Halberd +2 Initiative?

[wilsongrahams]

I must be the only one to vote yes.

Reason - it's two fold. For fluff, a longer reach does allow you to strike first - which in a way is faster than your opponent, and in truth, a polearm is stiffer and lighter than a sword, which flexes and has a lot of weight in the whole length, and not just at one end where pendulum motion actually helps you accelerate the tip. Whether it should remain at +2 for the entire combat is debatable - if not, then any model using a two-handed weapon should suffer -1 strength every round as it gets very tiring swinging anything heavy about for more than a few seconds. If not applying this limit to other forces, do not apply them here.

Second reason - it's a rules machanic. It makes it work different to hammers and swords. Complaining about a halberd when a sword makes you more immune to damage? I assume this is for parrying, yet a halbered can be used to block an attack too, and falchions would be far easier being the lightest of all. Whilst this isn't a reason in your fluff argument, it is a good point I believe that the other weapons and their rules are not matching up to fluff and reality either.

My personal opinion would be that the halberd was the default weapon with no bonus, and a sword was an upgrade option. Halberds were always the default weapon for years for grey knights.

[Baaltor]

I hate this rule on ever level:
-Why do they cost more than force swords?
-If the spear is such a superior weapon, why was the sword ever invented?*
-Why doesn't every other halberd have the rule?*
-A spear doesn't make a marine as fast as a genestealer, not even a fing-longer
-half the weapons in the game have superior reach to a normal CC weapon, why do they not enjoy this benefit?*

It's a ridiculous rule and I the only person who I would trust to come up with something so terrible is Mat Ward.

*Devil's avocation.

[Megad00mer]

It should have been +1 initiative. Not 2.

+2 I makes it a no brainer choice and makes some other Nemesis options seem almost useless by comparison.

[wyvirn]

I must be the only one to vote yes.

Reason - it's two fold. For fluff, a longer reach does allow you to strike first - which in a way is faster than your opponent, and in truth, a polearm is stiffer and lighter than a sword, which flexes and has a lot of weight in the whole length, and not just at one end where pendulum motion actually helps you accelerate the tip. Whether it should remain at +2 for the entire combat is debatable - if not, then any model using a two-handed weapon should suffer -1 strength every round as it gets very tiring swinging anything heavy about for more than a few seconds. If not applying this limit to other forces, do not apply them here.

I would wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, IFF the though process were applied to everyone. Tyranid MC's have talons the size of marines, and can reach much farther than the polearm can in a practical sense (Tyranids don't need to worry about getting a bad grip on their weapons). But most of the MCs that have models and can have talons are I1. So as it stands the rule doesn't follow the fluff of the universe in a comprehensive way, which can be said about most of the GK book.

Second reason - it's a rules machanic. It makes it work different to hammers and swords. Complaining about a halberd when a sword makes you more immune to damage? I assume this is for parrying, yet a halbered can be used to block an attack too, and falchions would be far easier being the lightest of all. Whilst this isn't a reason in your fluff argument, it is a good point I believe that the other weapons and their rules are not matching up to fluff and reality either.

My personal opinion would be that the halberd was the default weapon with no bonus, and a sword was an upgrade option. Halberds were always the default weapon for years for grey knights.

This argument has the most weight IMO, because it isn't subjective like whether or not something belongs in the given setting or if it's OP or something. It can be argued that GK were lacking weapon options, only having 4ish choices (NFW, DH, Falch, sword, staff) for the entire SM army, but do they really need anything more than that? You can kill big things with the force weapons, tanks with the hammer, and hordes with the falchions. Halberds seem like an underdeveloped and under tested afterthought tacked on for the old models.
I think the reason halbreds are so reviled by the community is because it's unique. Daemonhammers translate well from thunderhammers, falchions just give +1 attack, and swords gives a bonus to the save. Nothing really out of the ordinary, and we've watched enough Star Wars to accept that a magic sword can deflect bullets, and a +1 save isn't too out of line from a shield/HW from Fantasy. But the halberd is just out there. I can't think of another weapon that increases anything but strength or number of attacks. Halberds give a relatively large amount of payoff (striking before everyone else) for such a little change (sword on stick)

[Chapters Unwritten]

I'd make it +2 initiative when charged. Seems to make the most sense.

[MagicHat]

I have no particularly strong feeling one way or the other.
How about granting Furios charge though? Halberds hits harder and you may land a blow before the enemy does. Following turns you are in melee and don't benefit in the same way.
Possibly countercharge as well?

[wilsongrahams]

I hate this rule on ever level:
-If the spear is such a superior weapon, why was the sword ever invented?*

The sword was originally a sidearm, and popular culture has made it a primary weapon, more to do with chivalry than combat. Spears and axes are the typical weapons of warfare. The greeks used spears first, and daggers last. The romans threw their 'javelins' and used the gladius to stab from behind their shields - the gladius is still not the sword we think of in films and was used simply because it can be used when shoulder to shoulder at point plank range behind a shield.

Now the spear was actually much longer than most wargames show, and pikes even longer still - but wargamers tend to forget this too. A halberd was usually half the length of the spear and developed thousands of years after the greeks used spear phalanxes. The halberd was invented at a time when the sword had stopped being used for 'normal' warfare (though the sword would be kept in navies) because it relies on the strength of steel, not bronze or iron, but good quality steel, and it was designed to provide a weapon that can deal with the heavily armoured cavalry appearing at the time (with equally well made steel armour) and infantry - one weapon, both jobs.

The real issue is that spears, swords and halberds were weapons of their time, and spread over 4000 years (not counting stone age hunters here) and very dependent upon the other factors - quality of materials, armamnent and armour of enemy etc.

Now, the halberd is a jack of all trades but master of none - and it replaced the sword in this role. A sword can be used for stabbing and slicing. A halberd does both of these yet also has reach and also a hook for dealing with horses - to take out cavalry where they don't have armour. Now, what the grey knights wield is in fact NOT a halberd but a glaive, which was mostly used by the shoguns as there was a culture and technology level that allowed it to become efficient at a time when weapons technology surpassed armour technology. Across the rest of the world at the same time in history, technology in armour had already surpassed that of japnese weapons, and the two went back and forth so weapons an armour were always equal; to bring me back to the 'weapon of it's time' quote. In japan, armour technology NEVER equalled or surpassed weapons technology until archaic weapons had become ceremonial. A glaive was better than a sword for the type of combat it was used in - one on one, not ranked up. This is why grey knights would be useless having spears - what use would a 4" (to 28mm scale I mean!) reach be when you can only attack once before being surrounded. A glaive is shorter and gives reach, and multiple ways to attack - not just with the point - you can parry with the staff and still have the tip in a position to attack with without a large timely swing that a sword requires. This could be why it provides the +2 initiative. Being two-handed allows the strength to stay comparable to a sword despite the shorter swing, and it's light weight makes it fast.

Is the rule overpowered? Possibly - certainly not all the weapon types are quite right or balanced against each other. Is the rule based on reality? Yes, BUT only in one reality and in one situation. Mainly japan- where equivalent weapons were all employed against each other. Before anyone says the katana was the best weapon in existence - actually, no, it was very fast, but very light - it would never cut through steel armour in a slicing motion - it was not strong enough for this - and whilst most were curved, this makes them poor for thrusting at an armoured target - katanas faced bamboo armour and this was little obstacle, but they cut shallow, painful wounds that bled, but were not individually fatal - other than that 'perfect' strike. The glaive was thicker, so had more weight and against bamboo armour, was like the axe against steel armour.

I hope you've not thought my rant too in depth, I only wanted to point out that GW use weapons design from all of history in many systems and forget technological reasons for their existence. They then have to provide rules to make them work.

Now, against said genestealer - of the weapons available to the grey knights, and taking the fluff of a genestealer over it's rules, the 'halberd that is a glaive' would give the best chance to strike it before it killed you. With a genestealers four arms and jaws all attacking at one, you could not parry all or likely kill it before it too had delivered a killing blow (assuming it ever got through the supposed plasma-core resisting armour).

[Bunnahabhain]

I can't think of another weapon that increases anything but strength or number of attacks. Halberds give a relatively large amount of payoff (striking before everyone else) for such a little change (sword on stick)

Rough Rider lances. +2 S and I

Of course, they are actually long enough to actually justify striking ahead of normal (especially if you convert them to be even longer, as I have...) and they only work on your first charge, not all the time...

[Unexo]

No. But not really because of fluff. Mainly because GK looks like a codex that has specificly tailored themself to any unit being able to deal with any daemon, an ensured win from turn 1 against daemons. (like making codex anti tyranid and make them twice as strong against an already bad army) The buffs they got are just too immense, and not justifyed by fluff in the sense, that i actually believe the deamonhunter codex fits a realistic approach much better. A smaller contigent of knights sent to deal with xx, together with planetary or fellow allied who came to aid. Option for SM, IG attached units, inquisitors, veteran humans on top of being able to have a full knight army too.

[mattschuur]

I voted no. Although I understand to an extent why the Grey Knights codex was made the way it was. Remember, the previous codex for GK was incredibly crappy. Arguably the worst army in the game. They couldn't even consistently beat Daemons and against anyone with tanks or high Initiative they had no chance. So, to make a small, possibly the smallest, elite army with super expensive units without making them marine army #6 they had to 'adjust' a few rules.
I4 is okay but when your army is really small, faster enemies can knock you out without penalty. Eldar, Dark and other, furious charge, slaanesh, some nids, etc. have or are capable of having I5+. Thus, they gave them an option for I6. Personally, this particular rule isn't my biggest beef with GK's as they lost Ws 5 on most units and they have limited attacks.
My biggest beefs are psycannons, cheapness of psy-bolts, the purifier special rule, terminator monstrous creatures (when flyrants lost it because they were overpowered without an invuln.) and the ridiculous interceptors and their super fast move.
It wasn't any one thing that makes GK's absurd, its that they got all this stuff for a very conservative point cost. Hell, paladins are cheaper than some wolfguard terminators. It's one reason I can't wait to see the new chaos dex, because if a purifier is cheaper than a berserker or a plague marine, the chaos boys better have something to compensate.
Matt Schuur

[Xandros]

First off, it's a game mechanic, an abstraction for the sake of gameplay.

Secondly, it's not speed, it's initiative.

[Daemonia]

In Fantasy halberds give you +1 Strength and not a pip to Initiative. If anything I could've seen it being something like this...a 2h power weapon that gives you +2 Strength or some such and still strike at normal Initiative. That'd be a nice middleground between power swords/maces/axes and power fists that hit harder but slower in a similar fashion to how halberds work compared to great weapons in Fantasy.

[Xandros]

Considered like that, GK halberds ARE a middle ground. +2I two-handed weapon as opposed to the I1 of a power fist.

I don't see why the fantasy rule is supposedly better, other than being fantasy. In the real world, range has always been the most desirable characteristic in a weapon. Spears and slings, bows and crossbows and rifles and lances. Range grants you the opportunity to strike at the enemy before he can strike you in turn. This is what initiative is, the opportunity of the moment.

[Korraz]

And the GK are the only ones out there that worked that out.

It's simple, complete and utter ********. But then, you can sum up most of the book that way.

[Vipoid]

I would wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, IFF the though process were applied to everyone. Tyranid MC's have talons the size of marines, and can reach much farther than the polearm can in a practical sense (Tyranids don't need to worry about getting a bad grip on their weapons). But most of the MCs that have models and can have talons are I1. So as it stands the rule doesn't follow the fluff of the universe in a comprehensive way, which can be said about most of the GK book.

This is exactly how I feel. Saying that long weapons give extra initiative just doesn't work in 40k for two reasons:

Firstly, it would have to be applied to every army, not just a couple, and the slow codex turnover means this just won't happen.

Second, unlike in real life, 40k is littered with MCs, and various other creatures far larger then a human or marine. The problem is that, if reach is important, then a weapon's absolute size should be far more important than it's relative size.

To elaborate, a Hive Tyrant's bonesword is basically a sword, and certainly wouldn't be thought of as giving extra range. However, when you look at its absolute size, it's considerably longer than a GK halberd. Therefore, logically, the Hive Tyrant should get +3 initiative from wielding it.

Similarly, the size of tyranid warriors means their boneswords are approximatly the same size as GK halberds, meaning any tyranid warriors wielding boneswords should get +2 initiative as well, right?

Or what about Necron Warscythes - they look almost exactly the same as GK halberds, yet they give +2 strength, rather than +2 initiative.


My point is, this sort of rule only makes sense if it's a) consistent within all armies and b) is based on a weapon's absolute size, rather than it's size relative to its wielder. Since neither of these are taken into consideration, I think halberds should give a different bonus (maybe +2 strength, like they used to).

Rough Rider lances. +2 S and I

Of course, they are actually long enough to actually justify striking ahead of normal (especially if you convert them to be even longer, as I have...) and they only work on your first charge, not all the time...

[wyvirn]

If you wanted to represent a further reach, wouldn't it make sense to give them Furious Charge? That way they still get the init bonus without becoming a no brainer choice.

[Vipoid]

If you wanted to represent a further reach, wouldn't it make sense to give them Furious Charge? That way they still get the init bonus without becoming a no brainer choice.

I often thought that.

[Sami]

It's not fluffy, and I would rather the increased ability to deflect attacks while striking was represented with defensive grenades instead. Still, it is by no means any where near the worst offence in the GK codex.

[DrDoom]

I must be the only one to vote yes.

Reason - it's two fold. For fluff, a longer reach does allow you to strike first - which in a way is faster than your opponent, and in truth, a polearm is stiffer and lighter than a sword, which flexes and has a lot of weight in the whole length, and not just at one end where pendulum motion actually helps you accelerate the tip. Whether it should remain at +2 for the entire combat is debatable - if not, then any model using a two-handed weapon should suffer -1 strength every round as it gets very tiring swinging anything heavy about for more than a few seconds. If not applying this limit to other forces, do not apply them here.

I can't speak for the Jpanese polearms/swords, but I've handled several European polearms/swords and the weight differance is minimal. If anything the polearms are heavier.

I do agree that the halberd should be the default weapon with no bonuses, and the others should be upgrades.

[Mr Zoat]

The warding stave and falchion descriptions make it sound as if the users psychic abilities trigger the effect. Simple fix then; psychic test to get the I bonus.