Halberd vs Big Weapon

Ave Uomini,
I'm Italian so maybe i will do some mistake whit my english.

There is something about the Halberd that I didn't understand.
If we see it stat we will see that:

Big Weapon, Cost 20, Encumbrance 200, Availability Medium
Halberd, Cost 15, Encumbrance 175, Availability Common

They have the same Damage and the same propriety but the Halberd have the possibility to choose the "Lance Stance", a very useful option.

There isn't nothing in favour of Big Weapon, Halberd is less expensive and less heavy, is easiest to find and have more option in combat, why somebody shall choose the first one?

Thank for listening.

Correct, Halberds are a far superior weapon choice. The only reason to take a Two-Hander is if you come from a less advanced culture.

Possibly just a minor mistranslation, but what you're referring to as "lance stance" really should say "spear stance".

That is, the Halberd is a weapon that for any given moment can act either as a Great Weapon (with all advantages, qualities, and disadvantages) or a Spear (with its advantages, qualities, and disadvantages).

So a Halberd is more flexible than a Two-handed Axe or any other Greatweapon. It isn't directly more powerful, but as flexibility means power, it is more powerful (if indirectly).

So yes, if you have a choice, you would always choose the Halberd (but see exceptions below). It is a strictly better weapon (being everything a Great Weapon is, and then some).

But this isn't a mistake. This is intentional, to show how the Old World have progressed past the barbarian stage of technology. Halberds are the modern new thing. Great Weapons are traditional and old.

But not everyone has access to Halberds. Primitive tribes (humans as well as orcs etc), barbarians and berserkers would fit well equipped with Great Weapons. This enforces their quality as barbaric and primitive. Priests and templars of Ulric also feel at home using Great Weapons, showing their preference of traditional ways. Brettonian Knights would also use Great Weapons, feeling Halberds and Pikes are weapons used by common men ("peasants"), much how they dislike gunpowder weapons.

On the other hand, Soldiers and Watchmen from the Empire and Tilea should definitely use Halberds. It is here you have the military progress in the world.

But the beauty is that the Halberd isn't that much better than the Great Weapon. When you use it as a Great Weapon, it is exactly as good as a real Great Weapon. No more, no less.

So it isn't as if using a Great Weapon is a obviously poor selection. It's just not optimal.

Hope you see why you really shouldn't make a big problem out of this...

jadrax wrote:Correct, Halberds are a far superior weapon choice. The only reason to take a Two-Hander is if you come from a less advanced culture.

That's a far too simplified response, in my opinion.

I hope to have shown how the Great Weapon might still be a very valid choice. And even when it isn't, it is just as deadly as the Halberd, although slightly less flexible.

If your character uses a Greatsword or a Great-Axe, you you should feel good about yourself. Not everybody wants to use Halberds!

Possibly just a minor mistranslation, but what you're referring to as "lance stance" really should say "spear stance".

Hahaha. Yes, in Italy we say Lancia for Spear.

Halberds are a far superior weapon choice. The only reason to take a Two-Hander is if you come from a less advanced culture.

Understood, but so why there is the Landsknecht Sword to rappresent the GreatWeapon in the Game? This is a very evolved weapon, I know because i have one.
In Less Advanced Culture i can immagine the GreatAxe or some other kind of Raw GreatWeapon, but not a so evolved weapon like the Landsknecht Sword.
There are other evolved weapon in reality that we can immagine like GreatWeapon, but there is no word in english for these ^^.
In real world these weapons was build because these was useful, and why in the game they shoudn't?

Is this that i don't like. For now i play whit the Home Rule where GreatWeapon have Penetrate Armor Quality, because is for the Heavy Armor that GreatWeapon has made (not every GreatWeapon, but a lot of them).

I fear what i wrote, probably full of error!

I'm always annoyed by this.

Historically, Great Weapons (Like Zweihanders) were more popular in the early renaissance than at almost any other time.
Admittedly, they were phased out in favour of the pike and the halberd, but the fact that they were still a valid weapon choice for most of the 16th century shows that the situation isn't as cut-and-dry as the rules make out.

*grumblegrumblegrumble*

Ok, my problem with Halberds: TOO damn big.
IT is a bitch to carry around, and you are fucked if you try to use it in closed spaces. While you can shorten your grip witha greatweapon to use it in close spaces, you cant whith the halberd, cuz it is so big.

Ursca wrote:Historically, Great Weapons (Like Zweihanders) were more popular in the early renaissance than at almost any other time.

While this is true, it is also true that pages upon pages of historical research theory has gone n trying to work out why, as they appear to have always be rubbish. ;o)

Drakar wrote:Ok, my problem with Halberds: TOO damn big.
IT is a bitch to carry around, and you are fucked if you try to use it in closed spaces. While you can shorten your grip witha greatweapon to use it in close spaces, you cant whith the halberd, cuz it is so big.

There not that different tbh:
The average halberd was usually about 1.5 to 1.8 metres (5 to 6 feet) long. that is 60 to 72 inches.
The Average Two Handed sword is around 55 inches, and can go up to 70 inches or longer for a Brunswick type German Two-handed sword.

jadrax wrote:

Ursca wrote:Historically, Great Weapons (Like Zweihanders) were more popular in the early renaissance than at almost any other time.

While this is true, it is also true that pages upon pages of historical research theory has gone n trying to work out why, as they appear to have always be rubbish. ;o)

As with most of mankinds attitudes it comes down to "Mine is bigger than yours"

And benvenuto a forum Chris

jadrax wrote: While this is true, it is also true that pages upon pages of historical research theory has gone n trying to work out why, as they appear to have always be rubbish. ;o)

Weeell, I'd say that they were versatile and useful weapons that were outmoded by the style of warfare of the time. Someone described them as being a weapon for 'one man to fight against many men', which seems to fit their role of guarding banners and strategic points of castle walls.

There's a nice article here about them.

Still, if the 'Important Note about Reality' in the rulebook is any judge, I should be ducking a well aimed flurry of objects right about now...

Ursca wrote:There's a nice article here about them.

Certainly it does well at summing up the lack of any consensus with the conflicting sources it cites. Intresting some scholars believe it was popular with mercenary bands, that to me seems to indicate it retained that prestige value even when tactics had surpassed it. (If you accept as verbatim that tactics had surpassed it, which is by no means certain fact.)

Well for ingame advantage of a great weapon, I would allow my PCs to use great weaps if mounted but not halberds. I see the halberds advantages alittle bit silly as it is absolutely not reflected by WFB but not that bad.

leogun_91 wrote:Well for ingame advantage of a great weapon, I would allow my PCs to use great weaps if mounted but not halberds. I see the halberds advantages alittle bit silly as it is absolutely not reflected by WFB but not that bad.

I think using either from horseback is a bit silly tbh, especially if you do not want to lop of your own horse's head. (Although that said, its also much supported by the Warhammer background, where units of Knights with Greatswords are present even if not common.)

Also I am not sure WFB should be held up as an kind of ideal with regards to weapons, as some of its choices are very silly. ;o)

I'd just make Halberds into their own SWG, which only Militiamen and Soldiers (and anyone who can choose one or more 'Any' SWG's) can take. this keeps them as good as they realistically should be, but doesn't invalidate the Great Weapon (since it's SWG is much easier to get).

but how good is a halberd, when compared to a two handed scythe?

I let my player "halfsword" with the great sword (one hand on blade and the other hand on the gripp, There are historical manuals from 14-16th century that show swords used in this way.) giving the weapon, dmg sb, freeparry(like the two weapon rule) and armour percing, losing impact and slow. i let mig players change to halfsword with at ready action. why I give the weapon armour percing is because the halfsword was very good to counter heavy armour with the enhanced pointcontrole it offerd.

I balance it by halfing the weight of a great weapon... they're over massed as is.

Emperor Totte wrote:I let my player "halfsword" with the great sword (one hand on blade and the other hand on the gripp, There are historical manuals from 14-16th century that show swords used in this way.) giving the weapon, dmg sb, freeparry(like the two weapon rule) and armour percing, losing impact and slow. i let mig players change to halfsword with at ready action. why I give the weapon armour percing is because the halfsword was very good to counter heavy armour with the enhanced pointcontrole it offerd.

Good Idea,
when I fight with my Greatsword i usually play "d'Arme", but i had never think to conteplate this option in the game.
Greatweapon become a little more versatile.

Thanks.

Drakar wrote:but how good is a halberd, when compared to a two handed scythe?

For fighting: The halberd is far superior
For work in the garden:The scythe is far superior

Ursca wrote:.
Admittedly, they were phased out in favour of the pike and the halberd, but the fact that they were still a valid weapon choice for most of the 16th century shows that the situation isn't as cut-and-dry as the rules make out.

And again, the rules doesn't make out a situation that's very cut-and-dry. The Great Weapon is still a very valid choice.

The Great Weapon is still one of the most deadly weapons of all. But if you only consider the very best weapon to be "valid", there are lots of weapons that are "less valid" than the Great Weapon you could grumble more about.

I'm not "defending" the Great Weapon here folks. It is eclipsed by other weapons. But again, that's a good thing. In the Old World, the time of Conan the Barbarian is, after all, over.

Drakar wrote:Ok, my problem with Halberds: TOO damn big.
IT is a bitch to carry around, and you are fucked if you try to use it in closed spaces. While you can shorten your grip witha greatweapon to use it in close spaces, you cant whith the halberd, cuz it is so big.

That may be true, but it is also beyond the scope of the rules.

You're not wrong, Drakar - I'm just saying this so we are clear on what's in the rules, and what isn't: there are no size penalties in the RAW. If you find it easier to fight in a cupboard with a knife than a pike, that's because your GM has said so.

Cheers,
Zapp

CapnZapp wrote:
You're not wrong, Drakar - I'm just saying this so we are clear on what's in the rules, and what isn't: there are no size penalties in the RAW. If you find it easier to fight in a cupboard with a knife than a pike, that's because your GM has said so.

Cheers,
Zapp

Actually, the RAW does imply that penalties should be applied for circumstance using the Difficulty Levels.
So yes, the GM must decide what penalty to apply, but a penalty should be applied, according to the RAW.

It is beyond the scope of the rules to detail which modifications, if any, that should apply. But you're certainly right in that a penalty is in order.

Drakar wrote:Ok, my problem with Halberds: TOO damn big.
IT is a bitch to carry around, and you are fucked if you try to use it in closed spaces. While you can shorten your grip witha greatweapon to use it in close spaces, you cant whith the halberd, cuz it is so big.

How can you shorten your grip with a Greatsword? With an Halberd, you can always uses the tip as a spear, while a greataxe, you still need to swing it. I always tough that greatweapons were harder to use in close space, while Halberd had the versatility to either be used to swing the axe, or to poke the other man's heart.

Poke it hard...