Shift in the feel of the Empire?

Michael Stockin

Michael Stockin

Lord
As WFB changed over the years, do you feel the Empire has come to resemble 40k more. The newer WFB Empire seems Emperor centric with a heavy focus on Sigmar and the Imperial war machine.

Back in the day Sigmar was a minor deity and the units were a hodge podge of local troops banded together with a few standing troops such as knightly orders and maybe the Reiksgard.

It feels less rag tag now.

Is that how it is now?
I don't keep up so really am not sure.
 
Somewhat, yes. I started in 4th Edition, and I loved the Elector Counts set, my favorite is Marius Leitdorf, the "Mad", and my force was his Averland plus Knightly Orders for support. I didn't have anything that was specifically Sigmar.

And this is what I'm doing as I re-constitute an Empire force. I'm building the new-ish "Commanders of the Empire" mounted commander to resemble Marius the Mad, and I do have some Reiksguard but I'm also doing Blazing Sun which are the knightly order devoted to Myrmidia. The footsloggers will be Averland state troops and militia, and I'm not really doing a lot of monsters or Griffon knights, etc.

I do feel like maybe 6-7th edition Empire were very Sigmar focused, and then I lost touch. In the Old World kits, there are bits for Ulric and Morr, but I got some 3D print proxies that I feel have a much more "Blazing Sun/Myridia" feel than anything that could be made from stock GW plastics.
 
No clue as that would mean bothering with post 4ed ^_^ I have little knowledge about that stuff. I was aware then 5ed came out and some bits, but that was kinda about it. I have less and less knowledge about anything after that.
 
Michael Stockin said:
As WFB changed over the years, do you feel the Empire has come to resemble 40k more. The newer WFB Empire seems Emperor centric with a heavy focus on Sigmar and the Imperial war machine.

Back in the day Sigmar was a minor deity and the units were a hodge podge of local troops banded together with a few standing troops such as knightly orders and maybe the Reiksgard.

It feels less rag tag now.

Is that how it is now?
I don't keep up so really am not sure.
Click to expand...
I think there's a couple of things going on. Like yourself, I have a very rag-tag Empire force, mine very much styled as a provincial force from the arse end of nowhere rather than trying to be some grand army of Sigmar or anything of that nature.

I first built up this army for Snickit's Birthday Bash, which was 4th edition. And playing that era of Warhammer, I could see that 4th edition Empire already had much more the stylings of a standing army, rather than what you see implied in previous WHFB editions and early WFRP. Now I liked the contrast that my provincial irregulars created with the regimented forces of the Empire, but it was very notably a contrast. So I don't think it's less rag-tag now, I think it's been less rag-tag since the days of the dedicated army books (and so implicitly with the WD redo of the Empire army list that came at the very end of 3rd ed just before the 4th edition rules release).

I then think there's been a subsequent shift to make the Empire army both regimented AND grim, reflecting the more grimdark ethos that held sway from Mordheim onwards; at which stage I do think they start to take on those 40k elements of theocracy, militarian totalitarianism etc. that weren't there in the same way in the 80s when it was a more subtle and even playful take on renaissance Europe (albeit - especially in WFRP - with the sinister elements just lurking around the corner, just one corrupt official or one witch hunter away).

But all of that is just my reading. Your mileage may vary! Aesthetically and philosophically I'm very much in the "unremitting grimdark is unimaginative and boring" camp.
 
Last edited:
As Lenihan said: more subtle and even playful..! Totally agree. I can't add anything as I am lost in it. I will add (on a tangent) it has evolved with such complexity from the 'old days', such simpler times when I played lots as a teen!!! I mean WFB 1e Vol 1- it was Men of the West, East, North & the Orient, no religious alliances, nothing. As you can see that was it, except the men of the West (I guess the Empire/Bretonnia, although 'Kings') hated everyone. It was down to you and your mates to develop it all. Coming into it after a long break of several decades (as I am) it is quite overwhelming trying to pick up the modern threads and stories, the history, the various factions- the whys and wherefores- and obviously stuff translocated from WFRP... And yes I can see the 40K dysptopian empire elements that crept in, especially the art depicting battles. My eldest son has learnt most of the modern updated (redacted even?) background via Warhammer Total war on the PC, so has a different slant on things and understands the mintiuae. :)
 

Attachments

  • Men of the West.jpg
    Men of the West.jpg
    99.5 KB · Views: 6
40 years of IP development over various editions, model ranges and fan lore will do that though! 😉

I refer to the wiki pages to get a feel for how things have developed in the intervening years. Some of it is interesting, other bits are more OTT and not in keeping with my own taste, at the end of the day these are your toy soldiers and play as you like…
 
Michael Stockin said:
It feels less rag tag now.
Click to expand...
It was all 'feudals' way back say 1986-89 Perry twin minis to cover both Empire & Bretonnia- just like medieval models, & until later stuff (caparisoned horses, etc) then more emperor worship stuff and identities of elector counts.

Total tangent now (sorry Michael!)...I found this via reddit. I mean look at the description in the WD ad for 'Feudals' its like shove 'em in, an afterthought (obvs before IP developing)...but, but CHAOS. Being me & cynical it feels the push for all things Chaos had to be counterbalanced in the game eventually. 'Empire' was big enough & underdeveloped to do it. :D
 

Attachments

  • Brets1989.jpg
    Brets1989.jpg
    24.4 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
It's a fine picture and a fine army but shows what I said before - by 4th edition Empire had already ditched its rag-tag quality and become a uniformed standing army. Which was the common move for all the armies at this period, a big aesthetic shift. In some ways I love it, I came in as a High Elf player after this and loved the massed High Elf army with its massed scale mail. But I think other armies - dwarfs especially - lost some of their individuality.

Also any Empire army without halflings is an abomination, no exceptions ;)
 
I think 3rd ----> 4th is where the Empire went from a Medieval to a Early Modern aesthetic.

I'd never really thought of it, but you are right.
 
It seemed to have gone from quasi historical to high fantasy.
A few people in places have talked about the move from fantasy to grimdark fantasy in terms of the look.
All I see though is more skullz, spikez, barefeet and purity seals.
That is not grimdark, more dimdork?
 
I find it all interesting. It started off with Men of the Orient, North, East & West. So basically barbarian hordes, norse, easterners/nippon, and teutonic knights & templars from the age of romance. Then massive jump to Knights of (selector) counts, and an imperium (emperor). The gap was seemingly defined in 1987 Ravening Hordes for WFB 2e into 3rd. Empire is defined in army lists with knights panther, arquebusiers(+15th century!) , foresters, etc. Flagellants added, so emphasis on peasantry and religious nuts rather than just templar knightly religious nuts swinging their magic swords (cleansing flame, etc).

So it goes from rag tag feudal (Men of the West emplars in 1e) to full fantasy knights...WFB 2e just played what you wanted or the regiments of renown...

But then we had 'Chivalry' (the standalone card/miniatures game) intro'd in WD130 Oct 1990, taking the theme kind of back to 'Feudal' for messing with toy soldiers. Then Nigel Stillman developed a (retconned?) backstory in WD207 Mar 1997 with a code of chivalry (for Bretonnians - noting Sigmar was away rousing the tribes of an infant Empire together east of the grey Mountains). Basically to serve the lady of the lake, etc. All very Morte de Arthur...

It's like they, GW, were dissecting, chopping & making it up as they went along. And poor old Bretonnia left with just old skool Feudal look. Empire = suddenly an organised 'european-like' renaissance army - swallowing up dwarves, ogres & halflings on the way- with added warwagons, Landsknechts, tanks,& black powder (looking at you Nuln). My weird take on it. I just remember the first Bretonnia figures late mid-80s which just screamed feudal/Arthurian...
 
I think one thing we're all discounting is the role of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay fleshing out and defining the Empire as more definitively a renaissance setting. There's an interesting interview with Paul Cockburn on this very matter on the Awesome Lies blog:
awesomeliesblog.wordpress.com

INTERVIEW WITH PAUL COCKBURN, PART ONE

INTERVIEWS. Paul Cockburn talks about his work on the WFRP1 rulebook.
awesomeliesblog.wordpress.com awesomeliesblog.wordpress.com
There he has "Editorially, I pushed for WFRP to be more Renaissance than Medieval, to make it more distinctive from what was going on elsewhere. Fewer dungeons and castles, more urban noir. I pushed for the Empire to have electors, so we could pull in politics. "

On the one hand that does invoke a shadowy Empire, but I think a far cry from the skullz and spikez overdose. Indeed, later in the same paragraph Cockburn says "I also probably pissed people off for wanting it to be more ‘adult’ and less splurgle-chaos-spikey"

So that skullz and spikez overdose came later (I'm tempted to say post-Mordheim, but that's guesswork).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top