your elites in those kind of numbers when they're only getting a single attack in subsequent ranks

Unless you play one of the earlier books before things started getting ridiculous (empire, dwarves) where your elites only have one attack in the first place :p

enyoss
18-06-2010, 18:21
you still only get the extra rank if charged, not when charging. saw it yesterday

Just in case there is confusion, you actually get the extra rank when attacking to the front in any turn in which you don't charge. Your post (and that of the previous poster) imply you only get the bonus in a turn when the enemy has charged you, which ain't quite right :)