home

Author Topic: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?  (Read 2722 times)

Offline commandant

  • Members
  • Posts: 8526
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #25 on: September 23, 2024, 06:35:22 AM »
maybe STank as a special choice (this is a hard one, but if you think about its 1 per 1000 points limit when it costs more than 250 points and so this limit has no meaning in the actual roster, but it would make sense if you can take it as a special choice and field 2 in a 2.000 points army).

Considering Chaos Dwarves have the Iron Daemon as a special choice with the 1 per 1000 limit, I am frustrated we cannot have the same with our tank.
I would even take swapping the steam tank and demi gryphs in their special / rare slots.

I don't really know about Iron Demons but my impression is that there are more than 12 of them.

Offline Tiberius

  • Members
  • Posts: 305
  • Semper ubi sub ubi
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #26 on: September 23, 2024, 11:49:30 PM »
What does anyone think of possibility of Pike-armed DoW making a comeback with Empire AJ or possibly even as Empire troops (Since in fluff Averland & Wisseland use them as far as I know).

Technically I think a Averland and wissenland used “half pikes”.

I really doubt it, but I very much hope for it. Proper pikes would do a lot to make Empire infantry viable. I’m trying to remember the old pike rules in 6th. Something like +1 strength against cavalry and monsters on the turn they charge, go first on the turn they are charged, and fight in 4 ranks regularly and 2 ranks while charging. All these things only when fighting in the front arch.

Anything close to that and I’d be pretty happy.

Offline commandant

  • Members
  • Posts: 8526
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2024, 07:18:06 AM »
There is a long discussion on the 8th army book board about the best rules for pikes. I would very muck like pikes but GW has no pike models so I wouldn't hold your breath

Offline Damar

  • Members
  • Posts: 16
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #28 on: September 24, 2024, 08:39:33 AM »
There is a long discussion on the 8th army book board about the best rules for pikes. I would very muck like pikes but GW has no pike models so I wouldn't hold your breath

Well they don't but back in the day they had multiple DoW companies with pikes, four I think, of which the two could work as Empire Pikemen (Alcatani fellowship & Ricco's republican guard) and of course either could be released as "new" mercenary unit.

Offline commandant

  • Members
  • Posts: 8526
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #29 on: September 24, 2024, 09:07:58 AM »
At least one of the Dogs of war had models though.

Offline Damar

  • Members
  • Posts: 16
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2024, 09:22:22 AM »
At least one of the Dogs of war had models though.

Ricco's Republican Guard
Alcatani Fellowship
Pirazzo's lost legion
Leopolds Leopord company
 
Ricco's Republican Guard is the best looking of the lot in my opinion: https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Ricco%27s_Republican_Guard


Offline OMoran

  • Members
  • Posts: 24
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2024, 01:28:04 PM »
At least one of the Dogs of war had models though.

Ricco's Republican Guard
Alcatani Fellowship
Pirazzo's lost legion
Leopolds Leopord company
 
Ricco's Republican Guard is the best looking of the lot in my opinion: https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Ricco%27s_Republican_Guard

Models are clearly wearing full plate, but rules said heaby armor.

Maybe a "Marienburg Guard" with full plate and pikes, instead of greatswords. It would make sense and be extremely cool.

Sadly it's the only one i never owned. I have LOTS of Alcatani, and a nice amount os Pirazzos and Leopolds. But never had any Riccos (their rules were kinda mediocre in 6th, just pikemen with heavy armor and WS4 at a much overcosted points price).

Offline Skyros

  • Members
  • Posts: 1654
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2024, 02:10:00 PM »
At least one of the Dogs of war had models though.

Ricco's Republican Guard
Alcatani Fellowship
Pirazzo's lost legion
Leopolds Leopord company
 
Ricco's Republican Guard is the best looking of the lot in my opinion: https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Ricco%27s_Republican_Guard

Ricco's looked the best, but sadly, all I got my hands on were some leopold's leopard company. Was going to do a panther themed force with them and my knights panther, huntsmen with panther pelts, etc. Never really happened, but I had fun thinking about it!

Offline commandant

  • Members
  • Posts: 8526
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2024, 02:47:58 PM »
Sadly it's the only one i never owned. I have LOTS of Alcatani, and a nice amount os Pirazzos and Leopolds. But never had any Riccos (their rules were kinda mediocre in 6th, just pikemen with heavy armor and WS4 at a much overcosted points price).

I donno, they threw out a lot of attacks in a world where that wasn't common.

I also believe that full plate didn't exist in 5th ed.

Offline OMoran

  • Members
  • Posts: 24
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2024, 03:32:20 PM »
I donno, they threw out a lot of attacks in a world where that wasn't common.

I also believe that full plate didn't exist in 5th ed.

Yes, they did but every other pikemen did exactly the same, includic core, non RoR, pikemen, and for a fraction of ricco's cost (point-wise).

Alcatani, despite being WS2, were the most used because they were the cheapest option. Even cheaper than base pikemen.

Leopold, despite being as expensive as Ricco, had the ItP special rule, so they were a nice bunker for your mages.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2024, 03:35:12 PM by OMoran »

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Members
  • Posts: 10897
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #35 on: September 30, 2024, 03:15:53 AM »
I had 3 of the 4 units.
I never had the Lost Legion.

Ricco's are great models, but the Leopard Company are also great models.
I don't think the Alcatani Fellowship helmets fit the look of Empire.

I doubt they are going to release any DoW models for Empire.
That said, the Galloper Gun could be a lot of fun.
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.

Offline lcmiracle

  • Members
  • Posts: 108
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2024, 06:42:48 PM »
I had 3 of the 4 units.
I never had the Lost Legion.

Ricco's are great models, but the Leopard Company are also great models.
I don't think the Alcatani Fellowship helmets fit the look of Empire.

I doubt they are going to release any DoW models for Empire.
That said, the Galloper Gun could be a lot of fun.

Well, they did include the Ogres in the Orcs & Goblins AJ. Besides, the Empire hires the Tilean mercenaries far more than, let's say, Bretonnia and probably the Orcs.
They really only need to include two units: the pikemen, with upgrade options for light heavy armor, as well as a crossbowmen variant with shields as mercenaries to just resell most of the Perry twins' works.
I'm far more interested in the Arabyan lines myself - the desert dogs as well as Medas's cart.

Offline commandant

  • Members
  • Posts: 8526
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #37 on: September 30, 2024, 08:37:02 PM »
Loads of the regiments of renown couldn't be hired by Bretonnia for some reason

Offline Damar

  • Members
  • Posts: 16
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #38 on: October 01, 2024, 06:40:51 AM »
Loads of the regiments of renown couldn't be hired by Bretonnia for some reason

Exiles still have this problem with army list allowing for mercenaries but number of DoWs that are available is exactly zero. Only options are Empire Archers (which are essentially carbon copy of Bretonnian Squires*) and free company which is overpriced chaff considering the fact you have better and cheaper troopers (Yeoman Guard, Brigands or even vanilla MaA) in your roster.

Heck, you don't even have any Regimental Unit in your roster so you could at least get some use out of them as detachments.

Hopefully they errata this at some stage in FAQ (That Exiles can take same Mercs as Grand Armies) or Empire AJ has ton of mercs that are specifically allowed for Exiles too. Ogre mercenaries would certainly work better as heavy foot in Exile armies than no-ward-save foot knights.

*But come with unruly mercenaries rule and are not peasants.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2024, 06:49:43 AM by Damar »

Offline commandant

  • Members
  • Posts: 8526
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #39 on: October 01, 2024, 07:01:40 AM »
I don't know a lot about the lore but I'd be interested in why Bretonnians don't get to hire Dogs of War, something to do with the Lady maybe.

Offline Damar

  • Members
  • Posts: 16
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #40 on: October 01, 2024, 07:18:09 AM »
I don't know a lot about the lore but I'd be interested in why Bretonnians don't get to hire Dogs of War, something to do with the Lady maybe.

Dishonorable and all that jazz...

Offline lcmiracle

  • Members
  • Posts: 108
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #41 on: October 01, 2024, 09:06:41 AM »
I don't know a lot about the lore but I'd be interested in why Bretonnians don't get to hire Dogs of War, something to do with the Lady maybe.

Dishonorable and all that jazz...

Having the knights fighting on foot like common peansantry was already bad enough, now you want they to PAY for soldiery? Let alone people not of the same soil? What are you? Some faithless coward from Estalia?

Offline Damar

  • Members
  • Posts: 16
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #42 on: October 02, 2024, 06:39:41 AM »
Btw, lore wise TOW happens in final times of "Age of three Emperors" but how many independent factions there were at this stage? Marienburg, Reikland, Talacbeland & Middenland seem obvious but based on map on GW page it would seem that Nuln is also independent at this stage. What about Ostermark?

Offline lcmiracle

  • Members
  • Posts: 108
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #43 on: October 02, 2024, 07:24:50 AM »
Btw, lore wise TOW happens in final times of "Age of three Emperors" but how many independent factions there were at this stage? Marienburg, Reikland, Talacbeland & Middenland seem obvious but based on map on GW page it would seem that Nuln is also independent at this stage. What about Ostermark?

The rulebook itself states there are 4 main claimaints: Westerland, Osterlund, Reikland, and Grand Duchy of Talabec (p45). However, since Middenheim is long since diminished, the other subordinate provinces Ostland, Ostermark, Hochland and Middenland are effectively independent, and the Wolf Emperor really rules just the city-state itself. Similarily, Talabec is disparate -- both Talabheim and Nuln are mostly independent city-states, and the other provinces are also more or less self-governed.

This matches with the old roleplay lore more or less. Middenland declared independence from Middenheim in 1550 IC while the Wolf Emperor made a failed siege upon Talabheim. This is when the Middenland count received a Runefang (stolen from the Middenheim vault, no less) and made an elector by the elected Emperor of Nuln (Warhammer Chronicles 2004 page 4). Then there's the story about the Carroburg Greatswords, who defended Middenland's capitol from an Middenheim army (Chronicles p4.). This originated from the original Enemy Within RP book (Warhammer City: Middenheim, IIRC) and probably used to justify why both Middenheim and Middenland were elector provinces in the campaign.

2nd edition roleplay had Talabheim rebelling against Talabecland in 1750 IC, which would not be reunited until Magnus (Sigmar's Heirs p17 & Terror in Talabheim p5.); interestingly enough, this was not the justification for why Talabheim and talabecland were also separate electoral provinces in EW -- rather, in RP 1E, Apocrypha 2, page 15, Talabecland was made a separate electoral province after Magnus' death.

However, no explanation on why Sudenland is marked as a separate faction on the map so far. While it is true Sudenland is a separate electoral province in EW, if the writers are not planning to give it some character, why bother making it seem like a major player at all?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2024, 07:43:25 AM by lcmiracle »

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Members
  • Posts: 10897
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #44 on: Today at 06:57:54 AM »
I assume our current time period is after Drakwald was no longer a province? I can't remember....
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.

Offline Damar

  • Members
  • Posts: 16
Re: Baseless Speculation: Armies of Infamy for the Empire?
« Reply #45 on: Today at 09:05:57 AM »
I assume our current time period is after Drakwald was no longer a province? I can't remember....

I think that happened several centuries before the current TOW timeline.