Halberd vs Big Weapon

Drakar wrote:You say something but you don't back it up with arguments other than your word for it.

As you cannot be bother to support anything you say with evidence, then I do not see why you should expect me too. Although note I actually have told you where to look for videos that you should pursue if interested.

You could also try and a copy of the 'Jeu de la Hache' which teaches how to use a halberd effectively, in particular with regard to thrusting and using the butt end to strike.

beyond that If you really want me to do research into this and provide historical evidence on the matter I would be happy too, at my usual research rates.

jadrax wrote:

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.

Artemis Black wrote: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.

I completely disagree. The simple counterargument would be that a wood chopping contest between a guy with a two handed axe and a guy with a halberd wouldn't even be close. The balance point is different and the longer handle doesn't allow for such a full swing. I also notice you keep mentioning swords, which do look ungainly, whereas I keep using axes as my example.

jadrax wrote:

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

What Problem?

That they are better than hand weapons. +10I with abilities against flyers in 1st ed and Fast in 2nd ed.

Artemis Black wrote:I completely disagree. The simple counterargument would be that a wood chopping contest between a guy with a two handed axe and a guy with a halberd wouldn't even be close.

The only difference between a Two-Handed axe and a halberd in WFRP terms is one has a spike on the end.

That said the wood chopping thing is a measure of false expectations. Chopping wood is not a good indicator of damage, just of how good the blade is shaped for chopping wood. Most halberds have blades designed to not slip of armour so yes, while they probably would do less damage against an unmoving log, there going to do more damage on the average moving soldier.

Artemis Black wrote:The balance point is different and the longer handle doesn't allow for such a full swing.

How full do you actually want? We know Halberds, (and other polearms), where devastating weapons from remains. 'Duke Leopold and 26 of his noble companions were buried in the Abbey of Koenigsfeld; in 1898 their tombs were opened and it was found that most of the skulls were dreadfully split by halberd-strokes.' - E. Oakeshott, European Weapons and Armour - If you can split a skull then that to me is clearly a high damage weapon.

Essentially Halberds where designed and used as a thrusting weapon that could also cause significant damage when needed. They are an evolution of the Axe and retain most of its features.

I also notice you keep mentioning swords, which do look ungainly, whereas I keep using axes as my example.

That is chiefly because two-handed swords and Halberds existed in armies at the same time, and therefore I have comparison data. There's nothing for Two handed Axes and Halberds as Two Handed Axes where pretty much never used by military forces. even things like the iconic Dane Axe are considered more akin to Halberds then Axes in how they are used to fight, as there used for a lot of thrusting work.

jadrax wrote:

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

What Problem?

That they are better than hand weapons. +10I with abilities against flyers in 1st ed and Fast in 2nd ed. In 2nd you don't get a free parry with the spear, so in a lot (if indeed not most,) of cases you may well be better of with a hand weapon.

jadrax wrote:

Artemis Black wrote:I completely disagree. The simple counterargument would be that a wood chopping contest between a guy with a two handed axe and a guy with a halberd wouldn't even be close.

The only difference between a Two-Handed axe and a halberd in WFRP terms is one has a spike on the end.

Well that's not true is it. A halberd has a pretty specific design i.e. long pole with various forms of short weapon on the end (it specifically says it can also be a glaive or bill - which are nothing like an axe with a point on the end). Two handed weapons - including axes - come in various designs including the classic dwarven short handled double bladed type.

jadrax wrote:That said the wood chopping thing is a measure of false expectations. Chopping wood is not a good indicator of damage, just of how good the blade is shaped for chopping wood. Most halberds have blades designed to not slip of armour so yes, while they probably would do less damage against an unmoving log, there going to do more damage on the average moving soldier.

It's a good indicator of pure damage, which is what I'm discussing. Damage in WFRP represents pure actual damage. If you hit an umoving door you still roll the same dice. I'm saying that a two handed weapon should do more damage than a halberd.

jadrax wrote:

Artemis Black wrote:The balance point is different and the longer handle doesn't allow for such a full swing.

How full do you actually want? We know Halberds, (and other polearms), where devastating weapons from remains. 'Duke Leopold and 26 of his noble companions were buried in the Abbey of Koenigsfeld; in 1898 their tombs were opened and it was found that most of the skulls were dreadfully split by halberd-strokes.' - E. Oakeshott, European Weapons and Armour - If you can split a skull then that to me is clearly a high damage weapon.

Why? You can split a skull with a one handed axe.

jadrax wrote:Essentially Halberds where designed and used as a thrusting weapon that could also cause significant damage when needed. They are an evolution of the Axe and retain most of its features.

You keep saying it like halberds were the evolution because they were somehow inherently better than the previous incarnations when that isn't really true. They became popular because of the way battlefield tactics changed and because they were much cheaper to mass produce than swords were.
They 'are' more versatile but that doesn't mean they should just use the rules for whatever they were made to copy. they should be a slightly worse spear than a true spear and a slightly worse two handed axe than a two handed axe, because in reality that's what they actually were.

Artemis Black wrote:Well that's not true is it. A halberd has a pretty specific design i.e. long pole with various forms of short weapon on the end (it specifically says it can also be a glaive or bill - which are nothing like an axe with a point on the end). Two handed weapons - including axes - come in various designs including the classic dwarven short handled double bladed type.

Old World Armoury lists teh following under Halberds - Bec de Corbin, Bill, Fauchad, Glaive, Lochaber Axe, Partisan, Pole Axe, Trident and Voulge. Further It describes the Pole Axe as 'an Axe Head on a wooden shaft'.

jadrax wrote:It's a good indicator of pure damage, which is what I'm discussing. Damage in WFRP represents pure actual damage.

I disagree, indeed it clearly is in fact not so. Damage in WFRP is a pretty abstract measure of several factors, including exhaustion, hydrostatic shock as well as tissue damage.

If you hit an umoving door you still roll the same dice.

No you do not, its a strength test with GM modifiers.

I'm saying that a two handed weapon should do more damage than a halberd.

Yes, and I am saying it should not.

jadrax wrote:Why? You can split a skull with a one handed axe.

Not that I have seen, slice into certainly but split implies rather more than that. Of course the fact that the author notes it is a good indication that he considered it an uncommon amount of damage.

jadrax wrote:Essentially Halberds where designed and used as a thrusting weapon that could also cause significant damage when needed. They are an evolution of the Axe and retain most of its features.

Artemis Black wrote:You keep saying it like halberds were the evolution because they were somehow inherently better than the previous incarnations when that isn't really true. They became popular because of the way battlefield tactics changed and because they were much cheaper to mass produce than swords were.

No they did not, tactics where the exact same as for the two-handers, they where just better at it, and both got phased out by the Pike.

The Beaux tapestry shows Saxons using axes in the exact same tactical roles that Halberds and Two-handed swords would come to fill.

Artemis Black wrote:
They 'are' more versatile but that doesn't mean they should just use the rules for whatever they were made to copy. they should be a slightly worse spear than a true spear and a slightly worse two handed axe than a two handed axe, because in reality that's what they actually were.

Except in reality they where not slightly worse, they where slightly better than both. That said the difference is so slight it hardly can be represented in WFRP where a great weapon does on average 2.5 more damage than a shortsword.

Reality I am afraid doesn't care about weapon balance.

jadrax wrote:

Artemis Black wrote:
They 'are' more versatile but that doesn't mean they should just use the rules for whatever they were made to copy. they should be a slightly worse spear than a true spear and a slightly worse two handed axe than a two handed axe, because in reality that's what they actually were.

Except in reality they where not slightly worse, they where slightly better than both.

According to who, apart from you I mean?

Artemis Black wrote:According to who, apart from you I mean?

Which brings use neatly to the same point we got to with Drakkar - The rules support me, if you want to find evidence to pull down the rules with your version of reality, then you need to find some evidence to support it.

You cannot come here and claim that the burden of proof is on others to support the status quo just because you feel it doesn't match what you expect without any backing for that expectation.

jadrax wrote:

Artemis Black wrote:According to who, apart from you I mean?

Which brings use neatly to the same point we got to with Drakkar - The rules support me, if you want to find evidence to pull down the rules with your version of reality, then you need to find some evidence to support it.

You cannot come here and claim that the burden of proof is on others to support the status quo just because you feel it doesn't match what you expect without any backing for that expectation.

But I gave evidence - physics. A 6ft wooden pole with a small weapon at the end simply isn't balanced well enough or built correctly for an average height human to do as much damage in a swing as a shorter handled, heavier ended weapon. I mean you've only got to look at the two weapons.

I also used the example of wood chopping to illustrate the point.

You can't use the rules as being on your side as that's the debate point, whether or not the rules are representative of actual differences in the various weapons. So I was just asking where you get the points you repeatedly make.

Artemis Black wrote:But I gave evidence - physics. A 6ft wooden pole with a small weapon at the end simply isn't balanced well enough or built correctly for an average height human to do as much damage in a swing as a shorter handled, heavier ended weapon. I mean you've only got to look at the two weapons.

Expect that we are no were close to the point where it became a small weapon at the end, Warhammer has rules for the Halberds of the 1500s, not the 1800s.

I also used the example of wood chopping to illustrate the point.

If you can provide any data with that to actually prove it rather than just saying "Axes are better at Halberds than chopping wood" when that might be valid. But as far As I know, there is no such data just your supposition that it would be the case.

You can't use the rules as being on your side as that's the debate point, whether or not the rules are representative of actual differences in the various weapons. So I was just asking where you get the points you repeatedly make.

And I am asking you where you get the points you repeatedly make.

Ok, quit nerding both of you.
This is getting personal.

We all disagree. We're not changing each other's mindsets. Going on with this discussion will be a waste of time and will only cause embarassment for all of us, cuz, by now, we're just repeating the same arguments with different words.

People disagree guys... Get over it.

Why don't we rant D&D a bit and forget this useless discussion?

This may help or raise more questions:

http://virtuatheque.free.fr/The%20Halberd%20and%20Other%20European%20Polearms.pdf

I'm not sure if this is the one that explains why halberds pwn axes and swords. If not, I apologize.

edit: page 14 may add fuel to the fire.

1010 Cloud Deck wrote:edit: page 14 may add fuel to the fire.

I am more worried about what the effect of "Fig. 42. Military Scythe." will have on the thread...

"This day I shall reap in fallow earth the coil of mans' blood, and the dampened fields will blanket as one in the staves of potter's wood..."

1010 Cloud Deck wrote:
This may help or raise more questions:

http://virtuatheque.free.fr/The%20Halberd%20and%20Other%20European%20Polearms.pdf

I'm not sure if this is the one that explains why halberds pwn axes and swords. If not, I apologize.

edit: page 14 may add fuel to the fire.

at page 14 it says:

"The halberdier would be at a disadvantage against a single swordsman, but it was never designed for this use. Against the armored horseman, however, there is considerable historical evidence that it was very effective when used in a proper manner."

and at page 12:

"Several available weapons had to be used together as any single weapon had its particular weakness."

it seems to me that the halberd is not superior weapon in all situations.

Eugen wrote:it seems to me that the halberd is not superior weapon in all situations.

It should possibly be made clear that I would never argue it would be, in standard skirmish combat Sword and Board should be superior. (And I think by the WFRP rules Sword and Board is better than a Halberd in most circumstances.)

What is being discussed is the effectiveness of Halberds versus the effectiveness of Spears and the effectiveness of Halberds versus the effectiveness of Great Swords/Great Axes.

jadrax wrote:What is being discussed is the effectiveness of Halberds versus the effectiveness of Spears and the effectiveness of Halberds versus the effectiveness of Great Swords/Great Axes.

Yes, yes I know what this discussion is about. Do You? I repeat:

"The halberdier would be at a disadvantage against a single swordsman, but it was never designed for this use. Against the armored horseman, however, there is considerable historical evidence that it was very effective when used in a proper manner."

This clearly states that halberdier is at disadvantage against a man with a sword. There is no mention about shield or one-handed or two-handed use of the sword. But, against a horseman, its a different story.

Eugen wrote:This clearly states that halberdier is at disadvantage against a man with a sword. There is no mention about shield or one-handed or two-handed use of the sword. But, against a horseman, its a different story.

Traditionally, the use of the word 'Swordsman' in English always means someone with a one handed weapon, it is not the same as 'man with a sword'.

jadrax wrote:Traditionally, the use of the word 'Swordsman' in English always means someone with a one handed weapon, it is not the same as 'man with a sword'.

Well, its a modern term mainly used to refer fencing with smallsword. If you want to be exact, the term 'Swordsmanship' can also be applied to any martial art involving the use of a sword.

This discussion is getting stupid. All I want to point out that in wfrp games GM should give a haldberdier bonuses when he is fighting against a horseman or he is guarding a corridor etc. Also, if I were a GM, I would give bonuses to a character with great weapon against halberdier in open pitfighting style combat. It's just more fun. Could be even realistic.

Drakar wrote:
People disagree guys... Get over it.

Why don't we rant D&D a bit and forget this useless discussion?

Amen to that.

D&D 4 sucks!!!

D&D sucks indeed.

Now... A minute of silence for mourn and lets let this topic DIE!