PDA

View Full Version : What would you expect from a new Armybook Bretonnia?



EmperorNorton
25-11-2007, 17:09
The thread asking if Skaven were expected to be updated soon got me thinking about other armies that have yet to be updated for 7th edition and especially the Bretonnians made me wonder.
While I know they aren't due for an update for several years, it will come eventually. What do you expect from that update?

The Bretonnians have a very powerful army as is, some even say too powerful. Just toning down the power level would upset a lot of players, though.

My main problem with the army is a lack of options. There are too few units to choose from, resulting in a lot of Bretonnian armies inevitably being very similar (I know there are other armies with the same problem, but they concern me as much since I don't play them).
Making the Pegasus Knights a rare choice, declaring the Mounted Yeomen as core troops and adding two additional Special Units in their place should help with that.
One could be a duke's household guard, which is better trained and armed than the peasant Men at Arms. And there could be knights on foot. The main difficulty would probably be making it different enough from the Empire.

The lance formation is a touchy subject, I know. To make it a bit less powerful I'd suggest a rule that prevents from charging an opposing unit with two lances (saying it'd be unchivalrous), although that probably won't be enough for a lot of people.
The Questing Knights should be made a little more useful.

Other than that I don't see much need for an update. What does everybody else think?

Binabik15
25-11-2007, 17:59
I don´t know about the rules, because I (almost) never get to play Warhammer and everything I know about the armies´ perfomances on the field is theorethical or from the experience of others (on the internetz, so I need buckets of salt ^^).

It´s just that the lance formation looks odd next to tiny M@A units and nobody seems to field the peasant soldiers. Maybe Real peasants that rush across the field and try to keep up with their lords, dying from exhaustion and such, as even more expendable units? Knights on foot would be cool, or heavily armoured (not necessarily represented by the stats, could be wood for all I care) M@As equiped with two handed weapons, used to storm gates, walls etc.

The folks ("Mineur" in German, but LEO doesn´t give a translation for it) who undermine castle walls could be used to represent the above or as a unit upgrade. Peasants with crossbows and tower shield? Or at least skirmishing cutthroat duellists, since, according to the latest book, the peasants are "teh grubby *****-eater idiots, lolz!!!11one". Just something so you don´t want to take all cavalry armies.

Oh, and sort your ****** fluff out! I hate how they had to stress in every second sentence "the peasants are the oppressed, lol!", "teH kngihts are evul!" "ROFLOR, peasants are teh stoopid! and uglie! Kant even spellz1".

Seriously, the 5th ed. was also over the top, BUT if you read it with a bit more caution you could also so darker undercurrents in the society. The poorer quarters of the larger towns get burned down to stop deseases? The ruling class imposes suicides missions on their own children? The ruling class and the main population have different religious believes (Lady vs Taal, Shallya etc)? And the most hideous thing: there are troubadours?!

Yeah, I like to rant about the new (old) background of downtrodden brettonia. Make the two dominant groups different, but not so black and white.

PS: Where are the merchants in the fluff? You know, those powerful, rich guys that have their own fleets and could probably muster their own mercenary forces. The brets must have them, because the nobles don´t want their horsies to get wet.

Chiungalla
25-11-2007, 18:07
In my opinion:
- The lance should become 4 models wide (because all others need to field one model wider now, too).

- And there should be no 2+ armor save knights in the core selection any more, so we see no pure knight armies. But it will still be possible to field some cheap troops for core and tons of knights.

- And pegasus knights should become rare and go up some points.

theunwantedbeing
25-11-2007, 18:09
The lance is fine, it shouldnt change.
A wider lance is pure idiocy and here is why.
It doesnt become a lance anymore....you need it to be a good 12 models wide to be longer than it is deep, and thats a very large number of knights. Not really any noticable advantage in fielding it either as you just take units of 6-8 and simply allow everyone bar the middle of the rear rank to fight.
You'de never see a unit that looks like a lance ever again.
If it changes it'll end out more like the 5th edition lance.

[knight][knight][knight]
[knight][knight][knight]-----> looks like a lance doesnt it?
[knight][knight][knight]

[knight][knight]
[knight][knight]
______.[knight]-----> not really a lance anymore is it?
[knight][knight]

The blessing should change somewhat, limited to only 5+ for grail stuff probably.
I'de expect to see more knights on foot as the most major change.

Pegasus knights moved to rare.
Questing knights gaining the great weapon bonus while mounted.

New items lol...erm
Not a lot of a change to be honest.

Chiungalla
25-11-2007, 18:13
The lance is fine, it shouldnt change.

No, it's not, it's by far overpowered.
It was a strong rule with 4 models wide units all around, and bretonnia allowed to get a rank bonus with 3 models wide units.

But since all others are forced to take 5 models wide it's far to good, with all those other special rules with extra attacks and such stuff.

Sir_Turalyon
25-11-2007, 18:32
Pegasus knights are in greatest need of fixing, I agree moving them to Rare choices is way to go. Not sure about mounted squires becoming core, they are elite commoner unit fluffwise and having both fast and heavy cavalary in cores is tremendous advantage for an army (I think only DOW can do that, as part of their jack of all trades theme).

As for lance, I would love to see return of proper triangle lance, but that's not going to happen - I see nothing to fix with current one. In particular, choosing targets and hiting single unit with multiple lanecs is time-honoured Bretonnian tactic - that what six strong lances are for. Making KotR units 9+ strong instead of 5+ strong may solve problem of multiple small lances, but I don't really believe it would work.

I would like to see proper (WS3 BS3) men-at-arms instad of peasant leavies, but that's as unlikely as proper lance formation.

My main gripe is with current theme, both with backgroung and miniatures. Shifting them back towards 5th edition (or better, towards Bretonnian pictures from early 6th edition) is mst important thing to do with the army.



Where are the merchants in the Fluff? You know, those powerful, rich guys that have their own fleets and could probably muster their own mercenary forces. The brets must have them, because the nobles don´t want their horsies to get wet.


Merchants are there, no worry; why you think Bretonnians were most powerful human navy in Man-o-war? With knights dominating land warfare and administration and merchants being just richer commoners with no chances of real career on continent, they turn to seas instead. As sailing and naval combat are no more chivlarous then archery, knights happily leave them to commoners. It also helps venting people unhappy with feudal order and overall conservatism off the realm - they can go so seas to sail, trade and fight with cannons without disturbing peace in kingdom.

Binabik15
25-11-2007, 19:07
No, I mean they haven´t got mentioned in the 6th ed book, right? And GW has a bad habbit of making all interesting parts of the fluff invalid, so I´m worried about them!

I would like to add that your sentiment about 5th ed. fluff and models is what I tried to state in my rant and everybody disagreeing with us is wrong!;) aNd you can slap me for writing "Brettonia" again and again, I just don´t learn. I notice being wrong when I see my post some minutes later, but while typing I just do it wrong again.

Come on, how could one not love the story about the crusade? Knights not wanting to go per boat and going over land instead to Arabya, very funny, especially because it is stated that they simply had no idea how far that would be :p

I have the feeling that a Sandy Mitchell story about a knightly knight could be a hilarious read, seeing how he created a very believable atmosphere in his first two whfb books (city of death and death´s messenger, didn´t read the third one).

The brets mostly suffer from being two-dimensional IMO, or at least thye´re perceived that way. The have to compete with the Empire and their cool gadgets and puffy sleeves and all, and GW likes to have the armybook fluff simple.

There´s so much you could do to make the background more interesting and deeper. No, Anthony, I´m NOT taking about the pools of mud the peasants live in :eyebrows:.

The majority of the rulers, dukes etc are warriors, not politicians. I can see the lower ranks of aristocray and the upper ranks of the merchants (you see, I´m starting to lave them, even though I didn´t think much about them before) could scheme and plot their own little intrigues, start personal wars again, feud, etc.

The money for the armies and tournies has to come from somewhere, that´s a way were commoners or low ranking knights could intervene in the nation´s politics, the developments in the Emprie must create social tensions the feudal lords might not even understand (Their religions differ, remember? A knight might not understand his peasants´wish for warmachines, they´re not chivalrous at all! And why would they want better work conditions on their fields, hanging out in the sun, back when I was a Questing knight, was always fun!).

Merchants and townsfolk could try to advance society, for their own good, of course, the situation in Mousillion could be exploited by ruthless opportunists to question Leoncoeur´s leadership etc.

Draw again the picture of a beatiful country where evil dwells not only in the shadows, where mighty warriors, some even pure of heart, clash with monsters from old legends for honour and try do what they think is best for the country even if their lives are the price, but where not necessarily the powerful have true control of their nations fate.

In short, please, bring back 5th ed. BUT steal from George R. R. Martin, I want a Littlefinger in the new book;) And Varys could help, too.

Petey
25-11-2007, 19:19
I once posted my five fixes for brettonia, i think this is a good place to bring them up again

1 Lance shouldn't give rankbonuses
2 Pegasus Knights move to rare
3 trebuchet moves to special
4 Creation of a Peasant hero (robin hood type)
5 Make the sorceresses have line of sight while in the center of a unit of knights

Personally i love what the new book did by bringing the bretts more in line with the rest of the warhammer world. I like the dark crusader feel and hope they stay with it. In fact, if they were to make a way to make some of the bret armies evil, i would be even better pleased. No one in the warhammer world is totally good and clean, and that s what makes it so cool. I like that they are dirty and gritty, and some fall from virtue (moussilion are a good example).
As to the lance formation, i like that it reeks havoc, i love that it's strong, but having it give ranks makes absolutely no sense. It's based on the lance formation out of history (also called the wedge) and the idea is that it breaks formations and splits them in two. The idea of getting CR from ranks is the idea of a heavy press of numbers giving you an advantage in CC. The wedge (lance) doesn't compete on the press of numbers theory, it cuts instead like an axe and should be more dependant on kills (which it can because it gives a lot of attacks).

Skaven_kid
25-11-2007, 19:22
Alright guys I've been playing 6 for a while and when the new rulebook came out I didn't bother getting it because I was short on cash, but from what I read here there are some big changes. Can someone give me a few examples of the new stuff and tell me if it's worth getting the new rulebook. Are the changes so small it won't matter?

Chiungalla
25-11-2007, 19:35
No, some changes are very great.
Others are small but work out to a great effect, from time to time.

Petey
25-11-2007, 19:42
the changes to spells alone make it worth getting

BigRob
25-11-2007, 19:44
No background on Brettonia? Read Knights of The Grail, the WFRP bretonian sourcebook. Its filled with stuff about brettonia.

What would I expect from a new Armybook? Well, pegasus Knights seem to be a problem for alot of people, maybe keep them 0-1 in the list, so no more RAF lists if you take a royal pegasus, or make them 0-1 provided you have a royal pegasus? The lance is fine, changing it would be like messing with the Empires detatchments. Foot Knights would be cool, kind of like the Men at Arms you had in the olden days armed with greatswords and fully armoured.
Finally, make the Men at Arms proper soldiers and give peasent levy the option of Longbows or spears so you have some arrow fodder.

BenK
25-11-2007, 20:42
I once posted my five fixes for brettonia, i think this is a good place to bring them up again

1 Lance shouldn't give rankbonuses
2 Pegasus Knights move to rare
3 trebuchet moves to special
4 Creation of a Peasant hero (robin hood type)
5 Make the sorceresses have line of sight while in the center of a unit of knights

Personally i love what the new book did by bringing the bretts more in line with the rest of the warhammer world. I like the dark crusader feel and hope they stay with it. In fact, if they were to make a way to make some of the bret armies evil, i would be even better pleased. No one in the warhammer world is totally good and clean, and that s what makes it so cool. I like that they are dirty and gritty, and some fall from virtue (moussilion are a good example).
As to the lance formation, i like that it reeks havoc, i love that it's strong, but having it give ranks makes absolutely no sense. It's based on the lance formation out of history (also called the wedge) and the idea is that it breaks formations and splits them in two. The idea of getting CR from ranks is the idea of a heavy press of numbers giving you an advantage in CC. The wedge (lance) doesn't compete on the press of numbers theory, it cuts instead like an axe and should be more dependant on kills (which it can because it gives a lot of attacks).

QFT. I like all five of your suggestions.

Although I also like it when there are 'alternative formations' available for generals. I'd love to see a balanced RAF list included in the next brets book.

Also, for the blessing:

Kniggets Errant: No blessing.
Kniggets Realm: 6+ Ward Save
Kniggets Questing: 5+ Ward Save
Kniggets Grail: 4+ Ward Save

And: Bretonian Knights oughtn't to be able to flee as a charge reaction.

Bretonnian Lord
25-11-2007, 21:26
Changes:

-Pegasus Knights stay special 0-1, but even if the general rides a Royal Pegasus they still stay 0-1.
-Knights cannot voluntarily flee from charges (against code of chivalry)
-Move Mounted Yeomen to core
-Grail Knights get 5+ ward save regardless of the attack strength... they ARE the Lady's chosen after all
-Option for knights to be taken on foot... basically they lose their horses/lance and have their cost reduced accordingly
-Option for every Men-at-Arms unit to be upgraded to their Lord's castle guard (it would be like +3 points for each model and +1 WS or something to that effect)

kairous
25-11-2007, 21:31
i agree with the first post, some on foot knights would be very nice to have in the army, as you can't be on a horse all the time.

redbaron998
25-11-2007, 21:44
I for one want to see the Peasents less poor.

The thing about the guy you mad the Teb. and got a pig and a couple coins being more than any peasent could dream of is stupid.

Also why do all the peasents look crippled. A Knight would be smart enough to properly feed and give basic medical care to his workforce.....

Also M@A are the selectively picked proffesional guards of a Knights home...WS 2...no more like 3.

Lance to me is fine as is, but 4 wide wouldnt be that bad, its still an advantage over normal knights.

Also Pegs to Rare

And whoever said no Core Knights needs to rethink thier thought os Bretonnia, Bretonnia is KNIGHTS. If Empire could take core Knights and Bretonnia couldnt then you know the world is just wrong.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
25-11-2007, 22:03
I think the problem with the lance is that it is such a powerful defensive formation (not the ones on the flanks, but the ones protected from flank charges). One way to solve this, I think, would be to keep the frontage of 3, but to only give them rank bonus in 2 situations:
1) When the lance charges, it gains rank bonus
2) In later combat rounds (whether charged or charging), if the lance won combat the previous turn it can keep/gain it's rank bonus.

It'd be nice to have more elite men at arms, too. The Duke's household guard who can be armed with heavy armor and halberds.

Peasants should be allowed to upgrade their champion to a Questing Knight on foot.

Still, I don't think that the Bretonnians are too powerful. They just require a different set of tactics to beat. The army could universally go up a single point/model, but that'd cause more whining anyway.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
25-11-2007, 22:20
Ward save doesn't apply in combat, or is dropped for some other kind of shooty defence.

And, well thats about it for me really. Everything else I can work around, I just find the reasoning behind the Ward save (it allows you an honourable death in combat, instead of an ignoble skewering on the way in) to be ill suited to combat.

Count Sinister
25-11-2007, 22:29
I can't understand the perception of the lance formation as overpowered. It's powerful on the charge - yes - because it's supposed to charge, and break apart enemy formations. But they are spell and missile magnets, and very susceptible to flank charges.
I agree as regards the peasants, though. Even though I field a lot of them in a 2000 point army, one or two changes would make for a more interesting army. Some sort of household guard with a WS of 3, and maybe heavy armour, would change the way a lot of people play the game. Maybe it could be offered as an upgrade to a normal unit of Men-at-Arms.
I agree that Pegasus Knights seem oddly placed as a Special Choice, and would make more sense as a Rare, although then I would have problems fitting my 2 trebuchets into my army. I love Trebuchets! If you have a Lord on a Royal Pegasus, maybe then they could become Special. I really don't think they cost too much in terms of points, though.
And yes, a unit of knights on foot would be cool, but would clash a little with the household guard idea. Much easier in game terms to be able to say 'if it's on a horse, it's a knight...unless it's a mounted yeoman, of course'. Mounted Yeomen are one of the best units in the Bretonnian army.
I love the idea that somebody had of having a peasant hero, a Robin Hood type. That would be excellent. Maybe, when fielded with skirmishing bowmen, they could become scouts. Now that would really make the list interesting!

EmperorNorton
25-11-2007, 22:34
I love the idea that somebody had of having a peasant hero, a Robin Hood type. That would be excellent. Maybe, when fielded with skirmishing bowmen, they could become scouts. Now that would really make the list interesting!

I'd hope Bertrand le Brigand would make a comeback, as well as Repanse de Lyonesse.

Count Sinister
25-11-2007, 22:37
I didn't play Bretonnians before this army book, Emperor Norton, so I don't know what the special characters Bertrand le Brigand and Repanse do Lyonesse were like. If Bertrand was a Robin Hood type (as his name suggests), then I would say 'yes'! The special characters in the current book seem a bit limited, compared to other books. You can either take the King, the Fay Enchantress, or the Green Knight. To be honest, the Green Knight is the only one that appeals to me - the other two are much too expensive in terms of points.

EmperorNorton
25-11-2007, 22:43
Yes, Bertrand is very much Robin Hood like. In Hugo le Petit and Gui le Gros he even had his own Little John and Friar Tuck.
I wouldn't like a generic peasant hero, but the return of the special character would be great.
Since the new armybooks tend to have more special characters the chances aren't bad.

Repanse is the Warhammer version of Joan of Arc.

Count Sinister
25-11-2007, 22:49
Ah! I didn't realise, EmperorNorton. Repanse, in that case, would make for a great special character. As you say, the trend at the moment seems to be for a lot of special characters, so for the next Bretonnian book, whenever that might be, we can at least hope. The trend also seems to be for more choices in terms of heroes and lords. Empire has three lords and three heroes to choose from, High Elves have two lords and three heroes, and Dwarves have two lords and (counts them) three hero choices, so perhaps that will be the future for Bretonnians as well. If so, it would be very interesting!

Edit: Actually, Empire have three lord choices

Edit: I got it right the first time, in fact

Sir_Turalyon
25-11-2007, 22:59
Ward save doesn't apply in combat, or is dropped for some other kind of shooty defence.


I agree, proper Blessing (4+ save vs shooting only, or shooting attacks on knights being cancelled on 4+) is one of things I forgot.


1 Lance shouldn't give rankbonuses

It's been tried to death (literaly) in early sixth edition, under Ravening Hordes rules. It just didn't work; lance needs rank bonus to be useful.


Also, good thing that might appear would be more "heroic" Bretonnian army. In 5th edition (already swarming with overpowered characters), heroism was army's trade mark (in form of points pool other armies might spend on war mashines being spendable on extra heroes).I think this army's answer to cannons and dragons should be not trebuchets and Pegasus Kinghts, but exceptional individuals; I don't know what can be done it without falling into Herohammer, through ( better-then-average unit champions might be interesting, like 2 wound champions, champions with cheap virtues or some one-per-battle rule for champions).

soots
25-11-2007, 23:34
Blessing - All knights. 4+ ward against shooting only. Reroll psychology tests.
Questing Knights - WS4 S4. Back to lances!
Foot Knight - Mv4 WS4 BS3 S4 T3 W1 I4 A1 Ld8. Hvy + Shield + bastard sword (GW or Hand weapon). 10 points each.
Lance formation options

1) On turn it charges, opponent gets no rank bonus. They can get ranks as per usual (ie 5 wide)
2) Horses automatically hit on charge (armor peircing)
3) Brettonia Lance (May peirce ranks like a bolt thrower)
4) 4 ranks wide
5) Panic test for lance charge.
6) +D6 combat points for charge.

Count Sinister
25-11-2007, 23:43
Not sure about the 2 wound champions. Bretonnian players would be even more likely to let the champion accept any challenges, thereby making the Bretonnian heroes and Lords even LESS heroic, which would defeat the purpose. I have to say, I tend to play Bretonnians as 'bretonnianly' as possible, which means, for example, that I have never refused a challenge, and tend to issue them as much as possible. It often works, but there are times when tactically it is not the right thing to do.
I agree, though, that under the new WH rules, Questing Knights need to be reconsidered. Under the 6th edition rules, they were just right - hard-hitting, with a Str of 6, but not underpriced either. Under 7th edition rules, the Str 5 of the great weapons while mounted just does not make them worth fielding.

mightygnoblar
26-11-2007, 00:07
i think that i simple way to change the lance formation would be to take away its rank bonus (as this makes no sense anyway) and make it so that for being in the formation and numbering at least 5 models strong the unit get +1 combat res

Alathir
26-11-2007, 05:02
Bretonnia really isn't as overpowered a list as people make it out to be, it can just be more easily abused that some other armies.

My changes would be as follows.

1. The Blessing: We need some work here. It works perfect as it is against shooting - handguns are still the bane of knights, as they should be - but well against bigger things like bolt throwers and cannons. But in combat it's too good. A standard knight have a 4+ armour save and 5+ ward save vs. a strength 5 attack is too good. Increase the strength required to make it 5+ to six or maybe even 7. As I understand it, the Blessing's background isn't about finding noble death in combat, its just about the Lady protecting them harm in general. If the Blessing provides a bonus against shooting, then you would have situations where a Bretonnian general would rather take first turn than get the blessing, which contradicts the character of the army quite heavily. Why would any Bretonnian general NOT want the Lady to bless his army?

2. Lance formation: Agreed that is a tad too powerful, but it is easily fixed. All that talk of 4 wide lance formation is not necessary and really looks stupid. Just make it so that a lance formation can only ever recieve a maximum rank bonus of +1. That would be fine, no other changes are needed.

3. Pegasus Knights: EVERYONE and their mothers seem to cry about these guys, but none of my opponents ever had much trouble with them. A simple fix would be to make them Special 0-1 and if your Lord is on a royal pegasus you can take ONE extra unit.

4. Knights on foot: The Bretonnia list suffers from being a little narrow in choice. I would LOVE to see Knights on foot return. Somebody mentioned equipping them with bastard swords or hand and a half swords, thats a great idea - may be used as either hand weapons or great weapons. Morning stars would also be a nice fluffy option for these guys. I would make them a Special choice, give them the stats of a questing knight, make them 10 points a model and for every Knightly character you field on foot you make take 1 unit as core.

Infantry in general really needs to be a more attractive option for Bretonnians. I have made my Men-at-Arms work quite well, but I always babysit them with an empathy paladin. If he isn't there the unit is really worthless pretty much. Bumping them to Weapon Skill 3 really wouldn't change them drastically, they'd still be hitting on 4's for the most part.

5. Grail Knights: These guys are, in my opinion, the best cavalry in the entire game of warhammer. But I wouldn't mind seeing them get a constant 5+ ward save and bump their points up a bit, actually all knights need a slight point boost (1 or 2 points)

6. Questing Knights: I find these guys in 7th edition to be an absolute waste of time. Which is a shame because the models and fluff are excellent. They need a change, but I'm not sure what it is.

7. Magic: I think Damsels should be able to take the Lore of Light. One of Bretonnia's chief foes is the Tomb Kings so it would make sense that they have spells for against the undead. Also.. I think a funny arcane item would be a bound spell for turning enemy characters into frogs...

8. Other stuff: Is it just me or do Bretonnians really have an issue with psychology? I find my guys panicking and failing fear tests in really crucial moments and I think in an army like Bretonnia there should be more to defend against this. I would like to see a few magic items to help in this area.

My two cents.

Ward.
26-11-2007, 06:36
For the blessing, perhaps a leadership test either at the start of the game or before the ward is taken, to represent the knight proving his chivalry to the lady?

lance is fine the way it is, just few people bother to exploit it's weaknesses.

Joan of arc sounds awesome, as does a refocusing of the fluff to make it seem that the peasants really are just lazy and it is in fact the knight who are in the right, or more a balance of the two.

silashand
26-11-2007, 06:47
No, it's not, it's by far overpowered.

I disagree. IMO the biggest problem with the Bretonnian list is simply that it seems to lack variety. The couple units that are problems could easily be fixed (Pegs to Rare for example). However, I do think the idea of an all knight army is slightly overdone and inappropriate. I personally would implement a mainstay rule similar to the Skaven where each unit of KotR would mandate the inclusion of a unit of M@A, the reasoning being that no lord would show up for a battle without his household represented. Besides, throwing the expendable peasants at the enemy seems quite the attitude a noble would take IYAM. Save the knights for the hard work, but let the rabble cause a bit of fuss if they can. JMO though.

Otherwise, I think variety is all the list really needs. A couple new units, perhaps a unit of foot knights or some such would be appropriate (all with the Virtue of Empathy, of course). Not saying that has to be an option, but it's an idea anyway. For a less "noble" style of army, instead of damsels they could go with the Old Hag/Crone idea. Even a unit of crossbow-armed peasants would not be inappropriate for say the castle guard or some such. Who knows. Finally, maybe there's a Tax Collector character and his retinue which makes all peasant units within 6" stubborn or something like that.

Oh, Repanse should return I think. Always liked her as a special character as well as Bertrand & crew.

Anyway, just ideas.

Cheers, Gary

Petey
26-11-2007, 08:57
I think the blessing is perfect as is. It s a liability (you cannot flee and must accept challenges even when you don't want to) and it is tied into the magic items as well. If there were one thing to change about it, i would say that each unit should be allowed to purchase it, or not, and not have it give up your first turn.
The giving up of the first turn is in a way a cop out, you simply build your army around the fact that you have to go second and you re good. If it cost points ( like say 20pt per unit) it would actually have a tangible effect on the army lists and you could sacrifice the blessing in some cases to get more units.

Jedi152
26-11-2007, 09:04
4. Knights on foot: The Bretonnia list suffers from being a little narrow in choice. I would LOVE to see Knights on foot return. Somebody mentioned equipping them with bastard swords or hand and a half swords, thats a great idea - may be used as either hand weapons or great weapons. Morning stars would also be a nice fluffy option for these guys. I would make them a Special choice, give them the stats of a questing knight, make them 10 points a model and for every Knightly character you field on foot you make take 1 unit as core.
Just as an aside i was talking to a GW staffer about questing knights a few months ago and he said he'd heard that they were originally designed to be on foot. At the last minute they were changed to being mounted and the freshly sculpted models had to be hastily adapted - hence the awkward position of some of them, most noticeable on the champion.

Back to the discussion, i think more infantry is needed for brets. Whether it's household guard (well trained peasants), siege infantry (pavisses [sp?] and crossbows?) or foot knights.

The problem with foot knights is explaining it background wise. Not many knights are going to be willing to leave their faithful destrier at home, slog it with the peasants and miss out on charging straight into the biggest enemy there is.

BenK
26-11-2007, 09:28
Yeah, no kniggets on foot without some good background reason.

Perhaps something like a rare choice: 'Penitent Knights' with great weapons and unbreakable (Flagellants with too much money.)

I like pegasus kniggets -> rare trebuchets -> special with a balanced alternative RAF list in the back of the book (ala southlands in the lizardman book). I like the idea of archers as core and 'household guard' as a special choice; perhaps 'becomes stubborn when joined by the general, a damsel, or the prophetess.'

I thought the idea of the lance formation only giving a rank bonus on the turn it charges seemed sound.

R Man
26-11-2007, 10:09
It isn't that the Lance is overpowered. It's that other Infantry is Underpowered. The cost of Knights and the power of the lance was tested and calibrated against units that were 4 wide not 5 wide. So when the new edition rolled around many units got weaker, but not Knights in the lance. Creating the Illusion it's overpowered. However the new army books are correcting this problem.

Pegasus Knights should be moved to rare.
Peasants should be given Passaives. Passaives are large shields that grant a +5 save against shooting and can be combined with armour as normal. But they have no effect in combat.
We also need footknights as core. They could be a 0-1 choice but could be equipped with heavier weapons so we have a unit that can reliably kill opponents in a fight.
Characters should not be forced to be mounted. They should be allowed to fight on foot if the player chooses.
I also think we need Bergerac Bowmen as a special choice. Skirmishers and Scouts with Light armour, Longbows, WS3 and BS4.
The Grail vow is fairly useless at the moment. It should be increased in points costs but give the character +1 WS and +1 LD in adition to the current benefits.

Generally these changes are aimed at allowing Bretonnians to field a more vaired and Flexible army.

Sir_Turalyon
26-11-2007, 11:05
The main problem with knights on foot is, they would give Bretoninans elite infrantry, directly contradicting their theme.


Just make it so that a lance formation can only ever recieve a maximum rank bonus of +1.

There would be little point in taking lances bigger then 6 strong - why take extra attacks when you can take second lance to give you extra attack and extra source of +1 rank bonus, and can be thrown into the same combat? Do we really want to see minimaxed bretonnian armies everywhere?

I agree Lore of Light on Damsels would be in order, it worked very well with them in Alessio's list .

T10
26-11-2007, 11:28
I once posted my five fixes for brettonia, i think this is a good place to bring them up again

1 Lance shouldn't give rankbonuses
2 Pegasus Knights move to rare
3 trebuchet moves to special
4 Creation of a Peasant hero (robin hood type)
5 Make the sorceresses have line of sight while in the center of a unit of knights



Removing the rank bonus from the lance is perhaps the best suggestion I've seen. It doesn't really break the lance formation - it is still very viable with the increased number of attacks.

Pegasus Knights as Rare - I heartily agree.

The Trebuchet as a Special Choice? Kind of makes sense, but I'd like to add "max one Trebuchet per Man-at-Arms unit."

A Peasant Hero? Why not. Perhaps with a funky special rule that makes the down-trodden peasants use *his* Leadership instead of the Knights'.

Sorceress Line of Sight. Not really necessary. You are allowed to put the sorceress in the front rank. A risky position, but she gets her LOS back.

-T10

EmperorNorton
26-11-2007, 13:33
Removing the rank bonus from the lance is perhaps the best suggestion I've seen. It doesn't really break the lance formation - it is still very viable with the increased number of attacks.

I disagree.
Taking away the rank bonus means that a lance of 6 is almost completely pointless, since you could just put 5 knights in one rank to get the same number of attacks without spending points on a sixth model.
And a lance of more than 6 would be too much of a risk, since you could even less afford to be stuck in combat.

Finnigan2004
26-11-2007, 13:55
Most of my suggestions would be similar to those already proposed, but here they are anyhow:

1. Internal list balance needs to be addressed. People will not take peasants, if they are a complete liability. They need to be made a little stronger or further reduced in points. Adding knights on foot would also help here too, but should not make peasants totally irrelevant.

2. This actually goes with #1, but knights points costs need to go up slightly. They are slightly too powerful for their cost, which leads to nightmares when someone decides to take an entire army of them.

3. Pegasus knights moving to rare is a no brainer. This limits the number, and makes a Brettonian player think about his choices.

4. Questing knights need to be fixed. Perhaps call their swords hand and a half swords to make them equivalent to halbreds. With a strength of 4, this should give them an effective strength of 5 on all rounds without striking last.

5. The blessing is mostly fine, although I am not sure that it should apply in close combat. It makes knights a little too hardy-- especially with the lance as it is currently played. If the lance is changed though, the blessing might be fine as is.

6. The lance is one of the main problems with Brettonia. The combined cavalry charge is just a little too easy, and all of those attacks combined with a rank bonus makes it a no brainer to annihilate the toughest of units. One possible solution off of the top of my head is that if the Brettonians fail to break on the charge, they should pay a price. Therefore, if they do not break on the first round, they should lose the rank bonus, or have to expand their frontage to gain it in subsequent rounds. This also makes sense because the melee would expand around them to engulf and draw them in.

This means that lances with less than ten knights in them would lose their rank bonus, and that they would also lose their lance (at least temporarily), if they fail to break. I have never tested it, but this might make the charge a little more risky and require just slightly more calculation. Since most enemies are broken on the charge though, it would likely not make too much of an impact, so should be only a minor tweak.

Count Sinister
26-11-2007, 15:33
I think you're right, Finnigan, about the fact that peasants are underused in most Bretonnain armies. I'm not certain what could be done to change that, though, as they shouldn't be so good that they are taken in preference to knights. Your point about Questing Knights is spot on, though. The seventh edition rules have made them a pretty broken unit. I used to field a unit of six of them all the time in 6th edition, but have only used them once in 7th edition, with poor results.
The blessing seems ok to me as it is, though. 6+ against most infantry isn't that much for a ward save, and it's relatively easy to lose the blessing too. Make the blessing too weak, and players won't bother with it, choosing to go first rather than pray.

logan054
26-11-2007, 15:48
Blessing - All knights. 4+ ward against shooting only. Reroll psychology tests.
Questing Knights - WS4 S4. Back to lances!
Foot Knight - Mv4 WS4 BS3 S4 T3 W1 I4 A1 Ld8. Hvy + Shield + bastard sword (GW or Hand weapon). 10 points each.
Lance formation options

1) On turn it charges, opponent gets no rank bonus. They can get ranks as per usual (ie 5 wide)
2) Horses automatically hit on charge (armor peircing)
3) Brettonia Lance (May peirce ranks like a bolt thrower)
4) 4 ranks wide
5) Panic test for lance charge.
6) +D6 combat points for charge.

Ahh yes this would make them even more fun to play against, i dont think anything could withstand a charge from such a unit.

You know i always found the -1 to hit from shooting balanced enough, sure it didnt work against cannon balls but why should it? oh im blessed by a lady, oh i should have the protection of a daemon on top of my wardsave, yeah right.

No i think the main key to fixing them is the blessing, hell i would be far happier if it didnt work in combat than against everything, sadly i dont think much can be done with lance formation to make it workable, i think 4 wide would just be silly, i think maybe something as simple as like with beastmen only allowing it to generate +2 for ranks then this could balance it out some more.

Pegi knights should just be moved to rare and be done with it!

Warhammerrox
26-11-2007, 16:23
I used to play Brets back in 5th Ed and I though they were a very balanced army back then, I believe they are too powerful in the latest edition.

Changes I would like to see...

1. The blessing similar to how it was in 5th ed where it only protected against cowardly shooting attacks, so leave it as is but only apply it to shooting. Bret knights should NOT receive protection from The Lady when they engage in honourable close combat, their martial prowess and armour, in other words, their faith, should be all the protection they need. The Lady protects the honouable brave knights from cowardly shooting attacks, was always the way, and should only be that way.

2. Pegasus knights to rare, I can't see them being in so much abundance that every Duke, Lord, or whatever his status is has got a huge stable of flying horses, they have huge stables of normal horses of course... And put a maximum unit size on. Pegasus knights are OK in small doses.

3. Why not Mounted Squires (or whatever they are called in the new book) in core? Medieval knights never went anywhere without their squires to assist them and cater for them on the field, repairing armour plates, etc..

** Having relatively weak commoners as your fast cav/march blockers is infinately less cheesy than having those seemingly numberless 20" range flying horses to do that job **

4. Peasants and archers are fine.

5. Produce Mounted Squires in plastic, if they move to core, and with as much in plastic as possible it will encourage more players to field a more commoner friendly list.

6. Lance formation is fine at 3 wide, it just needs the ward save removing from hand to hand combat, and maybe a limit to the rank bonus.

7. Bring back some of the fantastic characters from 5th Ed, the peasant hero you are thinking of was Bertrand The Brigand and the Bowmen of Bergerac, (Robin Hood).

8. Do something with Questing knights, either give them a lance back, or improve their ability with the great weapons, either give them the +2 STR back, or maybe fight in INI order with them...

9. Some sort of foot knight unit would be interesting, but I don't think it really fits with the Bret theme, I know in reality we had foot knights in the Medieval era, but this isn't reality, and any foot knights would be too close to Empire Greatswords, so would be seen to be stealing ideas from them...

Brets aren't a bad army, they have the bonuses of being able to deploy lances, heavy armour and rank bonuses straight to your face from a great distance away. This is what irks most players as there is not enough "time" to set up counter measures for meetin them.

I believe people don't have a problem with the deployment of the armour and lances quickly, afterall, what do you expect from a culture based around the knight. People have a problem with over the top magic protection they have in CC when it shouldn't really be there, and the ranks the Brets seem to be able to accumilate. Fix the ward save issue and the ranks and I think a lot less people will cry cheese.


Thank you and goodnight...

mav1971
26-11-2007, 16:33
[QUOTE=Finnigan2004;2127627

6. The lance is one of the main problems with Brettonia. The combined cavalry charge is just a little too easy, and all of those attacks combined with a rank bonus makes it a no brainer to annihilate the toughest of units. One possible solution off of the top of my head is that if the Brettonians fail to break on the charge, they should pay a price. Therefore, if they do not break on the first round, they should lose the rank bonus, or have to expand their frontage to gain it in subsequent rounds. This also makes sense because the melee would expand around them to engulf and draw them in.

This means that lances with less than ten knights in them would lose their rank bonus, and that they would also lose their lance (at least temporarily), if they fail to break. I have never tested it, but this might make the charge a little more risky and require just slightly more calculation. Since most enemies are broken on the charge though, it would likely not make too much of an impact, so should be only a minor tweak.[/QUOTE]

I think thats the best idea anybody has had about the lance formation. Otherwise its fine. Its weakness is supposed to be its long flank. I would like a better variety in the army list.

Alcario
26-11-2007, 16:42
Changes that I would like to see...

1. Make Pegasus Knights a 0-1 choice, period. Move then to a rare choice

2. Create some sort of Royal Guard. Either as a unit upgrade to a men at arms unit or an entirely separate unit.

3. Make Trebs a special choice.

4. Mainly for Fluff reasons, the ability give any peasant unit an upgrade along the lines of Foul Odor with a -1 to hit or something for 2 points a model. Since they are not the most cleanly people in Bretonnia.

5. Knights on foot. If the Fluff can be reasonable

That’s all I have for now.

- Human
26-11-2007, 16:53
I think a maximum on the rank bonus for the lance formation would be good, either capping it at +1 or +2. Probably +2.

The blessing is kind of ridiculous. I say remove it to shooting... It's unbelievable that the lady gives out a 5+ ward to every single knight when the chaos, elven and human gods aren't even that generous.

redbaron998
26-11-2007, 17:01
1. I agree about the special characters. A peasent Robin Hood guy, and a Joan of Arc (AWESOME) would be great, combine this with a more workable King and such and we got Special Characters covered.

2. If you look at medieval calvary tactics, the Wedge formation (loose equivalent of lance) was designed to penetrate infantry ranks and break apart formations. Thus the rule could have "Ignores rank bonuses on the first turn of combat only" Also the Lance formation would not provide rank bonuses for the Bretonnia players. If you need ranks for protacted combat get peasents

3. I think the Blessing should be a 5+ Ward save vs all shooting, Thus this would allow them to get into combat and prove themselves to thier lady

4. Foot Knights: How about just being able to have non-mounted questing knights? As over the course of the knights quest he might loose his mount.

5. I still think Pegasus Knights need to moved to Rare,

6. Grail Knights should probably have T4 or a 4+ Ward save all the time, something to really represent them being living saints.

7. Mounted Yeomen should eithier have Light Armour or Bows for no additional cost, or always have Light armour and be able to buy bows.

8. M@A should have WS3, there is no reason why they wouldnt as they are a knights standing military force. This will not make them great infantry and that is ok, they shouldnt be great. Bretonnia is about Knights, with peasents as support.

9. Fluff to make the peasents look less down trodden and the Knights more Nobel, if the Knights arent the Nobel images of King Arthurs Knights then its not Bretonnia. One of the reasons many people pick Bretonnai is cause sometimes you wanna be the good guy, The HE are still self centered, and the Empire are crazy zealots....Bretonnia is just Nobel and Honorable, even to a fault

10. Devolp the story line for Mousillon. Have this new black knights like person actually start to turn around the city. It still needs to be a very dark and boading place. But have its knights coming out with a vengence, lead by this knight, to wash clean the bad reputation of Mousillon with the hot blood of Bretonnias enemies

dodicula
26-11-2007, 17:40
Bretonnian Changes needed:

Nix the free ward save- why does "the lady" love the brets more than the wood elves? Maybe give it to grail knights. But honestly a 2+ armour save is good enough.

get rid of the freebies- no free champions no, no free standard bearers

Bret lance does not get rank bonuses except on the charge.

OR

Have a "duel of honor rule" that makes combined charging illegal instead of all the changes above.

Fredrik
26-11-2007, 18:55
Problem with the lance is they get more attacks and more static combatres for less models taht are a bit to cheap today. Add that up with 5+ wardsave against anything that actually dent armour and getting the 16" charge and you have a point and click army.

I would like to fololowing changes:

1. Remove 5+ in CC works fine vs shooting as it is

2. 4 wide lance this would in my opinion fix alot. today you get to much bang for your buck with bretonnia

3. Pegasus to rare or always 0-1, flying knights enough said.

4. Not giving all knights 16" make that special for grailknight or something they hit to hard to always get the charge.

5. Some new option. Make the army more fun today its more of a dull powerlist army, they are a cool concept use it.

6. Stay away from the multieffect weapons and virtues. Today you can get 3-4 weaponeffects on one character and i really don´t like this because it´s a step back towards herohammer.

7. Sure they are heroic and all but like in 6 stay away from herohammer don´t give them any special characterbosting make it a game of movement and tactics

Count Sinister
26-11-2007, 19:51
I'm curious about how many of the posters who have problems with the lance formation and the Blessing of the Lady actually play Bretonnians. Even with the blessing, knights get decimated on their way across the board. All it takes is a Str 4 weapon to reduce their armour save to 3+, and still not give the 5+ save. That means crossbows and (in particular) handguns are lethal to them. Wood Elf shooting is also cruel, and skaven weapons are just horrible. Take away the lance formation as it stands, and no Bretonnian general would risk his knights in the sort of early charge that characterises the army. On top of which, it's often magic which can take its toll on a Bretonnian army, as Damsels are not the best mage character in the game.
In any case, if you play with the army regularly, you will know that in order to keep the knight units more or less intact on their way across the board, that cover is important (particularly against cannons and bolt throwers), and this means that it can often be turn three before a charge is launched, and not turn one, as people assume. How is that 'point and click', exactly? This argument just sounds like a variation of the Empire Gunline argument. I don't mind facing Empire gunlines with my Bretonnians (and I certainly don't fare well against them), so why should other armies complain about the things that make the Bretonnian army characteristically Bretonnian. It's like saying 'I hate monsters in a lizardman army', or 'I hate blackpowder in an Empire army'. It just doesn't make sense. I don't mean to be sharp about it, but the thread is not 'what changes would you make to a new Bretonnian army book to make it weaker?' The question is 'what would you expect from a new army book?'

logan054
26-11-2007, 20:07
@ Count Sinister - i think most people have a thing against the blessing be in cc and the lance being a tad OTT, hell im fine with with the 7/8 attacks from lances, i find the real issue is the static combat res which really shouldnt be limited slightly (i said +2as i thought that didnt limit it to much but gave basic infantry a slight advantage of a whole +1/2).

Of course i think the fact that many of people who agree with these being to good being Bret players speaks leaps and bounds really (or is that just me?). I dont think this is the same as talking about a gunline, armies arnet given blanket rules to be gunlines, this is a player choice, lance formation and the blessing is a special rule.

Count Sinister
26-11-2007, 20:16
That's true, Logan, I suppose they're not the same thing, but it's the tone of the arguments against the lance formation and the blessing that gets to me - the assumption that there is somehow something wrong. I never played with the old Bretonnian 'wedge' shaped formation, but did it also have rank bonuses? If so, is there an enormous difference between it and the 'new' three-wide formation. As for the blessing, I got the impression from a few posts that there were objections to the whole thing (not just close combat). It's absolutely essential against shooting, as Bret knights are missile magnets. In close combat, I can see the argument. But with the lance formation...I don't know. All the suggestions to take away the rank bonus just seem to me to overlook the fact that if you did that, there would be a lot of skulking about with knight units rather than a willingness to charge, which doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the army. Static combat resolution is there to flatten out the effect of dice-rolls being at the low end of the bell curve (and to get us to buy more models, of course...). If the lance formation didn't get a rank bonus, I think you would see a lot of units at minimum size (5+). What's the point of putting more in a unit if you get no rank bonus? Unless, of course, you do it just to get another two attack from a unit of 8. Sorry if my post was snappy, but I really dislike threads about certain armies being 'too powerful'. They don't really say anything useful. The posts on this thread that were thinking about what could be done with the Bretonnian list in order to make it more varied were great - specifically because variety is what the army lacks at present.

Buckero0
26-11-2007, 20:20
have to agree with some of the other posts - there is nothing wrong with the knights/Lance formation the way they are.

Pegasus knights are overpowered, cut them down to 1 wound and get rid of the RAF ability.

Really, there are a few items that need to change their wording (don't work in 7th anymore) but that's about it. The magic is poor, and maybe that should be addressed, but like many of you, I would like to see more infantry options. Whether it be foot-knights like the days of old, or a variety of peasants or their formations. Scouts would be cool. Boost the WS by 1 or something. I think wardsaves for everyone are a bit weak, but that's just me. Some of the unit choices need to be updated or dropped/replaced (grail reliquae anyone?) but really the Brett book is still pretty good, that's why it probably won't be redone anytime soon.

Skaven on the other hand, are broken - good magic, good shooting, good, cheap decent-save units, outnumber everyone, good tunnelers, do I need to go on? they're good at everything.

Malorian
26-11-2007, 20:57
Most of the brets are fine: lance, blessing, peasants...

This is what I would change:

-unit size of KoTR increased to 8+
-KE don't take a ld to charge, they HAVE to charge if possible
-pegasus to rare (most agree to this)
-questing knights get +2 str w/ great weapon, but only on the charge
-mages can't join peasants
-increase point cost of skirmishing archers, but give them scout
-if you decide to pray, you still roll for first turn, but if you win then units that don't get the blessing are the only models that can move
-peasants ALWAYS use ld of general as long as he's alive

Other than this I think they are fine. They are a knight geared army and should stay that way.

I'd also like to see more characters that give you different options (like every team should have)

EmperorNorton
26-11-2007, 21:08
Another thing I thought about but forgot to include in the first post is the model aspect of an update.
The Mounted Yeomen are the oldest in the range, I believe, and seeing them in plastic would be great.
Other than that I don't see the need to update any of the current minis.
And that's yet another reason why an updated book should contain more units.

logan054
26-11-2007, 21:20
@ Count Sinister - I dont think many have said they should get no rank bonus, frankly the ones who have said that i have just ignored their posts as they clearly dont know what they are talking about (bit harsh i know).

I would say that something is wrong with the blessing indeed, as i said close combat which you seem to understand the why people may think this, as i said a limiting factor ia better than than total removal (this way they are still better than everyone elses cavalry while not being to much better, currently i cant see anyone cav being able to take a Bret lance on but i guess again this may be due to the blessing.

redbaron998
26-11-2007, 21:23
Another thing I thought about but forgot to include in the first post is the model aspect of an update.
The Mounted Yeomen are the oldest in the range, I believe, and seeing them in plastic would be great.
Other than that I don't see the need to update any of the current minis.



I agree MY could use an update, but must disagree about nothing else needing it.

The Grail Relique is so wrong for the Bretonnia fluff. If any Knight say peasents going around carrying a dead Grail Kngihts body they would kick thier face before you could say, "for the lady" The actual battle pilgrim minis are fine (although plastic would be nice. I have seen some good conversion using the big draw thing on the questing knights on a palaquin with a preacher like fanatic.

Grail and Questing knights are all way overcosted. 100$ for a Grail knight regiment that barely looks different from KOTR??? Questing knights also look pretty....odd. Other than this everytihng is pretty good, though some new damsels wouldnt hurt.

Still the Bretonnia range is in much better shape than some some, HE for instance even after being redone still have huge glaring holes in thier model line.

Malorian
26-11-2007, 21:24
I think as far as number units go Brets are fine. Other than the knights on foot unit, I don't see anything else that should be added.

If you add more infanty you are getting too much like empire, and I don't see any new knight units that would be different and useful.

redbaron998
26-11-2007, 21:25
@ Count Sinister - I dont think many have said they should get no rank bonus, frankly the ones who have said that i have just ignored their posts as they clearly dont know what they are talking about (bit harsh i know).



That would be kinda ignorant really. (Not being insulting though) For instance if you read my sugestion I said they should benefit from no rank bonus, but that on the charge the enemy would not eithier (as the Lance formation is meant to crash deep into enemy formations and mess up thier ranks.)

Malorian
26-11-2007, 21:29
redbaron998: if you take away rank bonus's you're only incouraging people to take units of 6. If you take away your opponent's rank bonus's you are encouraging your opponent to never play against you again.

I think the grail relique is fine rules wise, but I agree that fluff wise it doesn't make sense that brother knights would let a lowly commoner walk around with their dead body.

Maybe remove the dead knight and use them as a bodyguard to a hero knight, or keep the dead knight but they have to keep 12 inch away from any bret knight unit ; )

redbaron998
26-11-2007, 21:46
redbaron998: if you take away rank bonus's you're only incouraging people to take units of 6. If you take away your opponent's rank bonus's you are encouraging your opponent to never play against you again.



Maybe so, though I dont see it being any more agrivating than ASF. I dont think it would be encourging people to take 6, cause they can still get other bonuses like Outnumber and banner and such. And it would on be on the charge. Thus being more accurate to medieval history. Calvary needed to break them on the charge, if they didnt break the enemy, the larger numbers of infantry would drag them down.

Still your probably right that there is a better way to do it.

theunwantedbeing
26-11-2007, 21:47
I think the grail relique is more honouring a fallen knight as opposed to desecrating him.
Having it enhance the leadership or reliability of nearby knights would be good.
As if there are peasants around you fighting then you as a knight are going to be bound by your code of honour to not get shown up by them!

8+ min sizes for the weaker knights seems like a very good idea.
8 men is 1 off a full rank, and buying a 3 extra gives a full rank and 2 more knights to fight on the charge, a 4th knight gives that final point of rank bonus.
Resulting in an expensive but hard hitting unit.

So less of them.
Tactically there is very little reason to throw mutliple lances like that at an opponent, and in doing so your going to be putting those lances out of combat for a couple of turns at least.

This keeps the lance rules as they are but coupled with a toned down blessing (so only those with the grail vow get any protection in combat, it being that much harder to sway the path of a sword than an arrow in flight, or even a cannonball for that matter) so only the most devout will gain any advantage from it. Much in the same way the chaos gods gift and mark their champions to allow them to do greater things so would the lady of the lake.

Count Sinister
26-11-2007, 21:48
While I think that removing the rank bonus for a lance formation would just not work (and Logan, I see now where you're coming from...I read a couple of posts, and saw more than there really were...), there is not need, really, Redbaron, to remove the rank bonus of the unit that gets charged by the lance (that's what flank charges are for, after all, and it's true, who would fight Brets then?). The 'extra' attacks that the lance formation gives on the charge are enough to create the idea of a formation that cuts through enemy units. At least that's how I see the situation.

As for models, Mounted Yeomen might be the oldest, but they are still very nice models. I field six, and I was attracted to them initially because they are nice looking models. They are certainly nicer looking than the questing knights (with the possible exception of the musician - I really like that model).

And Redbaron - I see your point about the Grail Knight models. They really don't look 'special' enough for the unit they represent. That said, I don't know how they could be made to look 'better' than they are. That's a tough one.

I hadn't thought about the Grail Reliquea like that before - it's true, you can't imagine knights being very happy to see the body of one of their battle brothers carted around the battlefield. Maybe the relic should be a saint, or damsel, or even a monk of some sort - the knights wouldn't have any problem with that.

Malorian
26-11-2007, 21:53
I was also thinking you could set it up so you only get the free champion if the unit is 8+, and maybe at 11+ you get a free banner. This would also encourage people to use bigger units.

I don't know if taking the blessing away in combat is the best way to go... but I guess it wouldn't do much harm either. Maybe change it so that if you lose a combat you lose the blessing even if you don't break.

Count Sinister
26-11-2007, 21:56
Two nice ideas there, Malorian. In fact, the one about linking the 'freebie' champion to unit size is a great idea. That would almost certainly solve the problem of small lance units. Who doesn't want free command models? I think the idea of extending it so that even bigger units get a free banner bearer is also interesting, but it's difficult to know if it would unbalance things too much for what it's intended to fix.

The blessing idea is also a good one - very simple too, as with most good ideas. Lose a combat, lose the blessing. Full stop. Very elegant.

DDogwood
26-11-2007, 22:01
Even with the blessing, knights get decimated on their way across the board. All it takes is a Str 4 weapon to reduce their armour save to 3+, and still not give the 5+ save. That means crossbows and (in particular) handguns are lethal to them. Wood Elf shooting is also cruel, and skaven weapons are just horrible.

That doesn't address armies like Beasts of Chaos, Hordes of Chaos, Vampire Counts, etc. which don't have the option to go heavy on shooting. Sure, these armies can go heavy on magic, but that's far less reliable than shooting, and still isn't always available. My feeling is that the armies with tons of shooting aren't the ones that complain the most about Brets.


I never played with the old Bretonnian 'wedge' shaped formation, but did it also have rank bonuses? If so, is there an enormous difference between it and the 'new' three-wide formation.

The old 'lance' formation allowed rank bonuses, so a unit of 6 Knights got a +2 Rank Bonus, and a unit of 10 got a +3. The wedge also didn't have any flanks, so if you wanted to negate the rank bonus you had to charge them from the rear (good luck).

The main issue I've always had with a special Bretonnian cavalry formation is that it seems weird that no other cavalry has ever been able to figure it out. I can appreciate that it's supposed to represent their special training, but Chaos Knights, Knights of the Inner Circle, and Black Knights all seem like they should be just as dedicated to disciplined warfare as most Bretonnian knights. I have a much easier time accepting a magical ward save for everyone than the idea that other elite cavalry are too stupid or lazy to use an efficient formation.


If the lance formation didn't get a rank bonus, I think you would see a lot of units at minimum size (5+). What's the point of putting more in a unit if you get no rank bonus? Unless, of course, you do it just to get another two attack from a unit of 8.

I'm not sure why this would be a problem. Bretonnians get a lot of advantages with their cavalry anyways (they're core units, if nothing else).

I think that the Bretonnians are geared a little too strongly towards the "charging knights" army, and don't have enough other tactical options. It would be better if the army encouraged using knights and peasants in conjunction more, instead of just encouraging Bretonnian players to charge big units of knights straight up the middle. Powerful or not, it's just a boring way to play the game (which is also the real problem with Empire and Dwarf gunlines, I think).

Malorian
26-11-2007, 22:08
Well I think brets should be based on knights, but a lot of people only go with one type and that is boring. But thn again you can do that with any army. Empire can take knights as core and you could make an all knight army.

The main difference is that brets are suppose to NEED the charge but be very good when they get it. People are getting around that by MSU, but if they were forced(encouraged) to take larger units then this would be balanced out.

I think we would all rather play against a bret player with four 12 model lances than eigth 6 model lances...

redbaron998
26-11-2007, 22:52
You have to be careful when you start thinking about large lances (8+) cause that gets some HUGE flanks quickly and the units look like trains.

A 12 strong unit would have a flank as big as 8 infantry models....thats a LONG unit.

You might not have the ability to swing the unit around in 1 turn...actually you would as it would be exactly double thier movement...but if they got rid of Purebreed hourses than no Bret lance that big could reform...unless then did it in 2 parts over 2 turns.

So as long as they kept thier purebreed rule that would be fine



I dont really think the Big Calvary charge aspect of Brets should be tonned down...sense its kinda the point of thier army, big lethal calvary charges...

Infantry, shooting, and magic all take supporting rolls to this aspect. (Though you can minimise that...(read: all peasent army haha)

I think it would be great if that Robin Hood SC would give the peasents a boost so all peasent armies could be really viable....maybe giving more units Scout to represent the Ambushing robin hood style thing.....just an idea anyways

I could see it now with most of the characters having thier own theme

The King:As per his current rules he is big on Grail Knights...and not many peasents (So all Calv and Elite Calv go here)
Fay Enchantress: Magic heavy
Green Knight:....who knows he does his own cool thing
Robin Hood liek guy: Peasent army..maybe with ambushing thing going on
Joan of Arc character: Multiple Grail Reliques?

Not saying you would have to pick these builds or use the character to have them, just would make them like armies really fun.




On a different note I really think the Virtues need to get a decent overhaul, as most are pretty useless. That and the Magic items, most of them seem very...bleh

Also I would like to see Vows do more with a character...

like Grail Vow should make your lord really hardcore, like just under a Vampire Lord or such, but be very expesive
Questing Vow could (other than make him exchange his lance for a Great weapon) make his unit like Immune to Psy...desperate to prove themselves for the lady
Knight Vow would be your as is Vow
Peasent Vow is fine as is....

Chris2358
26-11-2007, 23:13
@ WarhammerRox

I play Bretonnians and High Elves and have used lots of different armies and I get told this quite a bit. Usually I just shrug it off as someone complaining that I beat them. I don’t think I have ever had a game when I have been beaten (and I lose probably about as much as I win I would say) and they have accused Brets of being over powered. However the Bretonnian army (like ALL armies) isn’t perfect and there are certain things that I don’t like about them but then again there are certain things I think are dead on. Bretonnians in my opinion can be a forgiving army, but you still need to know some fundamental principles and they are certainly in my experience not as terrible as Lizardmen or Skaven.

1) The Blessing of the Lady: One of the rules I actually like. It’s a brilliant idea, fluffy, it works and it is unique to Bretonnians. People say ‘oh +5 ward save for everyone is overpowered’ Well yea I agree that would be overpowered but that’s not what it is. Firstly Bretonnians have to give away the chance of a first turn to the enemy, this gives them the choice, and thus tactical leverage. Secondly no peasants gain from this ward save, just the knights who number few anyway. Thirdly it is +6 against ST4 or less (which is most things). The fact it increases against strength 5 or more aswell is brilliant; it really sums up the grit of a faithful knight. One of the major calls for this is that the blessing was just for protection against shooting and should still be like that is stupid. It would mean that the Bretonnians wouldn’t bother praying when they faced a non-shooty army. The idea is that Bretonnians should always want to pray. This was summed up for me when I was playing wood elves once and my Errant Knight Cavalier (the only one left from his regiment) took a backhander of a Treeman and passed both his +5 ward saves only to slay the monster next round. It was truly epic and summed up Bretonnians better than anything. People complain that the rule isn’t fluffy but I don’t think you could get more fluffy than that.

2) Mounted Yeomen should be core and plastic, good idea.

3) Peasants should be better (for the same pts, at the moment they are expensive for what you get) Or cheaper and more numerous (like skaven regiments)

4) Pegasus Knights shouldn’t be 0-1 (nothing should be) and should only be rare if Trebuchets were brought to special.

5) The Lance formation is FINE. Its again unique, its again better than the old 5th edition version (in which you could actually never get flanked and got all your attacks even when charged?! So I don’t know what some people are complaining about). So it can break an average unit of infantry on the charge? So what? If it couldn’t then every game would end with the Bretonnians charging the light infantry (and any infantry without heavy armour is considered light to me) and stopping in their tracks and the other team winning. You want to know the secret to stopping a Bret charge? Get a stubborn unit! Better yet get an unbreakable one! Or just shoot them, once they have lost 3 men they no longer get any ranks.

6) Oh and more special characters. But keep the Green Knight, he ROX!!!!

logan054
26-11-2007, 23:23
That would be kinda ignorant really. (Not being insulting though) For instance if you read my sugestion I said they should benefit from no rank bonus, but that on the charge the enemy would not eithier (as the Lance formation is meant to crash deep into enemy formations and mess up thier ranks.)

Cant say i like it personally, cant say its any better than what we have now (infact whats the difference if either side generates no static combat res, this only helps small elite units really). The whole idea of static combat res was to give weaker units a better chance against the stronger units (well this is how i see it), brets ignore this which is the issue with the lance formation (as they will generally start with +4 and maybe +5 if they kill enough to get outnumber).


While I think that removing the rank bonus for a lance formation would just not work (and Logan, I see now where you're coming from...I read a couple of posts, and saw more than there really were...), there is not need, really, Redbaron, to remove the rank bonus of the unit that gets charged by the lance (that's what flank charges are for, after all, and it's true, who would fight Brets then?). The 'extra' attacks that the lance formation gives on the charge are enough to create the idea of a formation that cuts through enemy units. At least that's how I see the situation.

the more i think about it the more i think having a cap on rank bonus lower than infantry would help, i also thing the removal of the wardsave in combat is a must. As i said i think the advantage the lance formation has is far to great when compared to other cav, in retrospect they have the attacks of most elite cav (DP, chosen knights) and the static combat res of a infantry unit combined all the perks of heavy cav and none of the draw backs (barding for example).

R Man
26-11-2007, 23:47
The blessing in close combat is fine. Remember that things that kill knights go through them like a buzz saw. Any magic item that ignores armour eats them alive and we can't rely on peasants. Against most armies M@A are fodder. They get run down by elves or slaughtered on their spears, shot to pieces by gun lines, dwarves laugh at them, and orks and skaven hit harder. Archers can be useful sometimes but many enemies can either shoot back, take the losses or are dwarves who can ignore them. The Reliquary is alright but it's just one unit. We need our knights because we haven't got much else. the blessing could be changed to require St6 before getting buffed, but only if our support units are made more useful.

Pegasus Knights as a unit are not overpowered. They just seem that way because they kill units like archers or artillery easily. Rather than acknowledge that these are horribly missmatched fights it's easier to call cheese. RAF is different but the move to rare should stop or restrict it. Remember that when things go down for Pegasus Knights they go down hard.

I like the idea about counting QK weapons as Halberds. It would allow them to use their increased Int value.


That doesn't address armies like Beasts of Chaos, Hordes of Chaos, Vampire Counts, etc. which don't have the option to go heavy on shooting. Sure, these armies can go heavy on magic, but that's far less reliable than shooting, and still isn't always available. My feeling is that the armies with tons of shooting aren't the ones that complain the most about Brets.

Many of these armies have unbreakable units and large monsters. And they suffer from being old. As I've said earlier when their army books get re-done their Infantry will be cheaper and less impotent.

zak
27-11-2007, 00:01
The blessing isn't an issue with me in open play, but once in combat the blessing should disappear, ala 6th edition. I really liked the suggestion of basing the free champion, standard upon the size of the unit. It doesn't stop the small units, therefore limiting choice, but rewards the player for larger units.
I would like to see the return of Unmounted Knight characters, but not unmounted Knights as a unit. It doesn't fit the background that a whole unit would fight on foot, whereas you could justify a unit champion in a M@A unit being a Knight of the Realm, where a Lord has joined his household troops.

Sir Charles
27-11-2007, 00:07
I think the grail relique is more honouring a fallen knight as opposed to desecrating him.

I'd agree, but the model dosen't really reflect that. Maybe something more dignified like a reliquery/sarcophegus(sp) instead of a corpse being ridden around on a rail.

MalusCalibur
27-11-2007, 00:10
Hmm, this is a tricky one for me, since I'm likely biased against Bretonnians (spent a good couple of years getting HAMMERED by them at every turn), but I'll give it a shot.

Blessing only against shooting. As is my understanding, that is the entire point of it-protecting the knights against 'cowardly' missile weapons. For them to get it in combat too seems a bit excessive.

Lance Formation rank bonus is capped at +1. Since they can get ranks more easily than anyone else (3-wide as opposed to 5), there should be a reasonable limit: they're more than likely going to have standards and a load of kills already anyway.

Men-at-Arms made more viable. Make their stats at least comparable to standard Empire troops-I thought these guys were supposed to be trained soldiers rather than just peasant folk rounded up. My understanding was that that is what the bowmen were.

Thats all I can think of at the moment.


MausCalibur

Warhammerrox
27-11-2007, 00:14
@ WarhammerRox

1) The Blessing of the Lady: One of the rules I actually like. It’s a brilliant idea, fluffy, it works and it is unique to Bretonnians. People say ‘oh +5 ward save for everyone is overpowered’ Well yea I agree that would be overpowered but that’s not what it is. Firstly Bretonnians have to give away the chance of a first turn to the enemy, this gives them the choice, and thus tactical leverage. Secondly no peasants gain from this ward save, just the knights who number few anyway. Thirdly it is +6 against ST4 or less (which is most things). The fact it increases against strength 5 or more aswell is brilliant; it really sums up the grit of a faithful knight. One of the major calls for this is that the blessing was just for protection against shooting and should still be like that is stupid. It would mean that the Bretonnians wouldn’t bother praying when they faced a non-shooty army. The idea is that Bretonnians should always want to pray. This was summed up for me when I was playing wood elves once and my Errant Knight Cavalier (the only one left from his regiment) took a backhander of a Treeman and passed both his +5 ward saves only to slay the monster next round. It was truly epic and summed up Bretonnians better than anything. People complain that the rule isn’t fluffy but I don’t think you could get more fluffy than that.

>> The blessing should only be for defense against shooting, in my day enemy shooting units had to pass a 4+ dice roll if they wanted to target knights, so in my day the knights had a 4+ ward.

>> I am in no way against the blessing, it was there in my day afterall, it should be a 5+ ward from all shooting attacks, ONLY...


3) Peasants should be better (for the same pts, at the moment they are expensive for what you get) Or cheaper and more numerous (like skaven regiments)

>> Peasants are actualy fine as they are, the dirty unwashed pathetic disentry infected common fodder of Bretonnia should be as pathetic as they are, they primarily train in the use of the bow, even the 'trained' men at arms are little more than the glorifed muck sweepers, the archers have the spikes for defense and the braziers for fire, that is more than in my day, as long as they have the standard human BS 3 they are fine...


4) Pegasus Knights shouldn’t be 0-1 (nothing should be) and should only be rare if Trebuchets were brought to special.

>> I don't have much of a problem with Pagasus knights, a flying heavy cav unit is OK in small numbers, they are a bit too tough for what they are, the 2 wounds, T4 and armour save and skirmisher LOS make for a unit that punches way above it's weight class IMO...


5) The Lance formation is FINE. Its again unique, its again better than the old 5th edition version (in which you could actually never get flanked and got all your attacks even when charged?! So I don’t know what some people are complaining about). So it can break an average unit of infantry on the charge? So what? If it couldn’t then every game would end with the Bretonnians charging the light infantry (and any infantry without heavy armour is considered light to me) and stopping in their tracks and the other team winning. You want to know the secret to stopping a Bret charge? Get a stubborn unit! Better yet get an unbreakable one! Or just shoot them, once they have lost 3 men they no longer get any ranks.

>> Unfortunately, shooting them is not always a viable option, which it shouldn't be, in a world where the average weapon is a bow and arrow. Yes, some armies have impressive firepower potential, but my army is not one of them. Neither does it have Stubborn and Unbreakable units...

>> The key thing is indeed to kill 3 knights from each average 9 man unit, that way you reduce the knight unit to the power of other standard knights units, 6 attacks from 5 men, like any other knight units front rank, the issue is they have a standard still, and still have this extra rank for 6 knights, Empire knights would need 10 men, standard, and the war banner on every unit to equal the Brets...

>> Unfortunately, the Bret army is geared around fielding multiple units of knights, so it is indeed extremely difficult to remove 3 knights from each unit in the 2 turns you have to do it in... Remember, the Blessing should be geared to protect against shooting, so you should not be able to swat knights down like flies via shooting. And for the 1st turn of shooting you have, if the Bret player is wise he will be just inside your long range zone, further making your shooting against them more innafective. You only have 2 turns to make your damage, in the 2nd phase of turn 2 it's an army wide charge, and it's curtains for most of your units...

>> When they reach close combat is supposed to be when they are vulnerable, but then again, the inferior combat abilities of other races should not be able to stand up to the flower of Bretonnian chivalry, they should not need the ward save.

>> The lance formation is fine, the problem is the writer of the latest book got a tad carried away, and nobody reigned in his fantasy trip...


6) Oh and more special characters. But keep the Green Knight, he ROX!!!!

>> Repanse de Lyonesse (Joan of Arc), Tristan the Troubador, Bertrand the Brigand, The Black Knight, soooo many old characters to choose from...

Sir Charles
27-11-2007, 00:17
The Black Knight? I don't remember a Black Knight in the 5ed book. Details?:)

Warhammerrox
27-11-2007, 00:20
Sorry, old mans memory going funny.

I meant the Knight of the Perilous Lance... :D :eyebrows:

stashman
27-11-2007, 00:21
Less :cheese:

R Man
27-11-2007, 00:25
The blessing isn't an issue with me in open play, but once in combat the blessing should disappear, ala 6th edition.

Don't you mean 'Ala 5th edition'?


Blessing only against shooting. As is my understanding, that is the entire point of it-protecting the knights against 'cowardly' missile weapons. For them to get it in combat too seems a bit excessive.

No, the Blessing is supposed to protec Knights from anything. Loosing it in combat basically say 'auto defeat' against some armies.


Lance Formation rank bonus is capped at +1. Since they can get ranks more easily than anyone else (3-wide as opposed to 5), there should be a reasonable limit: they're more than likely going to have standards and a load of kills already anyway.

Then what's the point of having a lance large than 6 men?

Our adverage knight is usually outnumbered 3 to one. On some occasons we're out numbered 4 to one. Against dwarves for example A unit of KOTR will struggle to break a unit of Dwarf warriors at equal points. In subsequent turns they will be overwhelmed. Obvioulsy not every army is dwarves though. The normal blessing does essentially nothing. A +6 ward isn't much. If we didn't have it than great weapons would be far to powerful against us and we have nothing else that can counter them reliably.

We also desperately need the rank bonus for the lance otherwise we would be overwhelmed by hordes of Infantry. After the charge the number of lance attacks dwindle to 7 St 3 attacks (Including the horses). Most other cavalry can expect another 4. Without the rank bonus we might as well take the models of the field anytime the enemy holds because in that situation defeat become inevitable unless there is some drastic fluke of luck that changes it.

Count Sinister
27-11-2007, 01:44
I don't know that I'd say the lance formation gives it the benefit of both cavalry and infantry units. In order to have +3 to combat resolution from ranks, you need to have 12 models in the unit, and that is a horrible beast to move about the board and protect its flanks. Also, lose just one model, and you're down to +2 combat res from ranks. In order to give a unit a buffer rank, to soak up a few wounds and still have +3 from ranks, you need 15 models - that's not a unit of knights, it's a damned conga line.
Also, it seems from some of the posts that the new lance formation has been toned down an awful lot from the last army book. There's also an assumption that if you play Brets you just move your knights straight across the board and charge as soon as you can. You don't. If you do that, you have maybe 3 or 4 knights making it into combat, if they don't panic and run before that. Lance formation knights get HAMMERED by missile and magic, and can be stopped in their tracks by skirmishing units charging from the flank while the big blocks of infantry get ready to charge them in the next turn.

Highborn
27-11-2007, 05:37
skirmishing units charging from the flank while the big blocks of infantry get ready to charge them in the next turn. *cough*

Those skirmishing infantry need to overcome the static combat res of a knight unit first. I hit a 9 strong lance in the side over the weekend with 7 wardancers. 3 kills. Perfectly average mathematically for wardancers. He had 2 ranks, standard, outnumber - enough to beat me. Show me a skirmishing unit that can hit as hard as Wardancers, and I'll believe that a skirmishing unit can pin a Knight unit in place for two rounds of combat before your infantry get in.

Hrogoff the Destructor
27-11-2007, 06:06
Yeah, no kniggets on foot without some good background reason.

Perhaps something like a rare choice: 'Penitent Knights' with great weapons and unbreakable (Flagellants with too much money.)

How about Knights so disgraced by breaking vows of chivalry that they only way they can redeem themselves is through fighting to the death?

I think Pegasus Knights should be 0-1, no exceptions. Mounted yeomen as core. I think the grail relic should be bardic for the entire army or within a certain range.

Not sure what should be done about the lance formation or the blessing.

BenK
27-11-2007, 09:54
"
I think Pegasus Knights should be 0-1, no exceptions. Mounted yeomen as core. I think the grail relic should be bardic for the entire army or within a certain range."

Nah, 0-1 is such a clumsy device. Just make 'em rare choices and make 'em balanced.

Noldo
27-11-2007, 12:38
I think that we will see changes to Lance Formation and to the Blessing of the Lady in the next Bretonnia Army Book. I am also quite confident that both will stay in some form. Bretonnia is one of those army books that already have a very distinct feel and playstyle, so based on latest army book, I would assume that GW would more likely stay on that same path.

Various tournament data would suggest that Bretonnia are currently among the top-tier armies, so at least their most powerfull builds are probably going to face revamp.

No the issues...
1.) Pegasus Knights.
Just wonderfull unit and idea, but in practice they are probably a bit too good for their points/abilities in larger quantities. I am quite confident that 0-1 restrictions are going to be extinct in future army books, especially considering that you can't really think Pegasus Knights as unit uprgade to any traditional unit (the only choices that seem to have number restrictions in recent army books). I would assume that new Pegasus Knights are positioned in Rare slot, making them compete with Grail Knights and forcing Betonnia general to make hard decisions. If GW want to give nod to current RAF players, a rule similar to Flagellants allowing one units as core if general rides Royal Pegasus could be included.

2.) Blessing of the Lady.
Most are arguing that giving up the change of getting first turn is a price for the blessing. But under current rules, can you think of situation, where Bretonnia genereal with multiple units of knights would choose to roll for the first turn instead of praying? I can't.

I would propose following obvious solution: Bretonnia forces always pray before combat and therefore the opposing players gets to act first. [Remove the option of not praying] Blessing of the Lady provides 5+ ward against all ranged attacks.

Additionally, I would confer Grail Knights permanent ward save that also works in close combat, showing them truly as champions of the lady.

[b]3.) Lance Formation.
The problematic aspect of Lance Formation is that it provides double benefit: the unit gets to make more attacks (especially per frontage) and the unit gets static combat resolution. With requirement of 5 wide ranks in 7th edition, the gap between Bretonnia and other cavalry is seriously widened in static CR, while wider frontage open infantry units for combined charges of multiple lances, allowing lance formation to exceed attacks produced by other cavalry units against similar infantry unit considerably. (2 lances can fit against 5 wide infantry unit, allowing at minimum 10 attacks from knights, 12 if you include 2 champions, compared to 6 (7 with champion) produced by other cavalry units charging the same infantry). Lance formation also allows Bretonnia to spread out their expensive knights more (taking ranks in most other cavalries create quite expensive units) and still combaning most of their hitting strength against strong units if wanted (especially true with lances of 6).

I see the extra attacks as the bread and butter of the lance formation, truly the representation of the wedge it tries to be. Also in most cases the Bretonnia lance does not actually provide much more attacks than ordinary cavalry unit, they can just be combined more easily. I think it is the CR that need to be addressed.

How about giving Lance Formation rank bonus with every 2 ranks? That way you would get +1 with 9 models (1 less than ordinary, but 7 of them could attack) and +2 with 15 (same as ordinary, but 11 of them could attack)? It would practically cap the rank bonus as +2 but affect small lances (where the point distribution / effectiveness disparency compared to other cavalry is greatest) most. You could create SUPER LANCE, but it would be more like super cavalry unit in other armies.

Another intresting result would be, that since the back ranks might not generate CR any longer, it could be wise for Bretonnia player to extend frontage after initial contact (provided enemy has hold) in order to bring more knights to combat, unless he would like to have second unit joining combat or had originally charged with two units. Another new tactical decision to be made.

BenK
27-11-2007, 14:02
"How about giving Lance Formation rank bonus with every 2 ranks? That way you would get +1 with 9 models (1 less than ordinary, but 7 of them could attack) and +2 with 15 (same as ordinary, but 11 of them could attack)? It would practically cap the rank bonus as +2 but affect small lances (where the point distribution / effectiveness disparency compared to other cavalry is greatest) most. You could create SUPER LANCE, but it would be more like super cavalry unit in other armies."

Wouldn't this encourage more multiple simultaneous charge MSU lances? I prefer the 'lance only gives rank bonus on the turn the unit charges' rule.

Count Sinister
27-11-2007, 16:10
Well, Highborn, I had been talking about reducing a lance by a few models with magic and missile first. I can't imagine charging skirmishers into a full unit of nine models, even into the flank. But take it down by one model, even, and that's one less for CR. Take it down to five (that's only four models that need to be killed), and you're talking about losing 2 from CR due to lost ranks, and possibly losing outnumbering as well. It seems like much better odds to me now. Also, wood elves have the firepower it takes to do this.

Alternatively, getting a unit of fast cavalry to charge into the flank will do the trick. They only have to hold them there for one turn, until your hard-hitting unit can get the charge off on the lance.

As for the posts about reducing/dropping altogether the rank bonus for lance formation, think about what that would do. Ten skirmishers charge a unit of nine knights in the flank. Skirmishers get +1 for flank charge. Knights get...+1 for outnumbering, and +1 for a banner, say. Discounting wounds, they win with static cr only by 1 point. It doesn't seem right, does it, for a unit of knights?

silashand
27-11-2007, 16:16
Maybe so, though I dont see it being any more agrivating than ASF.

I disagree. ASF may be agravating, but I think losing your rank bonus to a charging unit of knights would be just too much for a lot of players to accept. The Brets already have no problem achieving lots of casualties on the charge, ignoring rank bonus (even if you disallowed it from them as well) would be broken period.

As I noted before, I think the lance formation is fine as is. I think the real problem most people have is the blessing which I have to agree should apply only to shooting. Personally, I would make the rule a simple 5+ ward save vs shooting and the Bretonnian player's opponent always gets first turn. For Grail Knights I'd allow the blessing in HtH as well since they are supposedly living saints after all.

Finally, making peasants fulfill a mainstay role in the same manner as clanrats would seem to fix them as well. Personally, I cannot see how any background would support knights going to battle without their own personal armies which would include their M@A. If it were me, for every unit of KotR and/or KE in the list they should be required to bring a unit of associated M@A as well. JMO though. They may be horrible, but realistically they are cheap and would just require more tactics to use appropriately. Heck, bring along more peasants and I can foresee even the blessing as it is now might not be all that bad as there would be more infantry on the table who didn't benefit from it, thus enhancing the idea that the knights truly are the "noble" warriors of legend. Again, JMO...

Changing the blessing would IMO fix most of the complaints about the army. Face it, they *are* supposed to be some of, if not the premier cavalry in the game and as such they should be good at what they do. I think the lance formation simulates that pretty well. All the other little issues are easy enough to fix I think, though given GW's propensity of late, I suspect we will see a broader overhaul than any of us can currently imagine simply because I'm certain they will want to do so to sell more miniatures.

Cheers, Gary

DDogwood
27-11-2007, 16:17
5) The Lance formation is FINE. Its again unique

I don't think it should be unique. I still don't see why no other cavalry in the world have ever realized that this is an effective formation. I guess that the elite Dragon Knights, who have been training for hundreds of years, are just too stupid to use the formation. :wtf:

Malorian
27-11-2007, 16:29
DDogwood, the came case would be made why don't all archers use longbows, or why can't all skirmishers rank up in combat like beastmen. It's what makes the armies different and interesting to play.

For brets it also stresses the NEED to charge. When your front rank is only 3 models, and your flank is longer than a chariot, you need to make sure you get the charged and are not charged your self or you're screwed.

DDogwood
27-11-2007, 16:46
DDogwood, the came case would be made why don't all archers use longbows, or why can't all skirmishers rank up in combat like beastmen. It's what makes the armies different and interesting to play.

It's not the same, though - there are clear story reasons for most of the other differences between armies. For example, IIRC, High Elves, Wood Elves, and Bretonnians use longbows. Tomb Kings don't because their troops died thousands of years before longbows were developed. Orcs don't because they aren't sophisticated enough to make longbows. Dwarfs don't because they are too short to use longbows. The Empire doesn't use them because they choose to arm their troops with crossbows and handguns, which require less training to use. Historically, not all medieval European armies used longbows, often for similar reasons.

The ability of Beastmen to rank up in combat isn't a feature of the formation, it's a physical ability that the Beastmen have because of their culture, size and strength. You could possibly argue that Savage Orcs should have the same ability, but it's not a case of an ability that could clearly be used by similar units in multiple armies.

The same arguments go for things like poisoned weapons, heavy armor, gunpowder, and most unit special abilities like Frenzy, Fear, and so on. The Lance Formation isn't magical, and it's not based on technological, cultural, or physical attributes that aren't available to other armies in the game.


For brets it also stresses the NEED to charge. When your front rank is only 3 models, and your flank is longer than a chariot, you need to make sure you get the charged and are not charged your self or you're screwed.

:rolleyes: So the Bretonnians get the Lance formation to make their charges more effective, and they HAVE to charge because they get the Lance formation? That sounds awfully circular to me.

Malorian
27-11-2007, 17:13
DDogwood: There is still no reason why any other unit can't figure out that it's better to spread out while your moving up to avoid arrows and then form up in battle, it's just the way teams are different. Any amy over time could steal technology from others, but we don't want all the armies to be the same.

As for the lance, it is circular. There is nothing stopping a bret player from forming up 5 wide and playing like any other team, but no ones does it becuase:

-your force is all knights and thus you are outnumbered, to counter that you need to concentrate your attack and being 3 wide is better for that (easier to multi charge)
-this is stressed because you also get a stronger charge
-bret knights are weaker than other knights when compared man to man. They are only str 3 with 1 attack. The horses are as good as knights after the charge. They get extra attack power by using the lance

So to each bret player, he will look at this and use the lance formation rather than 5 wide. But because he did this (stressing his strengths) he is also making them weaker in the charge (stressing his weakness's).

For the most part the plus's out weigh the minus's, until you are against a skilled opponent.

One game I had was against a vampire count player using the blood dragon rules that allowed him to use the lance when I was using lizardmen. Lets just say it was a slaughter.

-a unit charged, killed skinks and overran into saurus. On my turn I countercharged with kroxigor on his flank. Because his flank was so wide I got all of my attacks with my krox which as you can guess spelled doom for them.

-meanwhile I had fled from another unit of knights and counter charged them with a stegadon in the front. The damage I did easily killed off the front 3 models and he had nothing to attack back with.

-before this I had also hit with the bolt thrower on my steg and hitting 3 ranks was a lot better than 1

From this example I'm not trying to say that the lance formation isn't good, I'm trying to say there are weakness's that go along with the strengths so it's not like brets having lance formation just makes them better.

Lance formation streamlines the team as one that must charge, and make them different from any other all cav army out there.

Count Sinister
27-11-2007, 17:41
I agree with Malorian on this. Take away the lance formation, and all you have is Empire without the blackpowder, priests, and frilly sleeves. More or less.

I also noted, with interest, how Malorian describes softening up a lance formation with a bolt thrower shot before taking it on in a charge. Who would want to charge a fully formed up unit of knights anyway, whether they were Bretonnian, Empire, Chaos, or what have you. Except of course a Bretonnian lance formation, which is built to charge at just about anything.

theunwantedbeing
27-11-2007, 18:17
An extension of malorians idea of unit sizes to encourage larger (and thus fewer) lances perhaps allowing lances of a specific size to be allowed a magical standard.
Obviously the better the knight unit gets the less number are needed to qualify for a magical standard.

eg.
15 for impestuous knights
12 for knights of the realm
9 for questing knights
6 for grail knights

Or drop each value by 3 if that is too much.
Add that to getting free command at set numbers (say 6,9 and 12) there's a notable advantage to having a bigger lance.

Perhaps even increase the usefulness of the blessing for larger units.
eg.
a unit of 3 gets no blessing
units of 6 or less only get the blessing vs missles
units of 9 or more get the blessing vs everything
Drop by 3 as the knights gain in rank,
eg.
only 6 to get max blessing for questing knights
only 3 to get max blessing for grail knights

All encourages more points spent on the cheaper knights so less of those small annoying lances that dont look at all like a lance.

Malorian
27-11-2007, 18:29
That's an interesting idea too. The one for the KE might be a bit too big though, but then again maybe it would stop the one KE unit with the errantry banner banner being an auto take.

Sir Charles
27-11-2007, 19:07
An extension of malorians idea of unit sizes to encourage larger (and thus fewer) lances perhaps allowing lances of a specific size to be allowed a magical standard.
Obviously the better the knight unit gets the less number are needed to qualify for a magical standard.

eg.
15 for impestuous knights
12 for knights of the realm
9 for questing knights
6 for grail knights

Or drop each value by 3 if that is too much.
Add that to getting free command at set numbers (say 6,9 and 12) there's a notable advantage to having a bigger lance.

Perhaps even increase the usefulness of the blessing for larger units.
eg.
a unit of 3 gets no blessing
units of 6 or less only get the blessing vs missles
units of 9 or more get the blessing vs everything
Drop by 3 as the knights gain in rank,
eg.
only 6 to get max blessing for questing knights
only 3 to get max blessing for grail knights

All encourages more points spent on the cheaper knights so less of those small annoying lances that dont look at all like a lance.
I like this combine it with the same rule for the free Champion that was suggested ealier as well as the suggestion that ranks be based on number of knights instead of physical ranks it would seem to work well. Would definetly put an emphasis on getting rid of MSU which would me the units would cost more meaning fewer knight units for an all knight army.

The blessing bit would make sense from a background perspective to, the more knights there are the more belief in the Lady's protection thus the stronger the protection, further the belief of more pious units like QK and GK would be more intense demanding fewer individuals for the same effect.

Man,the more I think about this the more I like it. Just tie every thing into the number of knights, seems nice and simple.

Noldo
27-11-2007, 20:04
Tieing abilities with the number of knights seem like very elegant and nice solution. It forces nothing, but encourages certain way of building armies.

However, few observations.

First, should the free champion/standard bearer be only way of getting these command models or should Bretonnia player be allowed to purchase them normally for smaller units?

The connection between blessing and units size might create "death spiral", situation where once units starts to lose, it get progressively worse and gets easier to be beaten.

I think that mainstay rule is quite unlikely. Using such mandatory way in fixing the list would seem counterproductive. However, if such rule would be initiated, it would also improve Questing Knights, since they probably should not require the associated unit of M@A.

DDogwood
27-11-2007, 21:38
DDogwood: There is still no reason why any other unit can't figure out that it's better to spread out while your moving up to avoid arrows and then form up in battle, it's just the way teams are different. Any amy over time could steal technology from others, but we don't want all the armies to be the same.

I want to clarify that I'm not talking about game balance here, just about my suspension of disbelief. A lot of the justification for the Lance formation is to make the Bretonnian army "special". I simply don't like rules and special abilities that don't make sense in the context of the Warhammer setting. If it helps, I feel much the same way about Empire Detachments - there's no reason certain other armies couldn't do exactly the same thing. Allowing more units the ability to skirmish makes sense, too, as long as they're not units like pikemen or spearmen who can't easily reform into a fighting block. Choosing between vulnerability to missile fire and vulnerability to close combat would add to the depth of the game, rather than taking anything away from it.

Maybe I'm nit-picking here, but in my mind there's a huge difference between special abilities that reflect the reality of the setting, and special rules that exist for the sole purpose of making a unit "special". It's starting to become a problem in Warmachine/Hordes, too, and it annoys me just as much there.


From this example I'm not trying to say that the lance formation isn't good, I'm trying to say there are weakness's that go along with the strengths so it's not like brets having lance formation just makes them better.

Right, but that's not my point.

Malorian
27-11-2007, 22:47
DDogwood: Ahh I see. So basically I'm coming at from in-game terms, and you're looking at if from fluff terms. My bad : )

DDogwood
27-11-2007, 23:37
DDogwood: Ahh I see. So basically I'm coming at from in-game terms, and you're looking at if from fluff terms. My bad : )

Yeah, sorry I didn't make the distinction more clear in my original post. The old Lance formation was dumb from a rules perspective, because it gave Bretonnian cavalry a huge advantage (+1 rank bonus with 3 models, +2 with 6 models, and +3 with 10+ models, allowing 7 Knights to fight with 100mm of frontage, and making flank charges against them impossible), but it was also dumb (IMHO) from a 'fluff' perspective because it wasn't available to any other cavalry.

The Bretonnian archers also used to fight in a similar formation, with similar bonuses, as well as the ability to fire over the heads of other models in their units (apparently every other army is too stupid to figure this out...?). This was also dumb.

I guess WFB is still in an uncomfortable place somewhere between "fantasy miniatures battles" and "fantasy game". The tourney scene and some of the rules that have come out in the last 10 years or so have been geared towards the "game" side of things, but WFB was originally more of a 'historical' flavor wargame with a fantasy setting - and in most historical minis games, simulating the setting is more important than making "interesting" rules to distinguish armies from one another.

I guess I roll my eyes a bit when people complain about "cheesy" and "overpowered/underpowered" armies, because I feel that it's missing the whole point of the game. I suppose I need to recognize that my opinion doesn't necessarily represent the majority.

R Man
28-11-2007, 00:33
The reason the lance is not seen in other armies is beacuse they rely less on their cavalry than we do. Empire can rely on shooting to weaken enemies and elves can pin units with spearmen blocks. They don't need to use the lance formation because they don't rely on causing the damage that Bretonnians need. Bretonnians on the other hand lack any decent support so often the knights have to go it alone.

Now I have said it before and I will say it again. The lance is not overpowered. Infantry is underpowered. When ranks were 4 wide a double charge was difficult. And ranks were stacked better in favour of Infantry. Then 7th edition came. The knights remained the same but infantry lost some of its ranks. But when GW does each army they look at this and then they make Infantry cheaper to compensate. When they get around to Bretonnians they will realise that our infantry is too weak and they will strengthen them and they will become a more attractive option.

All knight armies are overpowered, but so are Empire and Dwarf Gunlines. Anything is overtly powerful when taken in large numbers. If you want less knights give us other options. Too many armies render many peasant units useless so we have no competative option but to take more knights.

And the blessing is fine as it is. It can at most save only 1/3rd of all casualties, more usually only 1/6th. It just annoys people because it's the last barrier between the life and death of a knight. There have been entire games where I have not made a single blessing save.

In my last battle I had 2 units of knights charge across a field. They came under fire for only 2 turns. Out of 18 men only 6 survived.

Petey
28-11-2007, 03:06
a couple of points

The lance isn't used by every army because few armies historically could train horsemen well enough (or daring enough) to pull it off. It took horsemasters like Alexander and Phillip of Makedon or the crusader knights of the first crusade to pull it off. If you look to your favorite historical websites you ll see the example of this when the said knights lifted the seige of Konstantinople during the first crusade. That other warhammer armies can't do it is understandable (Empirials aren't the same caliber of horsemen, and the Elves aren't reckless enough to try it)
If anything, the Lance should be a formation that has a huge risk/reward in its attempt. It was a very all or nothing formation. Currently with the rules you charge with the lance and are extremely likely to break any target unit, then chase them down. Failing this (say they roll well) you can (since you won combat) expand frontage to dish out more damage next turn. There is currently no risk in failing, and that s not how the formation worked.
But since the maxim of GW is Keep It Simple Stupid, i don't hold out for more realistic rules, i just want balanced ones, hence the dropping of rank bonus from the formation, they re too damn strong with it.

As to the blessing, why do so many people hate it? It's fluffy and good and comes with 2 easy to remember ways to lose it. It forces Bret players into places you can exploit and denies them tactics they would really love to use. The power is great except for 2 things, they should buy it per unit (for like 25 points) and that it shouldn't require them to give up the first turn. The point cost then makes it more efficient to buy large units even though you don't get a rank bonus in my vision of the list, and the brets start to care about the size/number of units in his army for terms of going first/second (making the hated MSU a less viable tactic for a heavy cav army)

As to the questing knights mention of originally envisioned on foot. Honestly that makes the most sense, sure some questing knights wont lose their horse in search of the grail, but for the Lady's sake none of them can replace the lost horse as pennyless mendicants. I think there should be an option for foot questing knights and riding steeds (which the local lord will have provided).

As to peasants, i feel everyone should take a unit of them, for nothing else than to take a table quarter here and there, and they can safely house your damsel while she blasts things. Plus you don't care if they get killed, which happens rarely when i field them (knights are more a tempting target)

Qldkiwi
28-11-2007, 07:18
I expect plenty of cheese.

There seems to be armies favoured by GW, Bret's, Dwarves, Chaos, Empire, and VC. These armies seem to get the coolest and strongest things all the time. I can see these armies remaining at the top of the pecking order once all the revisions are done.

Fredrik
28-11-2007, 10:06
I get the feeling that alot of the people that find the lance fine as it is and find the 5+ in CC fine do not understand how critical that 1 extra CC or survived knight is to winning the combat.

Getting a 5+ instead of a 6+ in CC instead halfs the chance to kill a knight. Even with the no armour save weapon, that most armies have one of and is not aways justified in a balanced list.

And as for the lacne getting that extra static combat res resembles almost 11 st 4 ws 4 attacks against a 2+ knight with a 6+ wardsave. (4+ hit, 3+ to wound, 3+ save and
6+ ) With st 5 this number is about 7 attacks making the gain for knight for static CC so much better then for most infantry.

Put into that context one can see how devestating the cheaper +1 CR is to the charged unit.

As for the brettonians loosing the first turn would have been an issue and a big disadvantage if they charged 14" but as it is now they can either counter charge directly or still position themself to get the charge. Yes i know some armies still have longer charges but not enouhg and not hard enough to rattle the knights. Thus effectivly taking away alot of the disadvantage of going second.

Now i can hear pople crying but what about shooting they get to shoot. Sure they do but in most cases (not always and some shooting can be too devasting to deploy away from, but all other armes suffer in those cases too) it can be limited trough good deployment. And also dont forget the bretts get a 5+ ward against the most hurful shooting and that most other armies also go second, about half of the time without getting the 5+ wardsave.

And i would also like to adress the point of not armies have access to great shooting. It has been mentioned before in this tread, but it cant be stressed enough to face an army of some of the hardest hitting cav in the game that charge longer then your counterpart (ei your knights mostly). This with you having trouble touching them before CC. And then to add to this extra survivebility in CC due to good basic save and a 5+ wardsave.

Enough bitching about the bretts they are cool and i hope they make them fun and more balanced next time around. :)

TheOverlord
28-11-2007, 10:42
More variety, for sure! I would love to see some better troops on foot, maybe some proper halberdiers and some crossbowmen (longbows being cool and all, but a second option wouldn't hurt.) Some unmounted knights with double handed hammers, mangonels and some ballistaes, or better yet, unmounted grail knights! WITH 2 handed weapons! Or 2 weapons! Or whatever, I just want some proper infantry. I love knights and all, but it would really be nice to get some more choices.

Everything else about Bretonnia is cool and fine as it is (maybe increase price for the pegasi). Some more magical equipment might be nice too :D Possibly some higher leadership, but they're french, what can you do :D

No offence to the French people though :D

DDogwood
28-11-2007, 15:15
The lance isn't used by every army because few armies historically could train horsemen well enough (or daring enough) to pull it off. It took horsemasters like Alexander and Phillip of Makedon or the crusader knights of the first crusade to pull it off.

What sources are you using for this information? Cavalry wedges didn't require any special training beyond what a mounted soldier would normally require.

The cavalry wedge that Alexander used had nothing to do with the heavy cavalry wedge we're talking about; Alexander's cavalry were used for skirmishing, flanking, and pursuit, and they rode in a wedge because everyone in the formation could see the standard bearer, who was at the point of the wedge, so it was easy for the formation to wheel and maneuver quickly. In Warhammer, this is already represented by the Fast Cavalry rules.

European heavy cavalry in the late middle ages was deployed in a wedge formation as a matter of course. Medieval heavy cavalry worked more effectively than ancient heavy cavalry, because technologies like the stirrup (and, some historians say, developments in the saddle) allowed cavalrymen to attack from horseback with much greater force. The greatest difficulty with heavy cavalry was in breeding and training warhorses who would charge a block of men armed with shields, swords, spears, and the like. The main function of the cavalry wedge was that it's easier to get a whole bunch of horses to follow one horse charging than it is to get a whole bunch of horses to charge at the same time.

So no, I don't think that your argument about a cavalry wedge requiring special training and extreme daring is valid.


But since the maxim of GW is Keep It Simple Stupid, i don't hold out for more realistic rules, i just want balanced ones, hence the dropping of rank bonus from the formation, they re too damn strong with it.

You have a good point, that the rules are designed to balance 'realism' with simplicity, and by necessity the formations and abilities are abstractions. According to the Bretonnian Army Book designer's notes, the main purpose of the old Lance formation was that it "looked pretty" and the main reason for the change was to abstract the idea into a formation that was easier to handle on the battlefield and wasn't so powerful defensively.

I have no problem with the 'power' of the Lance formation. The current version is far better balanced than the old one, and it is much easier to use and to play against. My only concern is that it is dumb to give one army exclusive use of a formation which should, logically, be available to many armies. A well-designed set of army lists could make the Lance formation more viable for Bretonnian armies than for anyone else, but as it stands the existence of the formation doesn't accomplish anything.

It would be really good if any formation was available to any unit, and certain formations were more effective for certain unit types. That would be more believable, and a better representation of the historical reality that inspires Warhammer.


As to the blessing, why do so many people hate it? It's fluffy and good and comes with 2 easy to remember ways to lose it.

The 5th Ed. Bretonnian army had a "blessing", too - I don't recall the details of it, but it basically allowed the Bretonnian player to sacrifice the first turn in exchange for making it hard for missile troops to target the Knights. The rule only existed to make it possible for the Bretonnian heavy cavalry to survive the withering hail of missile and war machine fire that several armies could dish out. I've never had a major issue with the Blessing, probably because it allowed a 14th-century European army to compete with a 17th-century European army. Simply saying "it's magic!" works better to justify things in a fantasy world than trying to come up with some bunk about "special training".

zak
28-11-2007, 15:37
The Lance formation defines a characteristic about the Brettonian army rather than the level of training received. GW wanted to make the Brettonian army a mostly mounted army and needed a rule than defined the army and made it distinct. I think the rule does this. Trying to justify game rules with relaity/history will just make your head hurt. The 1st attempt at the lance formation in 5th edition was alittle unwieldy and made moving them a nightmare. The 6th edition was far better. I still think they need to retain ranks, but the loss of the ward save in combat for KotR and KE would also make QK's a better option and additionally give the QK's +2 st for GW and they should be a very viable option.

Chris2358
28-11-2007, 18:28
I don't think it should be unique. I still don't see why no other cavalry in the world have ever realized that this is an effective formation. I guess that the elite Dragon Knights, who have been training for hundreds of years, are just too stupid to use the formation. :wtf:

Follow your own logic there and every army will get every other army's benefits, OR none at all and we are then playing a historical (and probably very boring) wargame. Why are my peasants not allowed to use the detachment rule?! its an effective formation?

Every army has unique advantages that’s part of the game.

DDogwood
28-11-2007, 22:01
Follow your own logic there and every army will get every other army's benefits, OR none at all and we are then playing a historical (and probably very boring) wargame. Why are my peasants not allowed to use the detachment rule?! its an effective formation?

Every army has unique advantages that’s part of the game.

Almost every army has ranked infantry, skirmishers, cavalry, magic, and ranged attacks. I guess that makes the game boring, too.

I'm just saying that there's a difference between distinctive advantages that make sense (poisoned weapons, gunpowder, undead units) and distinctive advantages that don't make sense (Lance formation, detachments, 'full plate' armor).

Petey
28-11-2007, 22:09
@ DDogwood
My understanding of the use of the lance comes from my readings of Alexanders conquests in persia, where he used the wedge to break the immortals at Gagamela as the most Noted example. He indeed used fast cav in many battles, but enemy cavalry never used the wedge against Greek commanders(though it was used against them often enough), in fact they hired Greek mercenaries to do a lot of the harder fighting throughout their history (holding the Greeks as superior soldiers and cavalry, {rightfully so}).
Indeed as the lance wasn't used by the Kataphract of the Byzantines either, though they were a great heavy cavalry unit (yes i am aware that there were offensive and defensive heavy cav units in the Byzantine armies). They prefered to field large block units of heavy cavalry (arming them with pike, bow, and heavy scale armor), as anvils and hammers without using wedge charges.
The Persians, Arabs and Egyptian of the first Crusade were all beaten by the Frankish Cavalry charge and it's tactic of using said wedge, yet they never adopted it or used it in return while they did adopt other Frankish traditions, weapons, and tactic. The Byzantine Emperess commented on the Frankish knights charge at the gates of the great city and how it split the enemy army like an axe. You can find all this in various books on the crusades, i will try to dig them out of storage for you.
My Supposition therefor, since they worked in this way and the tactic wasn't adopted, is the same as my thoughts on why the viking bearsarks weren't emulated in other places. While the tactic of 'send my crazy lunatic at your formation to break you shields and spears while disrupting your line' is awesome and lead to victory, other cultures could not or would not produce said lunatics.
Having studied the Frankish knights of the first crusades, i can say that they were akin to these lunatics. They were professional fighting men with little education who, when they weren't training to fight, fought for fun. In addition to having advantages of tech going their way, one needs a certain mentality to be the first one in, and split an enemy formation. The Greeks under Alex could do it because they had little regard for the Persians, the Franks could do it because they were cocksure and out to prove that they were the best (the knights errant are actually perfect rules to represent this) and guess what the army IS based on the first crusader knights, GW said that when they were released. The crusader knights were hard men, and simply put, the most elite force of horsemen on the planet at the time.
As to later Medieval armies i ll admit ignorance, i haven't done as deep research in those, and though i m even less schooled in Renaissance Cavalry (except the battle of Nancy which i know a good bit about) I was under the impression that large thin lines of heavy cav were the order of the day (when not intermingled with Infantry). Making them inappropriate for use in an empire army. I m sure you ll correct me if i m wrong on that account.


on a final note though, the armybooks emulate armies that existed. Some armies didn't use detatchment or lance wedges, or slaves fodder, or guerrila warfare. The point of the book is to play an army in a style.

R Man
28-11-2007, 22:37
Almost every army has ranked infantry, skirmishers, cavalry, magic, and ranged attacks. I guess that makes the game boring, too.

I'm just saying that there's a difference between distinctive advantages that make sense (poisoned weapons, gunpowder, undead units) and distinctive advantages that don't make sense (Lance formation, detachments, 'full plate' armor).

Then why can't my infantry fight in 3 ranks? There are many reasons why different nations do not adpot techniques. It might be because no one really knows about it. Infomation was difficult to spread in those days. It might be because of the impression it gives off. I can believe that the Empire view the lance formation as domino's and thus fop it of because of their heavy investemnt in artillery. Elves are isolationist and may not want to use anything that a human does. Chaos is unlikely to bother learning as there are not usually enough chaos knights in the same place at once to make it worth while. There are many combat techinques that were unique in history. There's the Roman Testudo and the Greek Phalanx for example.


The cavalry wedge that Alexander used had nothing to do with the heavy cavalry wedge we're talking about; Alexander's cavalry were used for skirmishing, flanking, and pursuit, and they rode in a wedge because everyone in the formation could see the standard bearer, who was at the point of the wedge, so it was easy for the formation to wheel and maneuver quickly. In Warhammer, this is already represented by the Fast Cavalry rules.

Actually Alexander did use his cavalry to smash enemy formation in combination to pinning with his Phalangitites. Alexander was famour for leading cavalry charges from the front and was almost killed at the Granicous because of this. He also lead a charge of the Companion cavalry when his father was king, into the front of the Thebian Sacred Band and won.

And now back to Bretonnia. Once again I will repeat myself. The Lance Formation is not overpowered, it was balanced for the wrong edition. When the new army books are made the Infantry are cheaper thus partly re-correcting the imbalance. And when they get around to the Bret army book they will see that Peasants aren't good enough and they will improve them and also give more infantry options thus affecting the player disposition to go for cavalry.

And let's face it, the blessing is annoying. It is. But it's hardly gamebreaking. The reaction to it seems just like the reaction to SOA. Its also the same as the dwarves resolute rule, or the fact that wood ef archers can move and shoot without penalty. Annoying but hardly gamebreaking unless your opponent is very lucky.

And lets face it cavalry armies are overpowered. But so are armies composed entirely out of gunpowder units. Or armies with maxed out magic and hordes of infantry. This is perhaps the reason why people really hate the lance and the blessing. However presuming competative play peasants just aren't competative. The Reliquary is good but it requires a heafty points investment and there can only be one. M@A get pounded by almost any enemy unit. Orcs are tougher and braver. They can compete with skeletons but if they loose they are gone. Any cavalry or shock troops will overrun them or failing that they will be shot to pieces. Bowmen, maybe, if fighting elves or even men, but are usless against any horde army that can take the loss or shrug it off. We're effectively left with being the only reliable choice.

Make the infantry a more attractive option and the amount of all knight armies will decrease.

Malorian
28-11-2007, 22:47
All cav armies are not over-powered, it's just that people don't know how to deal with them. If you have a balanced army with throw away units then you'll be fine. If your a noob with onlybig blocks of elite you're going to get rocked.

Can we stop quoting history text books and get back to making suggestions for the new army book.

Curufew
29-11-2007, 01:07
Well I've been playing Medieval Total War 2 lately and been influenced by it. Here are some of my suggestions.

Some forms of dismounted knights. Elite Men At Arms not the peasants they have now.

For their game rules part, I feel that the blessing should work against shooting only. It's kind of morale breaking when my Empire spearman manage to wound 3 knights whom proceed to roll 3 1s but roll 3 6s.

For the lance formation, keep the 3 knights per row rule but make them only have rank bonus on the turn they charge.

R Man
29-11-2007, 07:10
For their game rules part, I feel that the blessing should work against shooting only. It's kind of morale breaking when my Empire spearman manage to wound 3 knights whom proceed to roll 3 1s but roll 3 6s.

Its also moral breaking when you loose 3 knights to a bunch of dirty milita. You never should have statistically killed any more than perhaps one knight. Apparently this was not good enough for you. This is the perfect example of why the blessing is needed. To stop too many knights dieing from freak rolles.

Fredrik
29-11-2007, 10:25
well statisticly a well desinged brett lance break most things in the game on a the charge because of all free perks adding up , 5+ save, more attacks, good combination of magic items and virtues and cheap static combat res because of the lance.

And it is hardly challanging for a brettplayer who goes all knights to get around a balanced lists expendeble units as there are way to many knight units to deal with, again thanks to the lance giving them cheap static combares and enough attacks. Thus giving the option for even more knight units.

P.S i don´t even know why people bother to discuss how it used to be back in history since the most important part is to get it more balanced then to make a copy of the armies that actually where better then others.

R Man
29-11-2007, 22:11
Well the standard Bretonnian lance is 8 or 9 men and maybe a hero. This means that the Unit will only have an auto +4 combat res. One of these comes from outnumbering which due to the expensie of the knights is not assured. That leaves 3+. However a single shooting casualty will reduce this to 2+ base combat res. Now most solid combat infantry units consist of about 20 men, more for hordes sometimes. This has outnumbering and 3 ranks plus a standard for a total of 5+.

Bretonnian lances have one of the fastest unit potency drop off in all of Wharhammer. The formation looks intimidating but it has no ablatative qualities. Often knights units are also worth far more than the infantry counterparts they overrun.

Dominatrix
29-11-2007, 22:30
The thing is though bretonnians are not the only knight using army out there. The lance formation offers two great benefits without taking into account the lance rank bonus:

Smaller frontage meaning you can potentially throw two lances against an enemy unit and totally trash it.

Extra attacks from the flanks meaning they get more attacks per unit on the charge compared to other armies' knights (who go five or six wide and still get fewer attacks).

My point is that even without the rank bonus the lance formation is pretty incredible. Plus if you are worried that you lose your rank bonus easily I should remind you that knight units generally get CR by killing stuff not by the classic 3 ranks + outnumber bonus which is usually an infantry thing. So I doubt that the bretonnian knights' killing power will be seriously diminished even if they lose their rank bonus altogether. Other armies knights work just fine without rank bonuses after all.

Note that I don't think it is something seriously overpowered but it is definitely overkill and excessive. Other than that it doesn't really bother me.

The thing that I would like changed however is the whole blessing thing. I agree with the suggestion of grail knights retaining it even in close combat but everyone else getting to use it only versus ranged attacks.

GrogsnotPowwabomba
29-11-2007, 22:35
I would really like to see a strict, hard limit on Pegasus Knights, making them a true 0-1 choice. The RAF is one of the most annoying armies to face and there really is no need for it to be an option...

Malorian
29-11-2007, 22:36
I disagree. Although it is frowned, it's a fact that people tailor their armies, and if a person knows they are going against brets they won't just break out the cannons and handgunners, they'll also break out the great weapons and magical weapons that ignore armor saves.

Since brets will be all knights, and will be in combat, they need to have protection in combat.

R Man
29-11-2007, 23:12
The thing is though bretonnians are not the only knight using army out there. The lance formation offers two great benefits without taking into account the lance rank bonus:

Smaller frontage meaning you can potentially throw two lances against an enemy unit and totally trash it.

Extra attacks from the flanks meaning they get more attacks per unit on the charge compared to other armies' knights (who go five or six wide and still get fewer attacks).

My point is that even without the rank bonus the lance formation is pretty incredible. Plus if you are worried that you lose your rank bonus easily I should remind you that knight units generally get CR by killing stuff not by the classic 3 ranks + outnumber bonus which is usually an infantry thing. So I doubt that the bretonnian knights' killing power will be seriously diminished even if they lose their rank bonus altogether. Other armies knights work just fine without rank bonuses after all.

Note that I don't think it is something seriously overpowered but it is definitely overkill and excessive. Other than that it doesn't really bother me.

Other armies do have knights but these armies have a good selection of quality infantry and shooting supporting them. Empire have cannons, mortars, hanguns that can weaken units before a charge. Also should a charge fail there are units such as greatswords are capable of fighting and winning combat by themselves so all is not lost. Elven Infantry is also quick enough to keep pace with their cavalry so they would rarley attack unsupported. The same applies for dark elves. Black Knights are the perhaps the strongest knights for their points in the game and can usually fight it out alone where most other cavalry begin to wane.

For Bretonnians our shooting isn't always top notch and unless you babysit them they tend to run away whenever the wind changes. This means that for the adverage Bretonnian player the only thing you have to support you knights are other knights.

The smaller frontage and double charges is a problem but once again this is because of the edition change causing an expansion to unit files needed for a rank bonus, not because of any problem with the lance.

Donnie Darko
30-11-2007, 00:40
A little scattered, but it'll tie up in the end.

Pegasus knights move to rare. No 0-1 any more. They'd be competing with grail knights and trebs. That's fair in my mind.
Questing Knights get bastard sword: May be single or double handed in combat. May switch fighting styles at beginning of any round.


Personally, I like the idea of tying the army composition a little more to the general.
If the general has:
Royal Pegasus: Pegasus knights become special
General has virtue of empathy: Unit of knights (same vow) may be fielded on foot. KotR/GK would be armed with morning stars.

If people wanted to encourage the use of M@A more, then I'd suggest having the lance formation only count rank bonus on first turn of combat. It's a shock formation and wholly relies on momentum to be effective...
This would force M@A's to advance, and be available to charge for second/third rounds of combat if the knights didn't break the enemy on the first turn.


Bump the strength required for blessing to go from 6+ to 5+ up to 6 instead of 5. This way the knights still get their saves from BTs and Cannons ect, but this doesn't unduly punish most GW armed troops in CC. Also, I like the general ward Sv instead of just against shooting. Gives the army a religious feel. Grail knights should always have the 5+ save.

R Man
30-11-2007, 04:57
Personally, I like the idea of tying the army composition a little more to the general.
If the general has:
Royal Pegasus: Pegasus knights become special

That could just lead to RAF again.


If people wanted to encourage the use of M@A more, then I'd suggest having the lance formation only count rank bonus on first turn of combat. It's a shock formation and wholly relies on momentum to be effective...
This would force M@A's to advance, and be available to charge for second/third rounds of combat if the knights didn't break the enemy on the first turn.

Actually it wouldn't. It would force players into small units of knights. Peasants are far too weak. They need to be strengthened, not ignored. The reason they are not taken is because of this weakness and weakening the knights does nothing to fix this. If anything it makes the peasants even less viable as the knights will have difficulty holding while the peasants are comming.


Bump the strength required for blessing to go from 6+ to 5+ up to 6 instead of 5. This way the knights still get their saves from BTs and Cannons ect, but this doesn't unduly punish most GW armed troops in CC. Also, I like the general ward Sv instead of just against shooting. Gives the army a religious feel. Grail knights should always have the 5+ save.

This could be acceptable. I actually think its a good idea, but we'd need to have some improved infantry which would have the effect of lessening our reliance on Cavalry.

BenK
30-11-2007, 08:25
Pegasus knights move to rare. No 0-1 any more. They'd be competing with grail knights and trebs. That's fair in my mind.

I like it, sir. I hate "0-1" in any army list; it feels like a clumsy device that scales horribly as the size of the game changes.


Questing Knights get bastard sword: May be single or double handed in combat. May switch fighting styles at beginning of any round.


I like it also.


Personally, I like the idea of tying the army composition a little more to the general.
If the general has:
Royal Pegasus: Pegasus knights become special
General has virtue of empathy: Unit of knights (same vow) may be fielded on foot.

I also really like the 'if the general has' device. I'd like to see it introduced to more armies, particularly Imperial Guard in 40k. And for high elves; get rid of the adjusted core/special/rare ratio and count any special unit that is like general as a core unit (i.e. If General is a white lion, white lions are core, if General is a silver helm, silver helms are core.)

I really like the idea of RAF armies (Fully armored Keniggets on big white flying horses are awesome) but obviously some adjustment needs to be made (point s cost increase?) to placate angry RAF haters.


If people wanted to encourage the use of M@A more, then I'd suggest having the lance formation only count rank bonus on first turn of combat. It's a shock formation and wholly relies on momentum to be effective...
This would force M@A's to advance, and be available to charge for second/third rounds of combat if the knights didn't break the enemy on the first turn.

That's exactly what I'd do, although I'd make the lance's rank bonus apply only if the keniggets charged that turn, not on any first turn of combat.


Bump the strength required for blessing to go from 6+ to 5+ up to 6 instead of 5. This way the knights still get their saves from BTs and Cannons ect, but this doesn't unduly punish most GW armed troops in CC. Also, I like the general ward Sv instead of just against shooting. Gives the army a religious feel. Grail knights should always have the 5+ save.

I'd prefer to see the ward save constant with regards to enemy strength but vary with the rank of the keniggets in question. I.e. Errants get no ward, KotR 6+, Questing 5+ and Grail 4+.

BenK
30-11-2007, 08:40
Peasants are far too weak. They need to be strengthened, not ignored. The reason they are not taken is because of this weakness and weakening the knights does nothing to fix this. If anything it makes the peasants even less viable as the knights will have difficulty holding while the peasants are comming.

Really? I must admit I haven't actually played a game with the latest edition of Bretonians but the Men-at-arms strike me as a pretty good choice. Cheap static CR, banners that can't be captured, not causing panic in keniggets and, if kept near a unit it KotR, ld 8. If I ever get round to painting up Bretonians it'll be based around a hammer block or two of errants, and a battle line of alternating six man KotR lances and 20-30 strong Men-at-arms blocks, with a skirmish screen of archers and a couple of trebuchets.

Course I haven't ever played in a truly competitive setting so I'm completely open to the possibility that this would be a terrible army. It just strikes me as good on paper; the KotR and spearmen arranged such that:

1. No spearman block is within 6" of another spearman block to prevent panic from spreading.

2. Each spearman block gets Ld 8 or more all the time.

3. The KotR and spearmen can charge the same unit in a turn if possible.

4. If the spearmen are charged and hold, the KotR can counter-charge in the following turn.

5. If the spearmen are charged and flee, the KotR can counter charge the pursuing enemy in the following turn.


Quite a lot to juggle but it'd be and interesting army to play.

R Man
30-11-2007, 12:43
They look better than they are. Fully kitted out and no victory points for the banner and LD 8 if a knights in 6. As a sacrificial unit they are great but not so much as a rank and file unit. The knight in 6 requires them to be baby sat. Alone they are not especially good against psychological attacks. WS2, while not all that bad for dealing damage statisitcally its horrible for taking it. Compared to an empire spearmen they are 1 point cheaper but are hit more easily and have a lower leadership. Any tough infantry like orcs who have numbers to match or dwarves who are hard as nails they will struggle. If they use hw+s or spears they will struggle to do damage and halberds will leave them very vulnerable. Fast units will hit them easily and kill most of them before they can strike back.

They are also slow, and can't keep up with the knights which leaves them low on leadership and if the knights are defeated they are not usually strong enough to win from there.

Now in 6th edition they were much better and thanks to being able to get good ranks they could hold their own as a defensive unit. In 7th that is much harder to do. They can still be effective if the BSB is kept with them and they can also be effective against anything that doesn't hit them on 3+. They do do impressive things every now and again but it's not something that can be relied upon. In my recent battle (Since 7th) they have been run down almost every battle and where they have not they have ended up futiley trying, and failing, to batter dwarves. The problem is that they lack killing power but that ok the knights have it. However they don't have much staying power either.

BenK
30-11-2007, 13:33
Mmm, they could probably afford to have WS 3. The Empire already have detachment rules to represent their superior training. That and the Peasants have ld 6 away from the Keniggets.

Gazak Blacktoof
30-11-2007, 13:49
Firstly I fail to see why men at arms are such a bad unit. I don't think units that don't give away points for loosing their banner should need any more incentive to take them. They provide very cheap static combat resolution and do not spread panic, they are the goblins of the Bretonnian army.

As people have mentioned a slightly better unit of infantry would benefit the army, be they pauper knights who can't afford horses or marginally improved units of peasants/ squires. Either would fit the bill. Knights might be the better option as they give a benefit to the peasant units nearby.

I wouldn't change the lance formation on the charge. It does what it is meant to do, and it does it well. Do I find it annoying, yes, but I know its meant to be. If I were to change anything about the lance formation I would make it loose its rank bonus when it is not charging (with the exception of questing knights, who fight in a more united manner to cover each other with their swords).

All knights should be increased in cost by around 2 points (again with the exception of questing knights). No knight should be able to flee from a charge, or should give up some advantage in addition to their ward save if they do so. I suggested in another thread giving up VPs for the unit, full or otherwise. The idea of giving up VPs is that the unit then has to act in a gung-ho manner in order to recant for its previous misdemeanour and recoup the loss of VPs, the unit would give up more VPs if it is beaten in a combat because it still has a banner to loose.

As suggested by lots of other posters pegasus knights should be rare, probably with an increase in points.



I would leave the blessing as is. No comparison should be made to other godly powers including marks for chaos, all armies have their own abilities.


I would think these changes should see more peasants and more chivalrous acts from knights. Peasants are not a bad choice they are just poor compared to knights who have few if any actual disadvantages. The Bretonnian army needs to be beaten with a stick rather than fed carrots.

Fredrik
30-11-2007, 20:41
Brettonian inf are a good choice but not in a brettonian army because knight are so much bettter under the current rules taking away alot of the bother of having to plan ;).

R Man
30-11-2007, 22:29
Firstly I fail to see why men at arms are such a bad unit. I don't think units that don't give away points for loosing their banner should need any more incentive to take them. They provide very cheap static combat resolution and do not spread panic, they are the goblins of the Bretonnian army.

Well I did say they were good for a sacrificial role. And in 6th with its files 4 wide they were good too. But with the thining of ranks they became more vulnerable. This is not unique as other infantry have been hit similar such as HE Spearmen and points are being adjusted.

You also have to note the atributes and characteristics of the army they fight for. Empire have their detatchments and many other infantry units to support them. Empire and Dwarf Infantry are supported by a range of powerful shooters and can also expect hero support. Many armies with other infantry also have many other infantry units to cover them as well.

Peasants on the other hand can't expect any support from the knights and most hero's will be at the front with them. Of course putting hero's on foot with the M@A and adding more M@A units does make them effective enough but it's hard to get those heros off their horses.

So I wouldn't say that they're not viable. They can do the job but most players would just go for more knights.


All knights should be increased in cost by around 2 points (again with the exception of questing knights).

Err... no. I have explained this several times. It's because the edition change weakend infantry but did nothing to Bret knights. Their strength is more of a weakness of the enemy. Now that is being corrected and in our new book infantry will become viable and all knight armies should dissapear and infantry will help balance the power of all knight armies.


As suggested by lots of other posters pegasus knights should be rare, probably with an increase in points.

Moved to rare is a good idea and I am in support of it but not a price increase. Remember that most Peg fights are horribly one sided against units that should not be in combat. Even then I've had disasters with Peg knights being beaten by thunderers, wildriders and even dwarvern balista crews. Even HE archers have torn one down in a fight before.

Donnie Darko
30-11-2007, 23:12
It seems odd to me that people are so wrapped up with M@A killing anything?
Dwarf Inf (the best in the game arguably) is WS 4 St3. So 5 wide, 6 attacks, 4 hits, 2 wounds 1 dead M@A w/ HW and Sheild.

So if 9 point models can only inflict 1 wound on average then how is it a bad thing that peasants don't inflict any back at 5 points a model. T

M@A's provide static combat resolution, 3 ranks and outnumbering. For a hundred points they are an amazing unit. For killing power throw a unit of knights into the fray. 6 Ws4 St5 attacks should see an enemy off w/ full CR in the mix.

Peasants also do other things. They protect flanks against horde armies, provide missile fire, can charge detachments in empire armies, bait and flee LOS block ect...

For an army that doesn't need to rely on its infantry to win combats, I don't think you could ask for a better unit. I'd take 5 point M@As at Ws2 over 6 point M@As at Ws3 any day.

Also, pegasus knights don't need a points increase.

R Man
30-11-2007, 23:38
It seems odd to me that people are so wrapped up with M@A killing anything?
Dwarf Inf (the best in the game arguably) is WS 4 St3. So 5 wide, 6 attacks, 4 hits, 2 wounds 1 dead M@A w/ HW and Sheild.

So if 9 point models can only inflict 1 wound on average then how is it a bad thing that peasants don't inflict any back at 5 points a model. T

M@A's provide static combat resolution, 3 ranks and outnumbering. For a hundred points they are an amazing unit. For killing power throw a unit of knights into the fray. 6 Ws4 St5 attacks should see an enemy off w/ full CR in the mix.

Peasants also do other things. They protect flanks against horde armies, provide missile fire, can charge detachments in empire armies, bait and flee LOS block ect...

Thats true on paper. Except that dwarves can also have greatweapons and are supported by heroes, missile units and artillery. Dwarves also have a very high LD meaning that if they do loose combat they are more likely to stay fighting not to mention psychology. Peasants used to be good in 6th edition but the changes in ranks made it harder to get a decent rank bonus. Another problem is that more knights can do many of the jobs that M@A do and keep up with the rest of the army. Remember that the general playstyles of army lists needs to be considered. Can you actually think of a time when you'd choose to have peasants holding a dwarf unit rather than blow through it with more knights.

Several situational examples might well explain:

The Bretonnian player takes some Infantry to back up his cavalry, but they get shot to pieces. He figures that their armour is too low and will be less likely to take them in the furture.
A Bretonnian player takes some Infantry to back up his cavalry, but his cavalry wins before he gets the M@A into combat. He figures why bother taking them if they don't do anything?
A Bretonnian player takes some Infantry to back up his cavalry, but they get destroyed in an attack either by cavalry or enemy assault infantry. He figures knights are better at holding their own so why bother to take this unit.

Peasant Bowmen are another unit all together and they are quite useful in most situations. Same goes for the Reliquary and the Trebuchet but these are in limited number.

Gazak Blacktoof
01-12-2007, 00:48
All these examples are showing me is that knights are too good not that men at arms are a poor unit for their cost.

If you can't orchestrate an army combining heavy cavalry, infantry, fast cavalry, skirmishers and warmachines then by my reckoning you're not much of a warhammer player. A bretonnain army has all of these things and if players can't use these elements to support one another they're not trying, the reason they don't have to try is that the knights are too damn good, point for point they are easily the best heavy cavalry in the game.

Men at arms (and all the other non-knightly units) are respectable for their points cost, any pains with taking them at 5 wide are easily compensated for by the fact that lance formations get a lot of points breaks.

An all cavalry army should be possible but it shouldn't be "the" army. Bretonnia is a feudal kingdom epitomised by its heroism not knights, more knights and even more knights. From looking at a bretonnian army on the table top you'd be forgiven for thinking that the aristocracy outnumber the plebes hundreds or thousands to one.


Along with Wood Elves, Bretonnians are already one of the hardest armies, giving them better infantry is hardly going to make the situation any better. Like I said they need a stick not a carrot.

Donnie Darko
01-12-2007, 00:59
I can think of lots of situations where I'd charge an enemy with peasants and a unit of knights...

I can also think of lots of situations where i'd go open another beer to celebrate watching my opponent use his handguns/crossbows on my M@As instead of knights. (well that and i could be wasted and still beat them...)

Also, if your opponet charges and run's the M@A's off in a charge, i'd still be ambivalent. It still requires tactics to run the M@As. If you lead with them, expect them to be run off, so make sure your units of knights are well back and slightly angled. That way if your opponent charges out of their line, the M@As flee (since they don't cause panic) and you have a tasty flank charge next round. This is called baiting. Most armies pay much more dearly to do this.

In the end, I still think, well handled infantry provide an invaluable dimension, as is, to the Bret army. It's just over looked often by players.

Donnie Darko
01-12-2007, 01:01
@Gazak
What says you to removing knights rank bonus after first turn charge. This should make the combined arms necessary for Bret knights, just like any other army...

Gazak Blacktoof
01-12-2007, 01:21
I'd be all for it, I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread and its been mentioned by several others as well.

I don't care where your knights are from once they plough unsupported into an infantry unit they've just got big targets on them saying pull me off my horse and run me through. Without altering the way cavalry armour works the best way to represent this is combat resolution.

I don't think this one change would see an end to all knight armies*, like I said previously a small points increase might be needed too, but it would be a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

I don't want to see lance formations become any weaker on a charge, they're suitably effective, they should be paying more for that effectiveness than they currently do though. A balance simply needs to be struck between the extreme we have now and nerfing knights so badly that an all peasant army is the best option.

Counter to what I said above, Bretonnians are an army about knights. What they aren't is only knights.


*They're too points efficient generally for it to stop people just hammering through and disregarding the thought of a second combat round when they know that statistically they don't need to worry.

drdenner
01-12-2007, 02:24
Back in the old days there was a rule saying that ALL knights must be paint different.. i want that back.

Etienne de Beaugard
01-12-2007, 02:28
Hmmm...

On Peasants - The M@A and Bowmen are fine as they are. They are horde troops and should remain so.

On Other Infantry - I would love to see some moderately effective infantry in the Bretonnian Army. Make them special slots if you like, but have something other than knights that have punch. Personnally, I would like foot knights, so players can field and English style Agincourt army.

On Knights - I still find it shocking that folks complain about Bretonnians having the best heavy cavalry in the game. They should. They're the knightly army. That said, knights in lance formation are too good at defending themselves. Keeps the points as is, but restrict the benefits of the lance (side attacks, ranks for 3 wide) to only the turn the Bretonnians charge.

On Pegasus Knights - like others have said, make them rare, with higher points costs. That said, Bretonnians will need some unit to get at unreachable gun emplacments. How about bringing back skirmishing scouts (FKA squires on foot)?

R Man
01-12-2007, 02:42
How many times do I have to explain it? When the edition changes and ranks expaned most troops lost some combat effectivness. This happened to Imperial troops, Bret M@A and Elven Spearmen. When GW goes through the codex they change the points cost to fix this problem. Notice that I said M@A were effective in 6th edition? I said it twice.

Now the knights did not loose any effectivenss but everyone else did. The knights were not overpowered so much as everyone else is underpowered. However in the new army books the lessened cost of points and better support have rebalanced this. Try putting a lance against swordsmasters and see.

Now when GW get around to Bretonnians they will give M@A something nice to make up for it and they will be viable and valuable again. It's just a question of what it is that they give them. Hopefully they won't make a balls of it and that should give a strong impetus to use them again.

For the record: M@A were one of my favorite units and I still use them and I want to see them go back to their original effectiveness again.

BenK
01-12-2007, 12:58
Hmmm...

On Peasants - The M@A and Bowmen are fine as they are. They are horde troops and should remain so.

On Other Infantry - I would love to see some moderately effective infantry in the Bretonnian Army. Make them special slots if you like, but have something other than knights that have punch. Personnally, I would like foot knights, so players can field and English style Agincourt army.

On Knights - I still find it shocking that folks complain about Bretonnians having the best heavy cavalry in the game. They should. They're the knightly army. That said, knights in lance formation are too good at defending themselves. Keeps the points as is, but restrict the benefits of the lance (side attacks, ranks for 3 wide) to only the turn the Bretonnians charge.

On Pegasus Knights - like others have said, make them rare, with higher points costs. That said, Bretonnians will need some unit to get at unreachable gun emplacments. How about bringing back skirmishing scouts (FKA squires on foot)?

QFT.

I have no problem at all with all kenigget armies; I can easily imagine many situations in which such forces would be employed. I really dislike the way high elves now have to take a few token infantry units with an all-cav force. It's ugly. How do those archers on foot keep up with the knights?

All of the 'all-rounder' lists like Empire, O+G, and Lizardmen should be able to field viable cavalry armies. A fortiori Bretonians, the warhammer cavalry army.

Fredrik
01-12-2007, 13:18
Another way to make brettonia actually use inf is to reduce the charge to 14" like most others this would effectivly mean that you hat to se the bait and trap tactic alot more. Today with the 16" charge brettonia get around having to use inf to get most charges even against other cav.

I t would be interesting to se how the 14 "charge would alter the way lances are able to work maby it would balance out some of thier effectiveness.

Donnie Darko
01-12-2007, 14:19
I'd still say the 16" charge is vital. They don't have enough to balance out risking loosing the charge. Bretonians are not a defensive list whatsoever

Wreckage
01-12-2007, 19:07
Lance formation should only grant rank bonus when charging... easy and fluffy.

Unit size for KotR and Errant should be 10+. This will probably end up making peasants more attractive too since they would always have a rank bonus and wouldn't cost well over 200 points per unit.

All Knights should be BS 0 for fluff's sake.

M@A do deserve WS 3 for free.

Bowmen should be special, though to fit in. The Core of the list shouldn't have any missile troops.

Blessing should be against spell and ranged attacks only, like it used to be. Yes someone might not pray about 1/10 games but right now as it stands you have to seriously be retarded if you don't pray. It shouldn't be such a no-brainer.

Pegasus knights should be rare, but no 0-1, and Toughness 3

Grail knights are really cool, don't touch them.

Questing Knights just need to be a little cheaper.

The grail reliquae shouldn't exist.

Damsels with Lore of Light/ Lore of Life makes more sense. (Spells with Bears, Crows, Wolves is dumb.)

R Man
01-12-2007, 23:25
Lance formation should only grant rank bonus when charging... easy and fluffy.

Not so. This is not a good idea as once the charge fails the knights might as well be taken off the field. They are very poor performers in prolonged combats as it is.


Unit size for KotR and Errant should be 10+. This will probably end up making peasants more attractive too since they would always have a rank bonus and wouldn't cost well over 200 points per unit.

That's far too much.


Bowmen should be special, though to fit in. The Core of the list shouldn't have any missile troops.

Why not? Peasant bowmen are a pretty decent unit. Though not a great performer they are not terrible and there is absolutely no reason they should be anywhere but Core other than, "I felt like it". What would this change aim to achive anyway?


Pegasus knights should be rare, but no 0-1, and Toughness 3

Only if they drop the price to 20 points. They are very frail as it is and surprise surpirse, easy to beat by anyone who is acutually a combat unit.


The grail reliquae shouldn't exist.

The reliquae is a unit that attracts much hate. However it does fill an important position in the army as a tough sand pit unit that doesn't need baby sitting. If could be gotten rid of if another unit could fill it's function or provide an alternative function. Foot Knights are an option.

Most changes to the army book are being suggested in a way that is strangely arbitery without any actual consideration to how it would affect the army. When you think about the changes think about exactaly what is the problem and exactally how to achive it and why things are the way they are in the first place.

Etienne de Beaugard
02-12-2007, 00:21
Not so. This is not a good idea as once the charge fails the knights might as well be taken off the field. They are very poor performers in prolonged combats as it is.

I agree with all your statements except this one. Knights in general, and Bretonnian knights in particular are very close to, if not completely average in their defensive abilities. Consider, a lance with a frontage of 3 can pump out 7 average attacks. This is compared to the 5 attacks returned by an infantry opponent. Knights have a 2+ (or better) save while infantry usually has 4+ or 5+. Bretonnians in lance formation will have some rank bonus as well. Unless flank charged, the knights have a decent chance of holding. If they are flanked, they should cave-in.

IMHO, heavy cavalry should not be the be-all, end-all of medieval/renaissance style wargames. They should be able to hammer home a charge with unparalleled ferocity, if that charge fails, the general should be worried about getting the unit out of combat before they are bogged down an overrun.

With the exception of Bretonnians, heavy cavalry in Warhammer fit this model fairly well. While the lance, in combination with the better horse-breeding make Bretonnians the premier knights of the game on the charge, the lance also makes them decent infantry. By pulling the lance bonuses after the turn of the charge, the Bretonnian general is forced to worry just like any other cavalry commander. Besides, if a general really wants his knights to get stuck in, they can start expanding frontage like any other unit, in an attempt to get 5 wide ranks.

Wreckage
02-12-2007, 01:34
Not so. This is not a good idea as once the charge fails the knights might as well be taken off the field. They are very poor performers in prolonged combats as it is.

They are too good in prolonged combats as it stands now... they're better than infantry which is backwards...


That's far too much.

5 is far too few.


Why not? Peasant bowmen are a pretty decent unit. Though not a great performer they are not terrible and there is absolutely no reason they should be anywhere but Core other than, "I felt like it". What would this change aim to achive anyway?

Because you shouldn't be able to have an army that has them as core. They dont fit in as core for Brettonians. They are not by any means the backbone of a brettonian force and they never should be. They are always a support unit in this list.


Only if they drop the price to 20 points. They are very frail as it is and surprise surpirse, easy to beat by anyone who is acutually a combat unit.

If you think T4, 3+ armor save, and a 6+ ward with two wounds is frail then you're stark raving mad. For shooting purposes, thats as hard as two Dwarf Ironbreakers with talismans of protection!


The reliquae is a unit that attracts much hate. However it does fill an important position in the army as a tough sand pit unit that doesn't need baby sitting. If could be gotten rid of if another unit could fill it's function or provide an alternative function. Foot Knights are an option.

The unit is still retarded and makes no sense.


Most changes to the army book are being suggested in a way that is strangely arbitery without any actual consideration to how it would affect the army. When you think about the changes think about exactaly what is the problem and exactally how to achive it and why things are the way they are in the first place.


If you reread my post you'll find I did deduce what the overall effect would be, and you didn't seem to disagree with those points...

Etienne de Beaugard
02-12-2007, 02:04
Regarding archers...

Because you shouldn't be able to have an army that has them as core. They dont fit in as core for Brettonians. They are not by any means the backbone of a brettonian force and they never should be. They are always a support unit in this list.

I strongly disagree with this assertion. The Bretonnians have two main 'real world' influences, Arthurian legend and the armies of the Hundred Years War. The English armies the period were overwhelmingly comprised of archers.

The 5th edition Bretonnian Army book had archers as the second emphasis of the army. Sixth edition reduced this emphasis, but did not eliminate it.

Your notion that archers are not meant to serve as the backbone of a Bretonnian force is wrong. To make archers a 'special' unit would deprive the Bretonnian list of depth and push players toward more all-knight lists.

Personally, I would love to see the archer army developed as a viable secondary build for the Bretonnians. Keep the archers as they are (the arrowhead formation was silly thing after all), but add in foot knights as a special choice. Let the 100 years war style English armies have a chance to see play.

R Man
02-12-2007, 02:24
I agree with all your statements except this one. Knights in general, and Bretonnian knights in particular are very close to, if not completely average in their defensive abilities. Consider, a lance with a frontage of 3 can pump out 7 average attacks. This is compared to the 5 attacks returned by an infantry opponent. Knights have a 2+ (or better) save while infantry usually has 4+ or 5+. Bretonnians in lance formation will have some rank bonus as well. Unless flank charged, the knights have a decent chance of holding. If they are flanked, they should cave-in.

They get fewer attacks than most other knights and a single casualty lowers their rank bonus (In most cases) to 1. Of course this is hard for some armies to do. Other knights are just as durable too. It may be that I am very woried about drastic changes. Maybe you have been fighting particuly large lances or perhaps I have been fighting dwarves too much. The lance breaking (a free reform to 5 ranks win, loose or draw) is a better Idea in my mind as the loss of ranks is compensated by more attacks. That might satisfy everyone.


They are too good in prolonged combats as it stands now... they're better than infantry which is backwards...

An at only 3 times the price! Infantry can bring a greater variety of weapons and get larger number and more ranks for less cost. In prolonged combat knights usually win because of hero's and that they did so much damage on the turn before or a second unit of cavalry is brought in. The problem is that (from what people say) they are just a little too solid.


5 is far too few

On what basis do you make this judgement. All other normal cavalry units are 5 troops minimum. Why should knights be any different?


Because you shouldn't be able to have an army that has them as core. They dont fit in as core for Brettonians. They are not by any means the backbone of a brettonian force and they never should be. They are always a support unit in this list.

All missile troops are in the supporting role. Even wood elven archers. Should these all be moved too special? Other armies have troops that are not their mainstay in the core section. They are core because they are cheap and common. Bowmen are core because Bretonnian lords can draft alot of them cheaply into the army. And I think we should be encouraging flexible lists rather than all knight armies.


If you think T4, 3+ armor save, and a 6+ ward with two wounds is frail then you're stark raving mad. For shooting purposes, thats as hard as two Dwarf Ironbreakers with talismans of protection!

And they are 4X the price. Sure stats wise they are really hard. But they can't have a rank bonus nor can they deny it, almost never have outnumbering, buying them a banner is actually a risk. For their high expense their LD is not great and they are too large to get the benefit from skirmish. And I have recently noticed that GK could probably do the same job but cheaper and more reliable. They are only dangerous to units when they are supported by other knights or in a RAF list.


The unit is still retarded and makes no sense.

That might be. But saying that isn't all that helpful. The point is it serves a vital function in the army. Its our best infantry but your desire to see it go could be done but only when we have been given something that filles the opening.


If you reread my post you'll find I did deduce what the overall effect would be, and you didn't seem to disagree with those points...

My final adress was not directed at anyone in partucular. Though despite disagreeing with some of your ideas that doesn't mean I disagree with all of them.

Etienne de Beaugard
02-12-2007, 02:44
They get fewer attacks than most other knights and a single casualty lowers their rank bonus (In most cases) to 1. Of course this is hard for some armies to do. Other knights are just as durable too. It may be that I am very woried about drastic changes. Maybe you have been fighting particuly large lances or perhaps I have been fighting dwarves too much. The lance breaking (a free reform to 5 ranks win, loose or draw) is a better Idea in my mind as the loss of ranks is compensated by more attacks. That might satisfy everyone.

Actually, my experience with Bretonnians has generally been on the 'giving' end. Your right that a Bretonnian lance will not get as many attacks in the current rules, but they will also receive fewer. Further, unlike most heavy cavalry they have a chance to have +2 rank bonus with a mid-size unit. Most other heavy cavalry only have +1 (at most), which they will also loose if they take a wound.

For my infantry comparison I was working with a T3, light armor, shield enemy, which makes up a lot of what Bretonnians may face. Like you've said, you've been playing against Dwarfs a lot. Bretonnian knights make 'average-ish' infantry. Even basic Dwarfs are elite infantry.

I understand your worries about drastic change. GW has been known to 'severely curtail' a potent list. Witness what happened to the poor High Elves in 6th edition. The current version of the lance formation is the best so far. Any modification done to it should be minor, and should be considered very carefully.

Wreckage
02-12-2007, 03:12
An at only 3 times the price! Infantry can bring a greater variety of weapons and get larger number and more ranks for less cost. In prolonged combat knights usually win because of hero's and that they did so much damage on the turn before or a second unit of cavalry is brought in. The problem is that (from what people say) they are just a little too solid.

Three times the price per model, but since KotR need only 9 to get +2 rank bonus and infantry needs 15, the difference in unit cost is not three times, but closer to two. Add in twice the mobility and twice the armor and triple the hittiness and a ward save... Knights are a bargain right now which is exactly why all-knight list are brutally effective and dull.


On what basis do you make this judgement. All other normal cavalry units are 5 troops minimum. Why should knights be any different?

Because Brettonians are THE cavalry army and should show up with big chunks of cavalry.


All missile troops are in the supporting role. Even wood elven archers. Should these all be moved too special? Other armies have troops that are not their mainstay in the core section. They are core because they are cheap and common. Bowmen are core because Bretonnian lords can draft alot of them cheaply into the army. And I think we should be encouraging flexible lists rather than all knight armies.

I guess I play my Wood Elves different, because my CC units are definitely supporting my archers... Besides, how often does a bret player max out on specials? Not very often... the point is to get them out of core to encourage M@A


And they are 4X the price. Sure stats wise they are really hard. But they can't have a rank bonus nor can they deny it, almost never have outnumbering, buying them a banner is actually a risk. For their high expense their LD is not great and they are too large to get the benefit from skirmish. And I have recently noticed that GK could probably do the same job but cheaper and more reliable. They are only dangerous to units when they are supported by other knights or in a RAF list.

Peg knight also have 4 times the mobility and three times the hitting power of an ironbreaker. My point is that they are not frail. They're very tough, way tougher than they ought to be.


That might be. But saying that isn't all that helpful. The point is it serves a vital function in the army. Its our best infantry but your desire to see it go could be done but only when we have been given something that filles the opening.

And Skaven could use a cavalry unit... not every list deserves every type of unit.

Hrogoff the Destructor
02-12-2007, 03:29
And Skaven could use a cavalry unit... not every list deserves every type of unit.

I think that is the teams weakness. Like Chaos and shooting.

Tadite
02-12-2007, 04:12
As a Bret player I wouldn't mind Peg Knights becoming rare Mounted Yeomen as Core and the rest to stay roughly the same.

At the end of the day the power of the Brets is that they are suppose to be a army of Heavy Armored Cav. Its actually kinda of hard to make a bad army with speed, armor, and hitting ability. So unless you change their basic concept Brets are always going to be good.

BenK
02-12-2007, 04:33
Peasant units should be core. Turns out there's a lot of peasants in Bretonia.

R Man
02-12-2007, 05:18
Three times the price per model, but since KotR need only 9 to get +2 rank bonus and infantry needs 15, the difference in unit cost is not three times, but closer to two. Add in twice the mobility and twice the armor and triple the hittiness and a ward save... Knights are a bargain right now which is exactly why all-knight list are brutally effective and dull.

Add in the fact their lined up like domino's to anyone who knows how to aim a cannon. Add in the fact that without their armour they are no tougher than a 6 point spearman. Add in the fact that they can't actually attack anything in buildings. Now generally the knights are more powerful than spearmen but are very vulnerable to certain units such as monsters (Treemen especially) and stubborn troops especially ones with great weapons.


Because Brettonians are THE cavalry army and should show up with big chunks of cavalry.

So basically because you want them to?


I guess I play my Wood Elves different, because my CC units are definitely supporting my archers... Besides, how often does a bret player max out on specials? Not very often... the point is to get them out of core to encourage M@A

Maybe they should all be moved to Special then? Maxing out on specials should not be a recipe for victory. It also doesn't make logical sense. Unless there was a sudden and inexplicable plauge that only killed archers. I also doubt it would encourage the use of M@A. It could easily do the opposite.


Peg knight also have 4 times the mobility and three times the hitting power of an ironbreaker. My point is that they are not frail. They're very tough, way tougher than they ought to be.

Dwarves are not supposed to be fast nor are they supposed to be hard hitting. Even if the Peg's were to charge they would lose the fight against a unit of similar points cost. They get beaten by almost any infantry even when charging. The only infantry they can beat in a direct fight are the el cheapo horde infantry. They are a unit that actually requires co-ordiantion and skill to use properly.


And Skaven could use a cavalry unit... not every list deserves every type of unit.

Assasin Heroes, Ofensive magic, bound spells, direct fire artillery, medium strength shooting, scouts, easy to get fear and terror, large non-lord monsters, poisoned attacks and unbreakable units. Many of the things we have are not very good. Our indirect artillery is rare, QK are our only GW troops and they are overpriced. MY are alright but are a tad to expensive. In fact the only area where we excel is in shock cavalry. Most armies might lack an actual unit type but have others can do the job in a similar fashion. Skaven for example have many of the things Bretonnians don't have, and they might lack shock cavalry but they far from lack shock units.


Actually, my experience with Bretonnians has generally been on the 'giving' end. Your right that a Bretonnian lance will not get as many attacks in the current rules, but they will also receive fewer.

That is a small point that I forgot. However it is a good point.


I understand your worries about drastic change. GW has been known to 'severely curtail' a potent list. Witness what happened to the poor High Elves in 6th edition. The current version of the lance formation is the best so far. Any modification done to it should be minor, and should be considered very carefully.

Thank you for your understanding.

Wreckage
02-12-2007, 06:01
Add in the fact their lined up like domino's to anyone who knows how to aim a cannon. Add in the fact that without their armour they are no tougher than a 6 point spearman. Add in the fact that they can't actually attack anything in buildings. Now generally the knights are more powerful than spearmen but are very vulnerable to certain units such as monsters (Treemen especially) and stubborn troops especially ones with great weapons.

Infantry is lined up 4 or 5 deep and since each base is less than an inch long you're much more likely to splatter lots of them.


So basically because you want them to?

Hrm... no, because it fits for the cavalry army to have bigger units of cavalry


Maybe they should all be moved to Special then? Maxing out on specials should not be a recipe for victory. It also doesn't make logical sense. Unless there was a sudden and inexplicable plauge that only killed archers. I also doubt it would encourage the use of M@A. It could easily do the opposite.

Move what all to special? I'm not following...


Dwarves are not supposed to be fast nor are they supposed to be hard hitting. Even if the Peg's were to charge they would lose the fight against a unit of similar points cost. They get beaten by almost any infantry even when charging. The only infantry they can beat in a direct fight are the el cheapo horde infantry. They are a unit that actually requires co-ordiantion and skill to use properly.

If they weren't overpowered it wouldn't be an issue, and GW wouldn't refer to the "Pegasus Knight mistake" If you want a unit that requires skill and coordination try some T3 6+ save flyers with 2 S4 attacks total.


Assasin Heroes, Ofensive magic, bound spells, direct fire artillery, medium strength shooting, scouts, easy to get fear and terror, large non-lord monsters, poisoned attacks and unbreakable units. Many of the things we have are not very good. Our indirect artillery is rare, QK are our only GW troops and they are overpriced. MY are alright but are a tad to expensive. In fact the only area where we excel is in shock cavalry. Most armies might lack an actual unit type but have others can do the job in a similar fashion. Skaven for example have many of the things Bretonnians don't have, and they might lack shock cavalry but they far from lack shock units.

Whats their shock unit? WS4 Halberdiers? Frenzied S3 rats with no armour? Rat Ogres that are easier to kill than regular ogres yet more expensive? I've never associated any kind of shock troops with skaven.

Elkantar
02-12-2007, 07:26
I think they need to get tuned down. Brets are really powerfull and you dont need to think playing them, just "just point and click" to victory.

They should loose their 16" charge, even dragon princes are now 16" so why do brets still charge this far?

No more rankbonus for their lance

Every Player should be forced to field Peasants, like one Knights of the Realm and one Knights Errant Unit free and for every other unit of knights you need one unit of peasants spearmen.

Pegasus Knights limited to one unit in the Army and points cost WAY up high.

No more virtue of duty (!!!!!)

BenK
02-12-2007, 08:03
The lance breaking (a free reform to 5 ranks win, loose or draw) is a better Idea in my mind as the loss of ranks is compensated by more attacks. That might satisfy everyone."

Not a bad idea at all.

"Every Player should be forced to field Peasants, like one Knights of the Realm and one Knights Errant Unit free and for every other unit of knights you need one unit of peasants spearmen."

Gaa! No! People should be as free as possible to build the army they want! All cavalry forces make sense, and shouldn't be artificially restricted.

Gazak Blacktoof
02-12-2007, 11:28
MY are alright but are a tad to expensive.

Actually mounted yeomen are a pretty good deal when compared to any other fast cavalry unit. They come out favourably compare to both wolf riders and marauder cavalry who are both within the same points bracket.


Somebody mentioned T3 pegasus knights. Its an option I'd considered before and subsequently forgotten all about. This or 1 wound a piece would be a better fix than any other for the unit.

I'd like to see the pegasi that the knights use separated from the monstrous "royal" pegasi version that the characters use. They should retain their US2 to maintain their utility as flankers and because it makes sense based upon the model's appearance.

The games designers have said previously that pegasus knights were a big mistake so hopefully we'll see a change like this come the next book.

I'd still like to see them made rare so that it becomes a choice between pegasus knights and trebuchets. Though pegasus knights should no longer be 0-1.


I wouldn't remove archers from core. If what players want is less focus on knights and a departure from all knight armies then removing non-knightly units from core is a step in the wrong direction. Men at arms will need support to function as an infantry unit, archers can be part of that support mechanism if left as core, if they get moved to special they might be ignored in favour of other units.

EDIT: I agree with BenK. Players shouldn't be force into taking peasants- they should simply be encouraged to do so.

Etienne de Beaugard
02-12-2007, 12:15
I think they need to get tuned down. Brets are really powerfull and you dont need to think playing them, just "just point and click" to victory.

While Bretonnians tend to 'win big' or 'lose big' they are hardly point and click. In most games, a Bretonnian player gets to pull the trigger once, delivering a massive, game-winning series of charges. If you don't do that correctly, your going to lose.


They should loose their 16" charge, even dragon princes are now 16" so why do brets still charge this far?

Why? Because the fluff of the game says the Bretonnians have really spiffy horses, and the design principle of the army says they are the best heavy cavalry in the game.


No more rankbonus for their lance

Again, why. Bretonnians have poor shooting, cannon fodder infantry. Against high toughness or armor infantry, Bretonnians will be stuck. The Brets need rank bonus to be effective against those infantry. Now giving that rank bonus only on the charge makes a lot of sense to me. If a Bretonnian general can't arrange a good charge, the general deserves to lose.


Every Player should be forced to field Peasants, like one Knights of the Realm and one Knights Errant Unit free and for every other unit of knights you need one unit of peasants spearmen.

I've always hated when GW limits options like this (yeah, I think Skaven should be able to use slaves all they want.) Forcing people to use a unit limits creativity in a list, making it even more boring.

If you want Bretonnians to field infantry versions, drop the 1+ on Knights of the Realm, give some better options for generals on foot, a create a special unit of elite foot troops (hey, maybe questing knights not only have to give up their lance but their horse as well?)


Pegasus Knights limited to one unit in the Army and points cost WAY up high.

I'll agree with the one unit limit and a slight points increase.


No more virtue of duty (!!!!!)
Why?

My big concern with your plans is the extreme nature of your suggested changes. Even slight increases in points or limitations of abilities can have a big effect on a game. Bretonnians are high on the power curve, but they are not unbeatable. Tone down the lance and pegasus knights a little. Give some more options for peasant armies and foot troops. I think everyone will be happier for minor changes such as this.

EmperorNorton
02-12-2007, 14:10
My big concern with your plans is the extreme nature of your suggested changes. Even slight increases in points or limitations of abilities can have a big effect on a game. Bretonnians are high on the power curve, but they are not unbeatable. Tone down the lance and pegasus knights a little. Give some more options for peasant armies and foot troops. I think everyone will be happier for minor changes such as this.

I have to completely agree with this.
I cannot help but think that some of the people coming forward with more extreme suggestions to tone down the Bretonnian army hold some kind of personal grudge.

Just making the army weaker without proper compensation is not the solution. After all Bretonnian players will want a usable army after a revision, not a list that is doomed to not be able to compete anymore because it was perceived to be too good before.

R Man
02-12-2007, 21:37
Infantry is lined up 4 or 5 deep and since each base is less than an inch long you're much more likely to splatter lots of them.

Unless you play elves or the unit is really elite Infantry those 4 soldiers are usually worth about the same amount as a single KOTR. And Infantry formations, unless the fromation is very large, are far thinner and it is more likely that a canonball will bounce over.


Hrm... no, because it fits for the cavalry army to have bigger units of cavalry

Why? Just because Its a cavarly army does not mean it has to opperate in a specific fashion.


Move what all to special? I'm not following...

All units except the 'core" Only two knights for Bretonnia. No Dryads or EG for Wood Elves. All Dwarves get are warriors. Lizardmen have to field more saurus warriors because they've got nothing else. For the undead its just zombies and skeletons. Sea guard and HE Archers are now competing with swordsmasters and dragon princes. Your designation to move bowmen to special is essentially arbitery and based on poor logic both from a fluff perspective and from a game balance and flexibility perspecitve.


If they weren't overpowered it wouldn't be an issue, and GW wouldn't refer to the "Pegasus Knight mistake" If you want a unit that requires skill and coordination try some T3 6+ save flyers with 2 S4 attacks total.

That would be RAF. As I have already said no pegasus knight can be relied upon to beat any infantry unit on the charge and cannot beat them in prolonged combats. I'm on the point where I've just about given up on them. Wildriders, HE Bowmen, Dwarvern Thunderers, Grave Guard and Ogre Leadbealchers have all been able to embarass the supossedly invincible pegs either by taking one down with them or destroying them completely. Hell several times my Pegs have failed to kill 3 dwarf crewmen.


Whats their shock unit? WS4 Halberdiers? Frenzied S3 rats with no armour? Rat Ogres that are easier to kill than regular ogres yet more expensive? I've never associated any kind of shock troops with skaven.

Rat Ogres can do the job. If they are pumped up with skaven brew they can be nasty. But there are other ways of achiving shock than just fast charging units. Jezzils can hit hard too and are capable of shredding units of knights. Not shock units in a sense but still hard hitting. Skaven can also blow through enemy lines through mass alone. Their infantry isn't exactally slow.


I think they need to get tuned down. Brets are really powerfull and you dont need to think playing them, just "just point and click" to victory.

Define Point and Click? Any army can be described as point an click. In fact this belief is probably one of the reasons why people loose to Bretonnians. They expect the knights to just charge anthing and so when the Bret player uses smart things like cover or a flanking movement or when they hit weak links they can't do anything to stop them.


Bretonnians are high on the power curve, but they are not unbeatable.

To be honest I'm beging to think its the oposite. Maybe my opponents are getting smarter. Every battle against wood elves has resulted in massive losses to my knights. I can't even get into to attack the dwarves and if I do they are all stubborn (I think) so I end up skuling behind trees. I won against the empire recently but only because the Hellblaster volley gun blew up after killing about a lance and a half of my knights one of whom was my general.

Hrogoff the Destructor
02-12-2007, 22:19
To be honest I'm beging to think its the oposite. Maybe my opponents are getting smarter. Every battle against wood elves has resulted in massive losses to my knights. I can't even get into to attack the dwarves and if I do they are all stubborn (I think) so I end up skuling behind trees. I won against the empire recently but only because the Hellblaster volley gun blew up after killing about a lance and a half of my knights one of whom was my general.

Not all dwarves are stubborn, but you can many of them stubborn. Which will screw Brettonia.

I personally think the WE, Dwarves, and Empire have a ton of tricks up their sleves to use against Brettonia. Moreso Dwarves and WE because I haven't faced Empire that much.

Skaven too... plague spell, plague censor bearers, any of their guns, the 2d6 str. 5 spell dudes, poison wind globidiers, etc.

Etienne de Beaugard
02-12-2007, 23:02
To be honest I'm beging to think its the oposite. Maybe my opponents are getting smarter. Every battle against wood elves has resulted in massive losses to my knights. I can't even get into to attack the dwarves and if I do they are all stubborn (I think) so I end up skuling behind trees. I won against the empire recently but only because the Hellblaster volley gun blew up after killing about a lance and a half of my knights one of whom was my general.

Dwarfs and Wood Elves are two of the tougher armies for Bretonnians to beat. We can muck with terrain, play keep away, and pick their battles with the Bretonnians. Dwarfs are a hard enough rock to take Bretonnian charges.

Empire will depend greatly on the general. Bretonnians can take Empire infantry and Heavy cavalry with ease. Empire does have enough specialty units and cheap troops that they can lay a lot of traps for Bretonnians. (Remember, charge the close combat detachment, then charge the main block).