Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I was perusing the Empire Armybook today, and I realized something. It seems (to me at least), that barring the presence of a warrior priest, swordsmen are a better choice for pretty much anything than Halberdiers, Free Company, or Spearmen. All of them seem to be the same price (Halberdiers and free company 1 point cheaper, and you would never field spears without shields anyway), but swordsmen are more durable, which means they can stick around in combat for static resolution (Which strikes me as pretty much the only thing any of them are good at). Am I missing something here?
I'm too lazy to come up with a witty sig.
I agree, though some are viable in specific situations, swordsmen are the best when you are unsure of the army you will be facing.
I agree 100%. I just played my first game as empire today (so don't take me as an expert) but I was surprised at how resilient they were against a charge. They won the combat between getting charged by pheonix guard and a tironic chariot today, both units fled, one off the board, and the other, only to be shot up by gunners the next turn. I love these guys, and wouldn't replace them for spears or halbeards, it just doesn't make sense to.
i find that having the diffrent types alows for not only variation but each can perfom their own tasks. having some of each at the ready i find seems to work. also its true that they are more durable but they WILL fail that AS and some WILL die, so why not have some S4 attacks or a large number of attacks, something should get by and when it does it will add to you CR and help you win.
5000 Pts of Undeath descend upon you....
however, the difference between a 4+ and a 6+ is huge. 1/6 chance of surviving vs 1/2 chance of surviving, 2-3 guys more surviving means more subsequent attacks, which will easily make up for the fact that they only have s3 especially since they will have a larger CR
Personally Luyp, I rather keep a rank than do a wound. While both are equal to that specific cr, keeping ranks is far better in the long run.
As always, it depends on whom you are going up against.
So, if you KNEW you were going up against my Lizardman Army and you suspected that I am going to be bringing (in a 2000 pt army) probably 2 blocks of Saurus warriors plus a unit of temple guard with a Slann......do you like your Swordsmen's chances of surviving vs the Halberders?
The problem with going up against decent sized blocks of saurus, is that none of the state troops will suffice. 20 S4 attacks + cold blooded special rule. I don't like the chance of either type of unit surviving that. You might barely win cr with a parent unit and 2 detachments(if you have godly save rolls), but they will most likely stay and you will lose in the long run. I do agree that halbs can be better detachments than swords here, which is why I usually use them against LM, but if the front of the saurus unit is facing the halbs they will be decimated. Either way I always use the swordsmen as the parent unit.
Am i getting something wrong here... how can swordsmen have a 4+ save?
DemoMarine, -Swordman light armour and shield(with hand weapon) in close combat is 4+, out of combat is 5+. Best save we get for infantry.
Everyone seems to be obsessed about how good swordsmen are, but no-one every considers the myriad situations where they actually have few advantages and are still 1 point more expensive.
Consider fighting vs goblins. Swordsmen have better save (still applies), better WS (no better than other men vs goblins) and higher Initiative (no better than other men vs goblins). In this situation isn't it worth getting a whole load of freecompany to bash the little critters to death with your higher initiative, kill the entire front rank, then you don't need to worry about making that save? Simplistic, but thats another point of view.
Let's look at the other end of the spectrum. Vs Chaos Warriors.
You have I4 (, but they have initiative 1 so now redundant), WS4 (still lower than theirs) and save of 5+ in combat vs them. However, they have Toughness 4, 2 attacks and a 4+ save against your attacks, guess whos gonna come out on top? I prefer Halberdiers vs CW, as hitting chance same, wounding now 50/50 and their save is reduced to by 1. Plus they're a point cheaper (don't bother with shield for them). The only benefit is the 5+ save vs no save for other regiments, but they have other advantages (more attacks/better strength) and are cheaper.
Also, trying to charge a dwarf gunline, your more expensive troops (ok 1 point but every little helps) will still die just as easy from firing, the Initiative doesn't count for anything and once again I would prefer to have the extra strength vs their toughness and Armour save modifier (with a few more troops).
Don't get me wrong, I like my swordsmen, but I'm aware that each regiment has it's niche on the battlefield and there are at least 3 other armies core units that I wouldn't bother taking swordmen against if I had the choice. Swordsmen are good generalist mother regiment that has better survivability so that flanking charges can be positioned. The're also good against other core units and a few other special, Swordsmen vs halberdiers fo instance I would probably bet on the swordsmen.
Anyway, let the arguments rage on!
Cheese… milk's leap toward immortality