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.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:


Also: why do the haughty Bretonnians get to take mercenaries? I remember them very specifically being forbidden from fielding Dogs of War.

You may remember it that way, but in 5th they were able to Dogs of War units, with some specific exemptions (Volands Ventators being one.) But that was similar to O&G not being able to take slayer pirates etc.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

That was when they got their army book in 5th edition, when Nigel Stillman turned them from backward, brutal and uncaring feudalism to King Arthur, honour, valour and fairy tale stuff. That was awful.

Except it's not true. As per my above, in 5th they could take Dogs of War units (with some exceptions).

It was in 6th, starting with the Ravening Hordes lists that Bretonnians couldn't take Dogs of War, but by that point it was clear GW didn't really know what they were doing with the Brets, punting them to the back of the edition for the armybook and then never touching them again. The problem they faced was they gave the Empire so many options that it was hard to make the Bretonnians unique in anyway. The empire had wizards and priests and tech. In my opinion they should have focused the Empire on being the technology advancing and the colleges of magic side of things. And let Bretonnians be the tradition / faith based faction. But they didn't.

Anyone else notice that the standard they recommend for games was 2k not 2.5k. Wonder if they are trying to have smaller armies between base sizes changing and the drop to 2k?

 nathan2004 wrote:
Anyone else notice that the standard they recommend for games was 2k not 2.5k. Wonder if they are trying to have smaller armies between base sizes changing and the drop to 2k?

Again it depends on what era you are talking about. 2k was pretty standard for 6th Ed.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Anyone else notice that the standard they recommend for games was 2k not 2.5k. Wonder if they are trying to have smaller armies between base sizes changing and the drop to 2k?

It was always 2k recommended in 7th/8th iirc.

2000 points still was the intended standard later on. Adding another 500 points was, as far as I know, done in some circles to let you play big characters on dragons that would not otherwise fit inside the character limitations of 8th ed.

 Geifer wrote:
2000 points still was the intended standard later on. Adding another 500 points was, as far as I know, done in some circles to let you play big characters on dragons that would not otherwise fit inside the character limitations of 8th ed.

Yup same as the assumption that 1999+1, 1850 or 2k was "normal" for 40k in 6th/7th when it was a community decision in some places.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Anyone else notice that the standard they recommend for games was 2k not 2.5k. Wonder if they are trying to have smaller armies between base sizes changing and the drop to 2k?

,

2k was normal for 5-7th ed.

In 8th 2400 became popular.

With much borrowed from older editions why not army size

They specifically said there was no recommended size of game in the article.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:


Also: why do the haughty Bretonnians get to take mercenaries? I remember them very specifically being forbidden from fielding Dogs of War.

That was when they got their army book in 5th edition, when Nigel Stillman turned them from backward, brutal and uncaring feudalism to King Arthur, honour, valour and fairy tale stuff. That was awful.

I mean, play them as noble heroes if you want, but don't restrict the whole nation to this. Of course there're corrupt, decadent and greedy knights and dukes and even more decent personalities should come to the conclusion that sometimes engaging mercenaries from your own or all the other nations around (Empire, Marienburg, Tilea, Estalia) might be a good idea when the going gets tough.

The Stillman book was the best of the two and you can't convince me otherwise. Infinitely better than its successor which had some very pretty artwork and awful writing. It's not like the 5th Edition book didn't include stories about uncaring Lords, malicious, petty sorceresses or peasants facing hardship in a skewed society. The 6th Edition tone just Flanderized those traits to hammer home the 'comedic grimdark' vibe they were going with and everything with Bretonnians became a meme on some variation of 'peasants are poor and stupid, knights are vain and stupid LOL'. Not to mention how much the model range went downhill at the same time.

Also, as mentioned by others, they could take the vast majority of the options in the Dogs of War list that came out within a year or so of their 5th Edition book so that point is just downright incorrect.

Game size will vary a lot with this game depending on if your local area is picking it up fresh/new or if they have a lot of older players with established armies already. Not to mention how much cross over functionally remains.

If people already have 3-4-5K worth of models in old collections then they might start bigger games. If people are starting fresh then 1K and 1.5K might be locally more popular.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:


Also: why do the haughty Bretonnians get to take mercenaries? I remember them very specifically being forbidden from fielding Dogs of War.

That was when they got their army book in 5th edition, when Nigel Stillman turned them from backward, brutal and uncaring feudalism to King Arthur, honour, valour and fairy tale stuff. That was awful.

I mean, play them as noble heroes if you want, but don't restrict the whole nation to this. Of course there're corrupt, decadent and greedy knights and dukes and even more decent personalities should come to the conclusion that sometimes engaging mercenaries from your own or all the other nations around (Empire, Marienburg, Tilea, Estalia) might be a good idea when the going gets tough.

5th Ed Brets was the best feel for the army, honestly. Surrounded by grimderp, it was nice to have an army that was predominantly altruistic. That, and the whole Arthurian theme is the go-to image for most people who think of knights anyway.

My recollection was that 2.5k was the "standard" here in the northeastern US from mid-6th through 8th. I remember it being 2k (or 1999+1 maybe) when I first started, and then scaling up over time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:


Also: why do the haughty Bretonnians get to take mercenaries? I remember them very specifically being forbidden from fielding Dogs of War.

That was when they got their army book in 5th edition, when Nigel Stillman turned them from backward, brutal and uncaring feudalism to King Arthur, honour, valour and fairy tale stuff. That was awful.

I mean, play them as noble heroes if you want, but don't restrict the whole nation to this. Of course there're corrupt, decadent and greedy knights and dukes and even more decent personalities should come to the conclusion that sometimes engaging mercenaries from your own or all the other nations around (Empire, Marienburg, Tilea, Estalia) might be a good idea when the going gets tough.

5th Ed Brets was the best feel for the army, honestly. Surrounded by grimderp, it was nice to have an army that was predominantly altruistic. That, and the whole Arthurian theme is the go-to image for most people who think of knights anyway.

Even the backward, brutal, uncaring feudalism was a bit of a retcon wasn't it? Originally Bretonnia was more steampunk/davincipunk-esque, similar tech-level to the Empire but more Louis XVI/Marie Antoinette in style and greater class/cultural divide between the nobility and peasantry, with all the nobles wearing heavy makeup and wigs to cover up the poxes and mutations and diseases they were suffering from (implied to be some sort of chaotic taint or corruption), while the unwashed dirty and grimy peasantry lived in abject poverty with no access to more modern technology and tools (horded by the elites) and suffered from debilitating disease, etc.

Nobody commenting on pure Knight lists or that the Bretonnian Bombard is back?

 Just Tony wrote:

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:


Also: why do the haughty Bretonnians get to take mercenaries? I remember them very specifically being forbidden from fielding Dogs of War.

That was when they got their army book in 5th edition, when Nigel Stillman turned them from backward, brutal and uncaring feudalism to King Arthur, honour, valour and fairy tale stuff. That was awful.

I mean, play them as noble heroes if you want, but don't restrict the whole nation to this. Of course there're corrupt, decadent and greedy knights and dukes and even more decent personalities should come to the conclusion that sometimes engaging mercenaries from your own or all the other nations around (Empire, Marienburg, Tilea, Estalia) might be a good idea when the going gets tough.

5th Ed Brets was the best feel for the army, honestly. Surrounded by grimderp, it was nice to have an army that was predominantly altruistic. That, and the whole Arthurian theme is the go-to image for most people who think of knights anyway.

Even that apparent altruism wasn't universal and the Stillman book, for me, gives a nice balance between showcasing the ideal of what that romanticized idea of a nation dominated by notions of chivalric knighthood might look like whilst pointing out that it is just that (i.e. an ideal). There's definitely the noble, devout knights and dedicated peasants living in a near-symbiotic relationship (and the reasons why that society developed in rural Bretonnia) alongside the acknowledgement that there's a darker underbelly with examples of corrupt or uncaring nobility, poverty and constant mass sickness in the towns and plenty of criminal activity, especially in the ports. It might have been a departure from the earlier lore for the faction (as was fairly typical for this period when the Old World fluff was crystallising into what we'd generally recognize it as today) and the Arthurian aspects certainly added a new layer but I don't see why it would be considered as being one-dimensional or too 'heroic' as an entire nation/faction. No more than, say, the Empire or High Elves would have been.

 Darnok wrote:
Nobody commenting on pure Knight lists or that the Bretonnian Bombard is back?

This one?



Although its described as a Border Princes Bombard in the new piece

Never seen that image before...that made me very happy, thanks for the early Christmas present.

Aftermarket prices on that Bombard model increasing exponentially in 3... 2...

 nathan2004 wrote:
Never seen that image before...that made me very happy, thanks for the early Christmas present.

3rd edition Brettonians had crossbows, the bombard, and a unit that was specifically liege-less peasants hired as mercenaries by the army's general.

 Psychopomp wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Never seen that image before...that made me very happy, thanks for the early Christmas present.

3rd edition Brettonians had crossbows, the bombard, and a unit that was specifically liege-less peasants hired as mercenaries by the army's general.

And +4 shock elite knights that really packed a punch

Dunno if I missed the possible hype posts. But Mercs being mentioned as a thing!

Hooray for the Puppies of Pagga!

Hooray for the Wolves of Armed Affray!

Yay for the Badgers of Pugilism!

Back of the Net! Hopefully Dogs of War!

Love Dogs of War "as an army" (and if they brought them back, I'd be far more keen on them than on ancient Khemri sculpts even if they happen to be even older). But less keen on them just showing up in a force.

And really not keen on "allies".
There's always I think been this tradeoff of "its only a game, if you like the models stick them in and have fun" and the reality of them patching over issues. I guess in a world where you can take "Border Princes Bombards" its not that cheesy to plug in Empire/Dwarf cannons - but... eh...

You've got the usual issues of "We've got the points wrong on this and now everyone is including it".

I guess the interesting thing is how people feel on Hero-Hammer. We'd need to see the full array of buffs and how they interact - but a Duke on a Hippogryph, maybe with some sort of magic lance, feels like it would do a number on things. But I guess like Chaos/Vampire Lords, if its bags of points it won't really matter.

I'm surprised that nobody has picked up on the possible implication that the inclusion of a unit called a "Border Princes Bombard" possibly indicates the inclusion of an army list for the Border Princes themselves (or at least a selection of "Border Princes" units that can be included within other armies).

Personally I know very, very little about Border Princes, anyone suggest a place to go to read up on them and learn more?

chaos0xomega wrote:
I'm surprised that nobody has picked up on the possible implication that the inclusion of a unit called a "Border Princes Bombard" possibly indicates the inclusion of an army list for the Border Princes themselves (or at least a selection of "Border Princes" units that can be included within other armies).

Traditionally, the Border Princes are just exiled Empire and Bretonnian nobles (or spare children with no inheritance prospects) who set up their own temporary fiefdoms. Maybe some Tilean or Estalian nobles, but that's out of scope for TOW.

Its basically the premise of this game- petty Bret/Empire/Tomb King nobles fighting over territory on the edge of the map, and dealing with elf outposts, dwarves, orcs, beastmen and extremely lost chaos warriors.

Voss wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I'm surprised that nobody has picked up on the possible implication that the inclusion of a unit called a "Border Princes Bombard" possibly indicates the inclusion of an army list for the Border Princes themselves (or at least a selection of "Border Princes" units that can be included within other armies).

Traditionally, the Border Princes are just exiled Empire and Bretonnian nobles (or spare children with no inheritance prospects) who set up their own temporary fiefdoms. Maybe some Tilean or Estalian nobles, but that's out of scope for TOW.

Its basically the premise of this game- petty Bret/Empire/Tomb King nobles fighting over territory on the edge of the map, and dealing with elf outposts, dwarves, orcs, beastmen and extremely lost chaos warriors.

Interestingly the WarCom article for the Border Princes did include crests from Kislev, Tilea and Estalia as well as the more common Empire and Bret

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
Sergeant at Arms is probably just a peasant hero that can join peasant units. You know, instead of having a dismounted Paladin with that Vow that lets them join peasant units.

I could see him being a necron royal warden/space marine lieutenant kind of deal. Less fighty than a knight but maybe granting the unit some sort of ability or buff.

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

Even that apparent altruism wasn't universal and the Stillman book, for me, gives a nice balance between showcasing the ideal of what that romanticized idea of a nation dominated by notions of chivalric knighthood might look like whilst pointing out that it is just that (i.e. an ideal).

I'm not sure how accurate my recollection is but my read on the Bretonnians was there was a lot of the "unreliable narrator" about them. The idea of Bretonnia as a noble and chivalric nation filled with knights going off to rescue damsels and happy, simple minded serfs who knew their places was how the nobility saw Bretonnia. The idea of Bretonnia as a realm of gross inequality, miserable and downtrodden serfs covered in pig dung and brutal, greedy, corrupt nobles living off the backs of their serf's labour was how pretty much how everyone else saw Bretonnia. As you say, mimicking the historical idealised notions of romantic chivalry and feudalism verses the historical reality of knights being brutal killers and oppressors. I recall seeing a documentary which failed to find any historically documented instances of a knight actually going on a quest to rescue a damsel in distress.

the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay book "Knights of the Grail" is worth a read if you can get hold of a copy

Lets also not forget most factions looked down on others. Gotrek considered most factions beneath the Dwarves - even the Elves. So even negative impressions of factions can be skewed and heavily biased.


I think in the end the size of the realms also meant that you'd likely find both extremes were true. That there were regions where their people did live "King Arthur" style and those where they lived "Grim Dark pox ridden" style.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Personally I know very, very little about Border Princes, anyone suggest a place to go to read up on them and learn more?

Starting point: https://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Border_Princes

There are a few novels set in them and bits and pieces in Army books/ Tamukhan etc

 Mr Morden wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Personally I know very, very little about Border Princes, anyone suggest a place to go to read up on them and learn more?

Starting point: https://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Border_Princes

There are a few novels set in them and bits and pieces in Army books/ Tamukhan etc

2nd Ed WFRP also did a whole source book on them (Renegade Crowns), though it’s a bit more free form than other sourcebooks (true to the areas nature of having constantly shifting borders).

It also has an adventure book set in a TK tomb in the Border Princes as well (Lure of the Liche Lord).


Also oddly, the Border Princes turn up a few times in Vampire lore - the 7th Ed AB has lore on a Strigoi vampire who’s a Border Prince and WFRP Night’s Dark Masters features a Lahmian coven who run one as well.