Topic: POLL - Foot Knights / Full Plate swordsmen

[t12161991]

Dwarves don't have knights though.

Temple Guard from the Lizzies yes. Normal Saurus can't get above a 3/4+ (I think).

[der Hurenwiebel]

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.

[Union General]

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

[Derek Contyre]

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.

[Phydox]

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?

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.

[rufus sparkfire]

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.

[Derek Contyre]

Your preaching to the converted rufus lol

Which is why I always take a general of the empire.

[rufus sparkfire]

Oh. I should read people's posts more carefully.

[Derek Contyre]

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. 
I just like them. . . And everone under estimates them too, so when they drop wounds on a vampire lord they are like what the? ? ?

[Freman Bloodglaive]

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.

[Skyros]

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?

[Derek Contyre]

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.

[commandant]

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

[Derek Contyre]

but the greatswordsmen are supposed to be stubborn even without their general, otherwise they would be destroyed everytime.

[der Hurenwiebel]

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.

 

[MrAbyssal]

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.

[Skyros]

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!

[Inarticulate]

Crafty indeed sir, crafty indeed!

[Bunkka-pop]

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.

[der Hurenwiebel]

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. 

[Derek Contyre]

Unless they regained toughness 4, then I could see them at twelve points again

[der Hurenwiebel]

Unless they regained toughness 4, then I could see them at twelve points again

so you WOULD put them into the price threshold grid, perhaps having different classes of flaggies too from core to rare grade flaggies? 

[Derek Contyre]

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

[Merrick]

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.

[der Hurenwiebel]

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.    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.