Author Topic: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen (Read 34270 times)

Derek Contyre · « **Reply #50 on:** August 23, 2009, 09:10:55 AM »

@dur Hurenwiebel I think basing the game on initiatives is a bit too technical for anyone new to the game.

I understood it as I have fought with a polehammer before and also in massed melee.
But that just seems too technical to me. I would play it for house rules though.

@warhammerlord_soth. 25pts for a t3 model? with one attack and s3? i would rather take 50 greatswordsmen for that. . . which is what it is points wise. lol

Good theory but.

warhammerlord_soth · « **Reply #51 on:** August 23, 2009, 09:15:33 AM »

Exactly my point.

OK, forget about the extra 2 points.

23pts per foot knight shouldn't get objections from your opponent either.

Derek Contyre · « **Reply #52 on:** August 23, 2009, 11:49:08 AM »

No i wouldn't object, actually my goblin fanatics will love them to bits. . . literally lol

Na if we have to pay that much for a model that can be outclassed so easily by everything else just so we can get a 2+ save from infantry. . .

I mean chosen warriors of chaos are 18pts each, 19 with a 2+ save in combat. they have a horrid statline to boot.

I would take double the greatswords over the foot knights(if they cost 23pts) because at least they have a s5 attack. With stubborn

der Hurenwiebel · « **Reply #53 on:** August 23, 2009, 07:26:33 PM »

no subtract points for losing the mobility of the horse the extra attack of the horse and the US of the horse, as well as the mount and bard saves. Those added up should be about 10 points if not 11 or 12. Basically there shouldn't be much difference between a foot knight and a great sword in points, nor in profile, they are simply armed differently and used slightly differently.

eSBeN84 · « **Reply #54 on:** September 10, 2009, 11:49:09 AM »

I may be a retard for asking, but here goes.
Other than equipment, what's the advantage of taking a unit of foot knights over a unit of GS? Becourse I can't imagine that GW would give the empire a 3+/2+ AS infantry unit.

Freman Bloodglaive · « **Reply #55 on:** September 27, 2009, 09:11:32 AM »

Greatswords are basically great weapon armed foot knights already.

commandant · « **Reply #56 on:** September 27, 2009, 11:57:48 AM »

Quote from: eSBeN84 on September 10, 2009, 11:49:09 AM

I may be a retard for asking, but here goes.
Other than equipment, what's the advantage of taking a unit of foot knights over a unit of GS? Becourse I can't imagine that GW would give the empire a 3+/2+ AS infantry unit.

cheaper, no stubborn and better fluff really

wissenlander · « **Reply #57 on:** October 08, 2009, 01:41:43 PM »

Quote from: der Hurenwiebel on August 23, 2009, 07:26:33 PM

no subtract points for losing the mobility of the horse the extra attack of the horse and the US of the horse, as well as the mount and bard saves. Those added up should be about 10 points if not 11 or 12. Basically there shouldn't be much difference between a foot knight and a great sword in points, nor in profile, they are simply armed differently and used slightly differently.

I agree with this.

I voted for no FPA and shield combo, but the main reason for that is because adding a dismounted knight option makes the greatswords redundant. Merge the two together into one unit choice, give it some options and you're on to something.

Phydox · « **Reply #58 on:** October 23, 2009, 01:03:04 PM »

I'd be for foot knights (even have the models-I use em as greatswords), if someone could explain why the knights wanna be on foot and not on their horse.

warhammerlord_soth · « **Reply #59 on:** October 23, 2009, 01:11:53 PM »

Menure.

And IRL : soil condition. Muddy ground and cavalry don't mix too well

wissenlander · « **Reply #60 on:** October 23, 2009, 01:21:13 PM »

Or rocky terrain. Mobility was a big concern. Sort of ironic, I suppose.

Phydox · « **Reply #61 on:** October 23, 2009, 07:18:44 PM »

I guess I can see them being in a bad situation (terrain wise) and it actually being better for them to fight on foot. Maybe even in a cityfight. I guess I'd see it as unrealistic that knights would reduce themselves to actually fight that way.

Derek Contyre · « **Reply #62 on:** October 23, 2009, 10:40:32 PM »

Reduce themselves? what are you talking about?

Knights would fight on foot when the situation called for it.
What about siege warfare? no good riding a horse on the ramparts only to get chopped down by missile fire.
Nearly every knight in europe [prefered to fight on horses because of mobility, height and extra armour gave them huge advantages in combat.
Fighting on foot is always an option. I mean what happens when your horse died in the middle of combat?
And in the later era, 15th-16th century when nearly everyone had full plate armour knights were fighting with poleaxe's against cavalry. . .(english knights gotta love em)

Inarticulate · « **Reply #63 on:** October 23, 2009, 11:19:35 PM »

Germanic and English Knights more often than not fought on foot with the infantry, especially after Crecy and the death of chivalry.

t12161991 · « **Reply #64 on:** October 24, 2009, 03:23:19 AM »

*cough* Agincourt *cough*

Inarticulate · « **Reply #65 on:** October 24, 2009, 02:46:41 PM »

Thats what i do every time I meet a French person.

Phydox · « **Reply #66 on:** October 24, 2009, 05:15:37 PM »

Quote from: Derek Contyre on October 23, 2009, 10:40:32 PM

Reduce themselves? what are you talking about?

Knights would fight on foot when the situation called for it.
What about siege warfare? no good riding a horse on the ramparts only to get chopped down by missile fire.
Nearly every knight in europe [prefered to fight on horses because of mobility, height and extra armour gave them huge advantages in combat.
Fighting on foot is always an option. I mean what happens when your horse died in the middle of combat?
And in the later era, 15th-16th century when nearly everyone had full plate armour knights were fighting with poleaxe's against cavalry. . .(english knights gotta love em)

I have to vote no on knights on foot. The models may be appropriate for a special scenario such as playing a fighting withdraw with heavy causalties or a siege game, but for the standard Empire armylist, they just don't seem to fit.

The Empire isn't about heavily armored infantry. Its about lots of lightly armored cheap troops, that die by the bucketloads. I hate being a purist, but i am.

Finlay · « **Reply #67 on:** October 24, 2009, 08:11:34 PM »

Quote from: Phydox on October 24, 2009, 05:15:37 PM

Quote from: Derek Contyre on October 23, 2009, 10:40:32 PM
Reduce themselves? what are you talking about?

Knights would fight on foot when the situation called for it.
What about siege warfare? no good riding a horse on the ramparts only to get chopped down by missile fire.
Nearly every knight in europe [prefered to fight on horses because of mobility, height and extra armour gave them huge advantages in combat.
Fighting on foot is always an option. I mean what happens when your horse died in the middle of combat?
And in the later era, 15th-16th century when nearly everyone had full plate armour knights were fighting with poleaxe's against cavalry. . .(english knights gotta love em)

I have to vote no on knights on foot. The models may be appropriate for a special scenario such as playing a fighting withdraw with heavy causalties or a siege game, but for the standard Empire armylist, they just don't seem to fit.

The Empire isn't about heavily armored infantry. Its about lots of lightly armored cheap troops, that die by the bucketloads. I hate being a purist, but i am.

we had foot knights in, what, 4th edition? 5th edition?

Derek Contyre · « **Reply #68 on:** October 24, 2009, 09:29:17 PM »

Quote

I hate being a purist, but i am.

Me too, i mean you know you are one when you till take halberdiers as a parent unit. . .

rufus sparkfire · « **Reply #69 on:** October 24, 2009, 09:31:14 PM »

If a list has mounted knights, it should also have dismounted knights. Clearly.

t12161991 · « **Reply #70 on:** October 25, 2009, 06:54:45 PM »

So that makes a grand total of one army list that meets your suggestion?

commandant · « **Reply #71 on:** October 25, 2009, 07:32:47 PM »

At least two armies have mounted knights

rufus sparkfire · « **Reply #72 on:** October 25, 2009, 11:18:00 PM »

Quote from: t12161991 on October 25, 2009, 06:54:45 PM

So that makes a grand total of one army list that meets your suggestion?

All or most of the warhammer medieval lists do. But those have to make sense. As everyone knows, fantasy should make no sense, even on its own terms. It's a rule, apparently.

Greatswords are dismounted knights anyway. Problem solved!

t12161991 · « **Reply #73 on:** October 26, 2009, 12:06:08 AM »

Quote from: commandant on October 25, 2009, 07:32:47 PM

At least two armies have mounted knights

Brets, Dark Elves, Empire, High Elves, Lizzies, O&G, Daemons, Warriors, and Vampires all have knights called knights (or racial equivalent).

Only warrior have dismounted knights (of a sort) in Chaos Warriors (exact same stats) and Chosen.

der Hurenwiebel · « **Reply #74 on:** October 26, 2009, 12:46:11 AM »

Ironic isn't it that the warriors of chaos are one of the few who have dismounted knights. Also the saurus warriors from the lizards and probably iron breaker dwarves.

News:

Poll

Should we allow Foot Knights OR Full Plate Swordsmen OR not?

Author Topic: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen (Read 34270 times)