CDO Forums

Full Version: Bretonian Abomonation?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
So a while back I saw a conversion, on the GW site in one of it's whats new today posts, of a Bretonian hero/lord with angle wings.  This of course was a creative way of saying the hero or lord is mounted on a pegausus ans it was a nice modle to boot.

My question is because Bretonia is pretty much even more xenophobic than the emipre wouldn't this "angelic" figure be cast out and shunned if not out right killed by his own people?  Just some thoughts if i can find the link ill post it otherwise...Discuss!!

*mutate...

Heres the link the modle is on the top first picture on the right...
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/conten...=17600029a
that hero doesnt look very bretonian to me...more like a slaanesh hero
I would assume he has some clever background justification for the inclusion of such a mutant in his army. You might also notice the character is a woman - it's made principally from St. Celestine - so I imagine it's supposed to be some sort of magical manifestation of the Lady of the Lake or something.
reminds me of the video game Dantes Inferno.

lovely miniature (:
Its a cool mini, but conceptually I don't think it works. GW's painted themselves into such a corner with the Bretonnians, by making it difficult to justify unorthodox units. Bretonnian abominations will always be limited to something in the vein of the Green Knight or more commedically a knight who can't be killed even if all his limbs are hacked off.
I don't see why a Bretonnian army couldn't have an angelic model...
It would have to be a Grail/Lady Guardian of some sort, maybe a Blessing?...

The main problem with Brets is that they're based too much on an actual historical army...
(with the exception of wizards/pegasi/hippogiffs...) - They need to be more "fantasy".

Or cheaper...
The Bretonnian army has a lot of problems... the clearest contrast is when you compare them to the Empire. By fluff, Bretonnia is less advanced technologically... they have less developed magic than the Empire.... and Bretonnia's "professional" soldiers are only as good as the Empire's militia. The only thing that could be more characteristically define Bretonnia than the Empire is how religious it is... but ruleswise Flagellants are better than Pilgrims and Empire has warpriest while bretonnia has nothing. Bretonnia suffers from not having enough of anything but knights to define it. Add to that the most recent fluff made Bretonnia's knights less virtuous.

My only other WFB army, beside CD, is Bretonnia and it has big problems. I think we'd agree that GW really should crank up the religious nature of Bretonnia and it's praise of the Lady of the Lake. Angels could be part of that, I have nothing against the notion, but you would need to rework some fluff. An aspect that I've felt ties the current fluff well to a religious aspect is the mentions of crusades against the undead. That theme can really underscore a lot of what Bretonnia needs to be a more fleshed out army. I think a point you touch on is that most of the other fantasy armies are these menageries of fantasy creatures, but not Bretonnia.

Angels or the similar, would be a good move. Almost a no brainier... even if its not the most fluffy thing, its what comes to mind so readily for most non-Bretonnia players when you talk about what could be added.
I totally agree with you Mythos.  I saw the modle and thinking about the fluff you mentioned i thought this wouldn't work.  The direction I think the fluff should go is along the lines of the plains decks of Magic the Gathering.  If you not familiar with that its a lot of priests, common and blessed soilders, with knights, and angles, basiclly the way Bretonnia should be in Warhammer.  Like you said less historical more fantasy...  But thanks for the input!  I really appreciate it! It was a great modle and I was glad to share it and stirr up the pot when it comes to fluff! Cheers!! and thanks again...
Takes Hat off
Personally I always thought Bretonians could benefit from something like 'acts of faith' for 40k Witch Hunters. Anything really to set them apart from the Empire. Another aspect that bugs e is how poor their archers and men-at-arms are compared to their historical equivalent. The peasant levies were awful yes, but these two groups were proffesional soldiers and tough as old boots. Archers were trained from the age of seven and were so strong they were physically distorted. Brets are just hopelessly underpowered compared to their opponents.
They do have the Blessing of the Lady, which is thematically similar, but you lose it by acts of cowardice rather than gaining it through acts of martyrdom.

I agree about the archers too, but one of the issues with Warhammer is that it's such a historically inaccurate mash-up of different periods, it's hard to put in stuff like that: English bowmen were one of the most feared weapons in medieval Europe precisely because no one had anything that could counteract them. Agincourt was won because the French army underestimated an army composed mostly of peasants and stuck rigidly to tactics that were a century out of date - warfare was changing, and the idea of landed knights doing most of the real fighting while peasant levies hung around to get slaughtered was giving way to the concept of the professional soldier. A good percentage of the armoured fighting men (men at arms - a term Warhammer misuses) during that period weren't landowners, but paid soldiers who hoped to become wealthy by capturing and ransoming enemy nobles in battle. Once the paradigm shifted after the Hundred Years War, the whole concept of what a fighting force could be evolved and, as blackpowder came to the fore, cavalry and body armour became increasingly irrelevant (except against vastly inferior troops or as dragoons). But in Warhammer, that evolution occurs geographically rather than over time - The Empire is hundreds of years ahead of Bretonnia somehow! The kind of army represented by The Empire would annihilate the English at Agincourt - not just because they'd have more than one cannon and it wouldn't explode after the first shot - but because the idea of commoners carrying ranged weapons that could kill men in armour wouldn't be at all alien to them. So it's actually impossible to translate the effectiveness of English (and Welsh, I should say) bowmen into Warhammer terms, because the kind of advanced enemies they'd be facing are so anachronistic that they actually wouldn't be effective.

I probably didn't need to be that wordy. You should have heard my groom's speech yesterday...
First of all congratulations for yesterday Thommy! Just realised I hadn't said it yet. Cheers!

I agree with you on the archers and the period differences. Personally I've always wondered why Bretonia wasn't just gradually rolled up by the Empire during their many border disputes. I can understand the archers not being that effective shooting-wise. The armour for most races is well in advance of the 'real world' armour that made the longbow obsolete, and the main theme of the army is knights, not archers. What I don't understand is the awful stat line. IMO a few minor things would fix Bretonians:

- An improved blessing, which gets stronger for brave deeds as well as weaker for ats of cowardice, much like eye of the gods in WoC.

- Fixing the statline of archers and men-at-arms and introducing a new levy unit of poor but very cheap troops.

- Allow Grail Knights to be distributed between units as leaders, giving a boost to the ones they joined.

AGPO Wrote:
First of all congratulations for yesterday Thommy! Just realised I hadn't said it yet. Cheers!


Thank you - it's a bit of a random thread for it to come up in, but I had to apologise during the ceremony because the vows I wrote contained too many long words and my speech started with a joke about how long it was, so it just occurred to me to mention it after writing all that stuff about Agincourt!


Quote:
- An improved blessing, which gets stronger for brave deeds as well as weaker for ats of cowardice, much like eye of the gods in WoC.

- Fixing the statline of archers and men-at-arms and introducing a new levy unit of poor but very cheap troops.

- Allow Grail Knights to be distributed between units as leaders, giving a boost to the ones they joined.


I agree with all these suggestions. Especially the statline thing - I get the idea about Peasants being poor troops, and they have the classic "downtrodden unit" de-buffs (like Skavenslaves and the like) which makes thematic sense but...yeah...no army in this or any imagined world is going to survive if its basic infantry are incapable of defending themselves. The value of heavy cavalry in medieval warfare is vastly overstated - as it was at the time, which is why the French fouled up at Agincourt, in fact - so I think there's no real reason that Bretonnian infantry shouldn't have normal human WS and BS values. I can see an argument for lower Ld, and keeping the thing about peasant units not causing Panic is fine (because it's more about knights being arrogant than it is commoners being rubbish) but that's about it.

I like the Grail Knights idea as well, because I have a problem with whole units of them. If they're as elite as they're supposed to be and with the rate of attrition they're supposed to have (because only some knights take up the quest, and only a tiny fraction of them achieve it), there shouldn't be whole regiments of them riding around. In my Brettonian army, only the general has the Grail Vow and only a couple of Paladins have the Questing Vow. I imagine the Grail Quest is only taken up by a small percentage of pious knights - most are happier sitting around, growing fat off the income of their estates.

correct me if i'm wrong but to the best of my understanding armour didn't make the longbow obsolete rather the ease of use of gunpowder weapons. Anyone could be trained to use a blackpowder weapon in little time whereas mastery of the longbow needed years of training and muscle building. Early firearms were in fact far inferior to longbows in terms of range, power and definitatey accuracy but their ease of use made them far more useful.

EDIT: Sorry to hijack this thread but I forgot too.... Congratulations Thommy! I wish you both all the very very best!!

vulcanologist Wrote:
correct me if i'm wrong but to the best of my understanding armour didn't make the longbow obsolete rather the ease of use of gunpowder weapons. Anyone could be trained to use a blackpowder weapon in little time whereas mastery of the longbow needed years of training and muscle building. Early firearms were in fact far inferior to longbows in terms of range, power and definitatey accuracy but their ease of use made them far more useful.


Yeah, sorry, that's what I was saying in a sort of long-winded way (I do that a lot, apparently...). When I mentioned armour, I was trying to say that that became obsolete too - look at infantry during the Wars of the Roses compared to the English Civil War less than a century later: that's all down to firearms that could be wielded by infantry. Archers with longbows were deadly, and they could punch through plate armour in the right circumstances - in fact, they contributed to its obsolescence too - but the huge advantage of guns is that they're deadly without having to use troops with giant deformed torsos to use them! A English or Welsh longbowman took a lifetime to train: a rifleman is potentially deadly in weeks or even days.

Congratulations Thommy!

vulcanologist Wrote:
correct me if i'm wrong but to the best of my understanding armour didn't make the longbow obsolete rather the ease of use of gunpowder weapons. Anyone could be trained to use a blackpowder weapon in little time whereas mastery of the longbow needed years of training and muscle building. Early firearms were in fact far inferior to longbows in terms of range, power and definitatey accuracy but their ease of use made them far more useful.


This was a large part of the reason the longbow dissapeared, but don't forget that the crossbow was favoured by many countries for similar reasons. Gunpowder weapons didn't catch up to the longbow in terms of rate of fire until well into the 19th century.

Reference URL's