Falchions vs Halberds

[Skywrath]

In the pure math-hammer sense (interested to see the maths behind this), what option is better for purifiers, if the list wasn't running paladins? Falchions or Halberds? 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Skywrath

[Valerian]

It’s Falchions for low Attack models, like Strikes (and Purifiers), and Halberds for models that already have several Attacks (like Paladins). An extra Attack doesn’t make that much difference, compared to extra Strength, on a model that already makes 4 attacks, but makes a huge difference to a model that just makes 2. The Falchion is a 50% boost to Strikes/Purifiers melee effectiveness.

[librisrouge]

From a math-hammer sense, I'm almost completely sure that falchions are superior to halberds on Purifiers. The extra attack is just too beneficial.

 

From an aesthetic sense, halberds look cool as heck and I genuinely wish they had the best stats.

[Skywrath]

It’s Falchions for low Attack models, like Strikes (and Purifiers), and Halberds for models that already have several Attacks (like Paladins). An extra Attack doesn’t make that much difference, compared to extra Strength, on a model that already makes 4 attacks, but makes a huge difference to a model that just makes 2. The Falchion is a 50% boost to Strikes/Purifiers melee effectiveness.

 

Thanks for your response I adapted my lists now with this recommendation in mind. Two questions stem from this:

 

1. Numerically speaking, (and I apologise if this sounds non-coherent), what would be the threshold in determining whether that extra attack matters or not, on said units? So theoretically speaking, if the Paladin had falchions (which by your logic is overkill), how much damage would I lose if they were armed with halberds? I hope this makes sense.

 

2. The other option is swords - how much of a downgrade are they compared to the other two options? And what scenario would you want to bring them in line with the other two options?

 

From a math-hammer sense, I'm almost completely sure that falchions are superior to halberds on Purifiers. The extra attack is just too beneficial.

 

From an aesthetic sense, halberds look cool as heck and I genuinely wish they had the best stats.

 

Sure do agree there, brother! I also try squeezing a thunder-hammer wherever I can for the extra "kick" in a squad (and aesthetics), but fully agree with you there. 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Skywrath

[Captain Coolpants]

There was a post a while back with proper maths and tables on all our weapons. I'm crap at navigating and searching for old posts. Anyone know where it is or care to. Link it?

Because it answers this thread and then some.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Captain Coolpants

[Valerian]

 

It’s Falchions for low Attack models, like Strikes (and Purifiers), and Halberds for models that already have several Attacks (like Paladins). An extra Attack doesn’t make that much difference, compared to extra Strength, on a model that already makes 4 attacks, but makes a huge difference to a model that just makes 2. The Falchion is a 50% boost to Strikes/Purifiers melee effectiveness.

 

Thanks for your response I adapted my lists now with this recommendation in mind. Two questions stem from this:

 

1. Numerically speaking, (and I apologise if this sounds non-coherent), what would be the threshold in determining whether that extra attack matters or not, on said units? So theoretically speaking, if the Paladin had falchions (which by your logic is overkill), 

 

 

I'm not saying the Falchions are overkill on Paladins.  Far from it.  Indeed, in my mind there is no such thing as overkill in 40k.  The issue is that the extra attack doesn't provide a big performance boost on models that already have several attacks.  

 

As I said earlier, in the first Fight phase after a Charge, those Falchions are boosting your Strikes/Purifiers combat effectiveness by a full 50% (and by 100% in an ongoing combat!), which is a huge improvement.  Whereas for a Paladin, it's just a 25% improvement.  Still good, and very much worth doing if there weren't more optimal choices.  For the Paladin, he's going to get more improvement by boosting his chance to Wound by 17% for every single attack that hits (assuming a T4 target), than he will for the extra attack.  

 

Yeah, I'll see if I can find the analysis that Captain Coolpants referenced.  It's definitely out there, somewhere.

 

Until then, the rule of thumb is: Hammers on Characters, Falchions on Strikes, and primarily Halberds on Paladins (although in the case of a full 10 man squad of Paladins, you'll want to mix it up a bit, and put a Hammer on the Paragon and a couple Warding Staves in the unit to tank hits with in close combat.

[Valerian]

This analysis is a couple years old, so doesn't account for Shock Assault, but the findings still stand. Falchions for basic Grey Knights and Halberds for Paladins.

[Skywrath]

Thanks Valerian. Would the shock assault count for much on top of those statistics? And where was this from? I'll take this into account for sure.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Skywrath

[Captain Coolpants]

Thanks for finding it! I didn't realise it was that old. So ignore the references in the paragraphs mentioning points and such because that has all been changed since.

 

Would be great if another maths wizard could do this again, but include our new powers/strats/points.

 

I have poo brains, so I can't unfortunately aha.

[Skywrath]

I may be wrong in assuming this, but I figure with a value of 1 attack it wouldn't change substantially (watch Seizmann prove me wrong again). However, if we were to take the rumours that the 9th is upon us, then re-doing it for the 8th would be pointless no?

 

I do also wonder how old this is in terms of what edition was it current. There is a distinct possibility that some of these values (strength, AP, damage) might not be correct (I'm checking them as we speak), if this was taken from 7th or earlier.   

Edited May 8, 2020 by Skywrath

[Seizeman]

The extra attack from shock assault does indeed change the math substantially and make the tables avobe obsolete.

 

Now, on paladins without hammerhand, halberds do 8% more damage against T4, 22% more damage against T5, 54% more damage to T8, compared to falchions, while the falchions do 25% more damage against T3, T6, T7 (they used to do 33% more damage, before shock assault).

 

With hammerhand, halberds do the same damage as falchions against T4 (falchions used to be better in this case), 8% more damage against T5 ( it was the same before), 22% more damage against T8.

 

Furthermore, on power armor models, falchions used to be 52% better than halberds against T4, but with shock assault they are only 11% better, and halberds now do more damage than falchions against T5 (negligible) and T8. Of course, against T3, T6, T7, falchions used to do 100% more damage, now they only do 50% more. This difference is even more significant when you consider the extra point falchions now cost.

 

Thoughness 4 is of course the most common, and centurions make T5 relevant. Thoughness 7 is quite important too, but T7 units are single models with 10-13 wounds that die to a paladin unit regardless of their choice of weapon (particulary if the paragon has a hammer). Thoughness 8 is not that common, but the advantage the halberds gain here is massive and more relevant than T7, because there are a few T8 targets with 24+ wounds, so you don't risk overkilling. Thoughness 6 is almost non-existant (and are usually single models, like T7), and T3 is not very relevant because you have tons of bolters for that. So, for paladins, halberds are clearly the winners, even before considering the extra cost (and, on top of that, halberds look so much better).

 

For strike squads, you are not going to use them against T5+ that much, so falchions become more appealing. In general, I'd say falchions are better for power armor units, but they are still going to fight mostly against T4, and they usually just clean up small units of stragglers and are not a primary combat unit, so I would not pay for the falchions, since strikes are a bit on the expensive side already. If I had just enough spare points for falchions and nothing else, I would take them, but that's never the case with grey knight lists.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Seizeman

[Valerian]

I may be wrong in assuming this, but I figure with a value of 1 attack it wouldn't change substantially (watch Seizmann prove me wrong again). However, if we were to take the rumours that the 9th is upon us, then re-doing it for the 8th would be pointless no?

9th edition will probably come this year, but it is going to be an evolutionary change to the rules (like 3e through to 7e ), and not revolutionary (like 2e to 3e, and 7e to 8e). They’re going to tighten up the weak spots. So, analysis like these charts (updated for Shock Assault), will still be valid.

 

I do also wonder how old this is in terms of what edition was it current. There is a distinct possibility that some of these values (strength, AP, damage) might not be correct (I'm checking them as we speak), if this was taken from 7th or earlier.

 

These were made in early 8e, by the 3++ guys. They couldn’t have been from earlier, because AP didn’t work the same way in previous editions. Also, I wouldn’t have shared them, if they were from an earlier edition.

 

Seizeman went through the updated numbers already, but the conclusions remain the same.

[Valerian]

In general, I'd say falchions are better for power armor units, but they are still going to fight mostly against T4, and they usually just clean up small units of stragglers and are not a primary combat unit, so I would not pay for the falchions, since strikes are a bit on the expensive side already. If I had just enough spare points for falchions and nothing else, I would take them, but that's never the case with grey knight lists.

I’m confused by this, though, since Falchions don’t cost any more than Swords or Halberds.

[Captain Coolpants]

Aren't falchions 1 point EACH? So technically cost double the sword/halberd/stave.

[Valerian]

Aren't falchions 1 point EACH? So technically cost double the sword/halberd/stave.

Ah, yes, that’s it exactly. But still, at just 5 extra points per unit of 5 Strikes, I’m going with full Falchions across the board, every time. For +50% effectiveness in melee in the opening Fight phase, that’s an easy decision for me.

[Skywrath]

 

I may be wrong in assuming this, but I figure with a value of 1 attack it wouldn't change substantially (watch Seizmann prove me wrong again). However, if we were to take the rumours that the 9th is upon us, then re-doing it for the 8th would be pointless no?

9th edition will probably come this year, but it is going to be an evolutionary change to the rules (like 3e through to 7e ), and not revolutionary (like 2e to 3e, and 7e to 8e). They’re going to tighten up the weak spots. So, analysis like these charts (updated for Shock Assault), will still be valid.

 

I do also wonder how old this is in terms of what edition was it current. There is a distinct possibility that some of these values (strength, AP, damage) might not be correct (I'm checking them as we speak), if this was taken from 7th or earlier.

These were made in early 8e, by the 3++ guys. They couldn’t have been from earlier, because AP didn’t work the same way in previous editions. Also, I wouldn’t have shared them, if they were from an earlier edition.

 

Seizeman went through the updated numbers already, but the conclusions remain the same.

 

How would you know that the changes in 9th were not going to be revolutionary? A pattern or announcement perhaps? And thank you for clarifying that bit of information about the data integrity (it was not meant to sound sarcastic). 

 

 

Aren't falchions 1 point EACH? So technically cost double the sword/halberd/stave.

Ah, yes, that’s it exactly. But still, at just 5 extra points per unit of 5 Strikes, I’m going with full Falchions across the board, every time. For +50% effectiveness in melee in the opening Fight phase, that’s an easy decision for me.

 

 

Very well, deferring to your logic again, thank you. Looks like it's high time to get into magnetisation for me, in that case.

 

For the sake of the big-picture, if we were to turn our attention to Swords, does an extra attack work out better than an additional -1 modifier (bit of trippy wording there), mathematically? 

 

Or does it come down to the terminator vs strike argument again?

Edited May 8, 2020 by Skywrath

[Valerian]

Yes, the extra Falchion attack outweighs the extra Sword AP in the exact same way as it outweighs the extra Halberd Strength. Generally, an advantage earlier in the chain helps more than advantages later in the chain (Attacks>Hits>Wounds>Saves).

 

I can elaborate about 9e when I’m on my computer and not fat-fingering my phone.

[Seizeman]

 

Aren't falchions 1 point EACH? So technically cost double the sword/halberd/stave.

Ah, yes, that’s it exactly. But still, at just 5 extra points per unit of 5 Strikes, I’m going with full Falchions across the board, every time. For +50% effectiveness in melee in the opening Fight phase, that’s an easy decision for me.

 

 

It's only +50% against T3, 6, 7. It's almost the same or worse against most units. Those 5 points add up, and you spend those on demonhammers or psycannons for your characters or paladins, that are going to do more damage more consistently (in most games, some or all of those falchions are not going to be used, but the paladins are gong to get into combat in almost every game).

 

Yes, the extra Falchion attack outweighs the extra Sword AP in the exact same way as it outweighs the extra Halberd Strength. Generally, an advantage earlier in the chain helps more than advantages later in the chain (Attacks>Hits>Wounds>Saves).

 

I can elaborate about 9e when I’m on my computer and not fat-fingering my phone.

 

Wether an advantage is gained earlier or later in the "chain" is absolutely irrelevant, because all the factors are multiplicative (except number of attacks). Those factors being multiplicative means every increase in the success change of one factor makes the next increase in the success chance of the other factors more effective, so extra bonuses in the same step have diminishing returns.  Going from a 6+ to a 5+ is a 100% increase, from 5+ to 4+ is 50%, then 33%, then 25%, then 20%, so every extra point is worse than the one before. Because of this, it's better to have balanced stats than some good ones and bad ones. For example, if you go from hitting on 6+ and wounding on 6+ to hitting on 5+ and wounding on 5+ (so a 2 "point" increase) you deal 4 times the damage, because you have double the chances to hit and double the chances to wound. In the same case, if you go from hitting on 6+ and wounding on 6+ to hitting on 4+ and wounding on 6+ (also a 2 "point" increase), you only deal 3 times the damage, because you triple your chances to hit, but your chance to wound remains the same. There's no point in hitting a lot if those attacks are not going to wound, and there's no point in wounding very easily if you aren't going to hit. That's why swords are bad, because their stats are not balanced (and there's also the issue of invulnerable saves limiting the maximum effective AP you can have).

 

Attacks work differently, because they are additive, meaning each extra attack is as valuable as each other attack (they have no diminishing returns). The value of each attack is only determined by the other factors (hitting, wounding, saving). This means each increase in the multiplicative factors is better the more attacks you have. That's why halberds are generally worse on strikes than they are on paladins. With strikes, having an extra attack is more effective than making 2 attacks better, but with paladins, making 4 attacks better is more effective than having an extra attack. There's always a point in which better wounding/hitting/nosaving will outscale extra attacks, and the utility of the math is to find that point. That's the same reason why demonhammers are bad on strikes, decent on paladins and very good on paragons/characters.

[Captain Coolpants]

I think its a good idea to mix squads with both halberds and falchions anyway. Because guys almost aaaalways die before combat. So you can take away the weapons that are least effective in that particular match up. That way you save a couple points here and there too. Also looks muuuch better.

[Seizeman]

I think its a good idea to mix squads with both halberds and falchions anyway. Because guys almost aaaalways die before combat. So you can take away the weapons that are least effective in that particular match up. That way you save a couple points here and there too. Also looks muuuch better.

 

There's also the problem of GK boxes not having enough bits to equip everyone, so having mixed units might be a necessary evil.

[Skywrath]

I think its a good idea to mix things up. For instance, I have my paragons/sergeants/justicars with deamon hammers to differentiate them. Then usually paladins are with halberds, and with the suggestion of the people on the forum, I'll have my purifiers/strikes with falchions. 

 

This is a bit off-topic, but is it possible to magnetise a strike squad's backpack so you can portrait him as a purifier? Or something to that effect with other units? Logic says it can be done, but I'm keen to hear your thoughts.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Skywrath

[Seizeman]

Purifiers are exactly the same as strike squads, model wise, so the only thing you need to portray them as purifiers is to declare they are. If you are referring to interceptors, the only difference is their backpacks, which are super easy to magnetise, giving no reason not to do that with every one of them.

[Valerian]

 

I can elaborate about 9e when I’m on my computer and not fat-fingering my phone.

 

Okay, on my computer now.  

 

 

How would you know that the changes in 9th were not going to be revolutionary? A pattern or announcement perhaps? 

 

 

They haven't made an announcement, so nobody 'knows' for sure, but I'm still very confident in my claim.  For one, they don't make big revolutionary changes to their games often, and they don't do it unless it is really justified and necessary for the future health of the game, the hobby, and their sales.  Before the transition to 8e, the last big revolutionary change in the rules was in 1998 - that was 19 straight years of small incremental changes to the same core foundation of how the game worked before they decided it was time to overhaul the game almost from the ground up.

 

40k right now, as far as I can tell, is as popular and successful as it has ever been.  8th edition has brought a revival of the game in many ways, including the resurgence of a healthy competitive scene in various events, tournaments and gaming clubs that all drive sales.  GW isn't going to shoot themselves in the foot by making major changes when things are going really well for them in this regards.  What they are going to do, though, is capitalize on the current environment and tighten up the rules.  Since 8e was a complete overhaul of the rules engine that drives the game, they understandably didn't nail it down perfectly in the first attempt.  It was very heavily influenced by the Age of Sigmar (AoS) rules for the Warhammer Fantasy Battle line from a year or two before 8e, and AoS was just revised to its 2nd edition last year.  So, it makes good sense that they're going to take lessons learned from that update to their other major game system, combined with the friction points already identified in 8e, and released a polished version soon.  Ultimately, they want to get rid of what they call "feel bad" moments in the game, where things don't work as you'd expect they should (for example an Imperial Knight towering over a building that can't assault the infantry on the second floor).  

 

Since it won't be a major revision, it'll work just like previous edition transitions.  All of the current Codexes and Supplements will remain valid (perhaps with some Erratas to certain rules/datasheets to bring things in line) until their newer versions are eventually released.

 

[Seizeman]

I totally agree with Valerian. Although 8th edition had a rough start and a lot of things had to be fixed, it's in a really good spot now and the core is very solid.  I've never seen so many people playing and so many armies being viable. This is probably the most balanced version of the game there's ever been, and 40k has never been more popular and is making GW a lot of money. There's room for improvement, but there's no reason at all to make drastic changes, specially now that GW have decided to keep an eye on balance and the competitive scene, and are updating the game very frequently (compared to the past).

[Skywrath]

Agree with Valerian and Seizmann too. Your logic is sound, and I can't dispute that. Very well stated, sir.