Halberd vs Big Weapon

Actually you can happily thrust with a greatsword

Loswaith wrote:
Actually you can happily thrust with a greatsword

What about the mechanically identical a Great Axe? ;o)

jadrax wrote:

Loswaith wrote:
Actually you can happily thrust with a greatsword

What about the mechanically identical a Great Axe? ;o)

Buy one with a spike on top?

But I think the thrust will always be easier with an halberd overall, than with a greatsword.

PsyckoSama wrote:
Buy one with a spike on top?

This is Warhammer, goddammit! I'm not going to buy an axe with a spike on top, I'm going to buy an axe with a blood-stained skull on top that has a large spike protruding from each eye socket. An entire row of spikes will line the back of the axe head and the blade of the axe will be serrated for added coolness. Using the entrails of my defeated foes, I will then tie an entire row of skulls together and attach it to the pommel, ensuring each individual skull has at least one spike on each eye socket and mouth. The grip will be covered with bits and pieces of parchment containing only the most obscene of Sigmarite curses, which I will shout as I charge my enemies. So I don't want to hear any shit about a spike.

Sythorn wrote:This is Warhammer, goddammit! I'm not going to buy an axe with a spike on top, I'm going to buy an axe with a blood-stained skull on top that has a large spike protruding from each eye socket. An entire row of spikes will line the back of the axe head and the blade of the axe will be serrated for added coolness. Using the entrails of my defeated foes, I will then tie an entire row of skulls together and attach it to the pommel, ensuring each individual skull has at least one spike on each eye socket and mouth. The grip will be covered with bits and pieces of parchment containing only the most obscene of Sigmarite curses, which I will shout as I charge my enemies. So I don't want to hear any shit about a spike.

Brian, put down the coffee...

Interesting half-swording rule. I may test that and see how it sits with the others.

On the other hand, due to the fact that the Halbard is a more recent innovation; ancient runic magic blades are more likely to be of the sword-variety. So it evens out a bit.

I generally prefer swords to be a little more even. However; I am fully up front and honest about the fact that I prefer blades stylistically over pole weapons.

My games reflect my stylistic preferences; that's how it is.

PsyckoSama wrote:

Sythorn wrote:This is Warhammer, goddammit! I'm not going to buy an axe with a spike on top, I'm going to buy an axe with a blood-stained skull on top that has a large spike protruding from each eye socket. An entire row of spikes will line the back of the axe head and the blade of the axe will be serrated for added coolness. Using the entrails of my defeated foes, I will then tie an entire row of skulls together and attach it to the pommel, ensuring each individual skull has at least one spike on each eye socket and mouth. The grip will be covered with bits and pieces of parchment containing only the most obscene of Sigmarite curses, which I will shout as I charge my enemies. So I don't want to hear any shit about a spike.

Brian, put down the coffee...

I Agree, people like Sythorn who just don't use enough spiked skulls on their gear really ruin warhammer, play another system if your only going to have a few spiked skulls like that!

My impression has always been that great weapons (two-hand weapons that is) and the halberd used in similar manner (that is, not as a spear) are unwieldly and require lots of space. So fighting with them in closed ranks or confined spaces is a big no-no. Whereas a spear, or a halberd used in similar manner could be used much better in similar conditions, assuming there was plenty of room in front of the user. So the GM should always take into account this with these weapons. Correct?

Ron B. Stard wrote:My impression has always been that great weapons (two-hand weapons that is) and the halberd used in similar manner (that is, not as a spear) are unwieldly and require lots of space. So fighting with them in closed ranks or confined spaces is a big no-no. Whereas a spear, or a halberd used in similar manner could be used much better in similar conditions, assuming there was plenty of room in front of the user. So the GM should always take into account this with these weapons. Correct?

Provided they fit the theme of the game he's going for, yes.

jadrax wrote:

Loswaith wrote:
Actually you can happily thrust with a greatsword

What about the mechanically identical a Great Axe? ;o)

True, when it comes to mechanics the weapons are identical, personaly I like that since it means the character will go for flavour rather than the best weapon mechanically.

However for the most part im sure we will all agree that the skill of the wielder is actually more a factor of weapon damage than the weapon itself in the real world.

TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:On the other hand, due to the fact that the Halbard is a more recent innovation

GreatSwords, or Zweihander, are arso called "Spazzepicche" that we can traslate as PikeBreaker.
It was created non only for the massive damage, but for break enemy PoleWeapons.
I think Zweihanders are recent as Halbards, and an eccellent option in combat, expecially when enemy fight with PoleWeapons. In the game it isn't.

I have read in an another Site, that there is an HR for bilance GreatWeapons, Halbards, Claymore and Flagels.
Because even Claymore is Stronger and versatily than Greatsword, the simply add +1 to Greatweapon Damage and Flagels' one.

GreatWeapons made massive damage, Halberd and Claymore are versatily and Flagels cause massive damage, even more than Greatweapon, but only for the first round.

It's a good HR?

Chris Nihilus wrote:

TheWarriorPoet519 wrote:On the other hand, due to the fact that the Halbard is a more recent innovation

GreatSwords, or Zweihander, are arso called "Spazzepicche" that we can traslate as PikeBreaker.
It was created non only for the massive damage, but for break enemy PoleWeapons.
I think Zweihanders are recent as Halbards, and an eccellent option in combat, expecially when enemy fight with PoleWeapons. In the game it isn't.

I have read in an another Site, that there is an HR for bilance GreatWeapons, Halbards, Claymore and Flagels.
Because even Claymore is Stronger and versatily than Greatsword, the simply add +1 to Greatweapon Damage and Flagels' one.

GreatWeapons made massive damage, Halberd and Claymore are versatily and Flagels cause massive damage, even more than Greatweapon, but only for the first round.

It's a good HR?

I'm interested in why people are just accepting of the fact that halberds are just inherently 'better' than two handed weapons. Didn't they only replace them in real life because of massed combat? In one on one combat wouldn't a halberd be incredibly difficult to control against someone with a smaller weapon, you just step past the point and the guy is effectively hitting you with a badly balanced stick.
Two handed weapons, especialy of the type favoured by Warhammer dwarves i.e. short stubby double headed axes/hammers etc. seem fine far more balanced weapons.

first two-handed weapons are not the same as polearms. two-handed axes such as a logging axe are much smaller than a polearm such as a glaive. Warhammer does not distinguish between them. But barbarians wielded two-handed weapons, not polearms.

Two-handed weapons work fine in a solo fight. They suck compared to having a shield for defense, but they are not unwieldy.

Pole-arms have greater reach. They probably do less damage because the head can't weigh as much and one on one they have problems.

A halberd is a glaive with a spear tip. It is better than a glaive in that it can be used as a glaive or a pike. This is accurate - it is just a technological advance (design advance really).

Actually, in Scandinavia the 'Hólmgang' rules of duelling at some point bring in a limitation that halberds, (hooking spears or pole axes) where no longer to be used in duels as they where too good at it.

The Germans, god-love them, where also using Halberds in one-on-one duels as this 15th century quote shows 'Merck daß ist auch ein leer wie du mit kemph // licher wer solt wartten mordt agst und helle // bartten daß ist auch zu dem kampff gericht schleg stöß ringen macht z? nicht ~ Daß ist auch der text' which is pretty conclusive I think you will agree.... Oh if like me you do not speak German is says 'Note this is also a lesson of how you should with dueling weapons act with the murder axe and the halberd, which is also in the judicial duel the striking, thrusting and wrestling. Do not reproduce.
This is also the text.'

Ok, you can shorten your grips on hammers, axes, picks AND, yes you can shorten your grip on greatswords, because most of them have a leather or blunt part in the blade, like here: http://www.thearma.org/essays/Tow2hgs2.jpg
and here: http://www.scottishsword.com/SwordPics/16thCenturySword-1.gif
and here: http://www.a-work-of-art.net/pages/page%2021c.jpg

The helbard, on the other hand, when you shorten your grip, the rear part of the pole will hit the ground, the wall behind you, the person behind you or something like that.

Drakar wrote:The halberd, on the other hand, when you shorten your grip, the rear part of the pole will hit the ground, the wall behind you, the person behind you or something like that.

If this where anywhere close to true no-one would ever duel with spears.

jadrax wrote:

Drakar wrote:The halberd, on the other hand, when you shorten your grip, the rear part of the pole will hit the ground, the wall behind you, the person behind you or something like that.

If this where anywhere close to true no-one would ever duel with spears.

Duelling is hardly representative of real combat, it's normally two opponents in an open space.

However my point wasn't whether or not a halberd is more versatile than a two handed axe, as I believe it is. My point is whether or not it's 'better' as opposed to 'different'. The current WFRP rules have it as better. I'd argue that a halberd shouldn't have the same rules as a two handed weapon. I don't believe it can do the same damage in most circumstances due to the longer handle making it much more difficult to get the swing power than from a two handed weapon.I'd be tempted to houserule the tiring ability onto them when used two handed instead of slow.

Mind you I also dislike that thw 1st ed spear vs hand weapon problem was carried over to 2nd ed too.

Artemis Black wrote:However my point wasn't whether or not a halberd is more versatile than a two handed axe, as I believe it is. My point is whether or not it's 'better' as opposed to 'different'.

Historically and Scientifically it is simply a much better weapon.

I don't believe it can do the same damage in most circumstances due to the longer handle making it much more difficult to get the swing power than from a two handed weapon.

The long handle makes it easer to do damage as does the fact that the blade is has all its weight at the right place, it is always going to do the same if not much more damage than a Two-Handed sword which are an absolute bugger to swing.

Artemis Black wrote:I'd be tempted to houserule the tiring ability onto them when used two handed instead of slow.

Again, there going to be a lot less tiring to use than a traditional two-handed weapon. There not only lighter but are a lot easier to use as well.

Mind you I also dislike that the 1st ed spear vs hand weapon problem was carried over to 2nd ed too.

What Problem?

jadrax wrote:

Drakar wrote:The halberd, on the other hand, when you shorten your grip, the rear part of the pole will hit the ground, the wall behind you, the person behind you or something like that.

If this where anywhere close to true no-one would ever duel with spears.

Oh... Mind you telling me what happens with the rest of the shaft, then, when you shorten your grip with a spear/helberd?

Drakar wrote:Oh... Mind you telling me what happens with the rest of the shaft, then, when you shorten your grip with a spear/helberd?

It goes behind you, this is not however a problem and indeed its not more space than you need to effectively fight with most other weapons, and certainly less space than you need to swing a honking great big sword.

As an aside, the Royal Armouries does live displays of various fighting styles, which I think might be available on DVD or something, if your interested in real-world fighting techniques there well worth watching. (The Two-handed sword display, which I have been to watch their on two occasions is very impressive, mind so is the one on fence.)

My first argument, back on page 1, was the fighting on closed spaces one, which, for pole-arms is surely harder than for greatweapons.

On an open space, sure, there is no problem when there is a shaft moving behind you.
But if you are in a house's thin corridor, you try to raise a bit your spear/halberd, so that you can parry an attack, and THUMP! the back of the shaft got stuck under the table, or behind the closet.

Thats the problem.
I dont like halberds, but they ARE a best weapon than GreatWeapons. (And if you think they are powerfull in warhammer, you should see in GURPS 3)
I was just saying that giving them penalties on certain circunstances, would balance things a bit. Thight spaces, is one of this circunstances...

Drakar wrote:My first argument, back on page 1, was the fighting on closed spaces one, which, for pole-arms is surely harder than for greatweapons.

Not its not, its a lot and I mean, a lot easier. Go try it, its no harder than using a spear which are relative good close quarter weapons, (actually bordering on excellent in trained hands,) while a two handed sword is an distinctly bad close quarter weapon.

On an open space, sure, there is no problem when there is a shaft moving behind you.
But if you are in a house's thin corridor, you try to raise a bit your spear/halberd, so that you can parry an attack, and THUMP! the back of the shaft got stuck under the table, or behind the closet.

Only if your do not know what you are doing, and more importantly you will not be able to use a two-handed sword in anything but the most limited way in such an environment. (Do not go and try this, it destroys your house, trust me.)

While you can use a two-handed sword in tight spaces in a very limited fashion, you can use a Halberd in tight spaces quite effectively.

Thats the problem.
I dont like halberds, but they ARE a best weapon than GreatWeapons. (And if you think they are powerfull in warhammer, you should see in GURPS 3)
I was just saying that giving them penalties on certain circunstances, would balance things a bit. Thight spaces, is one of this circunstances...

The problem is, the circumstances you describe are one of the reasons that Halberds are superior, as it is one of the areas that they are much better suited to fighting in.

What?
Why?
You say something but you don't back it up with arguments other than your word for it.

"""Not its not, its a lot and I mean, a lot easier. Go try it, its no harder than using a spear which are relative good close quarter weapons, (actually bordering on excellent in trained hands,) while a two handed sword is an distinctly bad close quarter weapon. """

"""" The problem is, the circumstances you describe are one of the reasons that Halberds are superior, as it is one of the areas that they are much better suited to fighting in. """

""" Only if your do not know what you are doing, and more importantly you will not be able to use a two-handed sword in anything but the most limited way in such an environment. (Do not go and try this, it destroys your house, trust me.)

While you can use a two-handed sword in tight spaces in a very limited fashion, you can use a Halberd in tight spaces quite effectively. """

Why?
How?