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.
Had a weird "sight unseen" pickup locally which netted me 80 Archers, a three-man Bowmen Command (?), some kind of Archer special character and a floating sage-like character.
Can I form a fair enough Brettonian army with these as my core? I got a little overexcited and picked up a couple other things on eBay but nothing spectacular.
How would I proceed from this base?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: This line of reasoning broke 7th edition in Fantasy. The books should be as equal as possible, even a theoretical "Codex: Squirrels with Crustacean allies" should have a fair chance to beat "Codex: God".
- Cost? FW models cost more? Because Thudd guns are more expensive than Wraithknights and Riptides. Nope, not a good argument. This is an expensive game. We play it knowing that, and also knowing that, realistically, it's cheaper than hookers and blow.
Knights and characters will always be the backbone of the army but the Archers are very good.
Barricades work as free cover that can catch cannonballs meant for your high value targets. Flaming arrows is an immensely cheap and helpful upgrade.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
80 archers is a huge amount for a Bret army, but it's not bad per se. You'd need to back it up with some flanking Knight units and maybe some blocks of Men At Arms in the center.
In 8th ed. kinda useful with volley fire / firing from 2 ranks.
In older Editions, you can only fire from 1 rank (except at large Targets or if you are in an elevated Position), so if you wanted to make good use of the archers, you would have to stretch them out too far to field other Units effectively.
In 8th ed. kinda useful with volley fire / firing from 2 ranks.
In older Editions, you can only fire from 1 rank (except at large Targets or if you are in an elevated Position), so if you wanted to make good use of the archers, you would have to stretch them out too far to field other Units effectively.
Wasn't there a skirmish upgrade in some editions? If that's the case, you'd be able to fire with the whole blob at once so multiple 20 man swarms weren't such a bad idea.
Not sure, but as Brets didn't get any new armybook after 2003, probably not in an official GW ruleset. Maybe Warhammer Armies Project had something like that, or 9th Age.
But I can only speculate on this, never really played any of the above mentioned.
I mean 80 is probably an excessive amount of archers. But of the peasant units the archers are the most useful so maybe not all 80, but I could find a way to fit 40 in easy.
Commodus Leitdorf Paints all of the Things!! The Breaking of the Averholme: An AoS Adventure
"We have clearly reached the point where only rampant and unchecked stabbing can save us." -Black Mage
The 2003 book does have the option to skirmish the archers. Though I'm not sure if you're limited in some way or if you can skirmish as many units as you like. Oddly enough you can still take the flaming arrows I believe.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
You can certainly use 80 archers, they are very cheap have excellent range and are great for crit seeking.
Volley fire will allow them to all shoot. 40 archers per unit with stakes will be enough to shoot, distract and tarpit so long as you have knights nearby.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
In 8th ed. kinda useful with volley fire / firing from 2 ranks.
In older Editions, you can only fire from 1 rank (except at large Targets or if you are in an elevated Position), so if you wanted to make good use of the archers, you would have to stretch them out too far to field other Units effectively.
You do realize that you can alter ranks and add frontage without reforming in those older editions as well. So you can start in a more compact unit that is manageable at the start of the game and expand out as the game advances in turns. 4 blocks of 20 are managable blocks.
To the OP: yes you can field 80 archers in a Brettonian Army. First thing that you will need is a unit of knights or two to augment this. I think that you are required to take one unit of KOTR to field anything from the army book circa 2003. It may get boring after a time to either play or paint, so I would break these out into different blocks where you work on say 20 archers(either one unit of archers, or two) and then work on a small unit of knights. Do about two rounds of this and play a few games to see how they work for you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/21 17:19:31
Volley fire is a factor of some earlier editions too. It was a staple for Brets in 5th. In 6th you could fire all your archers at a target on a hill or if from a hill.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote: Volley fire is a factor of some earlier editions too. It was a staple for Brets in 5th. In 6th you could fire all your archers at a target on a hill or if from a hill.
Double check in a bit but I think the Ravening Hordes list still had the arrowhead formation...
Moscha wrote: I am aware of that, rest assured. It would be a compromsie to use the archers as rank & file unit and spread sone of them out when needed.
Is it really that much of a compromise? Assume that you have them all in blocks of 20 at 5X4 with knight units in between, and break them down to 2 ranks on turn 1 and move if necessary. Knights will go off and attack like they are supposed to do to make room for the added frontage in your archers. Most of the opposition would be in long rang anyways and thus not likely to be great shots at turn 1, so you don't loose much in repositioning your archers to a more viable frontage. You just repositioned your line in time for 40 shots for turn 2, and depending on what you are facing and which part of the turn that you have, might be hitting something in short range.
not in the meaning that they will do a worse job than other rnf peasants, but they will surely be a more costly choice than sword and board footmen, therefore cutting your Budget for other units.
I think I should point out: I am a Greenskin Player, donno nuthin bout da fancy tactics stuff of da humies
Translation: I am by no means an expert for Bretonnia. 80 archers might work very well, I just never faced an army with so many archers since Ive been playing this game. I played regularly against 2 different Bretons. Most of the time, they were relying heavily on their Knights, so I rarely met Peasants in the field. On occasions, the was a unit with Grail Relic, or one unit of archers. So it felt just wrong for me, hearing about 80 archers . But I would be happy to be proven wrong, and this being a valid, solid choice to build an army around.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/22 20:14:42
Moscha wrote: not in the meaning that they will do a worse job than other rnf peasants, but they will surely be a more costly choice than sword and board footmen, therefore cutting your Budget for other units.
I think I should point out: I am a Greenskin Player, donno nuthin bout da fancy tactics stuff of da humies
Translation: I am by no means an expert for Bretonnia. 80 archers might work very well, I just never faced an army with so many archers since Ive been playing this game. I played regularly against 2 different Bretons. Most of the time, they were relying heavily on their Knights, so I rarely met Peasants in the field. On occasions, the was a unit with Grail Relic, or one unit of archers. So it felt just wrong for me, hearing about 80 archers . But I would be happy to be proven wrong, and this being a valid, solid choice to build an army around.
Ok, I think that I understand your perspective now, and I probably was not clear on how I would use them. I was never suggesting to use them as melee troops, but rather all missile troops all of the time. Given that the OP wanted to use all 80 of his archers,(his parameters not mine) my plan of deploying them in a block formation and then once they get some room to spread out when other units have maneuvered, you break them down into wider files. As stated above, on turn one you can generally get some of these units a wider frontage. I would estimate that you can get at least 2 if not all four blocks of archers into two ranks and go from there. As far as the extra rank that does not normally fire, you can either expand the frontage further, or accept that these units will be running at two ranks and you may not get as many shots off as you potentially can. This is of course assuming that all 80 are going to be standard archers and not skirmishing,(which in the 2003 is only one unit) and that the OP wants to have them in blocks of 20. It is basically an army made after King Henry V at Agincourt.
As far as the points cost, you are right that these archers to take on more points than standard Men-at-Arms, but in the 2003 book it is only one more point per model between the two not including add-ons. The RH list is a totally different discussion. On a more practical note, 80 archers is more than enough for two armies and probably would work for three if the OP was ambitious enough, as stated by Commodus Leitdorf earlier in this thread. I recommend that he changes the paint scheme on a few of those archers just in case he gets the itch to make more than one army.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/22 23:08:23
If you play 5th or 8th you can certainly use all 80 archers.
If you are forced into the only one rank can file nonsense, then you are forced by the meta to only really have single rank archery, which had poor optics frankly for the entire game.
Also please note that Bret archers can upgrade skirmish which can open up options further. Though I prefer other options to this.
If not playing 8th or 5th you can still get away with more by deploying your archers in enfilade, turned 45 degrees to the battle line in multiple overlapping arcs of fire. This restores the options somewhat but does mean you can be flanked if not careful. Enfilade will collapse your direct frontage by several inches overall possibly allowing you two or three units in two ranks or ten in the line while still accommodating your knights and men at arms. The fourth unit can be placed on a hill, skirmish on a flank or whatever.
Yes I do think you can have 50 archers shooting turn 1, think is would you want to field that many. Just because it is reasonable to paint all 80 archers with reasonable hope to use them all in some games it will no way become a staple of the list, but a swap in for variety. 80 archers is usable and not a gimic, but the principle value in having so many is so that you are not running the same army in every game, Brets can get very samey, and the only way out of the cookie cutter is the option for a peasant heavy atlternative and I think archer heavy is more viable than man at arms heavy..
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote: If you play 5th or 8th you can certainly use all 80 archers.
If you are forced into the only one rank can file nonsense, then you are forced by the meta to only really have single rank archery, which had poor optics frankly for the entire game.
Also please note that Bret archers can upgrade skirmish which can open up options further. Though I prefer other options to this.
If not playing 8th or 5th you can still get away with more by deploying your archers in enfilade, turned 45 degrees to the battle line in multiple overlapping arcs of fire. This restores the options somewhat but does mean you can be flanked if not careful. Enfilade will collapse your direct frontage by several inches overall possibly allowing you two or three units in two ranks or ten in the line while still accommodating your knights and men at arms. The fourth unit can be placed on a hill, skirmish on a flank or whatever.
Yes I do think you can have 50 archers shooting turn 1, think is would you want to field that many. Just because it is reasonable to paint all 80 archers with reasonable hope to use them all in some games it will no way become a staple of the list, but a swap in for variety. 80 archers is usable and not a gimic, but the principle value in having so many is so that you are not running the same army in every game, Brets can get very samey, and the only way out of the cookie cutter is the option for a peasant heavy atlternative and I think archer heavy is more viable than man at arms heavy..
You know what, you are right, you can trade firing only in one rank for the nonsense of the 8th at any time. You certainly can trade the poor optics of one rank archers, for the poor optics of incredibly large blobs of ten wide units like you see in the the 8th. You can also pick fights with people who favor editions that you don't like or take a live and let live approach. Personally I like the let live approach.
I've been lurking for a bit, and frankly the guys who like 6th, at least to me, are more zealous in their edition choice. They might not 'start fights', but it's hardly a 'let live' approach.
But this is probably a discussion for another topic at this point.
I've been lurking for a bit, and frankly the guys who like 6th, at least to me, are more zealous in their edition choice. They might not 'start fights', but it's hardly a 'let live' approach.
But this is probably a discussion for another topic at this point.
Do you have an example of me being zealous concerning my choice of the 6th edition? To my recollection, I don't believe that I have ever said anything bad about the eighth edition other than "I don't like it," but I would like to know if I did. Personally, I avoid posting in the 8th edition threads the best that I can, and really do appreciate it when people on this board declare in the title or in the OP which edition that they are referring to. It saves all of time, patience and stress. In general threads, when things come up I attempt to defend my choice when I deem it necessary. Generally, I don't deem it necessary, but what Orlanth wrote was counterproductive, argumentative, and overly snarky in my estimation. His post was unnecessary, as the answer for the eighth was already answered, and a backhanded slight to people who play other editions and those who "force" others to play in those editions.(I would like to be enlightened on how someone can force someone else into playing a game) Perhaps I am overly defensive in my edition choice, but I for one have had bad experiences with people enamored with the eighth edition, by stating something very similar to what Orlanth wrote in his post.
You are also certainly correct in that we are definitely wandering into off topic territory.
While we are on a similar subject, if I was over the line on an earlier post concerning Moscha comment, I apologize.
I've been lurking for a bit, and frankly the guys who like 6th, at least to me, are more zealous in their edition choice. They might not 'start fights', but it's hardly a 'let live' approach.
But this is probably a discussion for another topic at this point.
Do you have an example of me being zealous concerning my choice of the 6th edition?
Did I say you?
Not everything is about the person being responded to. And where I see it, it's often involving shooting down any conversation involving other editions than 6th. And yeah, Orlanth can be a pill about pushing 8th. There are people, though I would rather not name them in a public forum.
I've been lurking for a bit, and frankly the guys who like 6th, at least to me, are more zealous in their edition choice. They might not 'start fights', but it's hardly a 'let live' approach.
But this is probably a discussion for another topic at this point.
Do you have an example of me being zealous concerning my choice of the 6th edition?
Did I say you?
Not everything is about the person being responded to. And where I see it, it's often involving shooting down any conversation involving other editions than 6th. And yeah, Orlanth can be a pill about pushing 8th. There are people, though I would rather not name them in a public forum.
It was the generalization.
You painted the entirety of 6th Ed. players with the same massive brush, and that's wrong no matter who does it to which group. "Games of 8th tend to devolve into two giant whale units slapping bellies in midfield while both players race to six dice Purple Sun at each other." isn't completely alright or wrong, and doesn't deal in absolutes like "5 man cav units in 6th always wipe out every unit they charge." which is false specifically because of the absolutes.
Declaring all 6th players as zealous is just as wrong. Personally, I only go defensive when people get their information partially or wholly wrong. I also don't think every 8th player is the meta chasing power gamer that commits the act I put in quotes above, but I know that there are some that do. Oddly enough you will catch 6th players on the receiving end of this story of thing rather that the giving end.
Also, if I were going to pick an even worse behavior than the "zealousness" it would be dropping a borderline attack like that and immediately playing the "getting off topic" card as if the poster is trying to prevent the point made being contested.
I've been lurking for a bit, and frankly the guys who like 6th, at least to me, are more zealous in their edition choice. They might not 'start fights', but it's hardly a 'let live' approach.
But this is probably a discussion for another topic at this point.
Do you have an example of me being zealous concerning my choice of the 6th edition?
Did I say you?
Not everything is about the person being responded to. And where I see it, it's often involving shooting down any conversation involving other editions than 6th. And yeah, Orlanth can be a pill about pushing 8th. There are people, though I would rather not name them in a public forum.
It was the generalization.
You painted the entirety of 6th Ed. players with the same massive brush, and that's wrong no matter who does it to which group. "Games of 8th tend to devolve into two giant whale units slapping bellies in midfield while both players race to six dice Purple Sun at each other." isn't completely alright or wrong, and doesn't deal in absolutes like "5 man cav units in 6th always wipe out every unit they charge." which is false specifically because of the absolutes.
Declaring all 6th players as zealous is just as wrong. Personally, I only go defensive when people get their information partially or wholly wrong. I also don't think every 8th player is the meta chasing power gamer that commits the act I put in quotes above, but I know that there are some that do. Oddly enough you will catch 6th players on the receiving end of this story of thing rather that the giving end.
Also, if I were going to pick an even worse behavior than the "zealousness" it would be dropping a borderline attack like that and immediately playing the "getting off topic" card as if the poster is trying to prevent the point made being contested.
Most people consider your 'Games of 8th...' style comments to be just as much of a generalization.
You say they don't act as zealous, in my experience most do. I'm not counting the ones who say "I like 6th" and that's it. Just the ones that use their opinion to shut down any conversation. I haven't caught many 6th players here on that end.
I've been lurking for a bit, and frankly the guys who like 6th, at least to me, are more zealous in their edition choice. They might not 'start fights', but it's hardly a 'let live' approach.
But this is probably a discussion for another topic at this point.
Do you have an example of me being zealous concerning my choice of the 6th edition?
Did I say you?
Not everything is about the person being responded to. And where I see it, it's often involving shooting down any conversation involving other editions than 6th. And yeah, Orlanth can be a pill about pushing 8th. There are people, though I would rather not name them in a public forum.
It was the generalization.
You painted the entirety of 6th Ed. players with the same massive brush, and that's wrong no matter who does it to which group. "Games of 8th tend to devolve into two giant whale units slapping bellies in midfield while both players race to six dice Purple Sun at each other." isn't completely alright or wrong, and doesn't deal in absolutes like "5 man cav units in 6th always wipe out every unit they charge." which is false specifically because of the absolutes.
Declaring all 6th players as zealous is just as wrong. Personally, I only go defensive when people get their information partially or wholly wrong. I also don't think every 8th player is the meta chasing power gamer that commits the act I put in quotes above, but I know that there are some that do. Oddly enough you will catch 6th players on the receiving end of this story of thing rather that the giving end.
Also, if I were going to pick an even worse behavior than the "zealousness" it would be dropping a borderline attack like that and immediately playing the "getting off topic" card as if the poster is trying to prevent the point made being contested.
Most people consider your 'Games of 8th...' style comments to be just as much of a generalization.
You say they don't act as zealous, in my experience most do. I'm not counting the ones who say "I like 6th" and that's it. Just the ones that use their opinion to shut down any conversation. I haven't caught many 6th players here on that end.
...
Seriously?
That line was in quotes and pointed out SPECIFICALLY as being a garbage generalization. You have no "Gotcha!" moment here, you are the only one making sweeping generalizations. I DO think 6th is vastly superior to 8th, I don't belittle anyone who views differently. Your painting all of us with a broad and inaccurate brush is the problem here.
I've been lurking for a bit, and frankly the guys who like 6th, at least to me, are more zealous in their edition choice. They might not 'start fights', but it's hardly a 'let live' approach.
But this is probably a discussion for another topic at this point.
Do you have an example of me being zealous concerning my choice of the 6th edition?
Did I say you?
Not everything is about the person being responded to. And where I see it, it's often involving shooting down any conversation involving other editions than 6th. And yeah, Orlanth can be a pill about pushing 8th. There are people, though I would rather not name them in a public forum.
It was the generalization.
You painted the entirety of 6th Ed. players with the same massive brush, and that's wrong no matter who does it to which group. "Games of 8th tend to devolve into two giant whale units slapping bellies in midfield while both players race to six dice Purple Sun at each other." isn't completely alright or wrong, and doesn't deal in absolutes like "5 man cav units in 6th always wipe out every unit they charge." which is false specifically because of the absolutes.
Declaring all 6th players as zealous is just as wrong. Personally, I only go defensive when people get their information partially or wholly wrong. I also don't think every 8th player is the meta chasing power gamer that commits the act I put in quotes above, but I know that there are some that do. Oddly enough you will catch 6th players on the receiving end of this story of thing rather that the giving end.
Also, if I were going to pick an even worse behavior than the "zealousness" it would be dropping a borderline attack like that and immediately playing the "getting off topic" card as if the poster is trying to prevent the point made being contested.
Most people consider your 'Games of 8th...' style comments to be just as much of a generalization.
You say they don't act as zealous, in my experience most do. I'm not counting the ones who say "I like 6th" and that's it. Just the ones that use their opinion to shut down any conversation. I haven't caught many 6th players here on that end.
[/spoiler]
...
Seriously?
That line was in quotes and pointed out SPECIFICALLY as being a garbage generalization. You have no "Gotcha!" moment here, you are the only one making sweeping generalizations. I DO think 6th is vastly superior to 8th, I don't belittle anyone who views differently. Your painting all of us with a broad and inaccurate brush is the problem here.
Seriously.
I'm not trying to make a gotcha moment.
People do shut down conversations here about editions.
Don't do things that get you painted.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/12/27 05:10:31
BlackoCatto wrote: You could fire with all archers in Arrow Head formation.
Out of curiosity when was that an allowable formation? I looked at the different army books/lists from the 6th on out and nave not noticed that in any of special rules that I have for archers.(Different story for the knights) Was this a formation that was used in the 5th? I have seen a picture of archers ranked up like that in the 2002 annual, so my best guess is that they were used in the 5th, but I was not actively playing during that period of time.
BlackoCatto wrote: You could fire with all archers in Arrow Head formation.
Out of curiosity when was that an allowable formation? I looked at the different army books/lists from the 6th on out and nave not noticed that in any of special rules that I have for archers.(Different story for the knights) Was this a formation that was used in the 5th? I have seen a picture of archers ranked up like that in the 2002 annual, so my best guess is that they were used in the 5th, but I was not actively playing during that period of time.
5th edition, and I could have sworn it made it into Ravening Hordes. I'll check that in.a little bit
