- Halberdiers 6 pts.
- Imperial Dwarfs cannot have medium armour, halberds cost 2 pts.
- Imperial Ogres can take Ogre pistols.
This update changes the following:
- Pistoliers cannot take spears and shields.
- Spearmen 5 pts, pike upgrades cost 1 pt.
- Free Company Fighters can take bows or crossbows (as their models can be assembled).
- Spears for Imperial Dwarfs cost 1 pt.
- Fixed bug where Demi-gryphs only had W1.
-I don't know if you still remember, but I've suggested making Pistoliers start off unarmed. In their right hand, they may take a spear or pistol and in their left hand they may take a shield or pistol, maybe renaming them Cuirassers as well. This allows them to fulfill both possible roles as Fast Cavalry.
ReplyDelete-Halberdiers, model per model are superior to Spearmen. Halberdiers should be 6 points each. A similar thing with Imperial Dwarves who should have Halberds cost 2 points.
-The ranged weapon options for Dwarves should be separate from the melee options, just like with Dwarf Thunderers and Quarellers.
-I think I've suggested Ogre Pistols for Imperial Ogres since the Empire is the largest firearm producer in the setting.
- I considered that, but I think it would go against their fluff quite a bit. The idea was to allow Empire to field demi-lancers, but this part does not really fit with the pistolier fluff at all.
Delete- They are still situational, as spearmen fight in extra ranks and get +1 initiative when charged. But you are probaby right that halberds are a little too cheap since I brought back supporting attacks, will bump them to 6 pts.
- Like Ed said, that would allow your to field twice as many units of Dwarfs, which is not what I want to turn the Empire list into.
- Sure, I can add that.
-It's clear I didn't word things properly. When I suggested that ranged and melee options for dwarfs be separate, I meant in the same unit so that a dwarf unit could be equipped with Halberds and Crossbows, just like how Quarellers could be equipped with Crossbows and Great Weapons.
DeleteAh, I see. The thing about Imperial Dwarfs though is that they are different from normal Dwarfs, and as such would fight more similiar to regular Empire troops. Hence they only have one main weapon option per unit.
DeleteDo't fall for the trap of making the Empire Dwarfs better than regular Dwar Clansmen by making them too flexible etc. That will justifiably anger the dwarf players I bet... :-P
DeleteNot sure about imperial dwarfs having separate ranged options. In the dwarf book they are core troops and as such you can field as many units as you like. Being special in the Empire book means you have duplicates to consider - if they were separate you could field two units without duplication, which I'm not sure is the intent, particularly in smaller games.
ReplyDeleteOgre charge is still not written instead of impact hits mistake
ReplyDeleteMissed that one, sorry! Will update it soon!
DeleteReally missed the mark with Great Swords. They were over priced in vanilla 8th. The changes to great weapons nerfs greatswords pretty hard combined that with the addition of foot knights and there is never a reason to take them.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of armor options are pretty pointless you are already striking at int 1 so having no armor basically means you will have expensive state troops. Who cares if they are stubborn and strength 5 charge if they die in droves? They become hardly a speed bump.
Even with armor at 11 points, why would I ever take a Str 4 int 1 4+ save when I could have always Str 4 with foot knights and a 2+ save + parry?
I can drop them to 8 pts, anything more than that I and would be too cheap.
DeleteAt 10 pts with heavy armour, they are 30% cheaper than the foot knights and make better shock troops, giving both a role in the army list.
They are hardly better shock troops the stats are to similar. Look at the numbers of wounds, the difference between S4 and S5 is 1-2 within the Toughness 3-5 range.
DeleteYou strike last and have way less save. Both are stubborn. The only advantage GS have is the state troops rule. There is never a reason to take them while the footknights occupy the same role of a hard hitting durable unit.
Dropping them to far in points will lead them competing with state troops, but at least then you have the stubborn vs core argument. However, that is hardly a very fluffy representation.
Well, do you have a suggestion to fix this then? Right now, the Greatswords are a cheaper option than the Foot Knights, allowing to field them in much higher numbers. So you can either field lots of stubborn greatswords with better offensive capability, or fewer foot knights with better survivability.
DeletePerhaps you can solve this by making greatswords their own category of weaponry?
Deletefrom what I understand in the video game Ancestors: Legacy, shield-bearers beat spearmen, spearmen beat great weapons, and great weapons beat shield-bearers.
The explanation is simple, spears have more reach than the great weapons, the great weapons overpower the shields, and the shields protect from the spears.
IRL, greatswords were used to swat away spear and pike tips to allow the wielder and comrades to strike at the enemy.
Swords in general are valued for their versatility, but were created primarily to be defensive weapons. Axes were also versatile, but are primarily offensive weapons.
The sword's blade is capable of piercing enemy weakspots with the tip or hacking and slashing with the edge, but it is capable of crushing blows by grabbing the blade and using the pommel and hand guard as a make shift mace.
The axe can also be designed to deliver crushing and piercing attacks by adding a hammer or beak at the other side of the ax head and a pointed tip protruding from the top, but at the cost of increased weight.
As such, Foot Knights are more versatile giving that they can either have a sword and shield combo to function as a elite wall, or sacrifice some durability for more striking power with a pole axe.
Meanwhile, the Greatswords would have no other weapon option. But must utilize the versatility of their one weapon to be effective. Such as the ability to parry to make up for their armor being inferior to the Foot Knights, and perhaps only a -1 to initiative.
One option is to return the old -1 M penalty to plate armour (now that armour is stronger with a new level added). This is not cumulative with barding. dwarves gromil armour is exempt. Now give chaos warriors the option to upgrade to it. Now there is a penalty to taking the foot knights.
ReplyDeleteOutriders: Why did you drop the option of a Hochland long rifle for their champion?
ReplyDeleteThis was already dropped in 8th ed, and there is no Hochland on the sprue to begin with. It does not really make sense to fire as sniper rifle while on a moving horse ;)
DeleteWell, please take into account the followimg arguments:
Delete-both weapon types, the repeater handgun and the hochland follow the move or fire rule
-the hero character "Master Engineer" has the option of a hochland and may still be mounted
-the outrider champion is called SHARPSHOOTER
To sum up: To me it seems to be absolutely ok to have the hochland option for an outriders champion. Furthermore, it would follow the spirit of your armybooks of having more options to choose from. While having played both variants of the sharpshooter (with repeater handgun and with hochland), I am not yet clearly convinced that the hochland is the better choice, think it depends on ones style of play - that is what you should ideally support. Increase the variability of the game to make it more interesting.
Thanks.
Alrikaz
Fair enough, you are right in that the Master Engineer on Mechanical steed model have a Hochland. I will add that in their next update.
DeleteThanks.
DeleteJust want to mention that I found a small error reading through the book. The halfling champion has initiative 5 while the normal halfling have initiative 2. Not sure which one is correct. initiative 2 looks to low for small nimble halflings.
ReplyDeleteInitiative 5 is correct.
DeleteHi there, have a nice fluffy idea as an update for the Empire:
ReplyDeleteRegimental Mascot:
May join an empire infantry unit. Unit gains +1 to leadership.
Here is a link to a picture of it:
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&source=android-home&source=hp&ei=DW58W-OeGofvrgTfs5OYDQ&q=warhammer+regimental+mascot&oq=warhammer+regimental+mascot&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-hp.3..33i160l3.3287.10447..10885...1.0..0.189.3126.5j22......0....1.......5..0j46j35i39j0i131j0i203j0i13j0i13i30j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j33i22i29i30j33i21.xZNuYzSl8SQ#imgrc=pW4-O5DXjp-EHM:
Cheers,
Alrikaz
I think that model would be enough to use as a unit filler, or alternative musician. Otherwisem pretty much every army could have some sort of mascot. So while fluffy, I don't think it's necessary to include as an option for all state troop units.
DeleteIs there a reason to not bring 'Supporting Charge' back? I always found that a fluff ability of the Empire army!
ReplyDeleteAnd did you specifically drop Valmir von Raukov's BS from 6 to 5?
ReplyDeleteI loved the 'Templars of Sigmar' part in your Knightly Order book, but unfortunately you didn't add them in the main Empire book! I think you should add them! (the more witch hunters the merrier! ;) )
ReplyDelete