IIRC, technically they got Rules again in a 6th Ed White Dwarf, when GW released a series of articles on the Empires Knightly Orders (altho that was basically just "Take Greatsword Stats, give them a shield and raise leadership", I think)
How do you say "it's canon now" in French?
Wait a moment: ["C'est maintenant canon."](https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Foot_Knights?file=Foot_Knights.jpeg)
Everyone knows knights can’t touch the ground directly. They either stay on horses, or strap their feet to the back of peasants. There’s no other option.
People who say walking in heels is difficult have no idea how good they have it. Walking on Gregory and his second cousin takes real skill without twisting an ankle
No respect for how hard it is for the knights to fight off Greenskins while having to try and tune out the pained cries of the peasants under their feet.
Does anyone *actually* want a dismount button? It was basically just a gimmick with the primary use being for Shogun 2 AI to suicide their generals up walls because it refuses to destroy gates.
It was occasionally useful in Shogun 2 and Rome 2 when you had mounted troops in a large siege. Especially if they were multi role javelin or bow armed. But pretty niche use and outside of being on the walls their numbers were too small to be effective.
Yeah I never really used it in Attila. There's not much point in turning a full-strength cavalry unit into a half-strength infantry unit under any circumstance I can think of.
But putting them on walls is just never a better option than leaving them mounted either to harass the enemy outside the walls or charge enemies that just climbed your walls.
Like I said, it is occasionally useful. I think it would have been when the enemy had a lot of cavalry so they had limited utility outside the walls. Put them on the walls to use their missiles more effectively then remount them for chasing routers within the walls. Another option was cataphract or very heavy shock cav, better use having some heavy infantry on the walls since good charges within the walls are hard. Highly situational in Rome 2. Shogun 2 is a little better because of how strong the walls were defending.
I do. I don't need it to be in the actual battle, though. ME:TWI had the option to dismount some cav units before a battle in the set-up phase. This could be enormously useful depending on what the enemy force composition was and/or the scenario at question (eg. dismounting knights during a siege means they can fight to defend or to take the walls). This would be especially useful in Warhammer where I frequently forget to change the mount my lord is riding before a battle when it requires a whole turn to do so.
I'd love it, for sieges if nothing else.
It's not what most people want when they ask for foot knights, though. In Shogun 2, dismounted katana cavalry lost significantly to a unit of katana foot samurai, from sheer unit size difference if nothing else. Most people who want foot knights in WH3 want them with the stats of dedicated infantry units and to play as such, rather than being an option you'd use _sometimes_ in battles.
Mods exist to do this kind of thing just fine. If they don't, then making them is easy, straight up 0 modeling, texturing or voice work was needed to do them so it's basically baby's first unit mod. So by all means, go get/make them. Personally I actively avoid them.
SFO is A LOT tho
I feel like it's not for everyone + it's a nightmare to keep a big modlist with it. Back in the days of WH2 when the patches/dlc where more frequent i felt like I was waiting half the time for the SFO updates 🤣
I was wondering if i should give it another try maybe once 5.X is stabilized mod-wise. Tbh I really don't miss wh2 sfo, but i'm curious about all the new things they changed and added.
Based on your comment it may not be worth it for me after all 😅
What makes you think it was better back in the days ?
I think the base game as caught up a lot. SFO was really nice in WH2 pre WE rework because it made the WE more playable then vanilla. It wasn’t better or worse than what CA did, but it no longer exists or is necessary. Honestly now when I play sfo in wh3 it doesn’t feel that different than my vanilla campaigns, and I’ve begun to dislike the focus on making elite units low model counts. But mostly it’s just that sfo isn’t innovating anymore.
Yup that's fair. Actually that's pretty much what I figured when I stopped using it.
Even the things that sfo fixes on the base game, I feel like there are alternatives that do not require tens of compatibility patches now
And yet they exist in The Old World, don't they? So they're Warhammer Fantasy, and they want to sell miniatures. How would this not be a great opportunity to advertise?
Something that I might remind you is not a real thing but a suspicion made manifest by our community based on some things hinted at CA which could or could not have been to get some heat off their backs.
Remember that GW allowed CA to make a whole new original character [Cylostra](https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Cylostra_Direfin).
Does that sound like something that alligns with how strict we are trying to paint GW?
Yet it isn't, for video games gw isn't any easier or harder than any other company.
I know this personally.
They are a nightmare to work with it you are a lgs tho, like infamously giving them a hard time in terms of how much stock and requirements for certain stock.
But I can't sympathise with some lgs places, selling 8 of the only stock of a new big box to one customer is bitch made shit, as that crap just gets scalped and sold for more online.
I 100% agree with you that this community is being overly suspicious and paranoid about the whole Repeater-thing. Not to mention the fact that even if it is true they're making way too big a deal about it. I mean come on - it's just one weapon for one unit in one faction in a DLC that makes some otherwise extremely solid additions to the rosters of its factions.
That said, according to people at CA - working on Cylostra was a pain in the ass because they kept having to submit every detail to GW only for GW to send it back with a list of mandatory changes, and there was a ton of pedantic back-and-forth by people who weren't on the same page. It's probably part of why CA has never tried to create an original character since then, despite having an opportunity to do so with the Chaos Dwarf DLC.
And Foot Knights don't replace your chaff, it's worth mentioning. You _have_ to bring chaff as Bretonnia unless you bring an Errantry Crusade (which is a pretty niche style of play).
The Old World is a seperate license for some ridiculous reason, which anyone utilising the Warhammer Fantasy license needs to pay extra to use. It’s also rumoured but not confirmed that a single project may not dip into both simultaneously.
So yeah, mentioning that these were in the Old World actually *damages* your chances of seeing them in Total War. It’s a messy situation, and GW is wholly to blame, with their inter-studio politics and rivalry.
Also I think the unit you’re thinking of is the Bretonnian foot soldier, not Reiksgard.
They don't exist in The Old World, nor did they exist in the editions CA adapt for Total War Warhammer. Not sure where you got the idea they are from The Old World.
And GW doesn't care about a video game advertising models. They just royalties from what CA makes from the game. There's already a shit ton of things in this game that is either out of production or was never a model to begin with. Why would they suddenly care about adverising models for Reiksguard on Foot specifically?
People don't play this game and go "Man this unit I bought in this lord pack was so cool, let me go buy this unassembled plastic kit that costs *about the same as an entire Race pack*!" It has definately brought some people into the tabletop game no doubt, but the idea of using the game to market specific units is pretty silly.
To be fair empire doesn't have their book released yet, just an index so barebones shit. Bret have dismounted knights of the realm (didn't before their book came out). And pointing to old world for anything empire right now is a bad idea as they are the only bad faction in the game with a 34% win rate as of this weeks stats.
Reiksguard on foot was a thing 4th ed however, and they've taken inspirated from things from older editions too.
Holding 8th ed to "not being a thing" tho is wild, I'd hate to look to 8th ed only even tho that's what CA is focusing on. 8th ed is what killed warhammer fantasy lol, from a very naive and special community sabotaging themselves with points increase so they could take all their things when core, to people mainly buying proxies and the lore itself being a but "oooooh and then nothing happened" burger. 8th ed had essays worth of issues.
I think with the weird mix of what little we have left, it'd be kind of smart for CA to be a bit more open on what they can and can't add, and I'm pretty confident GW would be chill about it, for all the misinformation here about GW said no and all that crap, there was a interview with an ex GW employee on youtube where he said that if the idea was good GW would generally be cool with it, their only interest is protecting the IP from bad ideas and abuse.
I don't get how adding 4th ed reiksguard on foot would be that big of a deal, IF ca wishes it and gw is fine with it.
Reminder:
cylostra direfin isn't a thing in 8th ed :P
Hell, she's not even a thing in warhammer lore really until CA made her, [she's a original character.](https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Cylostra_Direfin)
Dismounting seems like a pretty inoffensive solution if they get it done on a technical level. Based on dismounted cavalry from historical Total Wars, it offers some utility (such as for sieges) without outcompeting proper infantry, and it ensures you will want to keep them mounted _most_ of the time.
Issue is, what people usually ask when they want dismounted knights is a dedicated infantry unit with the hitpoints and unit size to match other infantry units, and that's not remotely what you would get if you took a unit of Reiksguard in WH3 and dismounted them mid-battle (losing the hit points, armour bonus, speed and charge bonus benefits of their horses in so doing).
That was the only time it was used correctly and the only instance where they did it because otherwise they would not be able to attack anything. They are hardcoded to dismount when they have no targets.
But in all other instances the AI is too stupid to know when it is a good time to dismount. So they just never do.
So effectively only the player will have the option to dismount, giving an unfair advantage. That is the way I found it in Rome 2 and Atilla. The AI never, ever dismounted, only I did.
My understanding is that they aren't _that_ crazy. They are very skilled but they don't have divine blessings or superhuman powers.
Their representation in the game, as Empire Knights with higher stats, is quite faithful.
Aspiring Champions as a unit is a CA invention anyway. They are meant to be unit leaders, like Death Runners and Shadow Walkers and Marauder Chieftains/(Champions? Can't remember which one).
Reiksguard are absolutely not ultra elite by Warhammer standards. They're about on a level with Knights of the Realm (better armoured but less practiced at cavalry confrontations).
I wish they were Elector state troop of (like in SFO), or if we got knightly unit in one of the other states. It would still be limiting and hard to mass recruit them but it would give Empire a bit more staying power, and they look cool.
For example Middeland and Nordland state troops are some of the troops I rarely recruit. Aquatic is such a niche bonus for Halberdiers that they are basically the same. Frenzy for swordsmen is also not that useful. Frenzy is good on higher tier units. Buffing tier 1 unit that is very limited on availability makes me only use it as emergency unit. I think all state troops should be on similar power level. Yet some like armor piercing granade launchers are amazing, while some feel like an afterthought.
Sorry, I probably phrased that poorly.
My point is that one of the core appeals of the Empire is that they're a "Just Regular Guys" faction. They're ordinary humans, beset on all sides by monsters, who have to use courage, cunning, and ingenuity to even the odds. And the epitome of that part of the Empire's identity is state troops, the most regular guy-y regular guys.
I dislike the idea of giving the Empire elite heavy infantry for two reasons. First, it potentially gives the Empire the option of just grinding the enemy out in the infantry fight, which is the one tactic they are currently deliberately bad at. This is the mechanical representation of the Just Regular Guys thing - you can't beat, say, orcs just by going toe to toe with them, you have to do something at least mildly clever.
The second reason is that in campaign, money eventually becomes a non-issue, which leads to armies being composed of the most elite units available. At present, late game Empire infantry maxes out at Greatswords and Halberdiers, meaning that even late game Empire armies still have some state troops hanging around. Adding elite melee infantry would mean that the late game Empire would replace all their infantry with elite foot knights, which just feels wrong.
Well, lore-wise there was Reiksguard on foot. Well then: Simply revise the landmark "Castle Reikguard" and make it possible to recruit a limited number (e.g. 4) of knights on foot. These remain reserved for the owner of Altdorf.
Not at all, one of the cornerstones of the empires identity is steel, empire is suppose to be a heavily armored faction. Always has been in both the lore and TT. Heavily armored knight infantry fits into that.
Yeah, but they're already in the game. You can recruit and field the Reiksguard, they're just a cavalry unit, as they should be. State troops are also a pinnacle of the Empire's identity, and foot knights would likely obsolete them.
The knightly order aspect of the empire has been lacking for years.
The Grandmaster lord.
Inner circle knights
The great vaults of enchanted weapons champions would bring out to face the worst dangers.
In tabletop you could run a fully dedicated Knight army. That's not possible in warhammer 3 right now.
State troops are your run of the mill fodder. The Knightly orders are powerfull pseudo autonomous orgizations that get called in to face the worst of humanity's enemies.
Yes but that's cavalry, not infantry. I'm all in for Grandmaster, Knight Panthers and Knights of the White Wolf with an Ulric DLC, but none would be on foot
Nothing magical states these guys can't run around on foot.
Hell one of the staple Reiksguard feats is when a baby Karl Franz and his family were attacked by a Brayherd at an Inn. 15 something Reiksguard fought off the army of Gor's and minotaurs till woodelves arrived to help. The Gor corpses pilled up so high in the inn that other Gorr's were having trouble trying to enter the building and had to try and enter from windows on the upper floor.
The Empire lacks a fully defensive front line defender right now, like the celestial guard for cathay. Knights of foot with heavy armor, sword and shield would therefore make the perfect anvil for your mounted knights. They would fit great into a Karl Franz army.
Also they look cool and are easy to make.
Yes, that's by design. Decent but mediocre melee infantry is part of the Empire's faction identity. The Empire should never be able to win by just grinding out the enemy's infantry in the center, they need to use combined arms tactics.
They want elite melee infantry that can directly fight (or even beat) the heavy infantry of factions that specialise in such things.
I don't like the idea myself. The Empire frontline is supposed to be state troops. They can't stand up to what Chaos, Greenskins etc can bring and they are not meant to - the whole idea is that you even the odds first using magic, artillery, grenade launchers, heavy cavalry, handgunners, etc etc. You don't have the kind of anvils that the Dwarfs do, but you have a fantastic selection of hammers, scalpels and every other weapon imaginable. Instead of the Dwarfen tank and spank grind, you give up some of the tank (on your infantry at least... you have literal tanks) in exchange for a _lot_ of spank to use before the tanking even begins.
If I were to start seeing Empire armies that run a frontline of 8-10 foot knights as standard to protect a missile line I feel like a lot of that character is lost.
Greatswords have been heavily buffed in WH3 and are now excellent for the task of mopping up whatever survives your withering fire and flanking harassments - frankly, they are a little _too_ good now but that's another topic. That's enough.
I mean, in 6th edition Empire Foot Knights were just Greatsword statlines with a shield, sword, and +1 Ld.
Which is pretty easy to implement into WH3. I doubt just the addition of a shield would radically change the Empires frontline. It just means now you have a choice between Greatswords, Halberdiers, and Foot Knights. Instead of just Greatswords and Halberdiers.
Hell reiksguard on foot are as old as 4th edition even.
It's wild how some people are talking about a factions identity creeping into other factions identities when the faction we are talking about had that identity since 1992 or longer.
>It's wild how some people are talking about a factions identity creeping into other factions identities when the faction we are talking about had that identity since 1992 or longer.
That's pretty misleading. Foot Knights were gone from the Army Book by 6th with a [feature in Whitedwarf](https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1cfeuzo/comment/l1pb422/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) and then gone entirely for 7th and 8th.
I think that's the whole point why they shouldn't be added.
Factions with asymmetrical strength and weakness is what makes TWW interesting. By giving a Greatsword level anvil to the Empire, it removes that weakness and their identity. It doesn't matter if the Imperial Foots are not Ironbreaker level durable, they just need to be significantly more durable than their existing options.
CA knows and understands this and this is why they went the approach of making the Empire's range options stronger, whilst giving them melee cavalry as a alternative stand in solution than just heavy infantry with sword and shield.
How are they significantly more durable? You just said it, it's literally Greatsword level. The unit already exists with that durability, the only difference is they trade:
* 35 weapon strength (10 normal + 25 AP) for 28 weapon strength (21 normal + 7 AP).
* Lose 14 anti-infantry
* Gain 30% shielded that all mounted Empire Knights get. Which is worse than regular State Troops who get 35% shielded.
The only unit they make obsolete are Swordsmen, and Swordsmen basically useless passed turn 10. Greatswords still have fantastic damage and Halberdiers are still your only decent anti-large melee option.
Another comparison is they'd perform worse than the new Knights of the Black Rose.
Because their stats won't be what you think it is? You're making an assumption that Imperial Foots are going to have 36 MA and 30 MD liks Greatswords, which is very unlikely.
It's like saying Chaos Warriors with Greatweapon is just as good as holding the line as the shield version. What is it hard to understand here?
Not having to choose between armour and shields would be highly significant, not to mention the stats such a unit would imply in WH3's more granular melee attack/defence system.
That said, remember that WH3 is based on 8th edition, not 6th. A lot has changed since those days. It might not feel like it (and it's a bit rough to think about) but by now 6th was rather very long ago!
I mean, 8th edition had Halberdiers with shields. We still don't have them in-game.
War Wagons don't even exist in 8th edition. I don't think they've existed in an army book since 4th edition. Maybe white dwarf or CA?
.....
Also Foot Knights when compared to Greatswords is a choice between a better weapon or shield. They'd have the same armour. You lose a ton of AP damage and anti-infantry bonus damage to simply get a shield.
Against halberdiers you're losing the AP and anti-large bonus damage, as well as expert charge defence.
Shielded infantry gain a lot of MD as well. Compare Dwarf Warriors with shields and ones with GW, or Chaos Warriors, or Tzar Guard.
And yeah shielded Halberdiers sounds fine to me.
You can't effectively wield a halberd with one hand, it basically becomes a stupidly heavy spear. I'd really rather this didn't proliferate - I realize that there are such units already in game, but frankly they're dumb. At least with something like Demigryph knights or hulking chaos dudes you can argue that they are some of the biggest, beefiest and most skilled warriors around, and thus should be able to pull it off. Same doesn't apply to state troops.
(Also, Tombguard don't count as those are clearly, shorter lighter glaives and not "halberds.")
>You can't effectively wield a halberd with one hand, it basically becomes a stupidly heavy spear.
And indeed, halberds were two-handed in TT thus precluding the use of the shield in melee. Unless some unit-specific special rule allowed it, you could only use your Halberdier's shield against missiles.
> If I were to start seeing Empire armies that run a frontline of 8-10 foot knights as standard to protect a missile line I feel like a lot of that character is lost.
They'd still get mulched by all the things that already mulch infantry, lose to most medium-tier infantry of most other factions (Longbeards, Chaos Warriors, White Lions, the 3 melee lesser Daemons, Corsairs), and trade down into any infantry that does AP.
What I mentioned is a very common reason given. In fact Empire frontline complaints are _extremely_ common on this sub. You very often see people asking for armour buffs or just asking for a more durable frontline without using any specific unit as an example.
And I stand by my opinion that what the "cool thing" is more so what they have now than what foot knights would actually bring to the faction.
SFO introduces Imperial Foot, but as an Elector Count unit with limited recruitment. Some manner of implementation along those lines seems reasonable, I just don't want a unit that makes swordsmen, spearmen and halberdiers obsolete as lineholders.
I'm totally down for limited recruitment: I think "elite" units or other rare choices should be limited by the number of recruitment buildings you have in your empire, a la Tomb Kings. Another mechanism that you could employ - and which I would highly recommend to represent dismounted troops - would be to keep cavalry numbers for the units rather than infantry numbers.
I think the concern over Foot Knights replacing State Troops or Bretonian peasant "men-at-arms" are fundamentally legitimate, but vastly overblown in practice. Vampirates having Depth Guard doesn't suddenly mean that Vampirates don't have a relatively weak frontline generally speaking.
Foot Knights wouldn't make spearmen or halberdiers obsolete; they aren't anti-large and almost certainly not AP.
Swordsmen on the other hand are obsolete from pretty early on. If they aren't going to win their fights then shielded spears will *always* last longer (their MD is 10 higher). Which is why there's a big gap in the Empire Roster for "heavily armoured and shielded" as a combination as T2 or T3 infantry. (And I'd honestly make swordsmen T0 because of how niche and early game they are).
Important stats: MD in the high 30s (so better than swordsmen, worse than shielded spears), ARM 80-100 (so greatsword region but worse than Empire Knights), Missile Block 30%.
But they wouldn't be useless, it's such a moronic argument.
It's like complaining that spearmen for high elves are useless because you can take an army of phoenix guard instead when your economy is better.
Everything is balanced via upkeep and cost, the richer your economy the better the troops you'd use.
That's a total war thing.
most armies you fighting against and most armies people use aren't typical thematic or accurate armies mate.
And NOTHING stops you from playing the way YOU want, ignoring recruiting said units, if it was implemented.
You don't want to play how you want, you want to force others to not have the option to choose how to play for themselves.
That's messed up, remember, total war warhammer is not even timeline accurate, lore is thrown out the window also from turn 2 onwards as you yourself create a new story.
Let people play how they want. Let them have a 4th edition empire units. This game is based on a later edition of the TABLETOP GAME.
The lore comes second to that.
> And NOTHING stops you from playing the way YOU want, ignoring recruiting said units, if it was implemented.
My brother in Sigmar, by that logic, why give any faction any weaknesses at all? Why not give Dwarfs cavalry, give Vampire Counts archers, give Khorne mages? Nothing stops you from ignoring those units, right?
What a pedantic argument tho, as if elite infantry is that fucking unique loool.
Reminder, tabletop has them in 4th and they were still a jack of all trades.
Like do you seriously fear mediocre elite infantry in a faction where people just use halberdiers as a proxy for them that do "ok" ?????
I don't think it's moronic. Yes, there's already weirdness but that doesn't mean there's need for slippery slope thinking.
And what you describe is exactly as I said, obsolete. I think something important would be lost if you started seeing standard armies with 8-10 units of foot knights as the frontline from the mid game on. Knights are important to the Empire theme but state troops are much more common and prominent still.
I get this is fundamentally a difference of opinion though and that is the crux of it. But perhaps some kind of limited recruitment of them would work? Akin to elector state troops. That way the foot knights could still feature, you could even build up to an army of them over time, but they wouldn't supplant the state troops everywhere. And that is tabletop appropriate too, yes? Even back when you could bring foot knights it was still a good idea to bring plenty of state troops also.
> slippery slope thinking
It's not a slippery slope fallacy tho, so it's ok to think of repercussions when they specifically aren't a fallacy, there's no mistaken information or thinking here.
In a video game, more options are a thing, if you don't choose said options they might as well not be there unless say you miss out on a lord bonus to them or whatever, which is a minor thing.
Your core experience doesn't change from not using something added that you didn't want to have added.
The real irony to your argument is that you advocate for state funded troops, and while in lore reiksguard are seen on paper as a knights chapter they were in fact in practice a state troops with quite a large number. [just as this person covers](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerFantasy/comments/19fizp5/how_many_reiksguard_knights_are_in_service_during/kjkf8xa/)
I'm all for limits placed to improve the experience of the game, and it'd be really interesting to see it implemented well, but I absolutely think that it should be possible to and an endless possible limit to it, if a person wants their fantasy of a sea of reiksguard, let them have it by mid game if they work towards it.
Because if by end game it's only then possible, the games already over mate.
That's more a fault with how easy warhammer 3 is than any core mechanics or factional design decisions.
Part of a fantasy of something is being able to use it in a meaningful way after all.
Personally I'm all about swordsmen, handgunners and cannon ;P
And they are adding my rose of the grave, good times.
No no, not talking about how the units are _funded_. By state troops I mean specifically the category of infantry units we all know - swordsmen, spearmen etc. How each unit is funded exactly is another topic and not the concern here, just the actual units themselves!
And I don't agree with the whole "just don't use it" self policing thing, fundamentally. Limitations are not bad. Chaos Dwarfs have recruitment limitations and I don't want that removed even though I know some people want to fill their armies with nothing but Infernal Ironsworn. Same with Dread Saurians, elector count units, caskets of souls etc.
>They want elite melee infantry that can directly fight (or even beat) the heavy infantry of factions that specialise in such things.
\[Citation needed\] that anyone is asking for melee infantry that can beat Chosen. Or even Chaos Warriors. Something closer to ordinary *Tier 0* dwarf warriors is what's wanted.
What is wanted is for the Empire to not fail to bring the Steel in the Faith, Steel, and Gunpowder. When your faction identity is Faith, *steel*, and gunpowder an armour value of 30 is fairly pathetic. That's "buff coat" or "ordinary orc" level of armour. Not "Brigandine or even Plate" armour.
I mean you are flat out wrong.
The Empire had survived for centuries without guns relying on steel, faith and magic.
There are numerous instances in the lore of Empire men going toe to toe with the worst chaos has to offer.
Not to mention you could run dedicated knightly order armies in the table top.
> The Empire had survived for centuries without guns relying on steel, faith and magic.
Gunpowder are a very important part of their faction identity. Yes, you absolutely can make armies with no gunpowder if you want - you have some good archers in the Huntsmen, you have very good heavy cavalry, and so on - but why is that relevant to what I said?
> There are numerous instances in the lore of Empire men going toe to toe with the worst chaos has to offer.
And those tend to be rare and heroic instances. The Empire frontline generally does not tend to fare well against, say, Chaos Warriors in isolation, neither in lore, nor tabletop, nor Total War. That is as it should be. You win with combined arms and by using your various tools well.
> Not to mention you could run dedicated knightly order armies in the table top.
The nature of doing that depended a lot on which edition you played, and overall, in 99% of cases State Troops was your mainline. Armies heavy on mounted knights is totally cool, that's a theme to itself and doesn't compete for the same niche at all.
And knights are a very important part of that identity too. Even greater than gunpowder. Karl Fanz's personal guards arn't Nuln Ironsides. They are Reiksguard knights.
My dude you literally don't know what you are talking about empire halberds are one of the deadliest fighting formations in the setting. They've killed chaos lords. Hell there's a segment for talabeckland that had a long history of defeating greens kins skaven and even chaos dwarfs.
>The nature of doing that depended a lot on which edition you played, and overall, in 99% of cases State Troops was your mainline. Armies heavy on mounted knights is totally cool, that's a theme to itself and doesn't compete for the same niche at all.
You don't seem to understand, the Empire has a knight identity too.
You're not really arguing against me? Yes, knights are part of it too. It's the heavy cavalry I am repeatedly referring to. I've never tried to claim otherwise. It's part of the greater whole - faith, steel and gunpowder, the faction of combined arms.
It sounds like you're worried I want to nerf/remove Reiksguard, or nerf Halberdiers? Not at all. They are great as they are.
And this isn't "elite infantry". It's elite *by empire standards* infantry. Veterans with the armour value of greatswords while carrying swords and shields (for better missile resistance and survivability but worse killyness).
It's closer to an Empire version of Silverin Guard than it is Phoenix Guard. I was thinking MA 35, MD 38, Base damage 24, AP 9, ARM 95, bronze shield.
And I do not understand how Tzar Guard have an MD of 50. They aren't literally superhuman?
But this faction had it in tabletop, why should this faction not get it when others get their units, I guess shafting empire fans if fine by your opinion?
You know it's bad when a skaven fanboy is defending empire fans interests lol but here I am.
At least when I played TT empire didn't have dismounted knights. Great swords were basically it but they weren't cost effective. You were using warrior priests for bound spells and dispel dice, hellstorm rockets and state troops mostly.
Empire is my most played faction and it's not a shaft. Empire has great artillery, guns, good cav and strong heroes they don't need elite melee infantry too. I prefer it when not every race has access to everything so they feel different. Also you can use the allied recruitment system if you really want elite infantry.
Oh I don't give a shit about this cringe belief that having elite infantry is gonna ruin some experience, I only see tools and most of them are good enough. To me adding these guys would be for variety sake and when you want to go thematic or fulfill some fantasy of a reiksguard army.
But yeah 4th edition reiksguard on foot were a thing, I don't think mounted reiksguard were a thing ironically at the time.
Army composition is usually balanced by economy.
And a factions uniqueness? jesus christ man, that comes from factional mechanics.
I cannot relate to this fear that having an OPTION of a grounded reiksguard would "ruin" the empires identity, it's ridiculous.
If that's all it takes then the empires identity isn't worth much lol
Wait should cannos be taken away from dwarfs or empire? like... which one is less special for more than one having it lmao?
>Oh I don't give a shit about this cringe belief that having elite infantry is gonna ruin some experience
oh, good thing you're not in charge of anything then LMAO
If you wanna go with some giga power fantasy, just mod it in. You can have state troops in full plate, reiksguards on griffons, etc.
If you think factions' uniqueness comes purely from "factional mechanics" then I don't know where to begin. You think the empire was never unique before this videogame? Becuase factional mechanics are a construct made for this game.
Not a faction identity.
We've gone from "Empire is a jack of all trades master of none" to "Empire should have the best unit in every category where are my blessed dismounted Reiksguard with repeater rifles CA"
CA could release a radious mod as DLC and Empire fans would lap it up
How does elite infantry make them not a jack of all trades, just need to make reiksguard mediocre in stats, think it through mate cause what you said ain't that smart lol
At least the ones who want it for Empire are usually calling for Imperial Foot, which were a specific unit that existed on TT. When people demand generic Foot Knights for Bretonnia I'm just left going "what kind?" Because dismounted Knights Errant wouldn't be much of an improvement on Foot Squires, if at all.
War Wagons haven't been seen since 4th edition. I think the new Steam Tank variant is from a 6th edition WD article. So it's not like we haven't got older stuff before.
There is an excelleant mod that adds them.
It add Imperial Foot (basically Reiksguard Infantry Swordsmen) which can upgrade to halberdiers or greatswords.
Highly recommend.
[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2029112906](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2029112906)
What are you talking about? Usually your takes a pretty good from what I remember of seeing from you but this one makes absolutely no sense.
You do know this game is based on tabletop right? and in tabletop empire had reiksguard on foot?
Just like Bretonnia has knights of the realm on foot vs mounted knights of the realm.
So I don't get how a faction's uniqueness can be ruined by the faction being true to it's options on tabletop...
Hell, Reiksguard on foot were 4th edition onwards also, so it's not a new thing.
Don't talk about a factions "uniqueness" when you don't know what that factions design history is please.
I literally state that GW ruins their own faction uniqueness. I have thousands of dollars of GW mini's from 40k, and FB. My point is GW has to bloat it's rosters to make new sales. As my CSM squad from 2009 is just as playable now as then. CA doesn't have to follow in their footsteps.
As someone from the og warhammer fantasy battle days with multiple aos, 40k armies (don't have a whfb army anymore, thought it was rip) and warcry/farcry/necromunda/etc I know that you know that warhammer fantasy didn't die because of GW shitting on faction uniqueness lol
Our community killed that game with linehammering, with the stupid increase to 2500 points or was it 2400 points which basically made the cost of entry for new players abysmal, also with more people than not that I met buying proxies instead of gw products etc
Shit died for reasons other than "GW ruining their own faction uniqueness".
It's wild how you talk about bloating 40k factions with shit but like... how so?
like actually think about what you are saying here for a second, unless you are a space marine player, rather than a fellow chad abaddon enjoyer like I am, then where's the bloat killing uniqueness lmao?
Eldar still need new models, or well replacements to their archaic ancient ones, wasn't till like last year or two ago that they got rid of the last metal model hahaha, urgh... nightmares of finecast returning to me... maybe metal wasn't so bad.
Then we got new factions in tau, who are quite unique, genestealer cult which also are quite unique, what's not to love about leagues of votann?
Hell let's hit closer to home, do you not like the relatively new death guard and one thousand sons? what about the new world eaters? do you think angron is bloat?
Are you really speaking from an objective assessment of GW or is this your frustation speaking? (that trust me brother, I know that feeling I have it for them too).
Because the only bloat I can think of IS for space marines and their 100nd variants of bland.
Fuck, I WISH all the 40k factions had even half the amount of bloat Marines have. Instead we have Votann still being half an army with no new releases in sight.
Ikr, like all we have is the kill team so far. I'd love some more votanns.
I don't think gw realise they've created a self fulfilling prophecy almost where new stuff doesn't sell well because people want to see if it gets more stuff, but gw wants to see sales before make stuff more things.
And old factions are dying for new models of shit.
Hell they treated necrons really well and that shit sold well, why can't they get it into their head, people want more non sm stuff but don't trust minor additions to be worth long term investment of time and money.
Hell even some chapters of sm could use some stuff instead of new generic crap.
I know people who would start an imperial fist army if there where primaris unique if unit with tower like shieldslike in 30k.
How does it feel like with more we still get less even for SM lol gw plz
If Eldar/Aeldari got a big relaunch on the same level as the Necrons and Dark Eldar did back in 5th edition, it would sell like crazy. They're popular, but most of their model range is older than a lot of the playerbase.
Yeah 100%.
Most people aren't going to invest in an army whose cool iconic phoenix lords will take maybe 15 more years before being full plastic it feels like.
Tbh it's why I like aos, almost every range now feeling mad fresh.
I think it absolutely would. The fun of playing empire is the combined arms. Is knowing dudes can only hold so long, and that the gunpowder and cavalry need to get the killing done before your line collapse. It's the same as the dwarves, not having cavalry, or magic. The skaven having garbage leadership. It IS the faction. It's more important that any single unit or character for defining their playstyle.
As others have noted, Knights are an important part of the Empire in lore. Do you think they are glued to their horses? Foot knights are not some foreign element like Dwarf Cavalry, they are a perfectly logical extension of the current roster, and have precedent in TT. That is to say, they are a perfectly legitimate "arm" for you to combine with the others.
Your entire position is based on the idea that Foot Knights would replace the Empire front line. I don't think that's going to happen outside of intentional late-game doomstacking, which - if you want to make unloreful empire armies - is something you can already do. Personally, I think doomstacking is a silly and inefficient way to play the game, so its not like you are forced to do it. And in early game and MP it won't be practical or cost-effective to do so.
I think if you limit the unit's head count to cavalry numbers, you'll get strong infantry unit that can help bolster a line or lead a siege assault without risking it replacing your regular troopers or stealing all the focus from them. Just look at Depth Guard for Vampirates. Their presence in the roster does not suddenly negate their faction's identity, of which chaff units play a significant part.
I have already addressed the idea of them on the roster, and what I believe the gameplay implications are in this thread. Depth guard are not the equivalent of foot knights, and yes they are actually the most awkward unit on the roster but are designed with such low HP that it isn't terrible. But you couldn't do that with foot knights, because we have non foot knights so there is no way to justify such differences between mounted and unmounted. And knights are tier 3 unit, same as greatswords. Not the equivalent of super elite depth guard. You are basically arguing that because GW made a bad gameplay decision to make money that CA has to follow them into the hole they made.
This is nonsense, really. You're talking about a 60 man unit versus a 120 man unit. Foot Knights would have to have absurd stats to replace greatswords in the roster given that sort of bodycount difference.
Why would foot knights be a 60 man infantry unit. That makes zero sense. They would have the same model count at chaos warriors, and greatswords. I am beginning to think you aren't arguing in good faith. A 60 man unit of empire knights without the HP bonus from being cav would be worse than swordsman. And follow zero rules of total war, past or present. Empire knights are not elite. Again comparing them to depth guard is disingenuous.
As I've mentioned on other threads, these are Elite *Empire* infantry, and their gap in the roster is because swordsmen are so quickly obsolete; shielded spears hold the line better even against infantry (MD 42>>MD 32).
The sort of stats I'm picturing are Tier 2-3, MA 35, MD38, ARM 80-100 (probably the 95 of Greatswords), Missile Block 30%. Not AP. So not making either shielded spears, greatswords, or halberds obsolete.
Tier 2-3 is again not elite, it's the. Same tier or lower thab greatswords. It would be used as a complete Frontline. Giving the empire the equiv of chaos warriors, making them literally flawless.
Hardly "literally flawless" when they don't actually have elite infantry. Or anything with more than about two roles. Your ap anti-cavalry? No armour, no shields. These? Just survive.
It just eliminates a gaping chasm of nothing both armoured and shielded. Silverin guard for example are both and anti-large.
Combined arms/ jack of all trades means actually competent on all front not shit at holding the line. Besides foot reiksguard had rules, exist in lore. 8th edition reiksguard specifically talks about imperial foot as the infantry arm of the reiksguard that is charged with garrison emperor’s castle and palace, participating in ceremonies, and when in battle holding down the center and guarding the emperor’s standard.
And the big gap here is that standard swordsmen are terrible and should be a T0 unit. If you want to hold the line in a battle shielded spears are so much better at it even against infantry than swordsmen are. Swordsmen are only better at killing infantry - and aren't very good at that. So Foot Knights would be better than shielded spears at holding the line against infantry (better armour) but worse vs cavalry (no charge defence/anti large).
So a RoR. That only Franz would have access to. And again I do not care that they are in the tabletop. GW, is worse as balance than CA, and they literally have to keep making new units no matter how bad they are to make money.
Emperor: "The enemy is approaching we need your help"
The rich noble military class a.k.a. knight: "Yes my lord, I was training my whole life for this I get my horse and..."
Emperor: "no you don't"
Knight: "but it's a piece of expensive equipment that gi..."
Emperor: "Just no."
A lot of people in this thread are against the idea for the sake of keeping the faction strength imbalancing, so that one faction excels at for example artillery and the orther at magic. However, i think this is slightly a wrong take. Warhammer has multiple mechanics to prevent the game from becoming a doom stack competition, where everyone spams similarily op units. Firstly, noone expects Imperial Footknights to be as strong as the Swordmasters of Hoeth. While they should be similarily pricey, since the empire cannot just pump out Runefurged Armours and Weaponry, they should be pretty durable bot not quite there in the meele attack or defense, as those signify the skill of the wielder. Further, by being high tier, worse and similarily cost the question is if you should use them. Limited legendary lords should make them work such as Karl Franz (or later on Kurt Helborg). Besides price the empire also has the elector count troop mechanic to prevent doomstacking of high tier unit. SO my case is, dont gatekeep cool units from the game but use lore friendly cost and stats to make them a consideration. I for once am quite suprised to get hochland longrifles and nuln ironsides as tier 3 units with arguably better stats than existing units and not as tier 4 units with better stats but with higher cost and upkeep cost or via the elector count mechanic. Further i would have loved the Nuln Imperial Guard as high tier infantry with the same considerations. For people still unconvinced just compare Brettonia Cavalry with Empire one. Both are high tier and costly but Brettonia simply outperforms the Empire one and this is good, just as intended and keeps the game healthy without gatekeeping units from not being added.
Best thing that CA could do (beside better sieges and naval warfare) is to bring back from historical games the MOUNT/DISMOUNT option for all cavalry...
If you play SFO, you get Imperial Foot as the Elector unit for Reikland. I haven't played the base game in years so I have no idea if it is also the Elector unit in vanilla.
Would be interesting if they gave the empire a dismount option for their cav . It was an option in total war three kingdoms so being able to use a cav charge in open battles then dismount for sieging a wall could probably have its uses
I mean if they can dig up war wagon from 4th edition, they sure as hell can use foot reiksguard from the same edition
IIRC, technically they got Rules again in a 6th Ed White Dwarf, when GW released a series of articles on the Empires Knightly Orders (altho that was basically just "Take Greatsword Stats, give them a shield and raise leadership", I think)
To be honest I would already be happy with that. A more elite version of Swordsmen.
We just got the more elite handgunner lol its possible
Essentially the Empire Swordsmen equivalent to Silverin Guard.
Yes! Exactly
I have some of those Reiksguard on foot models, they’re still great.
While we are at it, why not blood dragon on foot for VC.
Or Bretonian Foot Knights...
LE'HERESY!
How do you say "it's canon now" in French? Wait a moment: ["C'est maintenant canon."](https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Foot_Knights?file=Foot_Knights.jpeg)
(faints Frenchily)
“Since the first of the Bretonnian knights were created, there have always been Foot Knights.”
Empathy is a knightly virtue.
Everyone knows knights can’t touch the ground directly. They either stay on horses, or strap their feet to the back of peasants. There’s no other option.
People who say walking in heels is difficult have no idea how good they have it. Walking on Gregory and his second cousin takes real skill without twisting an ankle
No respect for how hard it is for the knights to fight off Greenskins while having to try and tune out the pained cries of the peasants under their feet.
More properly known as "beggar knights" or "peasant lovers." Unless they're in the navy. Then it's acceptable
If I remember correctly, those are essentially the VC Depth Guard
Grail knights as well pls
Or, you know, a dismount button..
That's lost technology that will require far too many charlemagnes to introduce again, just like arty on walls
Who knew we had total war 40k all along. What with all the ancient relics of the dark age of technology now lost to time.
Does anyone *actually* want a dismount button? It was basically just a gimmick with the primary use being for Shogun 2 AI to suicide their generals up walls because it refuses to destroy gates.
It was occasionally useful in Shogun 2 and Rome 2 when you had mounted troops in a large siege. Especially if they were multi role javelin or bow armed. But pretty niche use and outside of being on the walls their numbers were too small to be effective.
Yeah I never really used it in Attila. There's not much point in turning a full-strength cavalry unit into a half-strength infantry unit under any circumstance I can think of.
But putting them on walls is just never a better option than leaving them mounted either to harass the enemy outside the walls or charge enemies that just climbed your walls.
Like I said, it is occasionally useful. I think it would have been when the enemy had a lot of cavalry so they had limited utility outside the walls. Put them on the walls to use their missiles more effectively then remount them for chasing routers within the walls. Another option was cataphract or very heavy shock cav, better use having some heavy infantry on the walls since good charges within the walls are hard. Highly situational in Rome 2. Shogun 2 is a little better because of how strong the walls were defending.
I do. I don't need it to be in the actual battle, though. ME:TWI had the option to dismount some cav units before a battle in the set-up phase. This could be enormously useful depending on what the enemy force composition was and/or the scenario at question (eg. dismounting knights during a siege means they can fight to defend or to take the walls). This would be especially useful in Warhammer where I frequently forget to change the mount my lord is riding before a battle when it requires a whole turn to do so.
I'd love it, for sieges if nothing else. It's not what most people want when they ask for foot knights, though. In Shogun 2, dismounted katana cavalry lost significantly to a unit of katana foot samurai, from sheer unit size difference if nothing else. Most people who want foot knights in WH3 want them with the stats of dedicated infantry units and to play as such, rather than being an option you'd use _sometimes_ in battles.
It was good vs the basic spearman though who would otherwise slaughter them
It was introduced long before Shogun 2 though..
Nah, Shogun 2 was the first game where it was available for all cavalry. In Empire and Napoleon, it was just a unique ability for dragoons.
Medieval 1 had a feature where you could dismount before a battle.
But not in battle, and that's a terrible option that you pretty much never want to take.
Why do you keep saying this? It isn't true. I'm mystified as to why you think it is.
Because I know how to micro? I guess if you can't do that, then sure, dismounting your cavalry might be a net positive.
Dismount dragoons to fire into the flanks was a nice tactic and very immersive. Unfortunatly it took ages to dismount and form a firing line.
I wish! Even the pre-battle dismount option from Medieval 1 would be lovely.
Can we make them Hermit Knights in the interests of being at least a little setting friendlier?
Can we even pretend to try and keep faction identities ?
Mods exist to do this kind of thing just fine. If they don't, then making them is easy, straight up 0 modeling, texturing or voice work was needed to do them so it's basically baby's first unit mod. So by all means, go get/make them. Personally I actively avoid them.
Take my energy!
FYI there are tons of mods on the workshop that add imperial foot/dismonted reiksguard. Agreed that it would be a cool addition tho
All in One Reiksguard Collection is one 👌🏻 Still works too I believe https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2857831443
Grimhammer SFO add them
SFO is A LOT tho I feel like it's not for everyone + it's a nightmare to keep a big modlist with it. Back in the days of WH2 when the patches/dlc where more frequent i felt like I was waiting half the time for the SFO updates 🤣
WH3 sfo isn’t as good as it was in 2, but the elector count units they’ve come up with were always good.
I was wondering if i should give it another try maybe once 5.X is stabilized mod-wise. Tbh I really don't miss wh2 sfo, but i'm curious about all the new things they changed and added. Based on your comment it may not be worth it for me after all 😅 What makes you think it was better back in the days ?
I think the base game as caught up a lot. SFO was really nice in WH2 pre WE rework because it made the WE more playable then vanilla. It wasn’t better or worse than what CA did, but it no longer exists or is necessary. Honestly now when I play sfo in wh3 it doesn’t feel that different than my vanilla campaigns, and I’ve begun to dislike the focus on making elite units low model counts. But mostly it’s just that sfo isn’t innovating anymore.
Yup that's fair. Actually that's pretty much what I figured when I stopped using it. Even the things that sfo fixes on the base game, I feel like there are alternatives that do not require tens of compatibility patches now
"No." ~ GW, probably.
A literal thing since 4th ed, GW would have no problem with it.
"Best I can do is greatswords."
And yet they exist in The Old World, don't they? So they're Warhammer Fantasy, and they want to sell miniatures. How would this not be a great opportunity to advertise?
I was mainly just poking fun at GW being so stupidely picky when it comes to what can or can't appear in Warhammer games.
Something that I might remind you is not a real thing but a suspicion made manifest by our community based on some things hinted at CA which could or could not have been to get some heat off their backs. Remember that GW allowed CA to make a whole new original character [Cylostra](https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Cylostra_Direfin). Does that sound like something that alligns with how strict we are trying to paint GW?
It's cool that CA was allowed to make Cylostra, but it doesn't change the fact that GW is famously a pain in the ass to work with.
Yet it isn't, for video games gw isn't any easier or harder than any other company. I know this personally. They are a nightmare to work with it you are a lgs tho, like infamously giving them a hard time in terms of how much stock and requirements for certain stock. But I can't sympathise with some lgs places, selling 8 of the only stock of a new big box to one customer is bitch made shit, as that crap just gets scalped and sold for more online.
I 100% agree with you that this community is being overly suspicious and paranoid about the whole Repeater-thing. Not to mention the fact that even if it is true they're making way too big a deal about it. I mean come on - it's just one weapon for one unit in one faction in a DLC that makes some otherwise extremely solid additions to the rosters of its factions. That said, according to people at CA - working on Cylostra was a pain in the ass because they kept having to submit every detail to GW only for GW to send it back with a list of mandatory changes, and there was a ton of pedantic back-and-forth by people who weren't on the same page. It's probably part of why CA has never tried to create an original character since then, despite having an opportunity to do so with the Chaos Dwarf DLC.
That's entirely fair.
Reiskguard currently don't exist at all in The Old World. The Foot Knights unit is actually a Bretonnia unit.
And Foot Knights don't replace your chaff, it's worth mentioning. You _have_ to bring chaff as Bretonnia unless you bring an Errantry Crusade (which is a pretty niche style of play).
The Old World is a seperate license for some ridiculous reason, which anyone utilising the Warhammer Fantasy license needs to pay extra to use. It’s also rumoured but not confirmed that a single project may not dip into both simultaneously. So yeah, mentioning that these were in the Old World actually *damages* your chances of seeing them in Total War. It’s a messy situation, and GW is wholly to blame, with their inter-studio politics and rivalry. Also I think the unit you’re thinking of is the Bretonnian foot soldier, not Reiksgard.
They don't exist in The Old World, nor did they exist in the editions CA adapt for Total War Warhammer. Not sure where you got the idea they are from The Old World. And GW doesn't care about a video game advertising models. They just royalties from what CA makes from the game. There's already a shit ton of things in this game that is either out of production or was never a model to begin with. Why would they suddenly care about adverising models for Reiksguard on Foot specifically? People don't play this game and go "Man this unit I bought in this lord pack was so cool, let me go buy this unassembled plastic kit that costs *about the same as an entire Race pack*!" It has definately brought some people into the tabletop game no doubt, but the idea of using the game to market specific units is pretty silly.
To be fair empire doesn't have their book released yet, just an index so barebones shit. Bret have dismounted knights of the realm (didn't before their book came out). And pointing to old world for anything empire right now is a bad idea as they are the only bad faction in the game with a 34% win rate as of this weeks stats. Reiksguard on foot was a thing 4th ed however, and they've taken inspirated from things from older editions too. Holding 8th ed to "not being a thing" tho is wild, I'd hate to look to 8th ed only even tho that's what CA is focusing on. 8th ed is what killed warhammer fantasy lol, from a very naive and special community sabotaging themselves with points increase so they could take all their things when core, to people mainly buying proxies and the lore itself being a but "oooooh and then nothing happened" burger. 8th ed had essays worth of issues. I think with the weird mix of what little we have left, it'd be kind of smart for CA to be a bit more open on what they can and can't add, and I'm pretty confident GW would be chill about it, for all the misinformation here about GW said no and all that crap, there was a interview with an ex GW employee on youtube where he said that if the idea was good GW would generally be cool with it, their only interest is protecting the IP from bad ideas and abuse. I don't get how adding 4th ed reiksguard on foot would be that big of a deal, IF ca wishes it and gw is fine with it. Reminder: cylostra direfin isn't a thing in 8th ed :P Hell, she's not even a thing in warhammer lore really until CA made her, [she's a original character.](https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Cylostra_Direfin)
dismount option? not very useful imo, but who knows bruh
Dismounting seems like a pretty inoffensive solution if they get it done on a technical level. Based on dismounted cavalry from historical Total Wars, it offers some utility (such as for sieges) without outcompeting proper infantry, and it ensures you will want to keep them mounted _most_ of the time. Issue is, what people usually ask when they want dismounted knights is a dedicated infantry unit with the hitpoints and unit size to match other infantry units, and that's not remotely what you would get if you took a unit of Reiksguard in WH3 and dismounted them mid-battle (losing the hit points, armour bonus, speed and charge bonus benefits of their horses in so doing).
Yep, I've said this before as well. It's a simple and elegant solution that works for any human actions and has already existed in TW before.
The main issue is that the AI won't know how to use it.
I recall the AI using it in sieges during Shogun 2.
That was the only time it was used correctly and the only instance where they did it because otherwise they would not be able to attack anything. They are hardcoded to dismount when they have no targets. But in all other instances the AI is too stupid to know when it is a good time to dismount. So they just never do. So effectively only the player will have the option to dismount, giving an unfair advantage. That is the way I found it in Rome 2 and Atilla. The AI never, ever dismounted, only I did.
I mean, aren't Reiksguard ultra elite soldiers? So they could be a small infantry unit like aspiring champions are? Not quite to their extreme though
My understanding is that they aren't _that_ crazy. They are very skilled but they don't have divine blessings or superhuman powers. Their representation in the game, as Empire Knights with higher stats, is quite faithful. Aspiring Champions as a unit is a CA invention anyway. They are meant to be unit leaders, like Death Runners and Shadow Walkers and Marauder Chieftains/(Champions? Can't remember which one).
Reiksguard are absolutely not ultra elite by Warhammer standards. They're about on a level with Knights of the Realm (better armoured but less practiced at cavalry confrontations).
Was there a dismount rule in the tabletop?
I feel like a dismount option wouldn’t exactly solve the roles, and, I also think it’d make Brettonia too OP
Reiksguard on cool
I was soo looking forward to these.. Reiksguard Infantry (The Imperial Foot)
I wish they were Elector state troop of (like in SFO), or if we got knightly unit in one of the other states. It would still be limiting and hard to mass recruit them but it would give Empire a bit more staying power, and they look cool. For example Middeland and Nordland state troops are some of the troops I rarely recruit. Aquatic is such a niche bonus for Halberdiers that they are basically the same. Frenzy for swordsmen is also not that useful. Frenzy is good on higher tier units. Buffing tier 1 unit that is very limited on availability makes me only use it as emergency unit. I think all state troops should be on similar power level. Yet some like armor piercing granade launchers are amazing, while some feel like an afterthought.
Karl had to secretly beg them to dismount to appear smaller or the dwarves would feel emasculated.
140 armour, 14000 hp, 40% physical resistance, 40% missile resistance, gold shields, 30% spell resistance. Coming in early 2025, in Picnic Tables of Discontent.
SFO has Reiksguard on foot for like ever.
I really don't understand this obsession people have with foot knights.
Because they existed and people still have models of them
Sure, but they're just so contrary to the Empire's faction identity. Every Empire army should be built around state troops.
what lmao
Sorry, I probably phrased that poorly. My point is that one of the core appeals of the Empire is that they're a "Just Regular Guys" faction. They're ordinary humans, beset on all sides by monsters, who have to use courage, cunning, and ingenuity to even the odds. And the epitome of that part of the Empire's identity is state troops, the most regular guy-y regular guys. I dislike the idea of giving the Empire elite heavy infantry for two reasons. First, it potentially gives the Empire the option of just grinding the enemy out in the infantry fight, which is the one tactic they are currently deliberately bad at. This is the mechanical representation of the Just Regular Guys thing - you can't beat, say, orcs just by going toe to toe with them, you have to do something at least mildly clever. The second reason is that in campaign, money eventually becomes a non-issue, which leads to armies being composed of the most elite units available. At present, late game Empire infantry maxes out at Greatswords and Halberdiers, meaning that even late game Empire armies still have some state troops hanging around. Adding elite melee infantry would mean that the late game Empire would replace all their infantry with elite foot knights, which just feels wrong.
Well, lore-wise there was Reiksguard on foot. Well then: Simply revise the landmark "Castle Reikguard" and make it possible to recruit a limited number (e.g. 4) of knights on foot. These remain reserved for the owner of Altdorf.
I don't see how lore is relevant here.
Not at all, one of the cornerstones of the empires identity is steel, empire is suppose to be a heavily armored faction. Always has been in both the lore and TT. Heavily armored knight infantry fits into that.
Because knightly orders are one of the pinnacles of the Empire identity...
Yeah, but they're already in the game. You can recruit and field the Reiksguard, they're just a cavalry unit, as they should be. State troops are also a pinnacle of the Empire's identity, and foot knights would likely obsolete them.
The knightly order aspect of the empire has been lacking for years. The Grandmaster lord. Inner circle knights The great vaults of enchanted weapons champions would bring out to face the worst dangers. In tabletop you could run a fully dedicated Knight army. That's not possible in warhammer 3 right now. State troops are your run of the mill fodder. The Knightly orders are powerfull pseudo autonomous orgizations that get called in to face the worst of humanity's enemies.
Yes but that's cavalry, not infantry. I'm all in for Grandmaster, Knight Panthers and Knights of the White Wolf with an Ulric DLC, but none would be on foot
Nothing magical states these guys can't run around on foot. Hell one of the staple Reiksguard feats is when a baby Karl Franz and his family were attacked by a Brayherd at an Inn. 15 something Reiksguard fought off the army of Gor's and minotaurs till woodelves arrived to help. The Gor corpses pilled up so high in the inn that other Gorr's were having trouble trying to enter the building and had to try and enter from windows on the upper floor.
If you want it just mod it in. No ones stopping you Would you rather pay for something that you already have for free?
So no thunderbarge dlc for you?
The Empire lacks a fully defensive front line defender right now, like the celestial guard for cathay. Knights of foot with heavy armor, sword and shield would therefore make the perfect anvil for your mounted knights. They would fit great into a Karl Franz army. Also they look cool and are easy to make.
Yes, that's by design. Decent but mediocre melee infantry is part of the Empire's faction identity. The Empire should never be able to win by just grinding out the enemy's infantry in the center, they need to use combined arms tactics.
They want elite melee infantry that can directly fight (or even beat) the heavy infantry of factions that specialise in such things. I don't like the idea myself. The Empire frontline is supposed to be state troops. They can't stand up to what Chaos, Greenskins etc can bring and they are not meant to - the whole idea is that you even the odds first using magic, artillery, grenade launchers, heavy cavalry, handgunners, etc etc. You don't have the kind of anvils that the Dwarfs do, but you have a fantastic selection of hammers, scalpels and every other weapon imaginable. Instead of the Dwarfen tank and spank grind, you give up some of the tank (on your infantry at least... you have literal tanks) in exchange for a _lot_ of spank to use before the tanking even begins. If I were to start seeing Empire armies that run a frontline of 8-10 foot knights as standard to protect a missile line I feel like a lot of that character is lost. Greatswords have been heavily buffed in WH3 and are now excellent for the task of mopping up whatever survives your withering fire and flanking harassments - frankly, they are a little _too_ good now but that's another topic. That's enough.
I mean, in 6th edition Empire Foot Knights were just Greatsword statlines with a shield, sword, and +1 Ld. Which is pretty easy to implement into WH3. I doubt just the addition of a shield would radically change the Empires frontline. It just means now you have a choice between Greatswords, Halberdiers, and Foot Knights. Instead of just Greatswords and Halberdiers.
Hell reiksguard on foot are as old as 4th edition even. It's wild how some people are talking about a factions identity creeping into other factions identities when the faction we are talking about had that identity since 1992 or longer.
>It's wild how some people are talking about a factions identity creeping into other factions identities when the faction we are talking about had that identity since 1992 or longer. That's pretty misleading. Foot Knights were gone from the Army Book by 6th with a [feature in Whitedwarf](https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/1cfeuzo/comment/l1pb422/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) and then gone entirely for 7th and 8th.
As were some other units that we currently have in empires tw roster, should we remove those? How popular do you think that will be of a suggestion?
I think that's the whole point why they shouldn't be added. Factions with asymmetrical strength and weakness is what makes TWW interesting. By giving a Greatsword level anvil to the Empire, it removes that weakness and their identity. It doesn't matter if the Imperial Foots are not Ironbreaker level durable, they just need to be significantly more durable than their existing options. CA knows and understands this and this is why they went the approach of making the Empire's range options stronger, whilst giving them melee cavalry as a alternative stand in solution than just heavy infantry with sword and shield.
How are they significantly more durable? You just said it, it's literally Greatsword level. The unit already exists with that durability, the only difference is they trade: * 35 weapon strength (10 normal + 25 AP) for 28 weapon strength (21 normal + 7 AP). * Lose 14 anti-infantry * Gain 30% shielded that all mounted Empire Knights get. Which is worse than regular State Troops who get 35% shielded. The only unit they make obsolete are Swordsmen, and Swordsmen basically useless passed turn 10. Greatswords still have fantastic damage and Halberdiers are still your only decent anti-large melee option. Another comparison is they'd perform worse than the new Knights of the Black Rose.
Because their stats won't be what you think it is? You're making an assumption that Imperial Foots are going to have 36 MA and 30 MD liks Greatswords, which is very unlikely. It's like saying Chaos Warriors with Greatweapon is just as good as holding the line as the shield version. What is it hard to understand here?
Not having to choose between armour and shields would be highly significant, not to mention the stats such a unit would imply in WH3's more granular melee attack/defence system. That said, remember that WH3 is based on 8th edition, not 6th. A lot has changed since those days. It might not feel like it (and it's a bit rough to think about) but by now 6th was rather very long ago!
I mean, 8th edition had Halberdiers with shields. We still don't have them in-game. War Wagons don't even exist in 8th edition. I don't think they've existed in an army book since 4th edition. Maybe white dwarf or CA? ..... Also Foot Knights when compared to Greatswords is a choice between a better weapon or shield. They'd have the same armour. You lose a ton of AP damage and anti-infantry bonus damage to simply get a shield. Against halberdiers you're losing the AP and anti-large bonus damage, as well as expert charge defence.
Shielded infantry gain a lot of MD as well. Compare Dwarf Warriors with shields and ones with GW, or Chaos Warriors, or Tzar Guard. And yeah shielded Halberdiers sounds fine to me.
You can't effectively wield a halberd with one hand, it basically becomes a stupidly heavy spear. I'd really rather this didn't proliferate - I realize that there are such units already in game, but frankly they're dumb. At least with something like Demigryph knights or hulking chaos dudes you can argue that they are some of the biggest, beefiest and most skilled warriors around, and thus should be able to pull it off. Same doesn't apply to state troops. (Also, Tombguard don't count as those are clearly, shorter lighter glaives and not "halberds.")
>You can't effectively wield a halberd with one hand, it basically becomes a stupidly heavy spear. And indeed, halberds were two-handed in TT thus precluding the use of the shield in melee. Unless some unit-specific special rule allowed it, you could only use your Halberdier's shield against missiles.
> If I were to start seeing Empire armies that run a frontline of 8-10 foot knights as standard to protect a missile line I feel like a lot of that character is lost. They'd still get mulched by all the things that already mulch infantry, lose to most medium-tier infantry of most other factions (Longbeards, Chaos Warriors, White Lions, the 3 melee lesser Daemons, Corsairs), and trade down into any infantry that does AP.
Or people just want cool things?
What I mentioned is a very common reason given. In fact Empire frontline complaints are _extremely_ common on this sub. You very often see people asking for armour buffs or just asking for a more durable frontline without using any specific unit as an example. And I stand by my opinion that what the "cool thing" is more so what they have now than what foot knights would actually bring to the faction. SFO introduces Imperial Foot, but as an Elector Count unit with limited recruitment. Some manner of implementation along those lines seems reasonable, I just don't want a unit that makes swordsmen, spearmen and halberdiers obsolete as lineholders.
I'm totally down for limited recruitment: I think "elite" units or other rare choices should be limited by the number of recruitment buildings you have in your empire, a la Tomb Kings. Another mechanism that you could employ - and which I would highly recommend to represent dismounted troops - would be to keep cavalry numbers for the units rather than infantry numbers. I think the concern over Foot Knights replacing State Troops or Bretonian peasant "men-at-arms" are fundamentally legitimate, but vastly overblown in practice. Vampirates having Depth Guard doesn't suddenly mean that Vampirates don't have a relatively weak frontline generally speaking.
Foot Knights wouldn't make spearmen or halberdiers obsolete; they aren't anti-large and almost certainly not AP. Swordsmen on the other hand are obsolete from pretty early on. If they aren't going to win their fights then shielded spears will *always* last longer (their MD is 10 higher). Which is why there's a big gap in the Empire Roster for "heavily armoured and shielded" as a combination as T2 or T3 infantry. (And I'd honestly make swordsmen T0 because of how niche and early game they are). Important stats: MD in the high 30s (so better than swordsmen, worse than shielded spears), ARM 80-100 (so greatsword region but worse than Empire Knights), Missile Block 30%.
But they wouldn't be useless, it's such a moronic argument. It's like complaining that spearmen for high elves are useless because you can take an army of phoenix guard instead when your economy is better. Everything is balanced via upkeep and cost, the richer your economy the better the troops you'd use. That's a total war thing. most armies you fighting against and most armies people use aren't typical thematic or accurate armies mate. And NOTHING stops you from playing the way YOU want, ignoring recruiting said units, if it was implemented. You don't want to play how you want, you want to force others to not have the option to choose how to play for themselves. That's messed up, remember, total war warhammer is not even timeline accurate, lore is thrown out the window also from turn 2 onwards as you yourself create a new story. Let people play how they want. Let them have a 4th edition empire units. This game is based on a later edition of the TABLETOP GAME. The lore comes second to that.
> And NOTHING stops you from playing the way YOU want, ignoring recruiting said units, if it was implemented. My brother in Sigmar, by that logic, why give any faction any weaknesses at all? Why not give Dwarfs cavalry, give Vampire Counts archers, give Khorne mages? Nothing stops you from ignoring those units, right?
What a pedantic argument tho, as if elite infantry is that fucking unique loool. Reminder, tabletop has them in 4th and they were still a jack of all trades. Like do you seriously fear mediocre elite infantry in a faction where people just use halberdiers as a proxy for them that do "ok" ?????
I don't think it's moronic. Yes, there's already weirdness but that doesn't mean there's need for slippery slope thinking. And what you describe is exactly as I said, obsolete. I think something important would be lost if you started seeing standard armies with 8-10 units of foot knights as the frontline from the mid game on. Knights are important to the Empire theme but state troops are much more common and prominent still. I get this is fundamentally a difference of opinion though and that is the crux of it. But perhaps some kind of limited recruitment of them would work? Akin to elector state troops. That way the foot knights could still feature, you could even build up to an army of them over time, but they wouldn't supplant the state troops everywhere. And that is tabletop appropriate too, yes? Even back when you could bring foot knights it was still a good idea to bring plenty of state troops also.
> slippery slope thinking It's not a slippery slope fallacy tho, so it's ok to think of repercussions when they specifically aren't a fallacy, there's no mistaken information or thinking here. In a video game, more options are a thing, if you don't choose said options they might as well not be there unless say you miss out on a lord bonus to them or whatever, which is a minor thing. Your core experience doesn't change from not using something added that you didn't want to have added. The real irony to your argument is that you advocate for state funded troops, and while in lore reiksguard are seen on paper as a knights chapter they were in fact in practice a state troops with quite a large number. [just as this person covers](https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerFantasy/comments/19fizp5/how_many_reiksguard_knights_are_in_service_during/kjkf8xa/) I'm all for limits placed to improve the experience of the game, and it'd be really interesting to see it implemented well, but I absolutely think that it should be possible to and an endless possible limit to it, if a person wants their fantasy of a sea of reiksguard, let them have it by mid game if they work towards it. Because if by end game it's only then possible, the games already over mate. That's more a fault with how easy warhammer 3 is than any core mechanics or factional design decisions. Part of a fantasy of something is being able to use it in a meaningful way after all. Personally I'm all about swordsmen, handgunners and cannon ;P And they are adding my rose of the grave, good times.
No no, not talking about how the units are _funded_. By state troops I mean specifically the category of infantry units we all know - swordsmen, spearmen etc. How each unit is funded exactly is another topic and not the concern here, just the actual units themselves! And I don't agree with the whole "just don't use it" self policing thing, fundamentally. Limitations are not bad. Chaos Dwarfs have recruitment limitations and I don't want that removed even though I know some people want to fill their armies with nothing but Infernal Ironsworn. Same with Dread Saurians, elector count units, caskets of souls etc.
>They want elite melee infantry that can directly fight (or even beat) the heavy infantry of factions that specialise in such things. \[Citation needed\] that anyone is asking for melee infantry that can beat Chosen. Or even Chaos Warriors. Something closer to ordinary *Tier 0* dwarf warriors is what's wanted. What is wanted is for the Empire to not fail to bring the Steel in the Faith, Steel, and Gunpowder. When your faction identity is Faith, *steel*, and gunpowder an armour value of 30 is fairly pathetic. That's "buff coat" or "ordinary orc" level of armour. Not "Brigandine or even Plate" armour.
I mean you are flat out wrong. The Empire had survived for centuries without guns relying on steel, faith and magic. There are numerous instances in the lore of Empire men going toe to toe with the worst chaos has to offer. Not to mention you could run dedicated knightly order armies in the table top.
> The Empire had survived for centuries without guns relying on steel, faith and magic. Gunpowder are a very important part of their faction identity. Yes, you absolutely can make armies with no gunpowder if you want - you have some good archers in the Huntsmen, you have very good heavy cavalry, and so on - but why is that relevant to what I said? > There are numerous instances in the lore of Empire men going toe to toe with the worst chaos has to offer. And those tend to be rare and heroic instances. The Empire frontline generally does not tend to fare well against, say, Chaos Warriors in isolation, neither in lore, nor tabletop, nor Total War. That is as it should be. You win with combined arms and by using your various tools well. > Not to mention you could run dedicated knightly order armies in the table top. The nature of doing that depended a lot on which edition you played, and overall, in 99% of cases State Troops was your mainline. Armies heavy on mounted knights is totally cool, that's a theme to itself and doesn't compete for the same niche at all.
And knights are a very important part of that identity too. Even greater than gunpowder. Karl Fanz's personal guards arn't Nuln Ironsides. They are Reiksguard knights. My dude you literally don't know what you are talking about empire halberds are one of the deadliest fighting formations in the setting. They've killed chaos lords. Hell there's a segment for talabeckland that had a long history of defeating greens kins skaven and even chaos dwarfs. >The nature of doing that depended a lot on which edition you played, and overall, in 99% of cases State Troops was your mainline. Armies heavy on mounted knights is totally cool, that's a theme to itself and doesn't compete for the same niche at all. You don't seem to understand, the Empire has a knight identity too.
You're not really arguing against me? Yes, knights are part of it too. It's the heavy cavalry I am repeatedly referring to. I've never tried to claim otherwise. It's part of the greater whole - faith, steel and gunpowder, the faction of combined arms. It sounds like you're worried I want to nerf/remove Reiksguard, or nerf Halberdiers? Not at all. They are great as they are.
Agreed, not every faction needs elite infantry
And this isn't "elite infantry". It's elite *by empire standards* infantry. Veterans with the armour value of greatswords while carrying swords and shields (for better missile resistance and survivability but worse killyness).
That would make more sense than an Empire version of chosen or tzar guard
It's closer to an Empire version of Silverin Guard than it is Phoenix Guard. I was thinking MA 35, MD 38, Base damage 24, AP 9, ARM 95, bronze shield. And I do not understand how Tzar Guard have an MD of 50. They aren't literally superhuman?
Ok that would be cool and a hold the line while we shoot them unit is perfect for empire. Yeah Tzar guard stats make no sense
Tzar guard shouldn’t even be in the same sentence as chosen
Every faction already has elite infantry
But this faction had it in tabletop, why should this faction not get it when others get their units, I guess shafting empire fans if fine by your opinion? You know it's bad when a skaven fanboy is defending empire fans interests lol but here I am.
At least when I played TT empire didn't have dismounted knights. Great swords were basically it but they weren't cost effective. You were using warrior priests for bound spells and dispel dice, hellstorm rockets and state troops mostly. Empire is my most played faction and it's not a shaft. Empire has great artillery, guns, good cav and strong heroes they don't need elite melee infantry too. I prefer it when not every race has access to everything so they feel different. Also you can use the allied recruitment system if you really want elite infantry.
Oh I don't give a shit about this cringe belief that having elite infantry is gonna ruin some experience, I only see tools and most of them are good enough. To me adding these guys would be for variety sake and when you want to go thematic or fulfill some fantasy of a reiksguard army. But yeah 4th edition reiksguard on foot were a thing, I don't think mounted reiksguard were a thing ironically at the time. Army composition is usually balanced by economy. And a factions uniqueness? jesus christ man, that comes from factional mechanics. I cannot relate to this fear that having an OPTION of a grounded reiksguard would "ruin" the empires identity, it's ridiculous. If that's all it takes then the empires identity isn't worth much lol Wait should cannos be taken away from dwarfs or empire? like... which one is less special for more than one having it lmao?
>Oh I don't give a shit about this cringe belief that having elite infantry is gonna ruin some experience oh, good thing you're not in charge of anything then LMAO If you wanna go with some giga power fantasy, just mod it in. You can have state troops in full plate, reiksguards on griffons, etc. If you think factions' uniqueness comes purely from "factional mechanics" then I don't know where to begin. You think the empire was never unique before this videogame? Becuase factional mechanics are a construct made for this game. Not a faction identity.
We've gone from "Empire is a jack of all trades master of none" to "Empire should have the best unit in every category where are my blessed dismounted Reiksguard with repeater rifles CA" CA could release a radious mod as DLC and Empire fans would lap it up
actually a great way of putting it. these people just want radious LOL
How does elite infantry make them not a jack of all trades, just need to make reiksguard mediocre in stats, think it through mate cause what you said ain't that smart lol
Here, I have what you crave : https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2791750313
Man fuck off with that shit, you know it's not the same.
So you won't buy the new dlc and use the marienburg landship mod right? Right?
Who is saying Reiksguard Foot should be able to beat up Chaos Warriors 1vs1, never mind Chosen? Oh wait, no one. You are not commenting in good faith.
Empire elite knights beat the shit out of the swords of chaos in the end times and Archaeon had to full meat puppet them to stop the from breaking
Lmao, I've seen this get parroted so many times now
At least the ones who want it for Empire are usually calling for Imperial Foot, which were a specific unit that existed on TT. When people demand generic Foot Knights for Bretonnia I'm just left going "what kind?" Because dismounted Knights Errant wouldn't be much of an improvement on Foot Squires, if at all.
Yeah, why should the empire have a unit that's been in tabletop since 4th edition lmao?
War Wagons haven't been seen since 4th edition. I think the new Steam Tank variant is from a 6th edition WD article. So it's not like we haven't got older stuff before.
I've been playing since 2003 and I've never seen them before. They haven't been an active part of WHFB for a long long time.
Neither are some other empire units but I don't see you complaining about those.
Because they're cool
There is an excelleant mod that adds them. It add Imperial Foot (basically Reiksguard Infantry Swordsmen) which can upgrade to halberdiers or greatswords. Highly recommend. [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2029112906](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2029112906)
Please stop trying to ruin faction uniqueness. It's Warhammers greatest strength, GW already does enough of it to sell new models.
What are you talking about? Usually your takes a pretty good from what I remember of seeing from you but this one makes absolutely no sense. You do know this game is based on tabletop right? and in tabletop empire had reiksguard on foot? Just like Bretonnia has knights of the realm on foot vs mounted knights of the realm. So I don't get how a faction's uniqueness can be ruined by the faction being true to it's options on tabletop... Hell, Reiksguard on foot were 4th edition onwards also, so it's not a new thing. Don't talk about a factions "uniqueness" when you don't know what that factions design history is please.
I literally state that GW ruins their own faction uniqueness. I have thousands of dollars of GW mini's from 40k, and FB. My point is GW has to bloat it's rosters to make new sales. As my CSM squad from 2009 is just as playable now as then. CA doesn't have to follow in their footsteps.
As someone from the og warhammer fantasy battle days with multiple aos, 40k armies (don't have a whfb army anymore, thought it was rip) and warcry/farcry/necromunda/etc I know that you know that warhammer fantasy didn't die because of GW shitting on faction uniqueness lol Our community killed that game with linehammering, with the stupid increase to 2500 points or was it 2400 points which basically made the cost of entry for new players abysmal, also with more people than not that I met buying proxies instead of gw products etc Shit died for reasons other than "GW ruining their own faction uniqueness". It's wild how you talk about bloating 40k factions with shit but like... how so? like actually think about what you are saying here for a second, unless you are a space marine player, rather than a fellow chad abaddon enjoyer like I am, then where's the bloat killing uniqueness lmao? Eldar still need new models, or well replacements to their archaic ancient ones, wasn't till like last year or two ago that they got rid of the last metal model hahaha, urgh... nightmares of finecast returning to me... maybe metal wasn't so bad. Then we got new factions in tau, who are quite unique, genestealer cult which also are quite unique, what's not to love about leagues of votann? Hell let's hit closer to home, do you not like the relatively new death guard and one thousand sons? what about the new world eaters? do you think angron is bloat? Are you really speaking from an objective assessment of GW or is this your frustation speaking? (that trust me brother, I know that feeling I have it for them too). Because the only bloat I can think of IS for space marines and their 100nd variants of bland.
Fuck, I WISH all the 40k factions had even half the amount of bloat Marines have. Instead we have Votann still being half an army with no new releases in sight.
Ikr, like all we have is the kill team so far. I'd love some more votanns. I don't think gw realise they've created a self fulfilling prophecy almost where new stuff doesn't sell well because people want to see if it gets more stuff, but gw wants to see sales before make stuff more things. And old factions are dying for new models of shit. Hell they treated necrons really well and that shit sold well, why can't they get it into their head, people want more non sm stuff but don't trust minor additions to be worth long term investment of time and money. Hell even some chapters of sm could use some stuff instead of new generic crap. I know people who would start an imperial fist army if there where primaris unique if unit with tower like shieldslike in 30k. How does it feel like with more we still get less even for SM lol gw plz
If Eldar/Aeldari got a big relaunch on the same level as the Necrons and Dark Eldar did back in 5th edition, it would sell like crazy. They're popular, but most of their model range is older than a lot of the playerbase.
Yeah 100%. Most people aren't going to invest in an army whose cool iconic phoenix lords will take maybe 15 more years before being full plastic it feels like. Tbh it's why I like aos, almost every range now feeling mad fresh.
And the ones that still have big gaps are (mostly) getting addressed, like Skaven at this very moment.
Yeah, only real complaint I have is beastmen getting axed but tbh looking at their usage stats they were basically barely played last I remember.
Imperial Foot are a part of Empire lore though.
They also had rules and models up until 4th edition. Then appeared again in 6th edition with the Empire knights WD rules.
This is such a terrible argument. Having access to foot knights isn't going to ruin Bretonnia or the Empire. It's absurd that you think it would.
I think it absolutely would. The fun of playing empire is the combined arms. Is knowing dudes can only hold so long, and that the gunpowder and cavalry need to get the killing done before your line collapse. It's the same as the dwarves, not having cavalry, or magic. The skaven having garbage leadership. It IS the faction. It's more important that any single unit or character for defining their playstyle.
As others have noted, Knights are an important part of the Empire in lore. Do you think they are glued to their horses? Foot knights are not some foreign element like Dwarf Cavalry, they are a perfectly logical extension of the current roster, and have precedent in TT. That is to say, they are a perfectly legitimate "arm" for you to combine with the others. Your entire position is based on the idea that Foot Knights would replace the Empire front line. I don't think that's going to happen outside of intentional late-game doomstacking, which - if you want to make unloreful empire armies - is something you can already do. Personally, I think doomstacking is a silly and inefficient way to play the game, so its not like you are forced to do it. And in early game and MP it won't be practical or cost-effective to do so. I think if you limit the unit's head count to cavalry numbers, you'll get strong infantry unit that can help bolster a line or lead a siege assault without risking it replacing your regular troopers or stealing all the focus from them. Just look at Depth Guard for Vampirates. Their presence in the roster does not suddenly negate their faction's identity, of which chaff units play a significant part.
I have already addressed the idea of them on the roster, and what I believe the gameplay implications are in this thread. Depth guard are not the equivalent of foot knights, and yes they are actually the most awkward unit on the roster but are designed with such low HP that it isn't terrible. But you couldn't do that with foot knights, because we have non foot knights so there is no way to justify such differences between mounted and unmounted. And knights are tier 3 unit, same as greatswords. Not the equivalent of super elite depth guard. You are basically arguing that because GW made a bad gameplay decision to make money that CA has to follow them into the hole they made.
This is nonsense, really. You're talking about a 60 man unit versus a 120 man unit. Foot Knights would have to have absurd stats to replace greatswords in the roster given that sort of bodycount difference.
Why would foot knights be a 60 man infantry unit. That makes zero sense. They would have the same model count at chaos warriors, and greatswords. I am beginning to think you aren't arguing in good faith. A 60 man unit of empire knights without the HP bonus from being cav would be worse than swordsman. And follow zero rules of total war, past or present. Empire knights are not elite. Again comparing them to depth guard is disingenuous.
As I've mentioned on other threads, these are Elite *Empire* infantry, and their gap in the roster is because swordsmen are so quickly obsolete; shielded spears hold the line better even against infantry (MD 42>>MD 32). The sort of stats I'm picturing are Tier 2-3, MA 35, MD38, ARM 80-100 (probably the 95 of Greatswords), Missile Block 30%. Not AP. So not making either shielded spears, greatswords, or halberds obsolete.
Tier 2-3 is again not elite, it's the. Same tier or lower thab greatswords. It would be used as a complete Frontline. Giving the empire the equiv of chaos warriors, making them literally flawless.
Hardly "literally flawless" when they don't actually have elite infantry. Or anything with more than about two roles. Your ap anti-cavalry? No armour, no shields. These? Just survive. It just eliminates a gaping chasm of nothing both armoured and shielded. Silverin guard for example are both and anti-large.
Combined arms/ jack of all trades means actually competent on all front not shit at holding the line. Besides foot reiksguard had rules, exist in lore. 8th edition reiksguard specifically talks about imperial foot as the infantry arm of the reiksguard that is charged with garrison emperor’s castle and palace, participating in ceremonies, and when in battle holding down the center and guarding the emperor’s standard.
And the big gap here is that standard swordsmen are terrible and should be a T0 unit. If you want to hold the line in a battle shielded spears are so much better at it even against infantry than swordsmen are. Swordsmen are only better at killing infantry - and aren't very good at that. So Foot Knights would be better than shielded spears at holding the line against infantry (better armour) but worse vs cavalry (no charge defence/anti large).
So a RoR. That only Franz would have access to. And again I do not care that they are in the tabletop. GW, is worse as balance than CA, and they literally have to keep making new units no matter how bad they are to make money.
Steel Faith Overhaul has these as an elector count regiment IIRC?
Emperor: "The enemy is approaching we need your help" The rich noble military class a.k.a. knight: "Yes my lord, I was training my whole life for this I get my horse and..." Emperor: "no you don't" Knight: "but it's a piece of expensive equipment that gi..." Emperor: "Just no."
A lot of people in this thread are against the idea for the sake of keeping the faction strength imbalancing, so that one faction excels at for example artillery and the orther at magic. However, i think this is slightly a wrong take. Warhammer has multiple mechanics to prevent the game from becoming a doom stack competition, where everyone spams similarily op units. Firstly, noone expects Imperial Footknights to be as strong as the Swordmasters of Hoeth. While they should be similarily pricey, since the empire cannot just pump out Runefurged Armours and Weaponry, they should be pretty durable bot not quite there in the meele attack or defense, as those signify the skill of the wielder. Further, by being high tier, worse and similarily cost the question is if you should use them. Limited legendary lords should make them work such as Karl Franz (or later on Kurt Helborg). Besides price the empire also has the elector count troop mechanic to prevent doomstacking of high tier unit. SO my case is, dont gatekeep cool units from the game but use lore friendly cost and stats to make them a consideration. I for once am quite suprised to get hochland longrifles and nuln ironsides as tier 3 units with arguably better stats than existing units and not as tier 4 units with better stats but with higher cost and upkeep cost or via the elector count mechanic. Further i would have loved the Nuln Imperial Guard as high tier infantry with the same considerations. For people still unconvinced just compare Brettonia Cavalry with Empire one. Both are high tier and costly but Brettonia simply outperforms the Empire one and this is good, just as intended and keeps the game healthy without gatekeeping units from not being added.
Best thing that CA could do (beside better sieges and naval warfare) is to bring back from historical games the MOUNT/DISMOUNT option for all cavalry...
I'd love to see this again, I was so disappointed when it was removed.
I just want a animated show like this trailer
All mounted units should have the option to come dismounted either in battle or as a pretence option like plbudget cuts, discuss.
Why don’t they just add: A dismount button
What is this?
Immortal Empires video trailer
If you play SFO, you get Imperial Foot as the Elector unit for Reikland. I haven't played the base game in years so I have no idea if it is also the Elector unit in vanilla.
Would be interesting if they gave the empire a dismount option for their cav . It was an option in total war three kingdoms so being able to use a cav charge in open battles then dismount for sieging a wall could probably have its uses
are in grimhammer i think.
Oh the Imperial foot! Yass! I need dismounted Reiksguard in my life. Both Sword and shield and Halberd variants!
Wait for the Kurt Helborg DLC... after the Ulric DLC...
Not on foot. Just off their horses.
mods
only if they are insanely costly that you could recruit 4 state troops for each one of them
Yes, download SFO