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.

Bretonnia is fixed by:

1. Dialing down the class oppression theme from 11 to something less unreasonable.

2. Crossbowmen

3. Foot knights

4. Hard discount on paladins, because Arthurian heroics.

antia wrote:

1. Dialing down the class oppression theme from 11 to something less unreasonable.
Re. point 1, what would be the point of the faction, then? What would be the main joke?

Arthurian myth is more positive than this. Bretonnians do not need to be a joke faction.

antia wrote:

2. Crossbowmen
Re. point 2, how exactly would that work? The Bretonnians already have longbowmen, because of the Arthurian theme. Would the crossbowmen be mercenaries? Some sort of schismatic faction or subculture?

Axactly like it did for Errantry wars, except you dont have to eschew KotR to get them. Also crossbows are not exactly advanced technology.
Also longbows are not particurarly Arthurian, just medieval. Traditional Arthurian armies are almost exclusively made up of knights.

antia wrote:

3. Foot knights
Re. point 3, isn't that rather stepping on the Empire's toes? I very much think of foot knights as being a German thing, and always presumed that that was why the Empire had them and Bretonnia didn't.

How does it do that exactly? Also Reiksguard foot knights are long gone and the Greatswordsmen which replaced them are not knights.

Dismounted knights are medieval accurate (battle of Poitiers), fit the Arthurian theme (particularly at sieges), and were available for older editions of the Bretonnian army list.

They fit in well enough for GW to do a miniatures range.
http://www.solegends.com/citcat1991b/cat1991bp230brettinf-01.htm

antia wrote:

4. Hard discount on paladins, because Arthurian heroics.
Re. point 4, Bretonnia already gets an extra hero slot for that (at least in 6th edition). I personally think that the actual restrictions on how you build a force (e.g. whether a unit is Core or Special) are a better tool than point incentives for enforcing army themes.

.

They need a discount like some factions get. Saurus are discounted. Heroes are not cost effective, which is why most players take the minimum. This needs a general fix, but Bretonnians need it more than most.

antia wrote:

So in summary I disagree with all your points

But you didn't make a lick of sense though.

Olbloth wrote:
Well, I was thinking we could all knock heads together and create lore friendly units without aiming for the typical recommendations, like Foot Knights and Crossbows.

They are typical because they are canon. Crossbowmen were in 6th, but only in errantry wars. Remove that restriction and now Brets get S4 shooting. That would be a major help.
As I mentioned earlier GW already did a range of foot knights, and knight sans horse is not an addition to the army, but a subtraction. There is nothing to invent in.

Olbloth wrote:

Another recommendation would be custom 'Men-At-Arms'.

I am all for custom units, but I would handle that differently. Take a generic unit statblock and then have options at a flat rate or per model cost. However customisation in this way works better for elite rather than rank and file units, and it doesn't make much sense for Bretonnians to get customisation whereas a more elite army would not.
As a general rule I am all for it, if handled correctly, and that would allow Bretonnians to benefit too. But at a minimum the customisation should be extended to knights also.
But its a lot of work and when all is said and done you are better off not trying, it would be too prone to imbalance and too easy to exploit.

Olbloth wrote:

If I recall correctly, in the Knights of the Grail book, a certain lord wanted to kidnap another lords trainer because he was jealous of the higher quality soldiery. We could apply that logic to table top to give each unit of Men-At-Arms more flavor. Some could be poorer and more plentiful, others be better equipped but cost more. Still garbage units but sturdier if nothing else.

As Just Tony suggests, Men At Arms should be better than goblins, and making them better than goblins is a side effect of dialling down the class oppression. Once they are WS3 and have a hand weapon and shield option you are pretty much done with what you need to do to help them.
Remember that even as they are Men At Arms are cheap enough you can make a horde army out of them. Once you make them defacto Ld8 through positioning they can actually be reasonably effective. They are decently equipped for infantry, halberd/spear, light armour and shield is pretty good frankly. Custom Men At arms that can be upgraded to be genuinely hard hitting might even be unfair. Bretonnians are not a weak faction, they lack much versatility but that is all.

TinyLegions wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Bretonnia is fixed by:

1. Dialing down the class oppression theme from 11 to something less unreasonable.

2. Crossbowmen

3. Foot knights

4. Hard discount on paladins, because Arthurian heroics.

And Men-At-Arms who are better than a freaking Goblin statwise. NO REASON they should be WS 2...

I have no problem keeping M@A where they were. The idea of nobility not spending time and money to get M@A up to a high level of combat effectiveness seems to fit the narrative of Bretonnians even if you dial down the class oppression, but have an upgraded footmen unit that is either special(my preference) or 0-1 core unit that is WS 3, better LD,(perhaps I as well?) with more weapon options. Call them "Lords Guard" or 'Yeoman Company" or something like that. Basically Veteran M@A that as a group function at that higher level of combat effectiveness and where the nobility have picked to be all in one unit. Using a Lord in your army may also do more for them, like make them all core like how the WE worked back then.

I haven't much problem with that Empire State Troops are not well trained but even basic gets you WS3, that should be a standard for Men At Arms.
You want a Special choice Men At arms unit, I have zero problems with that approach. "Yeomen Company " may be a reasonable part solution. I would not limit it to 0-1, being Special is a limitation enough. I would keep them the same as WS3 Men At Arms but with a point of leadership, and the unit champion could be normal yeoman or a knight for a surcharge. Which offers a bit of a boost while not making it hard to justify and means you dont need to spend a fortune on Virtue of Humility to stiffen a battle line.

I would not try anything else too fancy and crossbowmen, again as a special choice would help, with bolt throwers and foot knights as rare to round out the roster.

Bretonnia doesn't need much to fix, I don't even think it needs to upgraded Men At Arms, there are already ways to stiffen them. WS3 makes it more cost effective doing so. Ws2 troops don't make a Paladin babysitter cost effective for the army.

Crossbows are still very useful as there is not much above S3 except on the charge turn, making them special prevents abuse, and foot knights as rare also limits access, though there is a case for making foot knights special also.

 skeleton wrote:
Men at arms where the pesaents drafted into the army at times of war. The trouble with bretonnia army is, the magic items and there vows the most dont work.I have a big unit of men at arms and bow men, i always leave them at home in favor of more knights.

That doesn't fit the fluff though. The process for recruiting Men at Arms is well documented in the army book page 52. They are recruited once a year, only a select few pass recruitment, they are given a generous stipend for joining, lots of equipment and processing, then they have all the monies granted them taken away in equipment and lodging fees and mandatory donations to the temple of Shallya. They are listed as not skillful, which is fine, but they are somewhat trained and boarded as permanent soldiers. They are also enthusiastic as conditions appear to be better for them despite the wage gouging. Even if left to train themselves and sent to combat before said training is finished they are likely to pick up a skillset. The annual recruitment process strongly indicates that the average Men At arms will spend some time at his job before he has to fight for his life in open battle. To some degree they are professional soldiery and equipment quality is at least passable, with an emphasis on billing for repairs, so equipment replacement is also a thing.
These do not sound like starved peasants rounded up from the fields given spears and told to fend off the enemy. I can expect them to be pig ignorant, but education is not a requirement for a decent WS. They have no business being WS2.

Are don't remember the 5th ed book much except that you could only put a dragon on your shield or crest if you had killed one, so Bretonnia is full of liars or very hard men, because many knights had such a creasdt, and not just characters either.

5th had the artwork dialled up to 11, and there was a lot of bright green and crimson everywhere in that era, and Brets were not spared that.

But I would be interested to know if there was a WS2 peasant mob and WS3 men at arms.

Crossbows, again.

Can anyone explain why there is so much resistance from some to them existing. It makes no sense, weakens the faction, and removes diversity from the army.

I remember the Bretonnian bombard, I thought long and hard about using a bombard for my 'trebuchet'. Then MOM Miniaturas released a very nice trebuchet.

https://en.momminiatures.com/product-page/honda-of-god

TinyLegions wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:


Unfortunately need to disagree with you on this. There is no reason that a Lord of a castle would want his property defenders unable to best Gnoblars. They would most assuredly train them at least to a competent level enough to successfully fend off invaders. Now if you wanted to do some sort of roving band peasant list, then I suggest creating a unit that is NOT Men-At-Arms. Think Empire Free Company vs. State Troops.

Sorry for the delay in response. I am ok to agree to disagree on this, but does a Lord rely on the Men-at-Arms, or on his Knight Errants for the role of defending his property?

That is easy to answer. Men-At-Arms. The job of a Knights Errant is to ride off and seek glory so he can prove himself worthy of being a Knight of the Realm. Garrison duty doesn't do that. There is room as part of a knights training he gets to learn responsibility and potentially even a bit of humility and patience, by ordering the young impetuous knight to guard a farm for a week. He may indeed learn some responsiblity through that, but unlikely to attain the other two virtues.
Even so any guard duty performed by Knights Errant will be a training exercise nothing more and over swiftly over, whether the knights get to actively protect anything is a fringe issue.
Both army books are clear that Men-At-Arms shoulder the burden of guarding infrastructure.

TinyLegions wrote:

It has been a while but I recall that Knight Errants have no specific land grants like Knights of the Realm but rather on retainer and subsided by the Lord directly. I would expect that they are part of his retinue and thus in residence in the Lords castle until times of trouble come knocking on the door. Would they not be more of a rapid response force at the Lords disposal than even his best foot soldiers?

It would be more likely that there would be landless Knights of the Realm performing such duty, as this would be the case in real Europe. However I don't know how far GW pushed the narrative of every Knight having land and his own peasants to lord over.
In any event a Knight Errant's sole job is to win his full spurs (technically he is a squire but in Bretonnia that means something else).

Looking at pages 48 and 49 every KoTR is expected to have a village and castle, one castle per knight. GW didnt think this through so we could imagine that that was an ideal or that the definition of a plot of land and 'castle' is open to wide interpretation.

TinyLegions wrote:

Another question is it that is it using the term Men-At-Arms is what is the problem? You may be right in that toward the end of the middle ages Men-At-Arms was more of a term that described professional soldiers who were either on foot or mounted, and in that case the stat line in what is called Men-at-Arms in the Bretonnian is more of a militia unit. My educated guess is that the concept of using WS at a 2 comes from Warhammer Ancient Battle where more than a few units were of that weapon skill, specifically in their supplement for the middle ages.

Using Warhammer Ancients as a source is not really fair, WHFB starts with a reasonable baseline copied for Imperial Guard, I see no excuse to drop below that except for armed civilians. Warhammer ancients stats are often far lower, and the stock human profile would be an elite warrior.

TinyLegions wrote:

I don't remember where I saw it, or even which edition, but I saw a stat for that particular lack of training garners you a WS of 1 long ago. I think that it is in the Chronicle or Annual Supplements, where Peasants were used in such a manner. They also were not officially armed, and thus had the proverbial pitch forks for weapons, so that may have dropped them a point.

I don't remember that either, but zombies are WS1 and not much else, and if movies have taught us anything it is that ordinary untrained people can fend off a zombie, they have troubles when ganked or if they don't react due to a lack of genre savvy.
I can easily see Bret peasants being as downtrodden as gnoblars, and I can see how a goblin might have more combat experience. But only until they are given their lords colours to wear and go through basic. So WS2 archers I am ok with. But Men At Arms should be WS3.

 Vulcan wrote:
I'm waaaaayyyyyy late to the discussion here, I know, but somehow I managed to miss this entire forum for years...

Bretonnia needs solid melee infantry. Full stop. Be it more expensive WS4 foot knights or cheap WS3 polearm Men-At-Arms probably doesn't matter all that much... although having both gives variety and flexibility. In the age of steadfast and 'step up', an all-cavalry army is not going to cut it unless you make even basic Bret cavalry so good they're unbalanced.

Foot knights solve a lot of problems, but only so long as you are not dogmatically tied to the idea that every knight has a personal fief, which makes no sense as if a knight has more than one surviving son they will have to create new villages and castles for them.. Foot knights are very likely to be landless knights.

 Vulcan wrote:

(Although I do think Grail Knights and Grail Vow characters need a hefty buff. They're supposed to be the BEST knights in the Old World. They should be able to take on any other knight in the game on at least even terms, even Chaos Knights.)

I mostly agree, but Chaos Knights are also divinely blessed.

 Vulcan wrote:

Crossbows... well, that's a fun one. I can absolutely see the nobility not wanting to see peasants using S4 ranged weapons. Thus, they'd be mercenaries hired by the lord, not peasants given gear. On that basis they make perfect sense, including giving the lord a counter to peasant archers in case of a peasant rebellion. If the peasants are revolting, the last thing you want to do is bring a bunch of them into your keep in the hopes they'll shoot other peasants and not just sneak off and open a sally gate to them early one morning...

Not unreasonable. There were several attempts to ban crossbows in 11th and 12th century Europe. This involved at least one papal edict. Bretonnia could make such a ban stick better than historical factions. There are certainly reasons for a no crossbows rule, but there are reasons for fringe lords to ignore this rule because they like the idea of their peasants actually doing some damage to the orc hordes threatening their lands.

 Vulcan wrote:

Last I heard, Bretonnia was being given 250(ish) extra points in 2000 point tournaments just to bring them into line with other armies. If that doesn't demonstrate how weak the Brets are as an army, I don't know what would.

I don't like that Bretonnians are not weak, they are unversatile. There are some ways to make a competitive Bretonnian list, just fewer than with other factions and with a clearer distinction between units that help you win and throw in units.250pts just means two free trebuchet with every list, then make a list without them, and some spare extra points.
What I do agree with however would be a fixed bonus such as a BOGOF on Paladins. WHFB overprices heroes and Bretonnians need heroes but to work and also for theme. This is somewhere where the flff and army design can match, Bretonnia has dire need of heroic knights, and is never short of them. Allowing the army to get four paladins for the cost or two, you still need to pay to outfit them, will go a long way to fixing the faction, and you still need to make the investment to get the bonus. Virtues and steeds will stack up to make this not get out of hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RustyNumber wrote:


You can have fluff of "nobility crack down hard on peasants and are dicks" without it being pants-on-head HURR NO CROSSBOWS ON TABLETOP, FIGHT WITH ONE HAND TIED BEHIND BACK FOR MUH HONOUR stupid

and

 Rihgu wrote:
WAP gave them foot knights and a couple different variety of brigand-style units. Outlaws not beholden to rules like not using guns and crossbows.

They also have an ethereal "Grail Knight ghost swarm" unit, which is... something!

You can put an elegant limit to crossbowmen by making them Rare. This makes them compete for limited points with Grail knights and trebuchet. This also means the holier lords who have access to grail knights are less likely to tolerate crossbowmen in their lands, whereas scoundrel lords who arm their peasants with troublesome weapons, which could include 'handgonnes', will be looked at unfavourably by the Grail Knights. In larger armies you get both because differnet lords from a wider area come together to fight, the crossbowmen obviously belong to someone who is a valid knight, but not looked at overly favourably by The Lady.

 Vulcan wrote:

Foot knights are just knights who aren't risking a valuable horse in this battle; otherwise they're the same as mounted knights. I would propose giving ALL of our knights the option to go on foot (well, not Pegasus Knights...), or mounted for extra cost. So you can have cheap WS 3 foot Knights-Errant, more reliable WS 4 foot KotR, hard-hitting foot Questing Knights, or elite foot Grail Knights.

But that's just me; YMMV.

Having the option to dismount a cavalry unit will lead to an overpriced and understrength infantry unit. Best keep foot knights in seperation.

 Vulcan wrote:

I mostly agree, but Chaos Knights are also divinely blessed.

And Grail Knights are not?

I used the word 'also', not 'instead'.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

Thus Grail Knights should be able to fight Chaos Knights on even terms, as I said earlier.

Absolutely. My first edition of WHFB was 5th and the Bretonnian armies were pretty one-dimensional but very effective. A wedge of Grail Knights could (and did) win against Chaos Knights.

I do not get the idea how Vulcan is assuming I, or for that matter any other commentator on this thread disagrees with this.
Grail Knights are a form of Chosen.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

I think with Bretonnia, the thing is to provide space for both fluff zealots and people who want more variety.

There are two types of 'fluff zealot'. Those who want to follow 6th and those who wanted to follow earlier more nuanced depictions of Bretonnia. I should add a third category of those who want to follow Total War Warhammer, which buffed the faction roster a little.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Each army would have to have a professional (full time) infantry unit to secure the castle and its environs with WS 3. Knights on foot would also be defensible, but there should be no more than 1 per X many points (basically the more castles the lord has, the more of these units he is supporting.

I would move away from hard limiting number of units as a player could make those units disproportionately large anyway making a mockery of the distinction. Instead move everything that you want to limit into special and rare, then you get natural hard choices.

All Men At Arms should be WS3 Ld6, that would support their fluff. They should still be core. Levies should be a different unit, and WS2 BS2 Ld5. They get a useless 6+ save from scraps of armour and the occasional plank shield. Now there has to be an in game reason to take them. How about this. Peasant levies take (not long) bows, slings or spears, they do not officially have shields as a unit. They should be suitably cheap. .

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Crossbows should be mercenaries because Bretonnians regard the traditional bow as their national weapon. For variety's sake, one could go farther and have professional archers, 1 per just like the men-at-arms and foot knights.

Mercenaries are an interesting add on, but will likely not just stop at crossbows.