Warhammer-Empire.com

The General Archive => Empire Army Book 8th Edition => Core => Topic started by: Warlord on May 20, 2009, 02:13:38 AM

Title: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Warlord on May 20, 2009, 02:13:38 AM
So that this topic doesn't spill into EVERY other topic here regarding infantry upgrades / overhauls, can we please keep the thoughts regarding Foot knights / Full plate swordsmen here?

Before voting, at least read this general outline of what each one would generally have access to:

Foot Knights
They have the same stats as knights (without mount)
They are allowed a magic banner (same as knights)
They are unable to take detachments.
They often can be subject to 'order' upgrades.

Full Plate Swordsmen
They have the same stats as swordsmen except are allowed Full Plate Armour
They have all the regular state troop rules (detachments, magic banner, etc.).

No Infantry with Full Plate and Shield option
Infantry with the option of a 2+ AS in combat will exaggerate the current swordsmen syndrome we are already subject to. They would become must haves, regardless of the slot they take because they would be by far and away the BEST infantry we would have access to, and would appear in EVERY Empire army.

Let the voting and discussion begin!
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Toro_Blanco on May 20, 2009, 04:16:10 AM
I must respectfully disagree about your statement on which slot they take; if they're a special, they must compete with the other very nice choices we have there.  However, I will agree that they would replace greatswords entirely (who's going to take full plate and GW or HW when they can have full plate, HW, and SHIELD? A minority, that's who).

I think it's important we clarify if they're being taken as special or core, because this could affect a lot of people's stance on it, mine in particular.  Rare is out of the question, just silly.

I'll vote under the assumption it would be a core choice.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Warlord on May 20, 2009, 04:30:54 AM
I think a special choice is appropriate to talk about also. Dismounted knights would have Ld8 afterall, and should not be as common as knights on foot.

Most people suggest that any upgrade to full plate should automatically go to special or rare because full plate should not be that common, so considering them in at least the special slot should also be done.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Toro_Blanco on May 20, 2009, 04:36:30 AM
Well, making full plate infantry a core choice is practically begging them to replace state troops.

Perhaps if they carry 0-1, or maybe a rule that they don't count towards minimum core units, or you must have more knights/state troops than dismounted knights?

Just because they're great doesn't mean we can't put limits on them, and I don't care so much about seeing them in EVERY army, as long as they have limits and drawbacks to ensure OTHER units are a competitive choice.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Warlord on May 20, 2009, 04:44:24 AM
Fair enough.
Lots of people think that having 0-1 or more units of knights makes it ok. I'm not trying to convince anyone here, and a discussion of how everyone thinks it should be done is entirely appropriate to have here.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Toro_Blanco on May 20, 2009, 04:47:32 AM
Fair enough.
Lots of people think that having 0-1 or more units of knights makes it ok. I'm not trying to convince anyone here, and a discussion of how everyone thinks it should be done is entirely appropriate to have here.

It's not that I think it's okay, it's that we're discussing the unit and what to do about them if they were added.  I don't want them if they just replace all other infantry as the default "too good to pass up" unit; I agree that without limits or drawbacks, they WILL make our current swordsmen problem seem trivial in comparison.

I'm throwing out ideas that I want to discuss that might balance them, or make the other infantry competitive.  If you think 0-1 or more knights/state troopers is a terrible idea, please feel free to tell me why and propose a counter idea.  If you think we should just plain not introduce them, I'm on your side for the moment; I think that without some serious balancing, they're better off left out of the army.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Warlord on May 20, 2009, 05:20:20 AM
Toro, I think we are both on the same page. I am in the "always don't introduce" camp, but I don't want my opinion to stifle debate.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: IsThisIt on May 20, 2009, 07:42:15 AM
I think it would be interesting if there was a magic item, or upgrade of some sort, in which the Lord of the army practices the art of fighting with shield in hand.  Maybe there could be a 50 point magic shield that only the GoTE can take that would grant the ability to give shields to one unit of Greatswords or something. 

Or a special character or something along those lines making you invest greatly in achieving the mythical 2+ save in close combat.  If it was too easily available, without a 0-1 restriction, it would make everything else on foot obsolete. 
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Captain Gerntass on May 20, 2009, 08:40:09 AM
I deffinately think there should be a foot knight option as it would take time for replacement horses to be bred and raised for war so it would be a reasonable bet that many knights a stuck fight some battals on foot becouse their steeds got shot/sliced from under neath them but I'd say for every unit of foot knights a player would need to field a mounted version OR you can't have more foot knights then there are state troops and keep them as a core choice  :::cheers:::
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Uryens de Crux on May 20, 2009, 10:12:05 AM
I'd make them rare choices, an alternative to taking Flaggies (speaking as someone who doesnt use HRB, Stanks or Flaggies in his army)
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Dunrik on May 20, 2009, 12:11:58 PM
A no from me. I can live with foot knights, but they have at least to be special, though I would prefer the foot knights to have heavy armour instead.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Obi on May 20, 2009, 12:21:04 PM
Yes, foot knights would be awesome. They'd have to cost 12 points each though, IMO.

The slot choice is hard though. If they're special no one would take GS anymore.

Therefore, my take:



One unit of Greatswords may be upgraded to Foot Knights, for +2 pts/model.

Foot knights
- Knight rules
- No mount
- MAY take the steel standard (not so bad now, is it?)
- They have full plate, shield and HW. May also keep their GW for +1 pt/model.
- May be upgraded to IC foot knights for +3 pts/model, if so they count as a rare choice.
- MAY be joined by the TGM.

Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: commandant on May 20, 2009, 02:02:01 PM
I am interested in why people are ok with knights on horses being core and knights on foot not being core.   If you want to protect your state troops point out that they are knights and therefore can't have detatchments which is about the only reason for having state troops anyway.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Toro_Blanco on May 20, 2009, 02:05:41 PM
I am interested in why people are ok with knights on horses being core and knights on foot not being core.   If you want to protect your state troops point out that they are knights and therefore can't have detatchments which is about the only reason for having state troops anyway.

This would work fluff-wise, but we have an issue with it because people would simply load up on knights and foot knights, and take a few token militia to redirect charges.  You wouldn't SEE state troops except from players who put fluff before strategy.

Speaking as someone who's designed rules for a number of game systems, if an option is TOO GOOD to pass up, it's either overpowered or the other options are underpowered.  Foot knights would likely become the too-good-to-ignore infantry if that happened, and a lot of us are very strongly opposed to the Empire army basically being foot knights and cavalry.  It doesn't fit with the fluff and it's boring.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: commandant on May 20, 2009, 02:14:35 PM
I am interested in why people are ok with knights on horses being core and knights on foot not being core.   If you want to protect your state troops point out that they are knights and therefore can't have detatchments which is about the only reason for having state troops anyway.

This would work fluff-wise, but we have an issue with it because people would simply load up on knights and foot knights, and take a few token militia to redirect charges.  You wouldn't SEE state troops except from players who put fluff before strategy.

Speaking as someone who's designed rules for a number of game systems, if an option is TOO GOOD to pass up, it's either overpowered or the other options are underpowered.  Foot knights would likely become the too-good-to-ignore infantry if that happened, and a lot of us are very strongly opposed to the Empire army basically being foot knights and cavalry.  It doesn't fit with the fluff and it's boring.

Then make them expensive or put a limit on them.   for example and correct me if I'm wrong

Knight                M8 WS4 BS3 S3 T3 I3 W1 A1 L8(+1) 23 points (movement 8 for horse)
1+AS/ S5 on charge
Foot Knight        M4 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 I3 A1 L7 9 points
4+ AS/ Greatweapon

The problem is that foot knights should be more plentyful then mounted knights.   I was going to put a 0-1 per 1000 points limit on them but I decided that that is silly when its not on mounted knights.   I think leaving them at 10 points should do the trick.   Now you are paying 3 points for +1 AS, -1 WS (+0 AS in combat) and a Great Weapon.   They are for all intents and purposes Greatswords that are not stubborn.

I am not sure about the -1 WS.   I put it in to show that the dismounted knights are the younger ones that have not been training for as long.   It was a common tactic by medievel commanders to dismount their knights to stop them rushing into combat and I was thinking that as pistolliers are meant to be hot headed that the first thing that the Knight Commanders do when the new pistolliers enrol to be knights is dismount them to calm them down a bit and make them more controllable
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Toro_Blanco on May 20, 2009, 02:21:19 PM
Then make them expensive or put a limit on them.   for example and correct me if I'm wrong
That's what this thread is for, my good man.  Discussing limits or cost, and in general how to make sure that if we got such a unit, how it would be balanced.

Knight                M8 WS4 BS3 S3 T3 I3 W1 A1 L8(+1) 23 points (movement 8 for horse)
1+AS/ S5 on charge
Foot Knight        M4 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 I3 A1 L7 9 points
4+ AS/ Greatweapon

The problem is that foot knights should be more plentyful then mounted knights.   
What makes you say that?  Certainly that was the case in medieval Europe, but from what I gather from the fluff knights in the Empire are part of private orders with nobles and their squires forming their numbers, rather than a mainstay of the state army.  I could easily believe that the reason we don't see dismounted knights is simply because their men go from training or the pistoliers straight into cavalry combat, and never spend time on foot.  This is why I'm not sure I even want them in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, they are an awesome unit and would look fantastic, but they just don't seem to fit the fluff for the Empire.

I was going to put a 0-1 per 1000 points limit on them but I decided that that is silly when its not on mounted knights.   I think leaving them at 10 points should do the trick.   Now you are paying 3 points for +1 AS, -1 WS (+0 AS in combat) and a Great Weapon.   They are for all intents and purposes Greatswords that are not stubborn.

I am not sure about the -1 WS.   I put it in to show that the dismounted knights are the younger ones that have not been training for as long.   It was a common tactic by medievel commanders to dismount their knights to stop them rushing into combat and I was thinking that as pistolliers are meant to be hot headed that the first thing that the Knight Commanders do when the new pistolliers enrol to be knights is dismount them to calm them down a bit and make them more controllable

Interesting ideas, let me ponder that for a bit before responding...
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on May 21, 2009, 05:15:12 AM
I could see these foot knights as being armed with full plate and halberd (pollaxe) inner circle or regular options and able to strike on initiative as opposed to always last.  regular could be a shade cheaper than great swords and inner circle a shade more, for the added st and lack of stubborn characteristics.  Another option could be to call them veterans for a couple of points and they simply get to ignore the first break or panic test. 
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Warlord on May 21, 2009, 08:17:52 AM
Keep in mind the rough outline I placed in the first post though, regarding foot knights and full plate swordsmen having access to shields being the key component to this discussion. Foot knights without shield and a variety of other options is an entirely different point...
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: commandant on May 21, 2009, 11:00:52 AM
Keep in mind the rough outline I placed in the first post though, regarding foot knights and full plate swordsmen having access to shields being the key component to this discussion. Foot knights without shield and a variety of other options is an entirely different point...

I believe we should have foot knights but I don't believe that they should have shields.   Rather our footknights should be like our greatswords only not as good and cheaper
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on May 21, 2009, 04:17:45 PM
well on that note I could see two options for the foot knights the same basic profile for the knight with a limited form of stubborness like the veteran rule I proposed, then with an armament option of pollaxe or weapon and shield.  The difference being either survivability and thus static combat res, or a little more punch with a heavier weapon without losing much survivability in most circumstances.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Inarticulate on May 23, 2009, 05:08:34 PM
Perhaps you can take Foot Knights if a Grandmaster leads the army?

Same as we were thinking Greatswords can only be taken with a GoTE.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Feanor Fire Heart on May 23, 2009, 06:16:44 PM
Honestly I feel the greatswords fill the role of a foot knight.  Giving him full plate with sword and board seems rather stale as its just improving the standard AS by 1.  sure they fight a slight bit better but I still feel the GS provide the role of a foot knight.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Merrick on May 23, 2009, 06:22:11 PM
To be honest, I would find Infantry with a 2+ save very silly........
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: t12161991 on May 23, 2009, 06:43:36 PM
Already done.

Ironbreakers/Chaos Warriors/Chosen Chaos Warriors.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Merrick on May 23, 2009, 07:39:25 PM
I shall reword it.

I would find Empire infantry with 2+ saves very silly.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: rufus sparkfire on May 23, 2009, 09:56:12 PM
Full plate shouldn't combine with a shield anyway. It doesn't in WAB (and you get a 3+ save from it anyway). No shields at all, thanks!
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Inarticulate on May 23, 2009, 10:11:23 PM
I shall reword it.

I would find Empire infantry with 2+ saves very silly.

Hell i think 1+ Knights is illy and 0+ Characters.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: t12161991 on May 23, 2009, 10:26:12 PM
-1+ characters?

If cannons didn't ignore armor saves, those with -1+'s would still get an armor save!  :eusa_wall:
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Inarticulate on May 23, 2009, 11:38:39 PM
-1+ characters?

If cannons didn't ignore armor saves, those with -1+'s would still get an armor save!  :eusa_wall:

Upsie daisys.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Twiggle on May 23, 2009, 11:59:01 PM
To me, foot knights don't have there place in the empire... brettonia, maybe. I think it would be to medieval.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Syn Ace on May 28, 2009, 10:43:12 PM
We used to have Reiksguard footknights. I used to run them every so often, but I think they only saved on 4+ (even though they were decked out in plate it only counted as heavy armor as there was no field plate rule back then and no extra +1 for hand weapon shield ). I could be misremembering it, but I think they might have had a lower movement rate--which would be one way of creating a drawback. Or could also drop their initiative by 1 to represent them plodding around in full plate (which while having great weight distribution still would still get bloody hot and tire the wearer--reference the French loss at Agincourt when they dismounted and marched across muddy land and then had to fight).
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: t12161991 on May 29, 2009, 12:15:53 AM
Need I mention the arrows at Agincourt?
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Obi on May 29, 2009, 03:23:17 AM
Need I mention the arrows at Agincourt?
Well, you already did.....

But still, point taken. They got raped there.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: t12161991 on May 29, 2009, 08:55:25 PM
More that it wasn't the weight of their armor that was the major cause for the English victory.

Foot Knights... I can kind of see, but I think they're more suited to Brettonnia.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Victor on July 07, 2009, 08:06:08 PM
I wan't my unmounted Reiksguard Knights back. Everyone who is against that, please line up so I can slap you with a fish.  :dry:
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Wolfsgaum on July 07, 2009, 08:21:55 PM
More that it wasn't the weight of their armor that was the major cause for the English victory.

Foot Knights... I can kind of see, but I think they're more suited to Brettonnia.

The armor was pretty good protection from the arrows actually. I wish I could find the source for the estimated arrow shot/per actual fatality ratio I read once. It was an eye opener. It was estimated that something like 1000 arrows had to be shot in order to kill one French knight at Agincourt. It was like shooting fish in a barrel though. The French were densly packed and a slow moving target.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Ebola on July 08, 2009, 12:34:02 AM
Yes - The Reiksguard Knights of 5th Edition had a movement speed of 3 and only a save of 4+.  4WS skill if I remember correctly.

I'll need to dig out my old army book for a looksee.  I still have 33 of these models at home.  Hero Hammer game play at the time was not nice for them...

The main aspect that I found difficult to contend with this unit was their movement speed and charging range.

Cheers,
Ebola
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: t12161991 on July 10, 2009, 01:30:49 AM
More that it wasn't the weight of their armor that was the major cause for the English victory.

Foot Knights... I can kind of see, but I think they're more suited to Brettonnia.

The armor was pretty good protection from the arrows actually. I wish I could find the source for the estimated arrow shot/per actual fatality ratio I read once. It was an eye opener. It was estimated that something like 1000 arrows had to be shot in order to kill one French knight at Agincourt. It was like shooting fish in a barrel though. The French were densly packed and a slow moving target.

Who cares? Even if it was 1,000:1 (I'd think it'd be more like 100:1 if not lower) they were shooting something like 24,000 arrows per minute. IIRC (4,000 bowmen, 6 arrows/minute)
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Wolfsgaum on July 10, 2009, 03:42:41 AM
More that it wasn't the weight of their armor that was the major cause for the English victory.

Foot Knights... I can kind of see, but I think they're more suited to Brettonnia.

The armor was pretty good protection from the arrows actually. I wish I could find the source for the estimated arrow shot/per actual fatality ratio I read once. It was an eye opener. It was estimated that something like 1000 arrows had to be shot in order to kill one French knight at Agincourt. It was like shooting fish in a barrel though. The French were densly packed and a slow moving target.

Who cares? Even if it was 1,000:1 (I'd think it'd be more like 100:1 if not lower) they were shooting something like 24,000 arrows per minute. IIRC (4,000 bowmen, 6 arrows/minute)

That's exactly my point. Though arrows weren't the only cause of death for the knights. It isn't really known how many of those knights died directly from the arrows.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Forsaken on July 12, 2009, 04:29:40 AM
 :ph34r:

It might sound a bit strange but what about bring back the old Reiksguard on foot, swordsmen with full plate? then I also had an Idea for army specific regiments of renown. Basically specific regiments for certain armies like special characters. Empire could do the old dogs of war Tileans or Wood elves could bring back regiments like Skarloc's scouts or Oren's bowmen and so on. Each race has regiments like this if one goes back far enough.  this 1 think could help prevent some of the cheese with earlier dogs of war in army list.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Inarticulate on July 12, 2009, 11:27:11 AM
There are several threads about foot knight/fp swordsmen aroundm basically the forum is split between them being good or bad.

Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Uryens de Crux on July 13, 2009, 11:37:05 AM
More that it wasn't the weight of their armor that was the major cause for the English victory.

Foot Knights... I can kind of see, but I think they're more suited to Brettonnia.

The armor was pretty good protection from the arrows actually. I wish I could find the source for the estimated arrow shot/per actual fatality ratio I read once. It was an eye opener. It was estimated that something like 1000 arrows had to be shot in order to kill one French knight at Agincourt. It was like shooting fish in a barrel though. The French were densly packed and a slow moving target.

Who cares? Even if it was 1,000:1 (I'd think it'd be more like 100:1 if not lower) they were shooting something like 24,000 arrows per minute. IIRC (4,000 bowmen, 6 arrows/minute)

More like 50-60000 arrows a minute, an english archer, had by law, to be able to fire 12 aimed shots a minute, veteran archers could do much more and some numbers put the english at about 6000 archers.

Besides, it was the melee that did for them, funelled the knights into a block down lanes of stakes, into dismounted men at arms then the lightly armoured archers mauled them from the flanks.

Anyway this is interesting but O/T a bit.

Back ot. I'd make GS core troops and put in Foot Knights as specials/rares.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on July 16, 2009, 06:26:56 PM
Yeah, the empire should be all about the options in an army composition.  If you don't want dismounted knights don't take them, if you do do.  Dismounted knights should be able to take weapon and shield or pollaxes, since greatswords are covered elsewhere this would cover the chivalrous weapons of the time. 

Make the change in their troop choice profile -X points to dismount, weapon and shield or pollaxe =free, ic still an option.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Empireguard on July 16, 2009, 11:13:54 PM
I voted Food knights but I think they have to be rare and Iíll give you the reasons.

1.   We need another Rare that isnít gunpowder/steam based
2.   There are a few mentions in the fluff of knight fighting on food in the direst of situations However it also says that this type of event is very ďrareĒ. This is because it is almost on insult to a knight to be forced to fight on foot.
3.   This will limit how many can be used in a battle.

Anyway thatís my 2c
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Ken Wuyts on August 03, 2009, 08:24:40 AM
No foot knights for me.
Say swordsmen with the option for heavy armour upgrade, that would do it.
WS4, 3+ save in CC, and nice conversion possibilities.
Those new greatsword models are not actually wearing full plate are they? So let's convert them into heavy armoured swordsmen and just keep fielding the metal ones as the real stuff :icon_biggrin:
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Hurin Thalion on August 04, 2009, 06:17:18 PM
I voted Food knights but I think they have to be rare and Iíll give you the reasons.

Mmm... delicious, delicious roasted knight.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on August 11, 2009, 01:56:31 AM
The Germanies didn't have the same fussiness about dismounting as the French and Spanish, they were far more pragmatic about it, rather more like the English or the HYW or WoR.  Hells bells the Emperor Maximilian himself dismounted and carried a pike in a landesknecht unit, as well, he himself fought with a halberd or pollaxe (details are fuzzy, weapon distinctions too). 

All about the options here.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Derek Contyre on August 22, 2009, 02:13:37 AM
Quote
More like 50-60000 arrows a minute, an english archer, had by law, to be able to fire 12 aimed shots a minute, veteran archers could do much more and some numbers put the english at about 6000 archers.

Besides, it was the melee that did for them, funelled the knights into a block down lanes of stakes, into dismounted men at arms then the lightly armoured archers mauled them from the flanks.

THANKYOU URYENS!!!!

Someone finally says something real.
At agincourt the english numbered six thousand men, 4000 longbowmen 2000 dismounted knights and swordsmen in armour.
The French attacked over a field that had been turned to mud by the rain, a forest was on one side which anchored the english flank while a fence or series of fences held the other.

The french charged ten or so times acoss the field.
A fully trained english Longbowmen with an 80-100 pound bow at full draw can shoot 12 arrows per minute, the arrows themselves had bodkins, a needle point designed to puncture armour.
I think it was 60,000 arrows per minute and five hundred thousand arrows in like ten minutes.
 I practise archery with the english longbow and have a doco on agincourt which supports my facts.
What they found was the french charge would falter as they closed from sheer shooting power, their knights would tire in the mud and the english dismounted knights, armed with poleaxes and sword and shields would cut them to ribbons.
Poleaxes are almost a spear halberd/hammer.


Maybe base cost 12-13pts. M4 WS4 BS3 S3 T3 W1 I3 A1 LD8
full plate hand weapon. shield +2pts and polaxe+1pt
option for inner circle same.
A poleaxe counts as a halberd+1S but the unit can fight in two ranks. 1st rank is strength+1 second rank is base S.

This is also supported by historical facts, english knights, fighting on foot wielding Poleaxes against french knights. The french would charge and the english would thrust their poleaxes into the horses. The horses would stop and the english would hook the polaxe around the french man's neck and rip him off his horse.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on August 23, 2009, 05:43:09 AM
there are subtle distinctions between what a pollaxe and a halberd are. but basically since both of them are multiple stiking surface polearms the clearest distinction to be made is that a pollaxe has a shorter haft and is generally more sturdily built.  Both weapons generally will have a point combined with a striking surface and generally a raven's bill shaped hook.  A pollaxe sometimes will have also a reverse side point as well as the spear point and sometimes will replace the axe blade or hook with a warhammer. 

Because the pollaxe is shorter it generally is a bit more handy for closer combat as the shorter haft will not be as liable to hang up on friends and enemies and indeed can also be used as a grappling assist.  This short handiness also contributes to the pollaxes fight time it can respond to or generate a new threat easily as fast as a hand and a half or single handed weapon, and due to it's range advantage can threaten either of these from well outside their ranges while still being dangerous while standing on one's opponent's toes.  Either one can generate a tremendous amount of force, arguably more than a two handed sword, due to the weapon physics, this is the relationship between the centers of mass, balance and harmonic flexibility.  In other words how close is the "sweet spot" to the center of mass. 

The pollaxe is something I know a bit about as I have been fighting with one for about the past 10 years the top of the weapon too is remarkably good as a blocker as you can entangle and disentangle an opponents seemingly at will with a tremendous amount of leverage on your side. 

What should this mean in game terms?

Well a pollaxe should act on initiative, it should have increased strength enough basically to ignore all but the very best armour.  As it's blows are percussive in nature as well as chopping or puncturing armour ought not really to be a defence against this, or a halberd, since percussion can break a bone with the shock wave through armour as well as cause contre coup concussions severe enough to kill, again without puncturing or severely deforming a helmet. 

We did some force meter readings with a real one, against a helmet and against an arm weighted target inside padding and steel.

but what exactly IS the armour save in warhammer, or toughness or a ward save.

I think I'm happy enough with this having a +1 to strength and AP of +1 or +2 attacking on initiative. 

In my opinion though, no man made weapons would be made in such a way that a warrior would have to sacrifice his initiative.  Those that did, would not survive the first battlefield encounter and be filed as a failed experiment, just ask those dead guys over there for confirmation.   I mean really, a warhammer model pays nearly the cost of a base human (3 points) for +2S, the penalty of automatically going last I think is too high generally.  I might be haggled into an initiative penalty -1 to ini but even that seems unrealistic and more importantly irrational to me. 

This is speaking a bit to the concept of fight initiative, in my opinion initiative is something which should be fought for and which you can win.  Racial initiative how quick you are generally, movement initiative what have you done to gain initiative before going into a combat, then Fight initiative what hacve you succesfully done in a combat to maintain initiative or done badly to lose it.  Charging should be +2 ini, charging a flank another +1 a rear +2, cause fear +1, cause terror +2, stupid -2, cold blooded -1 and so on.  In the fight itself wound counts balance each other out +- ini to the winner/loser, won combat last round+2 ini, fear and terror still count in combat as would flanks and rear, and outnumbering+1 for simple outnumbering +2 for doubling your opponent's #'s.  It's a slightly different take on combat resolution, which can be calculated simultaneously to standard break test combat rez or incorporated into it.  I think that this is more rational as it is possible that well played goblins can get the jump on overcocky elves, besides that this relies on well thought out strategy on the parts of the players as opposed to just dumb luck of the dice.

Terror causing, stupid coldone riders would for example have no effect on initiative but they might still make you think twice about fighting them in the first place.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: warhammerlord_soth on August 23, 2009, 08:55:12 AM
I would give regular knights the dismount option for 2 extra points.
 
Sure you can field them dismounted, but only the (us) fluff nuts ever will....
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Derek Contyre 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.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: warhammerlord_soth 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.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Derek Contyre 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
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: 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. 
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Freman Bloodglaive on September 27, 2009, 09:11:32 AM
Greatswords are basically great weapon armed foot knights already.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: commandant on September 27, 2009, 11:57:48 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
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: wissenlander on October 08, 2009, 01:41:43 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.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Phydox 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. :?
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: warhammerlord_soth on October 23, 2009, 01:11:53 PM

Menure.


And IRL : soil condition. Muddy ground and cavalry don't mix too well
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: wissenlander on October 23, 2009, 01:21:13 PM
Or rocky terrain.  Mobility was a big concern.  Sort of ironic, I suppose.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Phydox 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.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: 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)
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Inarticulate 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.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: t12161991 on October 24, 2009, 03:23:19 AM
*cough* Agincourt *cough*
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Inarticulate on October 24, 2009, 02:46:41 PM
Thats what i do every time I meet a French person.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Phydox on October 24, 2009, 05:15:37 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. :|
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Finlay on October 24, 2009, 08:11:34 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. :|

(http://www.coolminiornot.com/pics/pics2/img3e28dd9f493f5.jpg)
we had foot knights in, what, 4th edition? 5th edition?
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Derek Contyre 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. . .
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: rufus sparkfire on October 24, 2009, 09:31:14 PM
If a list has mounted knights, it should also have dismounted knights. Clearly.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: t12161991 on October 25, 2009, 06:54:45 PM
So that makes a grand total of one army list that meets your suggestion?  :icon_lol:
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: commandant on October 25, 2009, 07:32:47 PM
At least two armies have mounted knights
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: rufus sparkfire on October 25, 2009, 11:18:00 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!
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: t12161991 on October 26, 2009, 12:06:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: der Hurenwiebel 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.   
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: t12161991 on October 26, 2009, 12:49:00 AM
Dwarves don't have knights though.

Temple Guard from the Lizzies yes. Normal Saurus can't get above a 3/4+ (I think).
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on October 26, 2009, 12:55:40 AM
I thought the comment I was replying to was about the dismounted equivalent to dismounted knight class of troops.  Naturally dwarves don't have cavalry, but I think goats would be a cool mount for them.  Or for chariots.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Union General on October 26, 2009, 01:17:47 AM
I'd see Full Plate Swordsmen as a 0-1 option per x000 points, or maybe take one unit as Core with the inclusion of a Templar Grand Master in your army. Just so that we'll still be the 'jack-of-all-trades' army, but just with some cool extras to add to the mix.

-The General
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Derek Contyre on October 26, 2009, 04:43:19 AM
Hmmm, Templar grandmaster on the field, may field a unit of dismounted imperial knights.
May be upgraded to inner circle. . . Sounds good.

And remember Greatswordsmen are NOT dismounted knights.
Just because they wear full plate does NOT make them a knight.
See greatsword fluff, empire rulebook.
"Some greatswords are even knighted, a high position indeed for someone who has risen through the ranks as a halberdier."
Greatswordsmen are just the best state troops we can field apparently. because ws4, ld8 and stubborn seem to make them the best.
I think they should have ws4 s4 i4 ld8 stubborn, full plate, greatsword that strikes on initiative value rather then last. . . that would be awesome and completely in line with historical warfare.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Phydox on October 26, 2009, 12:10:35 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. :|

(http://www.coolminiornot.com/pics/pics2/img3e28dd9f493f5.jpg)
we had foot knights in, what, 4th edition? 5th edition?

and?  These are the models I actually use as my Greatswords.  Doesn't mean I have to like having knights on foot. 

Man, I'm a purist and a hypocrite. :biggriin:
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: rufus sparkfire on October 26, 2009, 12:34:07 PM
And remember Greatswordsmen are NOT dismounted knights.
Just because they wear full plate does NOT make them a knight.
See greatsword fluff, empire rulebook.

I know what the fluff says. It's not relevant.

Greatswords are fine for representing dismounted knights, just as knights could easily represent a bodyguard unit of mounted mercenaries. The only real problem is the inexplicable lack of a magic banner option.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Derek Contyre on October 26, 2009, 12:52:42 PM
Your preaching to the converted rufus lol

Which is why I always take a general of the empire.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: rufus sparkfire on October 26, 2009, 12:54:45 PM
Oh. I should read people's posts more carefully.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Derek Contyre on October 26, 2009, 09:28:04 PM
I dont think I put it in.

But nearly every army list I play except for when I am theming my armies of knights and their footmen is led by a general of the empire.  :happy:
I just like them. . . And everone under estimates them too, so when they drop wounds on a vampire lord they are like what the? ? ?
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Freman Bloodglaive on November 02, 2009, 07:46:58 AM
5th edition foot knights and greatswords were separate choices. The greatswords were (if I recall correctly) just state troops with two handed swords. The Reikguard foot knights were the elite infantry (which means little enough in an Empire army).

6th edition they dropped all the cool choices, the Ogres and the halflings, and forced us to use humans... humans? Why would I want to use humans in a fantasy army?

Or am I confusing 4th and 5th edition? Anyways.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Skyros on November 11, 2009, 03:36:34 PM
I think any infantry with full plate and shield would immediately render the greatswords useless and rarely used.

I suppose of the two, dismounted knights make more sense and would be more visually distinct from existing state troops.

But if these knights were stubborn, they'd certainly be far superior choices to greatswords, and if they weren't stubborn...would they really be worth the costs value? What would an LD 8 human in full plate, hand weapon, and shield be worth?
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Derek Contyre on November 11, 2009, 08:16:02 PM
No stubbborn, knights are not stubborn so no stubborn for being dismounted.
And I think 12pts a model.
Any higher and we would only be reaming ourselves as the other elite foot troops like chaos have statlines from hell.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: commandant on November 12, 2009, 03:27:28 AM
I think dismounted knights, WS 4 Greatweapons should cost 9 points.   I think the greatswords should only be fielded if there is a GOTE on the field and I think they should benefit from stubborn only if he is in the unit.   Would suit the fluff better
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Derek Contyre on November 12, 2009, 07:48:18 AM
but the greatswordsmen are supposed to be stubborn even without their general, otherwise they would be destroyed everytime.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on November 13, 2009, 12:31:05 AM
Like I was saying in the other closely related thread to this on the special board, let them have two seperate menus one for equipment and training the other for psychology with prices for each attribute.  Thus you could have any grade of Greatsword/ Footknight or even peasant militia with a great weapon.  The flexibility of this would allow any of our favourite troops to be chosen by a player.  From ultra hard, damn near chaos chosen foot knight class troops with ItoP, through all various choices to militia with great swords and no armour, all are valid.


Also I think we can do this without having to tie their psychology to a character.

The linux of troop choice configurations.

 
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: MrAbyssal on November 23, 2009, 08:00:19 AM
Personally I voted against having them as I believe in the design notes they said that they intended greatswords to be able to be used as dismounted knights (I believe they specifically mentioned Reiksguard fighting on foot as per 4th/5th eds.) and vice versa for the old Reiksguard foot knight models. Gotta love counts as. No changes to the current list need to be made for this which suits me as I like the current list. I will however be modelling my Greatswords to look more like foot knights with addition of some extra upper body armour and possibly helmets from the knightly orders sprues.

However as it seems a lot of players are keen to get foot knights back if they were to be reintroduced I'd say make them a special choice with normal knight stats. And if we're going back to 4th/5th ed. for our unit choices why not make greatswords normal light armoured state troops with great weapons again. We could also limit knightly orders to one unit of each order and only the major orders (for a total of 4 units max of mounted knights) and bring back the War Wagon. They could also take away our detachment rules and go back to having them as a fluff piece only. (End Snarkiness). The 4th/5th ed list may have had some cool things but the current one is better and IMO more thematic.

On a related side note, plenty of Warhammer fluff for Empire knights (specifically Reiksguard) fighting on foot can be found in the Black Library novel Reiksguard. It's actually a pretty decent read, but then it's also not written by Gav Thorpe or William King, which helps a lot.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Skyros on November 23, 2009, 05:44:09 PM
They should give us dismounted stubborn knights in full plate, shield, handweapon.

But, in order to make sure we don't abuse such a great unit, they should make it be rare instead of special. That would show us! :ph34r:
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Inarticulate on November 23, 2009, 09:02:28 PM
Crafty indeed sir, crafty indeed!
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Bunkka-pop on November 24, 2009, 12:50:23 PM
So then we would have two rare infantry units: hitty but soft (flaggies) or unhitty but resilent (foot knights). Well yeah I think that would be rather nice idea.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on November 25, 2009, 02:47:48 AM
on the other hand with the build a unit type of configuration you could make basic
 price thresholds, 4-8 points=Core, 9-12pts=special, 13+pts=rare.  Flagellants would be an exception to this rule. 

Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Derek Contyre on November 25, 2009, 09:42:54 AM
Unless they regained toughness 4, then I could see them at twelve points again :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap:
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on November 25, 2009, 03:30:40 PM
Unless they regained toughness 4, then I could see them at twelve points again :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap: :eusa_clap:

so you WOULD put them into the price threshold grid, perhaps having different classes of flaggies too from core to rare grade flaggies? 
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Derek Contyre on November 28, 2009, 09:51:00 AM
der hurenwiebel, when gw finally realise the proper way to write an empire army book. The customisable state troop option will be in there lol
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Merrick on November 29, 2009, 12:35:56 AM
OR we could rewind half a decade back to when we had 6th edition, and everyone had a level playing field.

Problem solved, no more arguments that GW will never give a shit about, let's go for tea and biscuits.

And someone invent us a time machine.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on November 29, 2009, 05:30:20 AM
Ooooorrrrr we could write up our own army book specifically "for campaigning" and "house rules" then go about convincing everybody else these are great new experimental rules put out by GW and they should try them out.  :biggriin:  Then when enough others have seen and played against these new list styles this will put serious pressure on the GW.  In the meantime we'll be having fun playing with a better army list, maybe go about melding the core books of WFB and WAB too.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Derek Contyre on November 29, 2009, 12:12:11 PM
Oh god, just imagine the playtesting! :icon_eek:
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on November 29, 2009, 05:54:36 PM
Yeah  :smile2:
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Robberbaron on January 24, 2010, 11:50:22 AM

That would be nice. I have a lot of old minis I would want to use for them, they don't look too convincing as Greatswords.

Regards.

Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Northern Storm on January 24, 2010, 10:39:26 PM
Reiksguard Foot knights would be cool, but as long as they don't get Stubborn or Great weapons. Because that would in effect, make the Greatswords useless.

Greatswords should be the elite infantry of the Empire. Period.
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: MagicJuggler on January 25, 2010, 12:18:02 AM
Why not merge them into the same unit? Elite Infantry, representing everything from Foot Knights to Greatswords? If I remember right, in 6th ed, Reiksguard DID count as Greatswords after all...
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: Derek Contyre on January 27, 2010, 08:38:13 AM
Yeah I remember the wording of that in sixth ed too.

But I believe strongly that if a unit type is introduced as foot knights then greatswordsmen will become obsolete
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: warhammerlord_soth on January 27, 2010, 08:40:36 AM
We'll soon see...  :engel:
Title: Re: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen
Post by: der Hurenwiebel on January 27, 2010, 04:12:57 PM
I like the build your own soldier option.  a choice of a few different weapons and a choice of a few different psychology bonuses.  My personal favourite would be halberd armed (well pollaxe really) fullplate soldiers with stubborn, and hatred.