You Write the FAQ/Errata: Bretonnia

[Gazak Blacktoof]

The lance formation isn't beneficial for getting more attacks, it's beneficial for having a small frontage, but most importantly: Cheap ranks. For an army based around big units of cavalry, steadfast would be too much of a trippleslap in the face without something like the lance rule to give bretonnians easy ranks to attempt to cancel it out. Needing 25 knights to cancel steadfast on a unit of 25 enemy models just doesn't work. At 15 it becomes a lot more doable.


I actually think, and this is mighty impressive considering the age of the book, that most of the pointcosts in the bretonnia book are spot on with what they ought to be in the 8th edition environment, with only marginal adjustment required. The lance rule works phenomenally well to help this cavalry-centric army to counter the bane of cavalry; steadfast, and most units are priced quite fairly. The trebuchet is way too cheap, but apart from that, the bretonnian armybook is actually pretty good. All it could need is some variety and fun stuff.

I thought about the steadfast issue after I posted and I mostly agree. However I think that cavalry blasting through infantry is a "tactic" that I'm glad is gone from other armies. The only way to hold off multiple charges from lances is by clogging up charge paths, to redirect or prevent charges due to wheeling. As you say if they do connect they can wreck units sufficiently to break their steadfast. Perhaps that's what bretonnians should be all about, but it all seems a bit one trick pony to me.

As I said before the point costs are pretty much spot on, except for the treb (which, along with until recently the mortar and also the runed up grudge thrower, is way too efficient), so we're in agreement there.

[Lantern]

Well that raises the point then, how do you think Bretonnians should play? I don think anyone would enjoy using them if they were simply, charge through to the other side, spin and repeat. Should they be able to outmanoeuvre? Outshoot? Survive protracted combats? Are they all about the one turn kill? What is the play style that people think they should have and maybe take it fom there?

[ihavetoomuchminis]

I don think anyone would enjoy using them if they were simply, charge through to the other side, spin and repeat.

Are you sure about that?

[vcassano]

It also has killing blow...
The more you know!
It also has a good save and good combat stats, making it hard to kill off ---> worth it's points.

True, I was just kidding around. The thing's pretty much useless anyway. It just isn't worth taking for Ogres in the slightest! I digress!

[Echunia]

True, I was just kidding around. The thing's pretty much useless anyway. It just isn't worth taking for Ogres in the slightest! I digress!

Yeah, mostly because there's so much better stuff in there :P.

I personally thought the OPs rules were very well balanced overall. He might have underestimated devastating charge a little bit, but so will the devs if they make the rule xD. On second note, it might not be that horrible, because lance goes to only 3 creates a rank. Then devastating charge is only +3 attacks which isn't to horrible. Also grailknights only gain extra attacks for first rank...

[vcassano]

Yeah, mostly because there's so much better stuff in there :P.
.

Well, the core cannon rules need changing.