Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bretts take a ton of work, and probably fair dash of luck to win with at this point since the rules are so out dated. But the models are so great and are the reason ill keep plugging away loss after loss till I figure them out.

That and playing wiv Da greenskinss

Vulcan wrote:For doing Brets on a budget, Perry Brothers do some nice stuff.

If you want to stick to GW, there are some tricks you can use.

First, the Knights.

Knights-Errant, Knights of the Realm, and Grail Knights can all be done using only the basic Knights box set - the only modeling difference is the heads. Give the Knights-Errant the bare (unhelmed) heads, the KOTR the basic helmed heads, and the Grail Knights get the crested helmets. To really make the Grail Knights pop, use real metals in their heraldry (silver instead of white, gold instead of yellow).

Questing Knights can be done with a bit of work. Remove the left arm from the KOTR torso with a Dremel or file. Then fit the two-handed sword bits from the Greatswords, two-handed flails from the Flagellants, or two-handed hammers from the Knights of the White Wolf sprue.

Onto the peasants.

For Mounted Yeomen, I bought the Pistoleer box and used the horses and legs (with a bit of file work to make the legs look less armored). Torsos, arms, and heads came from Men-At-Arms and Bowmen. Granted, you have to cut the bodies in half at the belt...

For Battle Pilgrims, I just used Men-at-arms with unhelmeted heads and hand weapons. If you want to get ambitious, clean the edges of the front of the shields off and trim the tops of the shields to a point, to resemble the Knight's shields held upside-down. And a reliquae can be done combining parts from a skeletal horseman and Knight bits.

Dear Vulcan:

Sometimes you and I think so closely alike, that it creeps me out. Knock it off.

Your strategy, tactics, and now how you made your Brettonian army is eerily similar to my thought processes. The only difference to my own strategy for creating a Brett army was that I purchased the Yeomen, because I loved the models, and a buddy of mine gave me like 3 boxes of Questing knights... but the helms idea for dilineating between errant, realm, grail, and kitbashing a Reliquae was 100% the same.

I must confess... my Grail Knights are actually Imperial Knights with Brett heads, painted with a very polished silver armor and barding. My Knights-Errant have bare heads and plain helms, and my KOTR have the crested helms. My earlier post was based on stuff I had read in various places, as other people coped with the high cost of minis.

Why the hell do they hold the shields upside down? Drives me nuts every time I look in the army book. It would be a pain to remount the straps and such to hang that way... grumble grumble.

I suspect it's a 'respect for the dead' thing.

As far as remounting the straps, I suspect that they acquire their shields in less-than-pristine shape and the straps need work anyway...

There was this one Brettonian player during a club tourney that utterly stomped me. Brettonians seem to win based on whether they charge or not. They have a lot of items that gives them advantages during the charge and that give them combat res bonuses, as well as that annoying banner that takes away rank bonuses (and therefore steadfast) from the enemy. He kept some lore of life damsels around to re-grow his Knights. Didn't use any infantry at all, just some knights of the realm, knights errant, grail knights and pegasus knights as far as I recall.

I am not certain that taking away rank bonuses means you lose steadfast. I am pretty certain it means you only ignore the CR bonus from ranks (much like disruption removes the CR bonus but leaves steadfast.) I suppose I could see it both ways, but the FAQ doesn't cover it, but I think it only prevents the bonus CR from the wording.

It removes rank bonus...

Steadfast has nothing to do with rank bonus.

Come to think of it though, are you sure he wasn't removing steadfast by virtue of having more ranks than you did? Bret cavalry lance formation allows ranks of only 3 wide, so they often can have 4-5 ranks pretty easily.

Vulcan would love to see pics of your budget army. Not that I need to get into a new army.

The banner of the lady takes away steadfast.
To address steadfast and the banner of the lady we need to first define what a bonus is.

A bonus is omething that is in addition to the normal rules. In this case steadfast is a bonus given for out ranking the enemy. This bonus is only given if you end the combat with more ranks than them.

"Steadfast-If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership." pg 54 of the hardcover book.

According to the rule book a unit is steadfast if it has more ranks than an enemy. Ranks are defined as 5 or more models in a row, 3 in the case of monsterous creatures. Given that the additional +1 combat resolution per rank is a bonus we can come to the conclusion that steadfast is a bonus given by extra ranks, now onto the banner of the lady.

Banner of the Lady-All enemy units with at least one model in base contact with the bearer of the Banner of the Lady get no combat bonus for ranks." pg 63 bretonnian army book.

So if the enemy is counted as having 0 ranks, they do not recieve the steadfast bonus. How can you be steadfast with no ranks? It is simply put that the Banner of the Lady removes steadfast because it removes the rank bonus which is required to be steadfast. You have to look at the situation from the perspective that all the rules work together, therefore steadfast is derived from having a larger rank bonus than your opponent, so if the rank bonus is taken away you no longer recieve steadfast.

Thanks for reading and I hope that ends the argument over the banner of the lady and steadfast.

UNREALPwnage wrote:
Banner of the Lady-All enemy units with at least one model in base contact with the bearer of the Banner of the Lady get no combat bonus for ranks." pg 63 bretonnian army book.

Lengthy explanation.. If only it were correct...

Bolded the emphasis part for you. The banner takes away the combat bonus +1 per rank for the enemy...

Steadfast is not a bonus, its simply do you have more ranks then your opponent.

Honestly I wish the banner worked that way, but it doesnt.

You even quoted the rule, if a unit has more ranks then its opponent... No where was the word rank bonus used also...


Looking forward to the new bret book (whenever it comes out) having a banner of the lady that breaks steadfast.

After going over both the Bret army book and the BRB, I agree with ShivanAngel.

The bit under "Calculate Combat Result" (pg 52) say you "determine combat result score by adding up the following bonuses", of which Extra Ranks is one. So that is one to one; the banner says it removes the combat bonus for ranks, and the Calculate Combat Result sections describes the ranks bonus it removes. Also, it is notable that the bonus is only for extra ranks beyond the fighting rank, so even if your opponent only has 3 guys and you have 10 in a 5x2 formation, you only get +1 CR bonus even though you have 2 ranks to his 0.

Further "Who's the Winner" on pg 53 describes how the bonuses work out to who won, and by how much, describing the adding of bonuses and how they culminate in determining who won, and by how much. This is relevant, because on the next page under Loser Takes Break Test it doesn't reference bonuses at all, but rather who lost, and by how much.

Critically, under "Steadfast" on page 54 there is the line "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy." It then goes on to describe how you determine ranks, separating the procedure for rank bonuses in the process. In other words, it doesn't say "Use the rank bonus to determine if it is steadfast" or something similar, but rather "As with calculating extra ranks for purpose of combat resolution..." It then goes on to say that a unit that is steadfast always uses unmodified Ld.

Key point: Steadfast is not described as a bonus as was the Extra Rank bonus for combat resolution, and the processes are separated, i.e. you don't use your CR bonus from extra ranks to determine if you are steadfast, but just count ranks.

This is important, as recall that you can be steadfast with just a single rank if you are fighting a lone enemy (say one 5 man rank of marauders vs a dragon would be steadfast) but not get any CR bonus for "extra ranks" because extra ranks requires additional ranks beyond the fighting rank.

To reiterate, Steadfast just requires more ranks of 5(3) than the enemy. Combat bonus from Extra Ranks requires ranks past the first more than the enemy.

Given that the Banner of the Lady specifically disallows combat bonus from ranks, and bonus is language applied to the combat resolution numbers but not steadfast, and given that the CR bonus for ranks is figured distinctly in manner from Steadfast, it seems pretty clear that the Banner of the Lady does not remove Steadfast.

That is basically the long version of what ShivanAngel said

We've already had this debate several months back. At the end, UNREALPwnage (and perhaps others?) still came down firmly on the side of a "no steadfast vs. Banner of the Lady" and a good number of others continuing to argue against.

For what it's worth, I'm on ShivanAngel's side for the reasons he said, while still recognizing why it is a little confusing.

Even on the Round Table of Britonnia website, we acknowledge that the Banner of the Lady does not remove Steadfast.

It removes CR bonuses due to rank. That's what it does. As such, it does a number on Skaven (whose funky leadership rule depends on the unit's rank bonus ) but otherwise doesn't do very much.

Remember, a unit with a single rank has no CR bonus due to ranks.... but is STILL steadfast against a single model. CR bonus due to ranks =/= ranks.

Remember, it is a 100pt baner in an army that can NOT get more that 4 ranks unless they are using pesants or have a load of heroes in their unit. I guess for my FLGS it comes down to rules as intended instead of rules as written. Given the written rules it is ot very spelled out wich way the banner goes. But it is up to you and your opponent to decide before the game, so if you use brets ask them what their oppinion is. If they let the banner negate steadfast go with it.

I see whatcher saying here. It's an expensive banner, and the army has a tough time.

Still, in anything beyond a (relatively casual) non-tournament setting, the rules say it doesn't knock off Steadfast.
Technically, a "combat bonus" could, as you mentioned, be "a beneficial factor of a combat", and if it were, Steadfast would obviously fit under that category.
But that way of thinking opens up a lot of muddy waters in the tournament world; best to be literal and blunt, so you know which rules your opponent will be twisting.

Even considering all that, a way to completely auto-strip Steadfast is insanely powerful. You go from being unable to break those huge blocks to almost auto-breaking them every game.
I'll agree that the Brettonians need a boost, but that's just creating the problem in reverse, except it's even worse, since it's just one item that's causing the problem, so every Brettonian player ever would take it.

Also remember it is a 100 point banner for an edition when losing the +3 to CR from ranks was a HUGE deal... Since its from a 6th edition book, how can you claim rules as intended on that banner when 8th edition wasnt anything more than an "eventually we will write 8th edition".

The current bret book was written before 7th edition came out, and before 8th edition was even a thought.

Also its not "very spelled out" which way the banner goes. If it was spelled out everyone would agree one way or another. Honestly, good luck finding an opponent or a TO in a tournament setting that will allow the banner to remove steadfast. The "it cost 100 points" argument wont work.

Thats like saying men at arms should have XXXX rule because they are overcosted at 5 points each.