Obviously, large blocks of stubborn infantry are going to be the "in thing" with the latest edition. With the lance only requiring three knights to be actually engaged against an enemy unit, but (if 9 strong) with 7 able to strike back it seems like they could still deal some hurt without taking many attacks back by having a small frontage. Am I missing something? Is this still not enough?

In all honesty I have posted several things here on dakka about Bretonnians. Right now as it would seem and some would disagree with me but those at my Local Gaming Store agree with me that Bretonnians are not a viable army anymore and the lances are one of those reasons. Case and Point, Chaos knights are Str 5 Base, Yes no lances, and so therefore since breaking units is so hard now those Chaos knights will continue to hit like Mac trucks, meanwhile us Bretonnians get screwed because after the initial hit at Str 5 then we get pushed down to Str 3 which even a Skaven slave block wouldn't even wince at. Then to add insult to injury we are only Init 3 meaning pretty much everything but Skaven slaves and Empire units will be striking us first. The only two things we still have going for us is the Lance Formation which is still useful because basically a full unit of 15 knights now acts like an infantry block and our 2+ saves. Other than that, yeah, I'm boxing up my Brets until GW decides to give us a new codex and hopefully we'll get something like Empire full plate or Chaos armor, 1+ saves for everyone!

Slaves are an I 4 btw!!!

But yeah with I 3 you wont hit first vs much.

ShivanAngel wrote: Slaves are an I 4 btw!!!

Thank you ShivanAngel you just proved my point.

Again I'm boxing Brets until GW gives us a new codex!

Yeah, I'm thinking the best Bretonnian army is going to be 3-4 big blocks of Men At Arms with as many Trebuchets as you can fit, a Lvl 4 Wizard, BSB, fighty character on horse, and a unit or two of Knights.

Since Knights are no longer unit breakers, they need to be put on flanks where they will face other calvary and ideally wreck them before turning to the flank. Trebuchets are really good with the buffs to stone throwers and are pretty cheap.

I was hoping there was a Lore of Magic that allowed you to give a unit ASF, but unfortunately I could not find one :(

Yes, the lance is still viable, but only the turn you charge. After you charge then do a combat reform immediately to a standard formation, as this will reduce the width of the flanks as well give you more attacks...use ranked up men at arms to support the flanks, and make sure your BSB is as sturdy as hell.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

eNvY wrote:Yeah, I'm thinking the best Bretonnian army is going to be 3-4 big blocks of Men At Arms with as many Trebuchets as you can fit, a Lvl 4 Wizard, BSB, fighty character on horse, and a unit or two of Knights.

Since Knights are no longer unit breakers, they need to be put on flanks where they will face other calvary and ideally wreck them before turning to the flank. Trebuchets are really good with the buffs to stone throwers and are pretty cheap.

I was hoping there was a Lore of Magic that allowed you to give a unit ASF, but unfortunately I could not find one :(

Lore of Light....Briona's Timewarp..you get ASF as well as +1 attack.....

eNvY wrote: Yeah, I'm thinking the best Bretonnian army is going to be 3-4 big blocks of Men At Arms with as many Trebuchets as you can fit, a Lvl 4 Wizard, BSB, fighty character on horse, and a unit or two of Knights.

Since Knights are no longer unit breakers, they need to be put on flanks where they will face other calvary and ideally wreck them before turning to the flank. Trebuchets are really good with the buffs to stone throwers and are pretty cheap.

I was hoping there was a Lore of Magic that allowed you to give a unit ASF, but unfortunately I could not find one :(

You see that was my whole reason for play Bretonnians though was I loved the whole knight theme. In my army I had no men at arms I tried archers but they sucked really badly so I dropped them in favor of the stubborn Grail Reliquae. Anyway now that men at arms are the whole infantry block thing I really don't think Bretonnians are what I want to play anymore I would rather do an Empire army whose soldiers are actually good. men at arms suck and as a block will only hold for a turn or two against similar infantry blocks anyway WS2, I mean really! Their hitting things WS 5 on 5's which in WHFB is a pretty common WS now.

freddieyu1 wrote: Yes, the lance is still viable, but only the turn you charge. After you charge then do a combat reform immediately to a standard formation, as this will reduce the width of the flanks as well give you more attacks...use ranked up men at arms to support the flanks, and make sure your BSB is as sturdy as hell.....

Yes your right you can reform after the initial hit. The only problem is your now Str 3, your still Init 3, oh and now that you reformed you lost your ranks so now your easier to break. Even if you do back it up with men at arms units (which btw requires a bit of maneuvering in itself) more than likely their gonna break the knights, the Men at Arms are gonna swing only to miss with their crappy WS, and then their gonna break the men at arms. Now you just lost two units to an infantry block, doesn't matter what block, it just matters that you just lost twice the points of your opponents units.

bret cavalry is still awfully hard to kill relative to the infantry they'd be fighting. also, with 3 ranks in a lance, it's possible to physically kill enough of certain enemies to prevent them being steadfast... especially with grail knights or multiple lances of other types of knights. Pegasus knights are still excellent, and bowmen can now wound things they previously couldn't (still going to struggle to hit them, but y'know). And I think they're the only army with heroic killing blow, which is MUCH better than the old virtue used to be.

Brets are a viable army, though not as good as they used to be.

The thing is, I think the Bretonnians are no longer going to be able to just storm up the field with their knights and plough into the front of big blocks of enemy infantry block and break them. I think they're going to have to hold enemy blocks in place with infantry and the strike at the flanks with knights.

This strikes me as a good thing.

I don't know what you all are talking about but I3 is faster than:
most Lizardmen (not skinks)
most Ogres (not gnoblars)
All Greenskins
All Dwarfs
All Tomb Kings

It's pretty good. That's just from a Core unit perspective. Special/Rare/Heroes are all over the place, obviously.

Is not faster than:
Skaven
High elves
Dark elves
Wood elves
Most Daemons (not nurgle)
WoC

And are equal with empire, beastmen, VC etc.

I was hoping for a rule that gave cavalry +2 iniative on the charge because it would Completely make sense. As in reality The lance would just Smash entire core blocks to pieces unless they had spears.
But GW love to make no sense as usual.

Doesn't affect me as i play elves but i just found it stupid as you get to stab every member of a charging cav unit with your clubs and swords, Before they even get to you?
Or it should cause Lots of impact hits. but oh well.

But if you lance someone in the flank! then it would still be very viable

Most Daemons (not nurgle)

The only nurgle Daemon ever used is the Great Unclean One and he strikes before any other model in the entire game!

Sanguinis wrote:

eNvY wrote: Yeah, I'm thinking the best Bretonnian army is going to be 3-4 big blocks of Men At Arms with as many Trebuchets as you can fit, a Lvl 4 Wizard, BSB, fighty character on horse, and a unit or two of Knights.

Since Knights are no longer unit breakers, they need to be put on flanks where they will face other calvary and ideally wreck them before turning to the flank. Trebuchets are really good with the buffs to stone throwers and are pretty cheap.

I was hoping there was a Lore of Magic that allowed you to give a unit ASF, but unfortunately I could not find one :(

You see that was my whole reason for play Bretonnians though was I loved the whole knight theme. In my army I had no men at arms I tried archers but they sucked really badly so I dropped them in favor of the stubborn Grail Reliquae. Anyway now that men at arms are the whole infantry block thing I really don't think Bretonnians are what I want to play anymore I would rather do an Empire army whose soldiers are actually good. men at arms suck and as a block will only hold for a turn or two against similar infantry blocks anyway WS2, I mean really! Their hitting things WS 5 on 5's which in WHFB is a pretty common WS now.

freddieyu1 wrote: Yes, the lance is still viable, but only the turn you charge. After you charge then do a combat reform immediately to a standard formation, as this will reduce the width of the flanks as well give you more attacks...use ranked up men at arms to support the flanks, and make sure your BSB is as sturdy as hell.....

Yes your right you can reform after the initial hit. The only problem is your now Str 3, your still Init 3, oh and now that you reformed you lost your ranks so now your easier to break. Even if you do back it up with men at arms units (which btw requires a bit of maneuvering in itself) more than likely their gonna break the knights, the Men at Arms are gonna swing only to miss with their crappy WS, and then their gonna break the men at arms. Now you just lost two units to an infantry block, doesn't matter what block, it just matters that you just lost twice the points of your opponents units.

Ah that is not automatic you know....people still got to roll the dice.....and there are such things as questing knights with great weapons.....

sebster wrote:The thing is, I think the Bretonnians are no longer going to be able to just storm up the field with their knights and plough into the front of big blocks of enemy infantry block and break them. I think they're going to have to hold enemy blocks in place with infantry and the strike at the flanks with knights.

This strikes me as a good thing.

I agree on this.

Sanguinis wrote:

eNvY wrote: Yeah, I'm thinking the best Bretonnian army is going to be 3-4 big blocks of Men At Arms with as many Trebuchets as you can fit, a Lvl 4 Wizard, BSB, fighty character on horse, and a unit or two of Knights.

Since Knights are no longer unit breakers, they need to be put on flanks where they will face other calvary and ideally wreck them before turning to the flank. Trebuchets are really good with the buffs to stone throwers and are pretty cheap.

I was hoping there was a Lore of Magic that allowed you to give a unit ASF, but unfortunately I could not find one :(

You see that was my whole reason for play Bretonnians though was I loved the whole knight theme. In my army I had no men at arms I tried archers but they sucked really badly so I dropped them in favor of the stubborn Grail Reliquae. Anyway now that men at arms are the whole infantry block thing I really don't think Bretonnians are what I want to play anymore I would rather do an Empire army whose soldiers are actually good. men at arms suck and as a block will only hold for a turn or two against similar infantry blocks anyway WS2, I mean really! Their hitting things WS 5 on 5's which in WHFB is a pretty common WS now.

freddieyu1 wrote: Yes, the lance is still viable, but only the turn you charge. After you charge then do a combat reform immediately to a standard formation, as this will reduce the width of the flanks as well give you more attacks...use ranked up men at arms to support the flanks, and make sure your BSB is as sturdy as hell.....

Yes your right you can reform after the initial hit. The only problem is your now Str 3, your still Init 3, oh and now that you reformed you lost your ranks so now your easier to break. Even if you do back it up with men at arms units (which btw requires a bit of maneuvering in itself) more than likely their gonna break the knights, the Men at Arms are gonna swing only to miss with their crappy WS, and then their gonna break the men at arms. Now you just lost two units to an infantry block, doesn't matter what block, it just matters that you just lost twice the points of your opponents units.

Im with sanguinis i play Brettonians and im done with my knights not being able to do anything anymore and i hate men-at-arms. So im doing the same im boxing up my Brets for an empire army which is much more diverse and fun to play right now. Im not sure yet if i will sell the brettonians or not.

I really don't understand the whole bashing of Men-at-arms. They're 5 pts a model and coupled with a damel casting Wyssan's Wildform they can be extremely useful. Giving them S5 and T4 can be a pretty nice block of guys. By themselves they might not be the best, but that's not what an army is for, they're supposed to work together.

The new rules for Bretonnians do make them weaker, however you just have to play more tactically, and I think that was GWs idea. They don't want the Knights to easily just march through large blocks of units. Instead you have to play smart, hold the line with the Men-at-arms or Grail Relique and flank charge with knights. Lay down trebuchet fire onto larger groups to weaken them up, then charge in with your knights. You just have to play with a little more tactics then just charging the enemy down.

I really don't see the need for the animosity.

The whole idea of bretonnia is to destroy your opponent with a solid "glorious" charge in the front. Not wait for the peasants to catch up.... then skulk around and hit them while they are distracted.

The reason i played bretonnia was for the nights not the peasants. and i find myself relying more and more on them as the days go by... equaling no fun for me. Rather just play a unique empire army with a sweet color scheme.

IHEARTLARGEBLASTTEMPLATES wrote:The whole idea of bretonnia is to destroy your opponent with a solid "glorious" charge in the front. Not wait for the peasants to catch up.... then skulk around and hit them while they are distracted.

The reason i played bretonnia was for the nights not the peasants. and i find myself relying more and more on them as the days go by... equaling no fun for me. Rather just play a unique empire army with a sweet color scheme.

Do not lose faith. I am sure this will be rectified in their next army book....

You can start an empire army in addition to the bret army. Despite both being human armies, as you know they play very differently.

Thats true should i do 2 armies for fantasy i mean i dont know seems like alot? but i guess that helps so i dont get bored of an army i can just switch around. that might be a good idea 2 armies for fantasy 2 for 40k

Meh i have 3 fantasy armies... No reason you cant do 2

IHEARTLARGEBLASTTEMPLATES wrote:Thats true should i do 2 armies for fantasy i mean i dont know seems like alot? but i guess that helps so i dont get bored of an army i can just switch around. that might be a good idea 2 armies for fantasy 2 for 40k

well, many of the "veteran" hobbyists out there (me included) collect several armies..you can see them on my signature....but we do have favorites.....

yeah i know i just hate working on so many different armies. i currently have four want to sell 3. It would be nice to start from scratch cause the 3 i dont like i was little and new so just wasted money on useless units/or built them with totally wrong weapons and threw the extra bitz. Needless to say i just want a clean slate

IHEARTLARGEBLASTTEMPLATES wrote: The whole idea of bretonnia is to destroy your opponent with a solid "glorious" charge in the front. Not wait for the peasants to catch up.... then skulk around and hit them while they are distracted.

The reason i played bretonnia was for the nights not the peasants. and i find myself relying more and more on them as the days go by... equaling no fun for me. Rather just play a unique empire army with a sweet color scheme.

Yes I completely and utterly agree that was my whole reason for starting a Bretonnian army I really think that Bretonnians had some awesome looking units and some really awesome tactics charging the enemy and swatting them out of the way with your lances and forcing them to run it always reminded me of the scene from Lord of the Rings where Gandolf comes in at the last minute with the Riders of Rohan and breaks the Mordor army that is assualting Helms Deep. That scene was actually one of the things that made me start fantasy and that is why I liked the Bretonnians. Now its more like you have to meneuver your forces into position then charge and with how powerful cannons are right now forget it if you play an Empire or Dwarf army. I think I'm just gonna stick with my HE's and maybe do my Empire gunline army.

freddieyu1 wrote: Do not lose faith. I am sure this will be rectified in their next army book....

You can start an empire army in addition to the bret army. Despite both being human armies, as you know they play very differently.

Thats exactly what I'm gonna wait for and if it doesn't then I'll just sell them and use the money to start a 3rd Fantasy army or a 5th 40k Army.

Yes i agree the reason i bought Bret i like the idea of one big glorious charge with all my knights against the front of a spear wall! Who doesnt love that?

Now Bret. plays like okay heres my 40 peasants put them in front of my knights they charge first now my knights tactically wheel around the side of the enemy while they are distracted. All the while hoping the peasants dont get ruthlessly slaughtered. Yeah no thanks

Playing Bretonnia for the Peasants is like buying Playboy to read the articles.

I'm undecided about my Brets. I don't like the peasants and my knights can't do their job anymore. I'm not certain I want to reward GW for screwing over my army by buying more stuff.

Crimson Devil wrote:Playing Bretonnia for the Peasants is like buying Playboy to read the articles.

Sigged. Best thing I've seen this week.

dangit self destruct! i was gonna sic that hahaha that is a beautiful quote. yeah im either selling my bret. or boxing them up.

Sanguinis wrote:we are only Init 3 meaning pretty much everything but Skaven slaves and Empire units will be striking us first

I would not be so hasty with that brush. 9 armies have Initiative 3 or lower, 6 armies have higher.

Initiative 3 or Lower 6
* Bretonnia
* Dwarfs
* Tomb King Skeletons
* Empire
* Lizardmen Saurus
* Ogre Kingdoms
* Orcs and Goblins
* Beastmen
* Vampire Counts

Initiative 4 or Higher
* High Elves
* Wood Elves
* Dark Elves
* Skaven
* Daemons of Chaos
* Warriors of Chaos



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sanguinis wrote:You see that was my whole reason for play Bretonnians though was I loved the whole knight theme.

And I think thats the whole reason for the QQ. (I mean no disrespect, we all QQ from time to time)
Armies now will need to use man at arms blocks in addition to knights. Knights are still going to be your 'go to' troops, with blocks there for support.

Here is a battle report of how I see the proper use of knights.
http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=xY7XH8le9pI&feature=related

I personally think that bretonnians remain a massively playable army. But the tactics have changed. You now have to play max size units of knights in lance formation supported by artillery and magic. This will give you more than enough ranks to prevent all but the cheapest troops from being steadfast, especially if you put in a character or two/buff the unit with magic/drop a rock on your target. Hit them with one massive lance and a smaller one for kills and things should go pretty much like they did last edition-you just have to be more careful in target selection.

I have a Bretonnian modelling question:

The Knights of the Realm and the Grail Knights models look strikingly similar. I'd go so far to say as the Knights of the Realm look better, and are significantly cheaper. So I'm thinking I'll just try and convert some Knights of the Realm to make them stand out and look like important knights. One option I was considering was using Chaos Knight horses to make them look mean and intimidating. Can anybody else think of any ideas?

Just make the heraldry more complex to represent the Grail Knights.

IHEARTLARGEBLASTTEMPLATES wrote:The whole idea of bretonnia is to destroy your opponent with a solid "glorious" charge in the front. Not wait for the peasants to catch up.... then skulk around and hit them while they are distracted.

The reason i played bretonnia was for the nights not the peasants. and i find myself relying more and more on them as the days go by... equaling no fun for me. Rather just play a unique empire army with a sweet color scheme.

I think knights still have a place. There is nothing glorious about charging a massive unit of skaven slaves. But charge in against some monstrous infantry/small elite units and that charge becomes rather nice and still feels fluffy . Like others have said before me, choose your fights. The glory can still be won where it needs to be.

Exactly, I think I'd still want to play a small elite knight army, you'd just need:

Max units of Knights of the Realm, take two units of 15 at least.

Level 4 Mage w/Lore of Life/Light

Trebuchets: As many as you can to think down enemy ranks

I'd probably also bring a deathstar of Grail Knights. WS 5 Str 6 In 5 with two attacks + horses is still going to be extremely deadly. Take the Banner of Defense for the 4+ Ward save and they are almost immune to small arms fire.

To answer the question posted earlier, about making GK and KotR look different while using the same models....

First, invest in the GK HQ. That alone will make a huge difference, even if you use unmodified KotR models for the rest of the unit.

Second involves making head choices for your whole army. A common one I've heard is using unhelmed heads for KE, plain helms for KotR, and crested helms for GK.

Third, incorporate Grails into the rest of the converted knight's heraldry whenever possible. Use actual gold and silver paint, rather than the traditional yellow and white.

Finally - if your sculpting skills are up to it - make GS cloaks for your converted GK's. Add grails to crests and shields and cloaks and such wherever you can.

eNvY wrote:I have a Bretonnian modelling question:

The Knights of the Realm and the Grail Knights models look strikingly similar. I'd go so far to say as the Knights of the Realm look better, and are significantly cheaper. So I'm thinking I'll just try and convert some Knights of the Realm to make them stand out and look like important knights. One option I was considering was using Chaos Knight horses to make them look mean and intimidating. Can anybody else think of any ideas?

Its what I'm doing

Just slap some BT stuff on them and some extra heraldry, worse comes to worse just paint them differently

I get more and more surprised at the number of people complaining about Brettonian's, I think their still a solid army, but now they require some new strategies. I do understand that stubborn troops can be extremely annoying for you, but if you use a proper army you can obliterate those threats.

I suggest fielding large numbers of peasants (5 wide 8 deep or so) not as an attacking arm, but as a defensive line defending your Trebuchets, the knights are the glorious defenders of the realm, so you use them as such.

Have the Knights move up the flanks with MSU tactics of 6 to 8 knights of the realm, Pegasus knights are incredible for anti-empire work. Take a Prophetess and a Damsel or two for magic defense, and offense, the lore of Beasts is terrifying when used by this army, (3 characters attack for up to 15 attacks that hit on 3's with strength 7 or 8.)

Simply put we complain because the entire Bretonnian playbook has been thrown in the bin. Most people started Bretonians to play offensively with knights, now we're expected to somehow use the games worst and somewhat over priced infantry in that role. What exactly a Men at Arms block is suppost to do in the face of other races heavy infantry is anyones guess. (Die more than likely)

Now to be fair, Longbowmen have come out somewhat ahead of the game especialy with their stakes giving them light cover, for 6 points they are a bit of a bargin. But to take advantage of that turns an aggressive, offensive army into a defensive and somewhat passive army. Its not as much fun and thats my main complaint.

Challenger

Why do people think you should just be able to smash through the front of infantry and break them? You're freaking M8...hit a flank or something. "But they can just reform and follow me!" you say; not if you have one unit in the front and one in the flank, then they're always exposed.

As to not using peasants, hey if you want to play with half an army book, don't whine about lack of flexibility. Big block giving you problems? Nothing a trebuchet or two can't solve. Regen-ing monsters running around? Nothing 60 or so flaming bow shots wont put some hurt on. As Citadel said above, use a "proper army".

Guys, it's a new edition, learn to adjust.

Marshal Torrick wrote:Why do people think you should just be able to smash through the front of infantry and break them? You're freaking M8...hit a flank or something. "But they can just reform and follow me!" you say; not if you have one unit in the front and one in the flank, then they're always exposed.

As to not using peasants, hey if you want to play with half an army book, don't whine about lack of flexibility. Big block giving you problems? Nothing a trebuchet or two can't solve. Regen-ing monsters running around? Nothing 60 or so flaming bow shots wont put some hurt on. As Citadel said above, use a "proper army".

Guys, it's a new edition, learn to adjust.

Seconded.....the peasants are there as support..the knights are still the main fighting unit...

For the empire it's the other way around...

Two full ranks of troops in the flank negate rank bonus, for Brets thats just six knights. Not too bad really.

Sanguinis wrote:Yes I completely and utterly agree that was my whole reason for starting a Bretonnian army I really think that Bretonnians had some awesome looking units and some really awesome tactics charging the enemy and swatting them out of the way with your lances and forcing them to run it always reminded me of the scene from Lord of the Rings where Gandolf comes in at the last minute with the Riders of Rohan and breaks the Mordor army that is assualting Helms Deep. That scene was actually one of the things that made me start fantasy and that is why I liked the Bretonnians.

You know... the charge Gandalf led at Helm's Deep was into the flank of the uruk-hai, who were tied up fighting crappy peasants. Just saying.

sebster wrote:

Sanguinis wrote:Yes I completely and utterly agree that was my whole reason for starting a Bretonnian army I really think that Bretonnians had some awesome looking units and some really awesome tactics charging the enemy and swatting them out of the way with your lances and forcing them to run it always reminded me of the scene from Lord of the Rings where Gandolf comes in at the last minute with the Riders of Rohan and breaks the Mordor army that is assualting Helms Deep. That scene was actually one of the things that made me start fantasy and that is why I liked the Bretonnians.

You know... the charge Gandalf led at Helm's Deep was into the flank of the uruk-hai, who were tied up fighting crappy peasants. Just saying.

And some "glade guard" while "Louen Leoncoeur, Karl Franz (or possibly Valten) and some Grail Knights" sallied forth

we can carry this analogy on for quite some time

Marshal Torrick wrote:Why do people think you should just be able to smash through the front of infantry and break them? You're freaking M8...hit a flank or something. "But they can just reform and follow me!" you say; not if you have one unit in the front and one in the flank, then they're always exposed.

Three points

1) Historicaly speaking Heavy Cav did just that. If you didn't have pikes, a strong defensive possition, alot of long/crossbows or better a mix of the three, infantry was generaly screwed.
2) Flanking effectively requires two units, which as knights are expensive means the enemy has two or more units, which means I'm not flanking him unless he's an idiot
3) Flanking doesn't work that way. It makes no odds if I'm in the flank or front as their still stubbon until the last rank goes.

Marshal Torrick wrote:
As to not using peasants, hey if you want to play with half an army book, don't whine about lack of flexibility. Big block giving you problems? Nothing a trebuchet or two can't solve. Regen-ing monsters running around? Nothing 60 or so flaming bow shots wont put some hurt on. As Citadel said above, use a "proper army".

Guys, it's a new edition, learn to adjust.

As a Bretonnian player who does just that, I wonder if you've tried it. Because frankly its ineffective at best. Trebs are very nasty, but still only hit 1/3rd of the time, its a longshot to base an entire army arround. Likewise 60 Longbowmen will on average kill 0 Chaos Knights, 1 Empire Knight, 2 Chaos Warriors, 5 Dwarfs, 10 Spear Men a turn. Thats not going to weaken enemy units enough before they are in charge range.

A more effective solution is go overboard on archers, somewhere arround the 100 mark and play defensively, think 100 Years War and your about there. Its not as much fun to use though, very passive and inflexable.

Face facts, the one and only strength of the Bretonnian Army was its Cavalry. Without their Cavalry they have little going for them.

Challenger

Orlanth wrote:Two full ranks of troops in the flank negate rank bonus, for Brets thats just six knights. Not too bad really.

Afraid not, you need 10 models in two ranks to cause Disruption and negate Rank Bonus.
While the Lance Formation helps with your own Rank Bonus, it doesn't get around needing full 5 wide ranks to cause Disruption like Montrous Infantry can.

Challenger wrote:Three points

1) Historicaly speaking Heavy Cav did just that. If you didn't have pikes, a strong defensive possition, alot of long/crossbows or better a mix of the three, infantry was generaly screwed.

That's a massive generalisation, and very dependant on exactly which period in time you are 'historically' speaking of.

2) Flanking effectively requires two units, which as knights are expensive means the enemy has two or more units, which means I'm not flanking him unless he's an idiot
3) Flanking doesn't work that way. It makes no odds if I'm in the flank or front as their still stubbon until the last rank goes.

This assumes the frontal charge and the flanking charge are both made by knights. Which is a really odd assumption. You use a block of infantry in the front, while knights hit the flank.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Two full ranks of troops in the flank negate rank bonus, for Brets thats just six knights. Not too bad really.

Afraid not, you need 10 models in two ranks to cause Disruption and negate Rank Bonus.
While the Lance Formation helps with your own Rank Bonus, it doesn't get around needing full 5 wide ranks to cause Disruption like Montrous Infantry can.

this is RAW at its worst unfortunately....and GW did a piss poor job clarifying this in the faq...

freddieyu1 wrote:

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Two full ranks of troops in the flank negate rank bonus, for Brets thats just six knights. Not too bad really.

Afraid not, you need 10 models in two ranks to cause Disruption and negate Rank Bonus.
While the Lance Formation helps with your own Rank Bonus, it doesn't get around needing full 5 wide ranks to cause Disruption like Montrous Infantry can.

this is RAW at its worst unfortunately....and GW did a piss poor job clarifying this in the faq...

2nd that. and had a game with Bretonnians yesterday went really well. our knights still do dominate im happy to say but i found my self using men-at-arms as bait and just staying near them behind them so they can use my leadership. Then they will stay put i ran a block of 30. Then next turn My horses charge. then that unit it dead. Then my horses go through there battle line alone. I found i really only need the peasants for the opening charge. Then after that my knight start tearing apart! so over all still fun to play, just different, o and my trebuchet missed 3 times but 4th turn killed 17 clanrats with one shot the war lord was in that unit and they weren't coming back! also ran 15 Bowmen, they did okay just dropped a few models here and there.

IHEARTLARGEBLASTTEMPLATES wrote:

freddieyu1 wrote:

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Two full ranks of troops in the flank negate rank bonus, for Brets thats just six knights. Not too bad really.

Afraid not, you need 10 models in two ranks to cause Disruption and negate Rank Bonus.
While the Lance Formation helps with your own Rank Bonus, it doesn't get around needing full 5 wide ranks to cause Disruption like Montrous Infantry can.

this is RAW at its worst unfortunately....and GW did a piss poor job clarifying this in the faq...

2nd that. and had a game with Bretonnians yesterday went really well. our knights still do dominate im happy to say but i found my self using men-at-arms as bait and just staying near them behind them so they can use my leadership. Then they will stay put i ran a block of 30. Then next turn My horses charge. then that unit it dead. Then my horses go through there battle line alone. I found i really only need the peasants for the opening charge. Then after that my knight start tearing apart! so over all still fun to play, just different, o and my trebuchet missed 3 times but 4th turn killed 17 clanrats with one shot the war lord was in that unit and they weren't coming back! also ran 15 Bowmen, they did okay just dropped a few models here and there.

See? A bit more skill, and isn't it realistic using the peasants as bait, the way it was meant to be? Besides, what could be more heroic than the Lord rescuing the poor commoner's from the nasty monsters?

haha i admit i still had alot of fun with my knight of bretonnia and had to think a bit more, thats okay. changed my status no longer selling bretonnia

sebster wrote:

Challenger wrote:Three points

1) Historicaly speaking Heavy Cav did just that. If you didn't have pikes, a strong defensive possition, alot of long/crossbows or better a mix of the three, infantry was generaly screwed.

That's a massive generalisation, and very dependant on exactly which period in time you are 'historically' speaking of.

More or less anytime throughout the Medieval Period, early right through to late. One of the reasons the Scots shocked the English was the idea of mobile infantry shiltrums that could fend off cavalry unaided. Similary the English Longbowmen only defeated massed French Cavalry when they were in defensive possitions. When caught out of them (Patay) or forced out (Formigny) they were ridden down in short order. They are a fair number of battles where infantry defeated cavalry, but they are remembered because they were upsets. Battles where the knights rode over their enemies in one charge are normaly forgotten.

From a game mechanics POV I actualy prefer that knights will struggle breaking through from the front. My complaint is they can't do so from the flank unaided.

sebster wrote:
This assumes the frontal charge and the flanking charge are both made by knights. Which is a really odd assumption. You use a block of infantry in the front, while knights hit the flank.

Not realy, Men at Arms are damn near useless at the best of times and not cheap (running at 150points for arround 25 of them). YMMV as I primarily play against the likes of Dark Elves, Ogres, Orcs etc, but usualy putting a Men at Arms unit in the front of an actual combat unit is a good way to get them routed from the field. Its actualy easier to pin units with a medium size unit of knights. Except the enemy will still be steadfast once flanked and we're still screwed.

Challenger


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IHEARTLARGEBLASTTEMPLATES wrote:
2nd that. and had a game with Bretonnians yesterday went really well. our knights still do dominate im happy to say but i found my self using men-at-arms as bait and just staying near them behind them so they can use my leadership. Then they will stay put i ran a block of 30. Then next turn My horses charge. then that unit it dead. Then my horses go through there battle line alone. I found i really only need the peasants for the opening charge. Then after that my knight start tearing apart! so over all still fun to play, just different, o and my trebuchet missed 3 times but 4th turn killed 17 clanrats with one shot the war lord was in that unit and they weren't coming back! also ran 15 Bowmen, they did okay just dropped a few models here and there.

Interesting, my concern would be how well that works against say Dark Elves rather than Scaven.

Challenger

It doesn't work against elves. If you make it through the whithering amount shooting from bolt throwers, archers and magic. You now have to deal with 20+ spears and initiative 5 with re-rolls. Any knight unit that does win the close combat is most likely neutered from heavy loses. And M@As are just a big old gift for elves, might as well put a bow on them.

freddieyu1 wrote:

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Two full ranks of troops in the flank negate rank bonus, for Brets thats just six knights. Not too bad really.

Afraid not, you need 10 models in two ranks to cause Disruption and negate Rank Bonus.
While the Lance Formation helps with your own Rank Bonus, it doesn't get around needing full 5 wide ranks to cause Disruption like Montrous Infantry can.

this is RAW at its worst unfortunately....and GW did a piss poor job clarifying this in the faq...

True, its the way of things for the moment but who knows, when the Bretonni get a new book (whenever that may be) they may give the Lance formation that ability.

I think the problem with using blocks of M@A is that they're doing the job of empire state troops except they suck at it, lack detachments, guns and arty support

BAsically we've been forced into becoming a poor man's empire, withe decent characters and ward saves, rather than an actual separate army

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bretonnians only need three knights to count as a rank in all respects? Right? So for rank bonus, negating rank bonus with a flank charge, and...negating (and gaining) steadfast. This seems like it would be hugely useful.

12 Bretonnian knights have 4 ranks! That's twice as many as most units of knights. If you attack a unit of 25 or less infantry with a lance, you should be able to kill enough enemy to have more ranks than them, and then they're not steadfast.

If there the enemy unit is massive, then just charge two lances into it. Two lances with character support should be more than enough to crush most infantry in one round, right? Take 13-14 knights of the realm, add a lord or a BSB, and, hey presto, instant victory!

Obviously, it's not going to be that easy, since that kind of unit is only good at one thing - the headlong attack. It can be skirmished, shot, etc. and be rendered ineffective. But it's at least as good at a headlong smash as a horde of orks (or whatever).

Also, Pegasus knights. These guys suck. And by suck, I mean I hate to play against them. They're good, trust me. As are most Bretonnian troops. The reputation that most armies have are just that - reputations, not actual fact. Unless you're playing in very limited or competative environments most army books are just fine, and have a perfectly good chance at beating anyone. This is coming from a guy who beat GT winners with 6th edition Dark Elves - an army book reviled by most people on the internet.

In summary: Lances are good. Bretonnians are fine. People are stupid. Except for me. You can trust me.

Saber wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bretonnians only need three knights to count as a rank in all respects? Right? So for rank bonus, negating rank bonus with a flank charge, and...negating (and gaining) steadfast. This seems like it would be hugely useful.

While the concensus is thats how its suppost to work, RAW are quite clear it isn't. Frankly if this was fixed Bretonian players wouldn't be complaining. (Everyone else probably would though)

Also, Pegasus knights. These guys suck. And by suck, I mean I hate to play against them. They're good, trust me.

Own then, use them, still haven't figured out how they are worth 250pts in 8th Edition. In 7th I'd agree, a vital part of my army, now over costed and of limited utility. Losing the ability to pick on missile troops kinda killed this unit for me.

As are most Bretonnian troops. The reputation that most armies have are just that - reputations, not actual fact. Unless you're playing in very limited or competative environments most army books are just fine, and have a perfectly good chance at beating anyone. This is coming from a guy who beat GT winners with 6th edition Dark Elves - an army book reviled by most people on the internet.

In summary: Lances are good. Bretonnians are fine. People are stupid. Except for me. You can trust me.

Can't say I agree, combat experience suggests that Men at Arms are practicaly worthless and without the ability to break units on the charge Knights remain useful only because of a lack of heavy infantry to replace them. That leaves Longbowmen as the primary combat force of the army......thats not good.


Thinking about it through, anyone tested out Questing Knights, they always seemed a bit, rubbish in 6th and 7th, but their GW should make them effective in 8th.

Challenger

Why so much hate on the men-at-arms. I like those guys! hey they might die easy or kill little put them in a unit of 30 around a unit of knights gives them ld 8. They will stay long enough for your knights to get there flank charge off and the knights will do the dirty work. They will win the combat and you should good! Don't under estimate the peasants!

I think its down to who I play. ld8 isn't that useful when you just lost combat by 4-6 against a unit of High/Dark Elves. They tend to fold quickly against most other races as well.

Plus IMO they are not cheap. Asside from costing 150-180points for a block, they require a 80point charecter or 120+ unit to stay within 6-12'' to remain ld8.

Challenger

Challenger wrote:I think its down to who I play. ld8 isn't that useful when you just lost combat by 4-6 against a unit of High/Dark Elves. They tend to fold quickly against most other races as well.

Plus IMO they are not cheap. Asside from costing 150-180points for a block, they require a 80point charecter or 120+ unit to stay within 6-12'' to remain ld8.

Challenger

Against DE/HE you will test on an 8 since your unit should have more ranks, and are thus steadfast. If the MaArms are to tarpit the enemy, then the unit should have as much ranks as possible in order to pin the enemy in place before the knights hit home.

I think in any army, the brets are literally going to be spending 1/2 of their points on peasants. 40 some odd archers, and:

Men At Arms in units of 40. 5x8.

Plus the BSB will almost always have the peasant vow so he can turn that wall into a nigh unbreakable mass of humanity.

yeah ld8 steadfast good luck breaking that. then add a BSB pshh tough cookies then.

Sounds like a damn big artillery target, but I shouldn't draw judgement as I've never used 40+ man units deployed in blocks.

May have to give it a go, hell can't make things any worse

Challenger

Challenger wrote:May have to give it a go, hell can't make things any worse

That's the Spirit!

Challenger wrote:Sounds like a damn big artillery target, but I shouldn't draw judgement as I've never used 40+ man units deployed in blocks.

May have to give it a go, hell can't make things any worse

Challenger

Yep, it is a bit of a problem. BUT if they are launching rocks at your peasants, then they aren't launching rocks at your knights. I'll take this in a heartbeat every time.

I think the biggest thing that really stinks about peasants, is that you can't use hand weapons/sheilds. Given the choice, Halbreds are always > than spears.

If I can count on my opponent using ranged attacks on my big M@A blocks, I'll give him a nice target to waste time shooting at. Then my Knights will pillage their way across his battleline unmolested!

Slight issue, without that big block of Men at Arms the knights are as much use as wet tissue paper.

Challenger

challenger is right there you have to just hope for the best i guess. But yeah i plan on having to 30 man blocks of men-at-arms in my 2000pt list cause i love the fellas. and i dont agree with halberds>spears. depends on circumstances of who your fighting. Against skaven I take spears. beastmen i take halberds. And i do HATE the cant use your hand weapon... so stupid.

Vulcan wrote:If I can count on my opponent using ranged attacks on my big M@A blocks, I'll give him a nice target to waste time shooting at. Then my Knights will pillage their way across his battleline unmolested!

Anyone in their right mind wouldn't waste ammo on the men@arms. They will shoot the knights that are galloping up the side in the vain attempt to get off a flank charge. The M@As are incapable of winning alone against most quality opponents. And alone they will be or unless a token force of knights makes into close combat.

Guys think about this. How would you defeat a Bretonnian Army? You set up 6"-8" from the table edge in your deployment. Don't move or expose your flanks. Ignore bait units, shoot and magic the knights into bite size chunks. So any that do make it into combat can't win. Then counter attack the remaining knights with elite infantry. Game over.

You make it sound so simple your forgetting the dice. your forgetting the terrain, and not all armies are that great at shooting, and men at arms can hold there own against average infantry. You dont expect empire swordsman to do much against bestigors or temple guard now do you?

Relying on the dice only leads to tears. Your right about the shooting. The ones that can't, pin you in place with stubborn or steadfast units and then counter attack with elite infantry.

I play against High Elves, Dwarves, Dark Elves, Goblins, and Empire. Plus my regular opponents are well versed in anti-Bret tactics. The goblins account for my single win in 8th so far. The local meta-game is very brutal towards Bretonnians. So you can understand my pessimistic view.

The way I see it. Bretonnia's narrow focus makes them unable to adapt to the new meta-game for 8th. This is my only army, I'm hoping there is a way to make them competitive. I just don't buy M@As are the answer.

I'm tempted to sig Crimson Devil's other quote - something like "I'm not about to reward GW for screwing my army by buying new models".

So my lovingly created bret army would be viable if only I bought and painted 100 Men at Arms? I'll get right on that. I always ran a nice combined arms army with plenty of archers and a block or two, but I have zero interest in that many MA. If I do somehow get enthusiastic for my brets, I'll be adding Perry hundred years war guys instead. Maybe Bret players should do that in protest.

Actually I haven't played yet. I will play an "Agincourt" army once just out of fairness as I've heard good things about the current edition. But the "Lance Ranks don't break flanks" because of the way its written thing is a serious irritation. I was unaware of that, and it really pisses me off. That kind of lack of support is unforgivable.

Is there a YMDC discussion on that someone could point me at?

Crimson Devil wrote:

Vulcan wrote:If I can count on my opponent using ranged attacks on my big M@A blocks, I'll give him a nice target to waste time shooting at. Then my Knights will pillage their way across his battleline unmolested!

Anyone in their right mind wouldn't waste ammo on the men@arms. They will shoot the knights that are galloping up the side in the vain attempt to get off a flank charge. The M@As are incapable of winning alone against most quality opponents. And alone they will be or unless a token force of knights makes into close combat.

Guys think about this. How would you defeat a Bretonnian Army? You set up 6"-8" from the table edge in your deployment. Don't move or expose your flanks. Ignore bait units, shoot and magic the knights into bite size chunks. So any that do make it into combat can't win. Then counter attack the remaining knights with elite infantry. Game over.

As always easier said than done. Knights are very resistant to S3 shooting and are only realy scared of Wood Elves, Dark Elves and Dwarfs.

That said we've always been vunrible to gun lines. Having to drag a unit of Men at Arms with us is not going to help things along.

Challenger


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kestral wrote:I'm tempted to sig Crimson Devil's other quote - something like "I'm not about to reward GW for screwing my army by buying new models".

I sort of luck out, I have arround 60 Men at Arms left over from a failed attempt to make a Bret Infantry Army work. But I kinda agree with the sentiment.

Challenger

Well over all it seems like everyone here is pretty negative about Bret which is understandable haha i am too but i want to keep working on different combos. I have seen success with men-at-arms so thats what ill keep using.

If any of you find a workable combo I would be interested in trying it. The key thing is that the "Peasant horde" is not the army I want to play.

Has anybody tried two Prophetesses army yet? I might give a magic and archer heavy army a try.

Yes, I use two Prophetesses, honestly I'm not sure its worth having both, but it does work. With the upgrades to Heaven, Beast and Life Prophetesses can have a dramatic effect on the battle. I have iffy luck with rolling for casting dice so I can find myself only using one Prophetess at a time, but the extra flexability and back up can be very useful. Best spells appear to be boast spells, Heavens re roll all ones spell for example can turn a combat or boast a shooting phase. That said nothing says "stop camping" like a powered up Comet spell and the new Hunters Spear is a very effective solution to big tough nastys and can snipe war machines/lone charecters.

Currently my Prophetesses are the only thing keeping my army from being swept off the table.

Challenger

the only thing that keeps me around is using two damsels with the lore of beasts. i roll to see what spells i get and usually trade in one spell for both so they both know the signature spell...+1 to ST and T. it makes M@A beasts in close combat and helps out my lances when they get stuck in.

:( I miss the good ole' days when deploying a Bret army on the table resulted in significant pucker-effect on the other side of the table. Now, it's more of a "Oh, that's cute" response.

88elite wrote:the only thing that keeps me around is using two damsels with the lore of beasts. i roll to see what spells i get and usually trade in one spell for both so they both know the signature spell...+1 to ST and T. it makes M@A beasts in close combat and helps out my lances when they get stuck in.

I must admit the look on my opponents face when one of my Prophetesses buffed herself with lore of beasts and started chasing a demon prince round the table was priceless. S7 T7 A4 lady

Challenger

The lance is going to be the only way to play Bretts. You just need a lance of about 5-6+ Ranks So you will keep enemies from being stubborn.

Assuming your group lets you house rule it, mine unfortunately doesn't

Challenger

Challenger wrote:

Saber wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bretonnians only need three knights to count as a rank in all respects? Right? So for rank bonus, negating rank bonus with a flank charge, and...negating (and gaining) steadfast. This seems like it would be hugely useful.

While the concensus is thats how its suppost to work, RAW are quite clear it isn't. Frankly if this was fixed Bretonian players wouldn't be complaining. (Everyone else probably would though)


Challenger

Reading over the rule book, the army book, and the 2 relevant GW FAQ's released in July, it all seems quite clear, at least from my point of view.. being new to WFB. But with the clarrifications to the rules, the only thing that alance is missing out on is disruption. The wodring for steadfast has been changed to simply indicate ranks, at least from my interpretation; and the FAQ for Brettonia specifically overules the definition of what defines a rank for the BRB.

For your pleasure the two FAQ links.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1330084a_FAQ_WarhammerRulebook_2010_v1.pdf
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1310249a_FAQ_Bretonnia_2010_v11.pdf

I am personally moving to an all peasant army. I will take the 5 required KOTR and just spam 40 man hordes of M@A. My lord and BSB will take the Virtue of empathy and i will take Damsels and Prophetesses to add leadership. 3000 Point army includes 350+ Men at army. So much fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You guys need to stop complaining, Bretonnians Kick Ass. 12 Grail Knights with Valorous Standard, BSB with Banner of the lady and Virtue of the Impetuous, Lord with Virtue of Knightly temper or The silver lance of the blessed. If any unit can hold against this charge i will be impressed and throw out my bretonnian army.

That is not a legal combo on your lord.

yeah, Knightly temper is for non magical weapons only

A better combo is Heroism and anything (rules changed to be just heroic killing blow instead of some convoluted large target with no magic weapons)

Bretonnian Lords are still pretty awesome, some of the best human characters in the game (along with WoC)

Sorry, the and was a typo, i meant for it to say or, it has been corrected.

I am playing Brettonians in a start up league at the local store. I have won nearly every battle at the 500 point and 1000 point levels and the key to each of these wins was the lance. 2 things stood out for me:
1. Brettonian heroes and such are very cheap, you should take one in every formation now. With a little bit of equipment choices you can make some very durable guys. You can have 2 guys with a 2+ rerollable save and a 5+/6+ ward save. The extra strength and durability at the front of a lance formation really helps out.
2. My horses really keep helping out in the second round of combat. In my 1000 point game I was getting 20 str 3 attacks coming from my block 3X4. Becuase I was narrow he was only getting 5-6 across my frontage and thus only getting 10-12 attacks back. As soon as I got him down to 4 total ranks he broke once he lost steadfast.

Just some of my experiences.

BrPrometheus wrote:I am playing Brettonians in a start up league at the local store. I have won nearly every battle at the 500 point and 1000 point levels and the key to each of these wins was the lance. 2 things stood out for me:
1. Brettonian heroes and such are very cheap, you should take one in every formation now. With a little bit of equipment choices you can make some very durable guys. You can have 2 guys with a 2+ rerollable save and a 5+/6+ ward save. The extra strength and durability at the front of a lance formation really helps out.
2. My horses really keep helping out in the second round of combat. In my 1000 point game I was getting 20 str 3 attacks coming from my block 3X4. Becuase I was narrow he was only getting 5-6 across my frontage and thus only getting 10-12 attacks back. As soon as I got him down to 4 total ranks he broke once he lost steadfast.

Just some of my experiences.

I find many people overlook the advantage of the lance in that you can maximize hits while minimizing frontage

We can always bring back the flying circus. In a 2000 point game we can have 2 squads of 9 Pegasus knights with full command if we take a lord on Pegasus. We can also take a fully loaded grail knights squad, so we are taking:
Lord on Royal Pegasus 160
Bsp on Barded warhorse 74
2 units of 10 KOTR 480
2 Units of 9 Pegasus knights 990
6 Grail Knights 228
Plus commands, i think you will have to drop the grail knights but it will be worth it, also for extended combat we have questing knights. Immune to Psych is big and makes a difference.

BrPrometheus wrote:
2. My horses really keep helping out in the second round of combat. In my 1000 point game I was getting 20 str 3 attacks coming from my block 3X4. Becuase I was narrow he was only getting 5-6 across my frontage and thus only getting 10-12 attacks back. As soon as I got him down to 4 total ranks he broke once he lost steadfast.

Just some of my experiences.

In the second round of combat only the horses on the front rank can attack. The lance formation doesn't count after the charge and supporting attacks don't apply to mounts.

If it's 3 for a rank, why not just make the knight units with more ranks?

I would have thought Bretonnians have it the easiest to deal with steadfast because they have bigger rank bonuses than most cav units.

UNREALPwnage wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You guys need to stop complaining, Bretonnians Kick Ass. 12 Grail Knights with Valorous Standard, BSB with Banner of the lady and Virtue of the Impetuous, Lord with Virtue of Knightly temper or The silver lance of the blessed. If any unit can hold against this charge i will be impressed and throw out my bretonnian army.

Fourty Scavern Slaves ranked up 5x8 should do the trick, enjoy killing the 20-30 of them needed to break them.

If it's 3 for a rank, why not just make the knight units with more ranks?

I would have thought Bretonnians have it the easiest to deal with steadfast because they have bigger rank bonuses than most cav units.

Unfortuately ranks =/= rank bonus and so while a lance will have a larger rank bonus than similar sized cavalry units it won't have any ranks as far as steadfast is concerned.

Challenger

Actually steadfast specifies that the ranks are calculated as per combat res.

Lances just can't disrupt units.

Yes, Lances do get steadfast

Ahhhhh, noooo don't do it! Wasn't there an excruciatingly long argument about this in YMDC?

Red has a point, we won't agree, both positions are too close and too reasonable.


IIRC the line runs something along the line of

…as with combat res ranks are counted if five wide…

The fate of the lance rests on which half of that sentence is the important part.

Challenger

I think both sides are right myself.

RAI, I'm 100% sure that GW intends for the Lance to be steadfast and disrupt rank bonuses. Their 8E tactica article supports this.

Unfortunately, they didn't bother to actually write it into the Bret Errata. So RAW, you need 5 wide ranks for steadfast and disruption unless you are classified as monsterous infantry, cavalry, or beasts; period. And the 8E bestiary clearly list Bret knights as normal cavalry.

As has been mentioned, Rank Bonus (explicity granted by the Bret book) does not equal Ranks for steadfast and disruption... yet.

Fortunately my group just changed their verdict from RAW to RAI so my Bret knights are no longer totaly useless.

Back to using big lances I think

Challenger

I would do the same thing here too....

Challenger wrote:

88elite wrote:the only thing that keeps me around is using two damsels with the lore of beasts. i roll to see what spells i get and usually trade in one spell for both so they both know the signature spell...+1 to ST and T. it makes M@A beasts in close combat and helps out my lances when they get stuck in.

I must admit the look on my opponents face when one of my Prophetesses buffed herself with lore of beasts and started chasing a demon prince round the table was priceless. S7 T7 A4 lady

Challenger

gloating about my daemon prince staying away from a beefed up damsel are you for shame

especially after letting your questing knights get charged in the flank by a regiment of 26 strong bloodletters and 2 flesh hounds :-P

plus the look on your face when looking at what you had left was good aswell :-P

the revised FAQ v1.2 has fixed the problem of the 3 model wide rank for the lance...it now counts as a full rank with all the advantages of qualifying for and negating enemy steadfast....

So to all the RAW pundits..take that RAI wins!!!

No.. RAW wins. It's in the rules now.

RAI became RAW. Which frankly is the way they should do it in the first place.

I note they also, once and for all, clarified the Ring of Hotek(for DE).

Assuming that your interpretation of RAI that came from GW is correct... sure.

But wouldn't you be pretty pissed off to have me declare.

"No, it's cool, I know what Vulcan is actually thinking here"

And then installing what I think ought to be the way things should work which contradicts your carefully worded rules?

YAYYYYY FOR BRETONNIA!!! REJOICE!

I feel like this thread belongs on Druchii.net, its such a positive place now...

why?

Ragnar4 wrote:Assuming that your interpretation of RAI that came from GW is correct... sure.

Out of curiousity, did you read the 8E tactica article on their website? They made it pretty clear in the Bret section of that article that they had intended for the Lance formation ranks to count vs. disruption and steadfast.

They just forgot to write it into the rules, that's all.

But wouldn't you be pretty pissed off to have me declare.

"No, it's cool, I know what Vulcan is actually thinking here"

I... can't quite parse what you mean out of this. Can you clarify this for me?

And then installing what I think ought to be the way things should work which contradicts your carefully worded rules?

What about GW makes you think their rules are carefully worded? We have gotten through how many editions with vast amounts of confusion about various special rules interactions?

Vulcan wrote:

Ragnar4 wrote:Assuming that your interpretation of RAI that came from GW is correct... sure.

Out of curiousity, did you read the 8E tactica article on their website? They made it pretty clear in the Bret section of that article that they had intended for the Lance formation ranks to count vs. disruption and steadfast.

They just forgot to write it into the rules, that's all.

But wouldn't you be pretty pissed off to have me declare.

"No, it's cool, I know what Vulcan is actually thinking here"

I... can't quite parse what you mean out of this. Can you clarify this for me?

And then installing what I think ought to be the way things should work which contradicts your carefully worded rules?

What about GW makes you think their rules are carefully worded? We have gotten through how many editions with vast amounts of confusion about various special rules interactions?

1) I can go to the Tomb Kings tactica article/battle report they wrote when Khemri first came out, and show you how, in that article a king could be in a unit of only 3 chariots (not possible per the written rules) How the casting order isn't as locked down as they would have you believe (artifacts being used out of sequence) and a few other minute things.

Is this because they actually intended for the rules to be run this way? Or perhaps in the battle-rep and tactica articles, they made a mistake? They clarified the next issue that it was a mistake. But for the time being, I thought I had solid evidence that they intended for Kings to be able to be in a 3 chariot unit without him having to have his own. That does not mean I understand what GW's RAI are.

2) You cannot argue that GW forgot to write it into the rules, because you cannot be so prescient as to know what GW intends to do. Unless you're being paid by them. Are you? Presuming to understand the way they think is myopic.

3) The rules appeared to be carefully worded to me, because of how literal they are in the book, and how elegantly they sidestepped the same ruling in the FAQ's.. Past editions don't matter any more, when the people who wrote the past editions have been fired.

It's cool that they fixed it, I'm happy. I even thought that was the way Brets ought to be run. But I'm not so self aggrandizing that I would argue that they were RAI, and I had predicted their thought process. Instead I like to think they experimented within their rules and decided it wasn't going to work. That both rulings were Intended.

Wait, what?

You think I'm making some sort of claim of being special, or psychic, or employed in some meaningful fashion by GW, Ragnar? You've really read that much into my posts?

I'm sorry I gave you that impression; I went back and looked and I still cannot find where you might have gotten any of that from.

My statement about the RAI behind lances was derived from what they posted on their website, with the addendum that at no point has there ever been any sort of retraction or 'whoops, we goofed' posted or printed anywhere, and is ultimately proven by the latest errata.

When playing (previous to the errata), before the match started I would establish with my opponent what his opinion on Lances vs. Steadfast was. If he went by the (previous) RAW, that was cool. It just mean I changed my tactics to accomadate and tried to win anyway. Simple as that.

GentlemanGuy wrote:

Challenger wrote:

88elite wrote:the only thing that keeps me around is using two damsels with the lore of beasts. i roll to see what spells i get and usually trade in one spell for both so they both know the signature spell...+1 to ST and T. it makes M@A beasts in close combat and helps out my lances when they get stuck in.

I must admit the look on my opponents face when one of my Prophetesses buffed herself with lore of beasts and started chasing a demon prince round the table was priceless. S7 T7 A4 lady

Challenger

gloating about my daemon prince staying away from a beefed up damsel are you for shame

especially after letting your questing knights get charged in the flank by a regiment of 26 strong bloodletters and 2 flesh hounds :-P

plus the look on your face when looking at what you had left was good aswell :-P

Lol be nice to Captain Slow, its not his fault he packed a rubber lance for that battle. Besides everyone knows my peasants and prophetesses do all the heavy lifting

Challenger