View Full Version : Bretonnian Armies

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
31-01-2008, 09:49
I was just reading another thread about a Bretonnian army where the poster mentioned how he was starting a force but wanting to use a balanced list without the "only KoTR and PKs" that you find in most tournament lists. I happen to agree with this, as you'd think that background-wise that a good percentage of the army would be the hired retainers and peasants, with the knights being much fewer in numbers.

So... wouldn't it make sense that instead of having a +1 requirement for KoTR, there be some sort of formula necessitating that players take a certain amount of peasants (Men at Arms or Bowmen) for each unit of knights they take? This would represent the vast number of resources that are needed to support a knight and his charger as opposed to a dirty farmer-turned-fighter. Also, it would make the Bretonnian list a lot less vulnerable to the abuse and "one trick pony syndrome" that we see now. I'm sure they'd have to add a couple more units for variety, or change around the point values to make this work.

What do you think? Good change ideas, or leave the mighty knights alone?

31-01-2008, 09:58
I argree! A knight-only army is kind of dull, and unrealistic, but still its a part of warhammer. There are players out there that enjoy playing an army of only cavy. Thats OK with me, but not if they make an army that is no fun playing against. For me, the reason for playing warhammer, is having fun.

I found, though and army of cavy only might me fun to play, it gives more variation and exitement in having Men at Arms in my army. I cannot se how any warhammer player could not like the bretonnia Men at Arms and the bowmen!! I use them as sylvanian levy ofr my VC army, cause I just hadd to have them! They look fantastic, and do not underestimate them, for they are good fighters!

A rule that said the Men at Arms was a *mainstay unit* or something like that... As the stories describe them, every one knights has hes own privat army of Men at Arms. So, mainstay units might be the way to go? idk, just a thought...


31-01-2008, 10:26
The current restriction allows for more themes and varity which is good. 1+ on the relm knights is good as the peasants wouldn´t go to war without their far greater masters with them. If the peasants where to be mainstay many themes would be ruined (errantry war and crusades for example). I think the restrictions are good and I think it should be quite often that the knights ride out before the peasants to take the enemy off guard or just kill them quikly. Offcourse many peasants are needed to support the knights out of combat but at the battlefield that is not needed.

31-01-2008, 10:53
Something like... 'you may not have more knights of the realm units than Men-at-Arms units' ... although that may be a tad too restricting. Just make men-at-arms the required unit.

I usually field 50 to 75 men at arms in a 2500 game anyway and always have an empathy paladin leading them. They go quite well and often dont let me down, sure they wont stand up to khorne chosen but at 5 points a pop for a 4+ save, causes no panic and potentially better leadership than Empire and Orc troops, I think they are an absolute bargain.

Alot of players look at MaA and think they are worthless and on paper, they are. It just takes using them right to really see their full potential. However, I think they could stand to go to leadership 6 and Weapon Skill 3, it would simply make more players take them. Also, for the love of the Lady, please introduce knights on foot. Give them a questing knight's stats, make them a special choice and say for every knightly character you field on foot (which should be free by the way, not a freaking virtue) you may take one unit as core.

31-01-2008, 11:29
yea, I too though that making Men at Arms would ruin many cool themes. I love themed armies of riders, but I hate when people twist their 'theme' into a mad killingmachine. I never really liked playing these so called 'powergamers', and luckily my budds play nice themed armies, and their all fun playing against, even if they slaughter me:p


31-01-2008, 12:23
See i am of the view that that imposition could be problematic to some degree, it depends how restricted it is I suppose.

As has been said a lot of themes wouldnt work with large requirement of peasants, and as for myself yes I do use peasants, 2 large blocks of Men at Arms and a unit of archers, but I still take more than 3 units of Knights...

31-01-2008, 12:36
Unfair and unrealistic to be honest.
Those that tended to the knights did not take part in the fight in most siutations so hisorically that sort of rule is completely inaccurate and unfounded.

For game balance...well, if you have a bunch of ultra cheap peasant archer's you end out with a more powerful army than without the archers, as the archer's can deal with small annoyances while the knights deal with the important problems.
Rather than the knights having to deal with the mino annoyances and waste time doing so.

By all means have a 0-1 knight unit per peasant unit as a sort of house rule for your own army, but there's little reason to enforce it on others(who may be very offended).

Bit like orcs& goblins, forcing them to take 1 unit of orcs for every goblin unit and such.
Or forcing chaos armies to take marauders to get knights and such.
Or VC players having to take a big unit of at least 20 skeletons for every other unit of anything else they wanted to take....etc etc
Such unrealistic and resrictive rules would simply annoy a lot of players, and the current rules allow for house rules to achieve the same effect you are wanting anyway.

31-01-2008, 12:58
I don't think the Bret book is to bad (RAF aside) and don't mind all knight armies.
I'm just a little suprised when people don't take peasant archers, some of the most point effecient in the game. Guess it just shows how good bret khights are.

Men at arms are very nice models too.

31-01-2008, 13:02
Well, I guess I'll never understand players that focus on playing good fighting armies. I mainly focus on my army looking good. Heavily converted, nicely painted and with a good theme:)


31-01-2008, 15:51
However, I think they could stand to go to leadership 6 and Weapon Skill 3, it would simply make more players take them.

Men-at-Arms are supposed to be trained troops defending the knights castle. Trained troops usually have a Ws of 3. The current MaA rules would be better for representing a unit of pesant militia.

Jack of Blades
31-01-2008, 15:58
But you, like with the case of Ironguts at another forum, forget their fluff. The peasant class is kept in a state of squalid, inbred, poor misery, and even a Men-at-Arms is a horrible parody of an Empire peasant.

Chaos Mortal
31-01-2008, 16:39
to be honest i thik that is a bad idea as alot ogf people who like all knight armies are resitricted and so there becomes less of a powergaming option (im not for powergaming i prefere fluff lists) which i think should still be an option within the book for.

31-01-2008, 17:06

Men-at-Arms are supposed to be trained troops defending the knights castle. Trained troops usually have a Ws of 3. The current MaA rules would be better for representing a unit of pesant militia.

Agreed. I'll point out here that Free Company, who recieve "no training whatsoever", get WS3, while M@A do get "basic training"; that alone should more than make up for whatever (small) difference there is between Brettonian and Imperial peasents.

As for the requirement to take infantry- how on earth does it make sense to require Brettonians take more infantry than the Empire, Chaos, Dogs of War and even Greenskins? No, what they need to do is fix the special rules and/or adjust the points costs (currently they get a free champ, lance formation, the blessing and M8 for just 1 point and -1 AS compared to empire knights, which is dumb; the free champ and wardsave by themselves would be worth that) and give the list some foot knights or something to add variety. Also, they really should be able to take some of the DoW units. No black powder of course; crossbowmen, duelists (no pistols), light and heavy cavalry, some of the RoR's, maybe even pikemen and halflings.

Chaos Mortal
31-01-2008, 18:33
to be honest i dont see why bretonnia would want DoW as they are a proud race and knight errants are always trying to prove themselves, as for the points cost i think comparing them directly to the empire knights is a terrible thing to do as to me they are priced correctly within there own book (what i mean by this is that the empire can have mages with every lore availabe, a gunline, infantry, knights, ST and alters available whereas the brets are a knight army with peasent backup and one warmachine no blackpowder and below average shooting, the bonuses available to there knights make them worth taking as if they where exactly the same as the empire knights what would be the point in a bretonnian army list? it would have poor shooting and magic along with average knights, one warmachine ect?)

31-01-2008, 20:45
I think that would be a horrible rule.

Would you do this to other armies to?
-You can only have as many units of glade guard as you do eternal guard
-You can only have as many units of ogres as you do gnoblars
-You can only have as many units of empire warmachine as you do engineers
-on and on...

Most bret plays love their army because of the idea of knights or for the speed it has. Those that love the knights have no need of dirt peasants, and those that go for speed don't need slow troops.

Don't restrict armies, give them more options!!!