Empire Unit discussion - return of old units.

[Askari]

Foot Knights of course. To differentiate them from Greatswords make them "Inner Circle" i.e. S4 base, so they'd be more solid (due to Shield) and quicker striking (due to hitting at I) than Greatswords.

I'd also like to see Valten return. Nice to have an actual fighty character rather than the barely better than other armies' heroes we currently have.

[warplock]

Another vote for Foot Knights here.

[Boreas_NL]

I'll add my vote to the Foot Knights.

I would also like to see the War Wagon returned and possibly even the Steam Tank variants (those were fun to use). Furthermore, sub-humans in an Empire army, yes please!

[theunwantedbeing]

War Wagon
Foot knight unit champions for units
Winged Lancers

[frenka]

Pikemen statetroops!

[Boreas_NL]

pikemen statetroops!

yesyesyes!!!

[Rikkjourd]

Duellists or whatever they are called. Basic human statline, 2 pistols, skirmish, detachment. Special rule: if they are within 3" of their parent unit and the parent unit is in close combat, they may fire at the enemy in combat without hitting your own unit. Possibly with some kind of modifier to hit. Maybe 10pts a piece?

I only thought about this because I was looking at the ****loads of pistols I have left over from pistolier/outrider sprues, and thought they would look cool on infantry guys =)

[yabbadabba]

OK, I'm going to move this opn later tonight, so please stay tuned. Thank you for your involvement so far.

[yabbadabba]

Apologies all - its been a busy night.

OK, we will start with Foot knights because its a straight forward unit to set up. We have to remember that while in game initially GS and Foot Knights may seem similar, that is not a reason not to have a unit of Foot Knights. There is enough differences to justify the separation, not to mention that GS are not knights in the background.

Ok using the old fashioned formula to calculate mounted costs for a unit, and then reversing it, give us some interesting points values:

Old costing = (basic cost inc basic equipment x 2) + mount.
Reversing this gives us;
Foot Knight 7 points
Inner Circle Knight 8.5 points
Reiksguard 9.5 pts.
This is equipped with Full Plate armour, and either shield and hand weapon or great weapon.
Compared with other foot units this could be too cheap. What do you think?

Command unit is the same cost as other foot units. Weapon options can include Halberd, GW, Flail/Morningstar. Anything else?

I don't think Knights should have detachments, but that is a personal preference. What do you think?.

To recap this gives us three initial questions:

1. Points cost?
2. Weapon options?
3. Should knights have detachments?
4. * Should Knights come with mixed weapons, and a mixed weapons rule?

Over to you.

*Edit: Thanks to Harry - good point.

[Son of Sanguinius]

1. Foot Knight with hand weapon and armor should be 8 points, +2 for Inner Circle, +3 for Reiksguard.
2. Allow them to take great weapon, halberd, or shield.
3. No detachments. Thematically, knights shouldn't be used to fighting in coordinated infantry blocks.

[EddieJA]

Is this just a rules discussion? I've always hoped for a return of the Reiksguard Foot, but am unable how I would convert them...

Greatsword Legs, and torso's, arms, heads, and shield from the Knightly Orders box. But what about the sword arm? Obviously these guys aren't hefting lances while on foot. Swordsmen arms aren't armored enough. Anyone have a lead on a sprue that we could use for the sword arm??

[Harry]

Apologies all - its been a busy night.

OK, we will start with Foot knights because its a straight forward unit to set up. We have to remember that while in game initially GS and Foot Knights may seem similar, that is not a reason not to have a unit of Foot Knights. There is enough differences to justify the separation, not to mention that GS are not knights in the background.

Ok using the old fashioned formula to calculate mounted costs for a unit, and then reversing it, give us some interesting points values:

Old costing = (basic cost inc basic equipment x 2) + mount.
Reversing this gives us;
Foot Knight 7 points
Inner Circle Knight 8.5 points
Reiksguard 9.5 pts.
This is equipped with Full Plate armour, and either shield and hand weapon or great weapon.
Compared with other foot units this could be too cheap. What do you think?

Command unit is the same cost as other foot units. Weapon options can include Halberd, GW, Flail/Morningstar. Anything else?

I don't think Knights should have detachments, but that is a personal preference. What do you think?.

To recap this gives us three initial questions:

1. Points cost?
2. Weapon options?
3. Should knights have detachments?

Over to you.

Love where you are going with this ... and Foot Knights is a good place to start.

Points seems too cheap ... not sure the old formula works .... things moved on.

Great weapon, Halberd, morning star ... all good. My favorite old model is armed with a warhammer but I am not sure that needs to be anything other than a hand weapon in the rules. Also one of the old minis was armed woth a hand weapon and a dagger (not a shield) quite a knightly combo I understand. So I would love to see that.

But here is my big thing .... given the old minis (I am thinking of the either the Perry or Marauder Reiksguard) I would really like these guys to fight in units of mixed weapons. (bit like the way it works for the militia ... or Black Orcs) based on the idea that all these knights are individuals and have developed their fighting skills and style seperately and come together as a unit on the battlefield rather than trained together the mix of weapons seems more appropriate and works better from the mini point of view.

Probably shouldn't have detatchments .... these guys are not state troops they are knights they would not have trained with detatchments and would consider themselves above the need of additional support from the lower orders.

Heres my question. Prompted only by the old minis all representing Reiksguard....
Should foot knights be anything other than "Rieksguard foot knights"?
Do the other knighly orders all tun up for battle in the saddle but for some reason ... (background reason yet to be written through this process) the Rieksguard also/sometimes present themselves on foot?

I may have more thoughts but these are my first.

[Rikkjourd]

Why not just add a shield option (free to exchange GW for shield) to greatswords and be done with it? That would be simple and would be apropriately costed as well (IMHO).

[yabbadabba]

Why not just add a shield option (free to exchange GW for shield) to greatswords and be done with it? That would be simple and would be apropriately costed as well (IMHO).

First, GS are not Knights.
Second not all Knights are stubborn, so why should Knights on foot?
Third, a lot of Old School and modern Knight on Foot models don't come with greatswords and many would train with a variety of weapons.

EddieJA
Is this just a rules discussion? I've always hoped for a return of the Reiksguard Foot, but am unable how I would convert them...

If they have to be GW models then yes its going to need some conversion work if you don't look for older models on the internet or elsewhere. Otherwise I'd be tempted to look to other manufacturers.

@Harry - I have included your multi-weapon idea in the questions. Good one!

[Antipathy]

Teutogen Guard would be nice.

Hatred against Ld6 or less, Great Weapons which strike at Initiative on the charge (Or allow them to choose to strike either a Great Weapons or Halberds), Wolf Pelts giving extra save (+1?) versus Shooting. 10-11 points, no stubborn?

Make Knights of the White Wolf an actual unit akin to Reiksguard as well;

Give them the Wolf Pelts, Hatred, the Cavalry Hammers/White Wolf Hammers, in exchange for Stubborn.

Lastly - upgraded options for the Steam Tanks - Mortars, War Wagon tops, Helblasters, Helstorms.

[Athlan na Dyr]

Oh, I like this thread. Good idea yabbadabba!

Foot Knights:
Points:
- 7 or 8 points seems about right (when compared to Greatswords). Great weapons are ~2 ppm, put Stubborn as 1 ppm. Not sure of the discount no detachments would give.
Caveat: If we are putting them as core, then 8 would be a minimum (when compared to swordsmen, the starting foot knight would be +1 AS and +1 ld)
Weapon Options:
Going from weapons real world knights would have used/ Empire knights would have used,
- Pistols
- Hunting Spear (counts as spear)
- Crossbow
- Great Weapon
- Shields
- (the maybe pile): Halberds, repeating pistols/ handgun, hunting falcons?

Points costs for the above (excluding the maybe pile) would be 1 points, with the exceptions of great weapons (2) and crossbows (3).

On giving knights multiple weapon options:
Letting them take multiple weapon options wouldn't be a bad idea (say, a pistol and great weapon of something?). Sets them apart from Greatswords. Perhaps only allow one combat weapon other than a hand weapon.

On knights and Detachments:
No. Knights of the Empire, whilst not as condescending and disdainful of the common folk as those of Brettonia, most definitely are not so chummy that they form detachments with the peasantry.

Other units that would be nice to see: (assuming we can still suggest some?)
- Non sigmarite warrior priests
- War wagon

[yabbadabba]

This is coming along nicely. If we can reach a consensus then we can explore all the other units people have mentioned. Thanks all.

[shelfunit.]

To recap this gives us three initial questions:

1. Points cost?
2. Weapon options?
3. Should knights have detachments?
4. * Should Knights come with mixed weapons, and a mixed weapons rule?

Over to you.

*Edit: Thanks to Harry - good point.

3rd edition Reiksgard had the profile of a 7th ed Swordsman, heavy armour and a shield. I would keep it to just heavy armour as despite GSs using it Full plate was never intended for infantry use (too heavy). The weapon options were either the standard kit, halberds, flails or double handed weapons. I don't think double handed weapons should be an option as then they would be backdoor GSs. 3rd ed pts value was 11, but considering the advantages GSs have over them for the same cost I would suggest 9pts basic. I would suggest that foot knights should be able to be taken as detachments for GSs, but otherwise not be able to be taken as, or take detachments themselves.

[Rikkjourd]

First, GS are not Knights.
Second not all Knights are stubborn, so why should Knights on foot?
Third, a lot of Old School and modern Knight on Foot models don't come with greatswords and many would train with a variety of weapons.
If they have to be GW models then yes its going to need some conversion work if you don't look for older models on the internet or elsewhere. Otherwise I'd be tempted to look to other manufacturers.

@Harry - I have included your multi-weapon idea in the questions. Good one!

1. No, but that is from a fluff perspective. I just mean ruleswise.
2. I said exchange great weapon for shield at no cost. Not add shield on top of great weapon. So the equip would be hw, shield, full plate. A variety of weapons within the unit could count as hand weapons.

I just think this would be the easiest way of representing them. This doesn't tinker too much with the rules or costs, which is important if you want this to be accepted by more players. Also it is in accordance with the KISS principle.

[yabbadabba]

1. No, but that is from a fluff perspective. I just mean ruleswise.

Again, the problem with the rules perspective is that only Reiksguard are stubborn. This doesn't represent regular knights.

2. I said exchange great weapon for shield at no cost. Not add shield on top of great weapon. So the equip would be hw, shield, full plate. A variety of weapons within the unit could count as hand weapons.

True, but we are in the discussion phase; a lot of people who also historical wargame might like to see Halberds or flails for example. Athlan has even suggested crossbows. Its about throwing ideas up and seeing what looks appropriate.

I just think this would be the easiest way of representing them.

Which people can do right now with Knights as Greatswords

This doesn't tinker too much with the rules or costs, which is important if you want this to be accepted by more players.

Its not what I want, its what the players want. This isn't really about Empire Knights, its about a community looking beyond the basics of what GW give us and looking to expand and take control of their hobby. Its about looking at how such a community project could work, what the issues are (Like KISS and "counts as") and setting a structure in place with agreed rules so this can be done for any game and for any change. But at the moment Foot Knights are a good start.

Also it is in accordance with the KISS principle.

I think this is important, which is why I am trying to vie away from new rules (at this moment in time) and trying to keep within the structure of the army books - which is why Imperial Dwarves might be an option, but not Ogres.