PDA

View Full Version : Chaos Dwarf Bull Centaurs



FatOlaf
30-05-2007, 11:26
A couple of clarifcations needed
Does a CD Bull Centaur count as being mounted in terms of AS
And linked to that, does it's GW give it +1S or +2S??

Masque
30-05-2007, 11:33
I believe the general consensus is that they use the infanty/on foot rules except they are unit strength 2.

Sherlocko
30-05-2007, 12:05
Unless you are playing with the USGT errata they count as mounted when it comes to weapon, but not when it comes to armour. Worst of two worlds really.

Ganymede
30-05-2007, 15:57
Oh yeah, they counted as infantry for weapon purposes in the Indy GT circut in north america and australia.

Brother Siccarius
30-05-2007, 16:17
Unless you are playing with the USGT errata they count as mounted when it comes to weapon, but not when it comes to armour. Worst of two worlds really.

There's nothing that says they are mounted, count as mounted, or act like they're mounted. So, of course, (un)common sense is that they aren't mounted.

Sherlocko
30-05-2007, 16:24
Yes there is. They are cavalry and all cavalry count as mounted when it comes to weapons.

Brother Siccarius
30-05-2007, 16:48
Yes there is. They are cavalry and all cavalry count as mounted when it comes to weapons.

The words "Cavalry" and "Bull Centaurs" aren't anywhere on the Chaos Dwarf Army List together. Nor are the words "Mounted" and "Bull Centaurs".

In fact, the closest unit that we have under the most current rules, the Centigors, don't use the mounted rules for any weapon or weapon combination, with the specific exception of spears in their rules. Centigors do count as cavalry however, and so that ruins the argument that all cavalry count as mounted when it comes to weapons. A better wording would have been that all cavalry count as cavalry when it comes to weapons, as it states under the spears rules in the "weapons" section of the rulebook, that all cavalry and monstrous riders use the mounted rules for spears. So all currently shown cavalry use mounted rules for spears, but not necessarily all mounted weapons rules.

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/hordesofchaos/gaming/chaosdwarfs/assets/chaos-dwarfs.pdf

However, there's still nothing in the Chaos Dwarf army list to state that the Bull Centaurs are cavalry.

metro_gnome
30-05-2007, 16:53
there is nothing in the HoC book to suggest knights are cavalry either... and yet they are...
cavalry of every type is defined only in the BRB... only flying and fast cav are noted in the army lists...

By the BRB... BCs are "cavalry" models (p.7)... and therefore "mounted" (p.55)...
sadly they do not get the +1 cavalry save due to being a cavalry model "consisting of a single creature" (p.30)...

personally we have a house rule that treats them like centigor models...
where hand weapons are the exception... not the spears...
that is to say they can uses infantry rules for hand weapons...
and cavalry rules (therefore mounted rules) for other weapons... spears for centigors... GW for BCs...
I find this to be a happy medium...

Sherlocko
30-05-2007, 17:00
The centigor-argument is useless. It only states that centigors have a special rule wich make them exception of normal cavalry when coming to add. hand weapons and getting parry bonus, nothing more.

I agree with metro_gnome, a house rule like that is the best way to handle it, but it is not the official way to handle it. :)

Brother Siccarius
30-05-2007, 17:18
The centigor-argument is useless. It only states that centigors have a special rule wich make them exception of normal cavalry when coming to add. hand weapons and getting parry bonus, nothing more.

Actually, the Centigor clarification (as it's not really a special rule that states what they are but a side panel in their description) is what states that the centigors are cavalry, and then goes on to state that they follow other rules for their weapons.

And of course, bull centaurs are on foot they just happen to have four of them instead of two.

Sherlocko
30-05-2007, 17:20
Yes, for add. hand weapons and hand weapon + shield bonus, otherwise as usual for cavalry. But what has that to do with bull centuars really? Bull Centaurs do not have that special rule.

metro_gnome
30-05-2007, 17:21
some of their weapons... yes...

if by being on foot you mean they are somehow absolved from being cavalry this is incorrect...
as wolves and other such models retain cavalry rules while being on foot...

unless it is your contention that they are somehow both infantry and cavalry at the same time...
which is not only oblique and army centric... it does not answer the original question at all...

Brother Siccarius
30-05-2007, 17:55
In the rules for weapons, only the rules for spear specify that all cavalry use them that way, the rest, such as great weapons, specify that they are reduced due to models being mounted on some kind of steed.

However, Bull Centaurs are on foot, and not mounted, and thereby you have the connundrum of the bottom right corner of page 55 in the BRB as it states that there are two sets of rules, one for "infantry (and other models on foot), and the other reffering to mounted models (cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots)". As such, Bull centaurs are both on foot, and cavalry.

metro_gnome
30-05-2007, 18:27
it is only a conundrum for you because it is covienient for it to be one...
it would be convienient for me aswell...

if they are cavalry they are cavalry...
if they are cavalry they are not infantry...
if they are cavalry they are mounted...

look not to the BRB... it does not support your position...
look instead to the arbitrary and poorly worded USGT FAQ (http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/Rules/assets/warhammer/chaosdwarf_gt_faq.pdf)...
you are in America afterall...

mav1971
30-05-2007, 19:31
Without the rulebook in front of me I think there is a difference in cavalry. You can argue with me if you want but a Bull Centaur, Chaos Hound and so forth are treated as cavalry but are not mounted models. No one is riding them like an Orc on a boar or a human on a horse.

metro_gnome
30-05-2007, 19:55
well thats simply not the case...
cavalry are mounted models for the purposes of weapons (p.55)...

now i have cited:
the BRB... BCs are mounted...
the USGT FAQ... BCs are infantry...
and an amicable house rule... relating them to centigors...

it is up to you, your group, and your tourney organizer (if applicable) to decide which carries more weight for you...

Brother Siccarius
30-05-2007, 20:33
it is only a conundrum for you because it is covienient for it to be one...
it would be convienient for me aswell...

if they are cavalry they are cavalry...
if they are cavalry they are not infantry...
if they are cavalry they are mounted...

look not to the BRB... it does not support your position...
look instead to the arbitrary and poorly worded USGT FAQ (http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/Rules/assets/warhammer/chaosdwarf_gt_faq.pdf)...
you are in America afterall...

Mind explaining to me why they can be given an additional hand weapon then, as it's useless for mounted models.

Or the explanation beneath their entry that states that they are US 2, which, if they were cavalry, wouldn't be needed.

Don't say it's because it's old rules, they've been updated several times in the past from the original Ravening Hordes rules.

metro_gnome
30-05-2007, 20:43
optional useless equiptment may be taken on many models...
a character who has taken a mount may still choose to take additional HWs...
a blorc boss on boar has additional HW whether he wants them or not...

this argument would carry more weight if they came with additional hand weapons...
or even if they could choose between additional hand weapons and great weapons...
however their option is that they may give up their useful equiptment (great weapons)...
in order to obtain useless equiptment (additional HWs)...

but again the centigor-style ruling allows for the use of additional HWs...which i think is within the intent...
i do not agree that BCs should (for some reason unknown) be the only cav unit in the game not restricted on the GW...
and more importantly... that BC characters should be the only cav characters not restriced on the GW...

Sherlocko
30-05-2007, 20:49
Mind explaining to me why they can be given an additional hand weapon then, as it's useless for mounted models.

Or the explanation beneath their entry that states that they are US 2, which, if they were cavalry, wouldn't be needed.

Don't say it's because it's old rules, they've been updated several times in the past from the original Ravening Hordes rules.


Yepp, they have been updated. But not in the 7th edition. And the latest update was an errata in chronicles wich are obselote in 7th edition. There you go, thatīs the missing piece. :)

metro_gnome
30-05-2007, 20:56
Or the explanation beneath their entry that states that they are US 2, which, if they were cavalry, wouldn't be needed.
im sorry... weren't you suggesting the centigor rules were just a clarification?
methinks they be the same thing... tho i dont know personally...

CD rules are a lot like playing kerplunk...
you put your marble in and start pulling out sticks...
but where the marble drops is where the marbles drops...

Ganymede
31-05-2007, 02:26
I believe that anything mounted on a bull centaur should naturally count as mounted and use their weapons as such.


optional useless equiptment may be taken on many models...
a character who has taken a mount may still choose to take additional HWs...
a blorc boss on boar has additional HW whether he wants them or not...

Do not mischaracterise other people's arguements. In each of those examples, the mentioned weapon still has a use; a player who would want to use them would forego the mount. The extra hand weapons of the bull centaurs are utterly and completely useless. There is absolutely no way for a bull centaur to gain use of the extra hand weapon in any way whatsoever. That's a vast difference.

metro_gnome
31-05-2007, 02:58
shall i cite the choppa of the boar boy then?
that weapon is utterly and completely useless... and basic equiptment for the model...
there is absolutely no way for a boar boy to gain the use of the choppa in any way whatsoever...
is that a vast difference?

the point is made... the BC has chosen optional useless equiptment as the character has...
that the orc examples do not have a choice at all...
indicates quite clearly that even if it additional HWs were mandatory... being able to use them is not implied...

Brother Siccarius
31-05-2007, 04:14
shall i cite the choppa of the boar boy then?
that weapon is utterly and completely useless... and basic equiptment for the model...
there is absolutely no way for a boar boy to gain the use of the choppa in any way whatsoever...
is that a vast difference?

the point is made... the BC has chosen optional useless equiptment as the character has...
that the orc examples do not have a choice at all...
indicates quite clearly that even if it additional HWs were mandatory... being able to use them is not implied...

Actually, the choppa is "a hand weapon in all respects" and so it can be used by a boar boy, just not for the +1 Str bonus or the +1 hand-weapon/shield bonus.

It's completely impossible for a bull centaur to even make use of the additional hand weapon in your rendition of the rules. Bull Centaurs don't have the option to not have four legs like characters have the option to not use a mount, so it's not the same in any respects.

Ganymede
31-05-2007, 05:45
Haha yeah, a choppa on a boar mounted model is useless in the same way a great weapon is useless on a boar mounted model, if by useless you mean not as good.

In either case, the rules are clear in this situation. They may not be very satisfying, but as long as you game in north america, you'll be able to use your extra hand weapon. Heck, I'm even sure most people in europe will let you use them too.

FatOlaf
31-05-2007, 11:02
Well that clears that up then! ;)
I can see both sides but luckily my gropu agree that they are not considered 'mounted' and therefore get +2S, it makes the most sense to me. They dont gain the extra +1 AS for being mounted so they should gain the +1S as a result...

metro_gnome
31-05-2007, 12:30
Bull Centaurs don't have the option to not have four legs like characters have the option to not use a mount, so it's not the same in any respects.
the additional hws are the useless option they are choosing...
why? i do not know...


Haha yeah, a choppa on a boar mounted model is useless in the same way a great weapon is useless on a boar mounted model, if by useless you mean not as good.
no useless... the model has a spear...
"There is absolutely no way for a" boar boy "to gain use of the" choppa "in any way whatsoever"...
he may switch his weapons for no game altering consequences...
so to may the bull centaur switch his hand weapons for no game altering consequences...


In either case, the rules are clear in this situation. They may not be very satisfying, but as long as you game in north america, you'll be able to use your extra hand weapon. Heck, I'm even sure most people in europe will let you use them too.
well yes... as i've said before... obviously if you use the US GT eratta there is no room for discussion...
proving it with the BRB however is fraught with failure...

im glad things are working out for you FatOlaf... make sure to check before you enter a tourney tho...

Ganymede
31-05-2007, 13:48
no useless... the model has a spear...
"There is absolutely no way for a" boar boy "to gain use of the" choppa "in any way whatsoever"...
he may switch his weapons for no game altering consequences...
so to may the bull centaur switch his hand weapons for no game altering consequences...


You seem to be confusing uselessness with redundancy. The choppa on the boar boy is redundant, not useless. Much in the same way that the default hand weapon is redundant on almost every troop type that weilds another type of weapon in addition.

Angelwing
31-05-2007, 13:54
I think the real debate should be this:
Why is the updated chaos dwarf FAQ dealing with all the problems USA tournie only, and not updated for everyone "officially"? :mad:
My group uses the US FAQ because it makes sense!

Sherlocko
31-05-2007, 14:08
It would be nice to know that, yes, but I donīt think it would be much of an debate because I think most would just agree that the FAQ is something wich -should- be played with. :)

metro_gnome
31-05-2007, 15:00
You seem to be confusing uselessness with redundancy. The choppa on the boar boy is redundant, not useless. Much in the same way that the default hand weapon is redundant on almost every troop type that weilds another type of weapon in addition.
then so are you... the additional HW is a simple redundancy...
you cannot have your cake and eat it too...

neither serve a purpose so they are both either "redundant" or "useless"...
you may choose your terminology only because neither is defined in game terms...


My group uses the US FAQ because it makes sense!
it may make sense in this instance... and im not sure i agree...
again why does everyone think these cav unit and characters should be exempt form this game balance issue?

but as for the FAQ... the sneaky git ruling is atrociously worded... to mean absolutley nothing...
the decision on BBs (while RAW) is the thing that needed to be fixed most...
and Blorcs are restricted from having Magic Banners while Big 'Uns still retain the option...
sloppy... just sloppy...

Masque
31-05-2007, 15:12
but as for the FAQ... the sneaky git ruling is atrociously worded... to mean absolutley nothing...

It tells us that Sneaky Gits can turn to face the enemy even when they lose or draw a combat.

metro_gnome
31-05-2007, 15:15
and what pray tell is a combat? when its over? when the enemy has turned and fled?
neato :rolleyes:

Masque
31-05-2007, 15:28
Winning, losing, or drawing a combat occurs when Combat Result is tallied as per page 37 of the BRB. Turning to face is a Free Manoeuver during Redress Ranks as described on page 56 of the BRB. Normally you can only do it when you win a combat, but Sneaky Gits are special.

I just noticed that Sneaky Gits can also increase frontage in a drawn combat.

metro_gnome
31-05-2007, 15:39
this is incorrect as "the combat will continue next turn" (p.37)...

Masque
31-05-2007, 15:46
this is incorrect as "the combat will continue next turn" (p.37)...

What exactly do you think is wrong? Free Manoeuvers are normally you're reward for winning a combat when the enemy doesn't run away. When the enemy doesn't run away the combat continues next turn. Sneaky Gits get Free Manoeuvers even when they draw or lose as long as they don't run away. I really don't know what you think is vague about this.

metro_gnome
31-05-2007, 15:52
oh i understand the intent of the wording...
tho it has larger implications than you are stating here...
sneaky gits can always do it? like when they are engaged from two enemies?
can they expand frontage to get out of combat with a rear charged enemy?

my point is i can certainly understand why the developers will not stand by this ill concieved document...
its substandard rules writing even for GW... and judging by popular opinion... thats saying something...

Masque
31-05-2007, 16:41
but as for the FAQ... the sneaky git ruling is atrociously worded... to mean absolutley nothing...


oh i understand the intent of the wording...
tho it has larger implications than you are stating here...
sneaky gits can always do it? like when they are engaged from two enemies?
can they expand frontage to get out of combat with a rear charged enemy?

my point is i can certainly understand why the developers will not stand by this ill concieved document...
its substandard rules writing even for GW... and judging by popular opinion... thats saying something...

If you understand it then why would you say it means nothing? Why would you then ask what a combat is? I answered you're questions. I didn't say it was airtight and didn't cause any problems. A special rule that can occasionally cause problems is probably better than a special rule that simply doesn't work at all though.


this is incorrect as "the combat will continue next turn" (p.37)...

And you still haven't told me what is 'incorrect' about what I said.

Ganymede
31-05-2007, 17:41
then so are you... the additional HW is a simple redundancy...
you cannot have your cake and eat it too...

neither serve a purpose so they are both either "redundant" or "useless"...
you may choose your terminology only because neither is defined in game terms...



An item that is redundant has a use, but its use is largely encompassed by something else. If a boar boy felt so inclined, he could use his choppa in melee combat instead of his spear, probably to avoid triggering an oldblood's shield of the old ones.

An item that is useless has no use. The additional hand weapon a bull centaur is armed with serves no purpose. There is no reason to ever take the additional hand weapon on a bull centaur.

TheWarSmith
31-05-2007, 18:08
there is nothing in the HoC book to suggest knights are cavalry either... and yet they are...
cavalry of every type is defined only in the BRB... only flying and fast cav are noted in the army lists.


THERE IS something to suggest knights are cavalry. It's directly under the knight's stat profile, and it's called his steed's profile.

Having a steed with a separate statline would automatically qualify you as cavalry/mounted.

MaxORK
31-05-2007, 18:08
I'm new to Fantasy but I have to say it doesn't seem right that Centigors can make full use of weapon bonuses but BCs can't, if you use your common sense it seems perectly clear!
I am sure in all 'official' tournis they would probably say the same!

...Just seem really dopey if they didin't. Just out of interest are there any other form of Centur in Fantasy?

Bull Centur
Centigor
.....?

TheWarSmith
31-05-2007, 18:10
No, bull centaurs and centigors are the only steed/humanoid hybrid.

Sherlocko
31-05-2007, 19:06
However, Centigors follow most of the rules for cavalry, including when it comes to weapons. And they even have a special rule there stating wich the exceptions are....but just play with the USGT errata and be happy, and just come to the conclusion that their army list ainīt up to date.

Brother Siccarius
31-05-2007, 19:15
oh i understand the intent of the wording...
tho it has larger implications than you are stating here...
sneaky gits can always do it? like when they are engaged from two enemies?
can they expand frontage to get out of combat with a rear charged enemy?

my point is i can certainly understand why the developers will not stand by this ill concieved document...
its substandard rules writing even for GW... and judging by popular opinion... thats saying something...

You cannot expand frontage to get out of combat from the rear, this is clearly marked in the rules for removing casualties for combat, as you still remove casualties from the rear of the unit when being rear attacked, but you move the rear attacker foreword if any ranks are removed due to casualties. So no, it's not a balance issue.

GW's change of the wording of cavalry to include any four legged models that is on a cavalry base it just plain wrong, they tried to over-arch the rule as most wolf units and such were cavalry, but Bull Centaurs weren't.

Brother Siccarius
31-05-2007, 19:19
However, Centigors follow most of the rules for cavalry, including when it comes to weapons. And they even have a special rule there stating wich the exceptions are....but just play with the USGT errata and be happy, and just come to the conclusion that their army list ainīt up to date.

Note that the only reason Centigors aren't allowed to use great weapons as infantry is because they don't have the option for it, if they did, they would have put the ruling in their rules as well.

Sherlocko
31-05-2007, 19:28
..."If they did"...

It dosenīt really matter, I at least discuss rules after how they are written, not after how they could have been written. I agree with you that Bull Centaurs -should- be counted as infantry when it comes to weapon but if going by the rules(and if not using the USGT FAQ) they do not. But GW encourage people to use house rules so that is what I suggest as well here.

metro_gnome
01-06-2007, 02:54
And you still haven't told me what is 'incorrect' about what I said.
um... the combat continues... so there is no "after combat"...
and even if there was... you cannot be "in combat" "after combat"...
which the sneaky gitz require to use their GT granted ability...
you've divided by zero...


An item that is redundant has a use, but its use is largely encompassed by something else. If a boar boy felt so inclined, he could use his choppa in melee combat instead of his spear, probably to avoid triggering an oldblood's shield of the old ones.

An item that is useless has no use. The additional hand weapon a bull centaur is armed with serves no purpose. There is no reason to ever take the additional hand weapon on a bull centaur.
that the magic item does not yet exist to make add HWs useful in this instance does not prove your point...


THERE IS something to suggest knights are cavalry. It's directly under the knight's stat profile, and it's called his steed's profile.

Having a steed with a separate statline would automatically qualify you as cavalry/mounted.
as would "other four-legged creatures... that have one wound in their profile and are mounted on a cavalry base"...
in the case of the bull centaur... the point was "Cavalry" is not something found in the army lists...


You cannot expand frontage to get out of combat from the rear, this is clearly marked in the rules for removing casualties for combat, as you still remove casualties from the rear of the unit when being rear attacked, but you move the rear attacker foreword if any ranks are removed due to casualties. So no, it's not a balance issue.
not a balance issue no...
an intent issue... from which most of the arguments put forward here draw their basis...
im not convinced of this btw...
if i can make a free maneuver every round even when engaged by two enemies...
why cant i add 5 models to my front rank moving out of base contact with the rear charger?
seems sneaky to me...


GW's change of the wording of cavalry to include any four legged models that is on a cavalry base it just plain wrong, they tried to over-arch the rule as most wolf units and such were cavalry, but Bull Centaurs weren't.
im sorry you do not like the rules...
i dont like them either... yet there they are...
there are alternatives... i've listed them...

the problem arises because everyone seems to forget that the GW modifications is a balance issue...
it was not something invented to **** us all off... that we sould work like a dog to get out of...
no one has adressed why they think this one unit and it characters should be exempt from this issue...
give me a good game mechanics reason why they should get it... instead of smoke and mirrors about additional handweapons...

Ganymede
01-06-2007, 16:09
that the magic item does not yet exist to make add HWs useful in this instance does not prove your point...



I don't quite get what you are trying to say here.

metro_gnome
01-06-2007, 16:21
if a magic banner/spell came along that allowed cavalry models to treat weapons as if on foot...
we would have equal "proof"...
furthermore if in the next incantation of the lizard book this particular item is absent... will the universe implode?
no... the exception does not prove the rule...


No, bull centaurs and centigors are the only steed/humanoid hybrid.
correct... which is why i am in favor of the centigor based ruling...
it even gives ganymede his additional HWs...
but lets face it... thats not what he really wants...

Ganymede
01-06-2007, 17:34
correct... which is why i am in favor of the centigor based ruling...
it even gives ganymede his additional HWs...
but lets face it... thats not what he really wants...

You are horribly misconstruing my previous posts. Never once were my posts meant to be some sort of arguement in favor of allowing the weapons to work in such a way. If you'll notice earlier, I even said the rules do not allow the bull centaurs to make use of their extra hand weapon. I think you just all in a huff because I disagreed with you on another front, and are misdirecting your frustration at me.



if a magic banner/spell came along that allowed cavalry models to treat weapons as if on foot...
we would have equal "proof"...
furthermore if in the next incantation of the lizard book this particular item is absent... will the universe implode?
no... the exception does not prove the rule...

And what if the moon was made of cheese? We'd never be hungry again.

You sir, don't even know what you are arguing anymore. Just a moment ago you were saying that there were many options that were useless. I showed that you were incorrect and now you're saying that it doesn't matter if the extra hand weapons on a bull centaur are useless, they could potentially be useful in another time period or dimension.

What exactly are you trying to argue here? What are you trying to say? Are you saying it is ok if bull centaurs can't weild their extra hand weapon because a future magical item or supplement might allow it in the future?

malisteen
01-06-2007, 18:38
My group treats them as completely normal infantry. The only exceptions to the normal infantry rules for them are printed in their unit entry (US 2, etc).

Sure the BRB lists them as 'cavalry'. In our mind this is either a mistake, or a hint of what their future rules may look like. Either, way, their own army list does not list them as cavalry, it lists them as infantry with a few special rules. So that's what we use.

Do you people play spirit hosts and wraiths as Toughness 7, because thats what the BRB says? Or do you use them as their Army Book tells you to? For us, Bull Centaurs are a case of the same thing.


As a practical matter, telling my chaos dwarf playing friend that his Bull Centaurs got all the disadvantages of being cavalry (cannot use some of their weapons, reduced effects on their other weapons) and none of the advantages (no extra armor save, and they were already US2) would only serve to encourage him to use the horrific Earthshaker cannon for all his heavy slots. I play wood elves. I roll over and die to earthshaker cannons. I'd rather have S6 Bull centaurs & S7 Bull Centaur heroes then deal with another of those monstrosities.

WLBjork
01-06-2007, 20:26
What you do as a house rule is completely optional - GW have stated countless times that they won't sic the "Thought Police" on you ;)

Hoever, it's always best to remember your house rules as unofficial on the off chance you play outside the group, e.g. at a GW store, where your friend would probably find it harder to obtain an opponent who will play that way.

Ganymede
01-06-2007, 21:57
Yeah, just go with what your local gaming group feels is best. I warn you though, don't go to a GW or Indy GT in North America or Australia expecting to deny your opponent the ability for his bull centaurs to use extra hand weapons. Both the GW North American circut and the entire Indy GT circut allow their use. I've also heard whispers that one of the chaos dwarf players in a UKGT was allowed to use the extra hand weapons on his bull centuars too.

Yellow Commissar
02-06-2007, 00:50
'sigh' :(

You gotta love an FAQ that states that it is not official. It is every bit as special as an appendix full of clarifications that are not official.

What with everybody trying to mount my Bull centaurs, I suppose I am going to have to go ahead and model chastity belts on all my Bull Centaurs. :D

That should be proof enough that they cannot be mounted. :eek:

malisteen
02-06-2007, 00:56
All I'm saying is that we have a Grand tournament FAQ, which I'm not sure is legal anywhere outside of USGTs, an army list, and the BRB that just happens to list Bull Centaurs as cavalry. If you don't use the USGT rules, then you can play it the way it is in the army list, which works just fine and also happens to be the rules that the points values were matched to, or you can try and say an off-hand mention in the BRB over-rules that. If you go that rout, then you're stuck with confusing and redundant and even contradictory rules.

AND, if the BRB overrules pre-existing army lists, then my wraiths and spirit hosts should be T7. Are my wraiths and spirit hosts T7? Do offhand statements in the BRB overrule pre-existing army lists? I don't see how you can have it both ways. And since one interpretation (going by the army list) works just fine with no rules contradictions or connundrums, while every other interpretation is convoluted and contradictory, I think it's clear which is the best way to go.

I understand that each individual group has to work out such things for themselves, but unless you group follows USGT rules as a matter of course then I don't see the justification in trying to force the cavalry rules onto the bull centaurs even though they don't fit when you don't also try to put T7 on incorporeals. Either comments in the BRB overrule army lists or the don't. It should be both ways.

metro_gnome
02-06-2007, 03:20
nothing has been overruled by the BRB...
the model has been classed differently...
not even differently... Chroicles '04 classed them a cavalry aswell...
the army list makes no statement either way... we have only the BRB to go by...
the only thing convuluted here is trying to prove that they are not cavalry...
which is impossible... because they are...

my apologies ganymede... i will refrain from using your name directly in posts any longer...
you and i have only been discussing the additional HWs tho... im not sure what the other front you refer to is...
the implication was of course that you are trying to prove infantry GW status by proxying Additional HWs...
in short comparing apples and oranges... if this is not correct then i have misread your posts...

look useless equiptment is useless equiptment...
the boar boy choppa is useless... the additional HW of the BC is useless...
that a certain magic item that may or may not exist (or have a future) affects one of these examples is irrelevant...
both exist within the game as they are...

and i'll remind you that unlike the choppa these weapons are optional equiptment to the Nth degree...
they do not come with them... they do not pay points for them...
they do not choose between them and something else...
they may give up something useful to obtain something useless...

YC... correct...
they cannot be mounted...
they are mounted...

malisteen
02-06-2007, 14:32
Their rules [many of them] don't make sense if they are cavalry.

their rules [all of them] do make sense if they are infantry.

Waitaminit! We do use the USGT rules for Bull Centaurs! That FAQ doesn't make them infantry except for great weapons, it just makes them infantry, with one exception (unit strength) that is specifically listed as a special rule in their unit entry.

Links! (http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/download/download.htm?/Rules/assets/warhammer/chaosdwarf_gt_faq.pdf)


That lends some semblance of credence to my interpretation, though again since it's not an official FAQ, and instead is just a USGT FAQ, it's far from the last word on the matter. Oh, and other then the notation on points costs for command, I can't find anything in their RH pdf that would even hint that they were supposed to be considered cavalry.

metro_gnome
02-06-2007, 15:33
nope...
nor can you find anything that hints that they were supposed to be infantry...
the BRB makes this distinction... not the army lists...
round and round we go...

yes the US GT gives you what you want... you do not need to prove it...
which is lucky because it is impossible to prove... as the opposite is true...

i am still in favour of the centigor style ruling...
and without confirmation from the devs on this poorly worded FAQ i will play that way...
i am personally uncomfortable playing with an interpretation which is specifically outside the rules...
to each his own...

Yellow Commissar
02-06-2007, 15:36
YC... correct...
they cannot be mounted...
they are mounted...

If we are going to interpret the rules so strictly, than lets be consistent. They are not 'mounted'. Nowhere in the rules are Bull Centaurs mounted.

Yes, page 6 classifies them as cavalry, but even page 6 distinguishes between cavalry consisting of a steed and a rider, and cavalry consisting of "other four-legged creatures".

This is reiterated on page 30, where the rules state "Cavalry models that consist of a mount and a rider (but not those consisting of a single creature, like a wolf or warhound)".

Apparently, Cavalry comes mounted or not.

The weopon rules on page 56 for fighting with two hand weopons apply to infantry. Unless using the FAQ, Bull Centaurs are not infantry, so may not make use of this rule.

The rules for Great weopons apply to both infantry, and mounted models. Again, unless using the FAQ, Bull Centaurs are neither. It appears that Bull Centaurs using Great Weopons recieve no strength bonus, and do not strike last, as these rules apply to infantry and mounted models.

According to the BRB, Bull Centaurs are neither mounted, nor infantry, and recieve none of the benefits of either.

This leaves me with two choices; use the FAQ, or bring two Earthshakers. I'll let my opponent decide. :D

metro_gnome
02-06-2007, 18:00
not so... there is only cavalry (p.7)... and cavalry is mounted (p.55)...
page 30 takes great pains to exempt cav models consisting a single creature for the rule given there...
these great pains are noticably absent on page 55...
so as no exceptions are given on page 55 like are given on page 30...
the entirety of the model type "cavalry" must be included in the mounted section of the weapons rules...

no... it is not i that is picking and choosing the rules i would like to follow...
according to the BRB BCs are mounted...

but yes the prospect of 2 earthshakers sways all but the most ardent fundamentalist opponents...
but being a fundamentalist myself... i look for a more neutral middle ground...
and would be unsatisfied to abuse the rules at the point of a cannon... even a big one...

Yellow Commissar
02-06-2007, 20:10
so as no exceptions are given on page 55 like are given on page 30...
the entirety of the model type "cavalry" must be included in the mounted section of the weapons rules...


I don't draw the same conclusion from reading the rules as you do here, so I suppose we will just have to disagree.


i look for a more neutral middle ground...
and would be unsatisfied to abuse the rules at the point of a cannon... even a big one...

Agreeing to use the FAQ to answer the frequently asked questions regarding Chaos Dwarfs is hardly abusive. Honestly, I think one would be hard pressed to find a more "neutral middle ground" than the FAQ, but 'sigh' :rolleyes: we both seem to have our minds made up now, don't we? (that was a rhetorical question)

Take it easy. ;)

malisteen
03-06-2007, 00:49
I'm sorry, I thought someone said the USGT FAQs said they only got +1Str for great weapons.

Anyway, I'm still confused as to whether incorporeals are T7 in your games.

Jonke
03-06-2007, 01:42
Anyway, I'm still confused as to whether incorporeals are T7 in your games.

The lists in the end of the rulebook are there to enable new players to pick up whatever models they have and play a game without having to buy the relevant army book. As such some special rules are represented by increasing stats (t for ethereal, ld for stubborn).

Peace!

metro_gnome
03-06-2007, 03:06
I don't draw the same conclusion from reading the rules as you do here, so I suppose we will just have to disagree.
well thats interesting...
so when you are "reading the rules" are either of these groups of cavalry excluded from...
say... the unit strength rules on page 8?
it doesnt really matter for the BC as they have a clarification about it...
but are hounds excluded from being the proper type of cavalry for the US value?
couldn't they be excluded here based on what is mentioned on page 30?
or is it a case of when "the term cavalry" (p.7) is metioned here it is refering to "cavalry" as a whole?
if so... why would it be any different than when "the term cavalry" (p.7) is mentioned on page 55?

well malisteen...
as the ethereal rules (or point values for that matter) are not included in the BRB...
are you suggesting you play without them?
if so... maybe T7 will be appropriate... if i were you i'd use the vampire counts book...
here we see an example that is specifically at odds with an army list...
the BC is not stated in its army list as infantry or cavalry... tho infact the US2 value lends credence to the latter...
but it is not at odds with the BRB... which simply defines them as one or the other... correctly as cavalry in this case...
i'll remind you that chaos knights are not cavalry until page 7 of the BRB is applied...

red herring anyone?

Brother Siccarius
03-06-2007, 03:15
nope...
nor can you find anything that hints that they were supposed to be infantry...


Two Hand Weapons *HINT HINT*


well thats interesting...
so when you are "reading the rules" are either of these groups of cavalry excluded from...
say... the unit strength rules on page 8?

Page 8 Doesn't give unit strength perse, instead it refers you to page 71 to determine the unit strength of models.

Page 71 on Unit Strength designates all cavalry as following the rules given there (Unit Strength 2)


it doesnt really matter for the BC as they have a clarification about it...
but are hounds excluded from being the proper type of cavalry for the US value?
No, there's a notation on Page 71 stating that "Flesh Hounds, Dire Wolves, Chaos Hounds, ect." follow the mounted Unit Strength.


couldn't they be excluded here based on what is mentioned on page 30?
or is it a case of when "the term cavalry" (p.7) is metioned here it is refering to "cavalry" as a whole?

Page 30? I'm staring at it and I'm not seeing where you're going with that comment.


if so... why would it be any different than when "the term cavalry" (p.7) is mentioned on page 55?

Because the exact wording is that the second description for weapons is used by "mounted models (Cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots)" referring to the different types of mounted models that there are, not that all cavalry follow the rules printed for mounted models. I can see how you are confused on this point, and I was as well, but that's because I was reading it in the terms that you wanted me to read it in, not in the terms they were written in.

The fact is that page 55 is not saying that the second rules of weapons are for cavalry, but are saying that the second rules for the weapons are for mounted models. Mounted models as in the mounted models that count as cavalry, are mounted on monsters, or are in chariots.

The wording for if the second set of rules were written for all cavalry would be "Cavalry (mounted models, models riding monsters or chariots)" or "Cavalry and mounted models (models riding monsters or chariots)", but it doesn't say that. It says "Mounted models (cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots)". The parenthesis is used to expand upon what is directly before it, not to create an entirely new point.

metro_gnome
03-06-2007, 03:17
or US2 you mean?
how circumstantial...

Bloodknight
03-06-2007, 03:27
Not everything that is US2 has to be cavalry or else there would be no infantry with a US greater than 1..

metro_gnome
03-06-2007, 03:33
well there currently is no infantry with US2...
US 1 and 3 are common for infantry...
but US 2 seems to belong to realm of cavalry...
at least in the same way that additional HWs belongs to the realm of infantry...

Brother Siccarius
03-06-2007, 03:37
There was a bit more discussion that I expected as I was expanding upon my point instead of making another post, so here it is again.



well thats interesting...
so when you are "reading the rules" are either of these groups of cavalry excluded from...
say... the unit strength rules on page 8?

Page 8 Doesn't give unit strength perse, instead it refers you to page 71 to determine the unit strength of models.

Page 71 on Unit Strength designates all cavalry as following the rules given there (Unit Strength 2)


it doesnt really matter for the BC as they have a clarification about it...
but are hounds excluded from being the proper type of cavalry for the US value?
No, there's a notation on Page 71 stating that "Flesh Hounds, Dire Wolves, Chaos Hounds, ect." follow the cavalry Unit Strength.


couldn't they be excluded here based on what is mentioned on page 30?
or is it a case of when "the term cavalry" (p.7) is metioned here it is refering to "cavalry" as a whole?

Page 30? I'm staring at it and I'm not seeing where you're going with that comment.


if so... why would it be any different than when "the term cavalry" (p.7) is mentioned on page 55?

Because the exact wording is that the second description for weapons is used by "mounted models (Cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots)" referring to the different types of mounted models that there are, not that all cavalry follow the rules printed for mounted models. I can see how you are confused on this point, and I was as well, but that's because I was reading it in the terms that you wanted me to read it in, not in the terms they were written in.

The fact is that page 55 is not saying that the second rules of weapons are for cavalry, but are saying that the second rules for the weapons are for mounted models. Mounted models as in the mounted models that count as cavalry, are mounted on monsters, or are in chariots.

The wording for if the second set of rules were written for all cavalry would be "Cavalry (mounted models, models riding monsters or chariots)" or "Cavalry and mounted models (models riding monsters or chariots)", but it doesn't say that. It says "Mounted models (cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots)". The parenthesis is used to expand upon what is directly before it, not to create an entirely new point.

metro_gnome
03-06-2007, 03:47
The wording for if the second set of rules were written for all cavalry would be "Cavalry (mounted models, models riding monsters or chariots)" or "Cavalry and mounted models (models riding monsters or chariots)", but it doesn't say that. It says "Mounted models (cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots)". The parenthesis is used to expand upon what is directly before it, not to create an entirely new point.
none of this is correct...
Cavalry =/= mounted + chariot + monster
mounted = cavalry + chariot + monster
Cavalry = mounted - chariot - monster

Brother Siccarius
03-06-2007, 03:57
none of this is correct...
Cavalry =/= mounted + chariot + monster
Cavalry + mounted =/= chariot + monster
mounted = cavalry + chariot + monster
Cavalry = mounted - chariot - monster

All models mounted on a mount with one wound are cavalry, not all cavalry are mounted at all, so my point still stands. The rule on page 55 points that the rules are used for mounted models, and then explains what some mounted models are. Not that they are used for all cavalry, just the mounted ones. And the cavalry description on page 7 shows that there are non-mounted models in the description of cavalry.

Masque
03-06-2007, 04:00
well there currently is no infantry with US2...
US 1 and 3 are common for infantry...
but US 2 seems to belong to realm of cavalry...
at least in the same way that additional HWs belongs to the realm of infantry...

Settra is US 2.

mav1971
03-06-2007, 06:04
According to the rulebook (page 7) cavalry is anything on a 25mm x 50mm base. But on page 56 under great weapons for mounted it doesn't use the word cavalry. It doen't say cavalry with a great weapon, but mounted models. So going by what the book says that someone riding something with a great weapon whether it be a horse or a dragon gets +1 strength.

WLBjork
03-06-2007, 08:48
The definition for "mounted" (at least with respect to weapons) is given on page 55, wherein it states
cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots

Back to page 7, and Cavalry is defined as
also refers to other four-legged creatures such as warhounds, wolves etc, that have 1 Wound on their profile and are mounted on a cavalry base.

Thus, Bull Centaurs are cavalry.

When Ravening Hordes was written (6th ed.), Cavalry could use 2HW.

Now (7th ed.), the rules for 2HW (and GW) have changed so they are less effective when used by cavalry.

Masque
03-06-2007, 09:28
When Ravening Hordes was written (6th ed.), Cavalry could use 2HW.

6th Edition Rulebook, Page 88, Fighting With A Weapon In Each Hand
"If a warrior on foot fights with a hand weapon in each hand..."

Regular mounted cavalry could not benefit from this in 6th Edition. If there is such a thing as unmounted cavalry (which I tend to believe) then Bull Centaurs would qualify to recieve that bonus.

metro_gnome
03-06-2007, 12:06
All models mounted on a mount with one wound are cavalry, not all cavalry are mounted at all, so my point still stands.
this is not correct...
all models mounted on a cavalry base with one wound are cavalry...


The rule on page 55 points that the rules are used for mounted models, and then explains what some mounted models are.
also incorrect... not some mounted models... mounted models...


Not that they are used for all cavalry, just the mounted ones.
And the cavalry description on page 7 shows that there are non-mounted models in the description of cavalry
there is no such thing as "mounted cavalry"... all cavalry is mounted...
to revisit page 30...
if there was such a thing as "mounted" or "unmounted" cavalry this page would be a whole lot simpler...
"mounted cavalry" get the armor bonus... "unmounted cavalry" do not...
sadly this is not whats written there... we get some long winded foolishness about consisting of a single creature...
and we get it because these terms do no exist... otherwise they would be used...


Settra is US 2.
Setra is mounted... is he not?
or does he fall throught these imaginary cracks aswell somehow?

malisteen
03-06-2007, 13:33
Setra is mounted, but on a chariot. IIRC (aimn) Setra adds US 2 to his charriot instead of a normal chariot riding character who adds US1. If the chariot is killed then Setra is still US2 (again, iirc, I haven't read his current rules myself, I've only had them explained to me).

That's because Setra on his own is a single model with US2 as a special rule.

Just as Bull Centaurs have US2 as a special rule.

Festus
03-06-2007, 13:41
Hi

How about being reasonable (like in - gasp - common sense) ?

My take: As the RH booklet - and thus the CD's rules - are a tad on the old side, the best way is to look for the intent of the troop type:

BC's seem to be Centaur like troops, and we have the Centigors as well in this sub-category: So I play them as US2 Infantry (or Cavalry with a few exceptions to the Armour and Weapons rules if you like ;) )

Seeing as they have the options for two axes and Great Weapons, they were clearly meant to play that way. The only thing making them Cavalry - according to the rules - is their Base size (25x50) and this is weak to say the least. Infantry only usually comes on the listed bases, and cavalry includes four-legged creatures like Wolves, Hounds, etc. I take that as excluding Centaur like troops for the sake of simplicity.

However, this being said, you may of course play the way you think the rules are to be read...

Festus

metro_gnome
03-06-2007, 14:08
Seeing as they have the options for two axes and Great Weapons, they were clearly meant to play that way.
yes... tho how those GWs work is another matter entirely...
GWs still work on mounted models... its not like they died or something...
but saying that the writers of the RH text knew they wanted BCs to use GWs as infantry models when there was previously no distinction is tenuious at best...

again i too am in favor of the centigor rule model... but it is very different from the US GT ruling...
it only allows the use of hand weapons as tho models on foot...
for other weapons... spears of centigors and great weapons of BCs... they are treated as cavalry...

malisteen... and i have also noted examples when a cavalry model can end up with additional HWs...
without even having to turn to special characters... the point is...
both forms of "evidence" as to the nature of the model that can be gleaned from the army list are circumstantial...
the army list does not make the distinction... the BRB does...

Brother Siccarius
03-06-2007, 18:11
The definition for "mounted" (at least with respect to weapons) is given on page 55, wherein it states

cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots

You're being very very misleading with that. It says

mounted models(cavalry, models on monsters and on chariots)
Listing the types of mounted models that there are, not listing that cavalry all count as mounted models. In fact the definition on page 7 lists that there are mounted and unmounted cavalry.

Brother Siccarius
03-06-2007, 18:26
yes... tho how those GWs work is another matter entirely...
GWs still work on mounted models... its not like they died or something...
but saying that the writers of the RH text knew they wanted BCs to use GWs as infantry models when there was previously no distinction is tenuious at best...

Considering that at the time cavalry was only mounted models, it's not tenuous as all.


again i too am in favor of the centigor rule model... but it is very different from the US GT ruling...
it only allows the use of hand weapons as tho models on foot...
for other weapons... spears of centigors and great weapons of BCs... they are treated as cavalry...

malisteen... and i have also noted examples when a cavalry model can end up with additional HWs...
without even having to turn to special characters... the point is...
both forms of "evidence" as to the nature of the model that can be gleaned from the army list are circumstantial...
the army list does not make the distinction... the BRB does...

The only examples you ave were models that had a choice to be mounted or unmounted that could end up with two hand-weapons, which isn't proving anything at all. Bull Centaurs, under your definition, don't have the choice to not be mounted, like the examples you gave. So you're comparing apples and oranges.

The fact still stands that on page 55 is says "Mounted models (cavalry, models riding monsters and on chariots)". Just because they are cavalry does not mean they are mounted (Page 7). Just because they are "mounted" on a cavalry base does not mean they are mounted, because infantry are also "mounted" on an infantry base, so that entire argument you made on that was simply useless and reaching. It does not say that all models are mounted, it does not say that all cavalry follow those rules, it says that mounted models that are cavalry follow those rules.

Let me repeat that. It says that mounted models that are cavalry use those rules.
Not all cavalry are mounted models.
Some mounted models are cavalry.
Only the mounted models that are cavalry use those rules.

mav1971
03-06-2007, 18:49
Finally the voice of reason. Thank you Brother Siccarius. I play have fun not debate over the technical wording on the rules otherwise a game could last all day long.

metro_gnome
03-06-2007, 20:17
The only examples you ave were models that had a choice to be mounted or unmounted that could end up with two hand-weapons, which isn't proving anything at all. Bull Centaurs, under your definition, don't have the choice to not be mounted, like the examples you gave. So you're comparing apples and oranges.
and the only example of US2 infantry is a chariotless setra... bravo...
they may not choose not to be mounted... they may choose to not use useless equiptment...


The fact still stands that on page 55 is says "Mounted models (cavalry, models riding monsters and on chariots)".
thass what it says... mounted models and what they are...
can i exclude some chariots? no...
can i exclude some monsters? no...
can i exclude some cavalry? no...


Just because they are cavalry does not mean they are mounted (Page 7). Just because they are "mounted" on a cavalry base does not mean they are mounted, because infantry are also "mounted" on an infantry base, so that entire argument you made on that was simply useless and reaching.
ah... now i see where you are confused...
you are trying to glean a definition of "mounted" from page 7...
which is meaningless... everything on page 7 is "mounted" on a base...
if i had to devine a consolidated definition of mounted on page 7...
i would say it means "glued to"... as in "dry-mounted"...
so a modelling term... it is a page about models after all...

but luckily for us... "mounted" for weapon purposes is defined elsewhere...
in the weapons section of the rulebook... oddly enough...


Let me repeat that. It says that mounted models that are cavalry use those rules.
not it doesnt... it says mounted models and what they are... cavalry happens to be a thing which is mounted...

Not all cavalry are mounted models.
yes they are... that is what page 55 says... mounted models and what they are...

Some mounted models are cavalry.
correct... and some are chariots... and some are monsters...

Only the mounted models that are cavalry use those rules.
well except for the mounted models that are chariots... and mounted models that are monsters...
they use these rules aswell...

mav1971... as insightful as that is... there are the rules...
and 2 alternatives to them mentioned here...
pick one and go back to having fun...

Brother Siccarius
03-06-2007, 20:25
You, sir, are impossible to reason with. Reason avoids your arguments like a fat child avoids diet foods.

metro_gnome
03-06-2007, 20:49
pots and kettles...
look what you want is atainable through the USGT FAQ... and you live there...
its making that arbitrary ruling fit the BRB that is devoid of reason...

Brother Siccarius
03-06-2007, 20:55
pots and kettles...
look what you want is atainable through the USGT FAQ... and you live there...
its making that arbitrary ruling fit the BRB that is devoid of reason...

From my view it's unreasonable to call it arbitrary.

metro_gnome
03-06-2007, 21:26
and from my view it is unreasonable that a model that costs less than a boar boy...
runs faster, hits harder (by 2 points!! with both attacks!!) with a better weapon skill, initative, and leadership...
-1AS eh? dat math dont add up brudder...

malisteen
03-06-2007, 21:33
Bull centaurs are rare, compete for space with better options, have worse armor, and are in a differant list, which places differant values on different abilities, and has less variety and fewer special rules overall. Bull centaurs don't wagh, and, iirc, have fewer and less impressive selection of magic banners (though I could be wrong on that last point).

metro_gnome
03-06-2007, 21:42
yup... and theyd be about right at S5...

Brother Siccarius
04-06-2007, 04:44
Bull centaurs are rare, compete for space with better options, have worse armor, and are in a differant list, which places differant values on different abilities, and has less variety and fewer special rules overall. Bull centaurs don't wagh, and, iirc, have fewer and less impressive selection of magic banners (though I could be wrong on that last point).

No big'uns option, no mount attacks (but they have an extra attack to compensate), no strength five mounts on the charge, no frenzy for both them and the mounts (doubling their attacks instead of just adding one), no mounted specific magic weapons, no...If you want I can go on.

They're two completely different things Metro, saying that you don't like one because it's less points than the other is a bit redundant.

WLBjork
04-06-2007, 08:43
No big'uns option, no mount attacks (but they have an extra attack to compensate), no strength five mounts on the charge, no frenzy for both them and the mounts (doubling their attacks instead of just adding one), no mounted specific magic weapons, no...If you want I can go on.

They're two completely different things Metro, saying that you don't like one because it's less points than the other is a bit redundant.

No less redundant than you saying it doesn't work like that because the option is there.

Fact: Cavalry includes 1W models on a 25*50 base.

Fact: Bull Centaurs are 1W models on a 25*50 base

Therefore: Bull Centaurs are Cavalry.

Fact: Some weapons work differently when mounted and when not mounted.

Fact: The rules define "mounted" (with respect to weapons) to include Cavalry.

Therefore: Bull Centaurs use the "mounted" rules (with respect to weapons).

metro_gnome
04-06-2007, 12:29
No big'uns option, no mount attacks (but they have an extra attack to compensate), no strength five mounts on the charge, no frenzy for both them and the mounts (doubling their attacks instead of just adding one), no mounted specific magic weapons, no...If you want I can go on.
yes you can go on adding points to the model that is already more expensive...
to try to bring it to a comparable level of the cheaper model... wtf?
better models are more expensive... thass usually the way it worx...
not with BCs however... at +9 points per model (9!!!) a Big Un boar boy has similar stats to a BC...
tho still can't move as fast, hit as hard or have comparable leadership...which easily offsets -1AS...
you would have trouble justifying this a S5... let alone S6...

the point is...
the ruling was made without game balance in mind...
the ruling was made without game mechanics in mind... did you know that BCs can enter a building?
the ruling was arbitrary...

Ganymede
04-06-2007, 14:34
Maybe Metro Gnome actually is the devil's advocate.

Why else would he be comparing unit types from a brand new armybook and an eight year old ravening hordes list that is widely considered to be filled with undercosted crap.

That and by calling your viewpoint "arbitrary", he sees absolutely no merit in it and is essentially calling you a crazy and/or retarted person to believe that it would make sense if bull centuars could use extra hand weapons.

mav1971
04-06-2007, 16:11
What page does the rulebook define mounted models to include cavalry?

Sherlocko
04-06-2007, 16:17
Page 55.

...mounted models (cavalry and models riding monster or chariots

Note the lack of "some"

Baindread
04-06-2007, 17:57
At the time of writing the rules for BC, do you think the developers found it logical to include a weapon which the unit could not use? And in retrospect, why would GW not release an official FAQ regarding BCs status as cavalry and simply remove an option which is faulty and out of date if they later decided to count BC as cavalry?

Brother Siccarius
04-06-2007, 19:00
Assumption based on poorly worded section: The rules define "mounted" (with respect to weapons) to include Cavalry.


Fixed it for you.

Sherlocko
04-06-2007, 19:34
It may be poorly worded, it is still pretty clear. And that they erratated it for USGT makes it even more clear that if you donīt use the BRB or houserules they are definately cavalry, even tough I agree that it is not right.

theunwantedbeing
04-06-2007, 20:06
Seeing as they have the special rule "unit strength 2" it seems clear that they were intended to be classed as infantry,shown very clearly by their choice of weaponry.
As when their rules were created 2 hand weapons were of no use to antyhing classed as cavalry.

So rules intent points towards them not being cavalry.

Although I guess the rules following RAW do seem to point towards them being mounted and so being unable to properly benefit from their choices of weaponry.

metro_gnome
04-06-2007, 21:58
That and by calling your viewpoint "arbitrary", he sees absolutely no merit in it and is essentially calling you a crazy and/or retarted person to believe that it would make sense if bull centaurs could use extra hand weapons.
this incorrect...
i have often in this thread... advocated the Centigor style ruling...
which allows for the use of additional HWs... its what a i use in my very own home...
but lets face it Additional HWs are not what the people here people want... so save your smoke bomb...

i was answering the claim that my suggestion of using the actual rule book was somehow "unreasonable"...
and i was answering it with cold hard statistics...
questions of balance which I've been asking since page 2 and as of yet remain unanswered...
i find it humorous that you call RH undercosted crap in your effort to get another +1S or +1A on your 21 point model...

the BRB is not your friend... there is a FAQ that you may turn to...
the rulebook does not support your position



Assumption based on poorly worded section: The rules define "mounted" (with respect to weapons) to include Cavalry.
Fixed it for you.
and this is somehow "reasonable"? :wtf:
its certainly arbitrary...

The rules define "mounted" (with respect to weapons) to include Cavalry.
there... now i've fixed it for you...

WLBjork
05-06-2007, 08:37
Fixed it for you.

So, you claim our position is arbitary, yet you refuse to abide by the rules in the BRB?

Sorry, but that position is factual.

ZomboCom
05-06-2007, 12:30
The 2004 annual stated they use weapons like infantry, and combined with the additional hand weapon option that's good enough for me.

RAW can really be taken much too far sometimes.

malisteen
05-06-2007, 14:50
If the 2004 annual specified, that a fairly official FAQ, there; and while the core rules have changed, I don't see why such a clarification should be thrown out, in light of the complete lack of any official 7th ed FAQ.


The way I see it, the centigore rules are a good house rule, and if the chaos dwarf player is willing to play by them then that's great; the mounted rules are a cheap rules-lawyer way of trying to gip an army that's already been dragged through the broken-glass-strewn mud out of one of its only two rare choices, and if the CD player is willing to play by them that's only because he's only using the cannon anyway; and the infantry rules are playing them as their list intended, and is supported by every FAQ that's been printed for them, under which they are a very, very good unit, but hardly unbeatable, especially since, as a rare choice, they cannot be spammed.


And: better is more expensive within a single army list. Within a single army list. Comparing one army to another doesn't work that way.

metro_gnome
05-06-2007, 15:04
yes... well we can guess intent of additional HWs... and i support a position that allows their use...
but we cannot guess the intent of GWs... as RH was not written with that in mind...
Cavalry models have been subject to a balance issue... there is no reason to assume that BCs should be exempt...
i've proven it is in no way balanced...

and there is not a lack of 7th ed FAQ... US GT supports your position... the rulebook doesn't...

malisteen
05-06-2007, 17:16
You haven't proven them unbalanced. You've proven that a rare choice in one army is more points efficient then a special choice in an entirely different army, if you play according to unofficial FAQs. And even that's debatable, depending on whether you consider the animosity/wagh rules to be an advantage or a dissadvantage, and it forgets the superior armor saves and more extensive options available to the boar riders. The armor save issue is significant, because boars will have better armor then the rest of their army, so the enemy will have to balance threat level against potential impact when deciding what to shoot with their ranged units. Bull Centaurs, on the other hand, will likely have equal or worse armor then the bulk of their army, making them easy and obvious targets for missile fire.


I do feel that the difference of one strength for them when wielding greatweapons hardly makes or breaks the unit, and as such a 'centigor' house rule wouldn't be at all unbalanced. I like that idea not because I think Great weapons are too powerful on the bull centaurs, but rather because reducing their strength will make the additional hand weapons seem a bit more worthwhile.

The problem comes in trying to force that rule on a Chaos Dwarf player who would rather keep his S6 great weapons, thank you very much (after all, it's not like they're the hardest hitting rare cavalry in the game). If he says 'no,' and then you try to counter with this rules lawyer stuff about them being cavalry, negating half their options, weakening the rest, and making their special rules redundant, well you're going to have an arguement on your hands, instead of a game of Warhammer.

Brother Siccarius
06-06-2007, 09:01
The 2004 annual stated they use weapons like infantry, and combined with the additional hand weapon option that's good enough for me.

RAW can really be taken much too far sometimes.

I'm done, if a yet to be overruled GW decision on how they use their weapons is tossed aside by those who want the Bull Centaurs to have all minuses of everything, then I'm done.

You argue that we cannot tell the intent of GW, there it is, in black and white. In a 2004 annual.

WLBjork
06-06-2007, 09:21
So, you would expect a new player to be aware of a ruling in a no-longer available book with a Q&A that is not available online?

6th edition rulings are not valid in 7th edition.

ZomboCom
06-06-2007, 22:45
6th edition rulings are not valid in 7th edition.

Then how do you deal with rank bonuses and formations for mounted characters in infantry units?

Atrahasis
06-06-2007, 23:04
Then how do you deal with rank bonuses and formations for mounted characters in infantry units?

House rules.

Baindread
06-06-2007, 23:08
So, you would expect a new player to be aware of a ruling in a no-longer available book with a Q&A that is not available online?

6th edition rulings are not valid in 7th edition.

So, you would expect a new player to be aware of an army that hasn't gotten a rule update since Ravening hordes?

Seriously, if someone is using and old army with old rules, old rulings would have to be used as well. Or the most up-to-date if you like, which is annual 2004.

Atrahasis
06-06-2007, 23:09
So, you would expect a new player to be aware of an army that hasn't gotten a rule update since Ravening hordes?

Seriously, if someone is using and old army with old rules, old rulings would have to be used as well. Or the most up-to-date if you like, which is annual 2004.

The difference is that the CD list is still available, the FAQ is not.

Makarion
07-06-2007, 00:52
Of course it is available. Chaosdwarf.com has everything from 3rd edition onwards regarding Chaos Dwarves and Hobgoblins, as far as I can tell. And I pity the person that wants to collect a weird relic like Chaos Dwarves but doesn't spend the time to find a dedicated website about them.

ZomboCom
07-06-2007, 22:40
House rules.

House rules based on the old FAQ, for example?

This is one of those odd situations where we actually do know the intent. The intent is that they act as infantry for weapon rules. Would anyone really disagree that this is the intent, what with the extra hand weapon option and the old FAQ?

So if we know the intent, why should we care what some dubious RAW tells us?

RAW isn't the be all and end all you know.

Atrahasis
07-06-2007, 22:43
House rules based on the old FAQ, for example?

This is one of those odd situations where we actually do know the intent. The intent is that they act as infantry for weapon rules. Would anyone really disagree that this is the intent, what with the extra hand weapon option and the old FAQ?

So if we know the intent, why should we care what some dubious RAW tells us?

RAW isn't the be all and end all you know.

We don't know it was the intent of the person who wrote the rules. We know it was how whoever wrote the 6th ed FAQ thought it should work. We also know that despite being a known issue (part of the 6th ed FAQ) the base rules were not changed. That's a stronger indication of intent than an out of print FAQ from an era where FAQ responses were uncelar at best and completely random at worst.

Brother Siccarius
08-06-2007, 06:15
We don't know it was the intent of the person who wrote the rules. We know it was how whoever wrote the 6th ed FAQ thought it should work. We also know that despite being a known issue (part of the 6th ed FAQ) the base rules were not changed. That's a stronger indication of intent than an out of print FAQ from an era where FAQ responses were uncelar at best and completely random at worst.

Zuh....absolutely worst argument ever, and I've made some pretty bad ones. The person who wrote the FAQ had to run it by the person who wrote the rules, not to mention both had to be approved by the same people to get written.


So, you would expect a new player to be aware of a ruling in a no-longer available book with a Q&A that is not available online?

6th edition rulings are not valid in 7th edition.

Does this mean that Dogs of War are no longer usable, because they were from the 2004 Warhammer Chronicles, and haven't been changed since. Or heck, if we want to go further, are the Chaos Dwarf lists themselves no longer usable as they were from even farther back and have no models currently availablefrom GW online aside from several Blood Bowl models.

Certainly there is no ruling or FAQ available online that says that the Chaos Dwarf heros or lords can be given any magic items, not even in their army list. I had to ask about it and was directed to a much older, and out of print, book ruling. So it is possible to still get a hold of old rulings, and the out of print rulings and such are still being used.

Sherlocko
08-06-2007, 07:45
Chaos Dwarfs have their army list ready for download on GWs site, and old, out-of-date FAQ does not.

WLBjork
08-06-2007, 08:55
As others have said, the Chaos Dwarfs (and, since you asked Siccarius, Dogs of War) have army lists online:

Chaos Dwarfs (http://uk.games-workshop.com/warhammer/chaos-dwarfs/1/)
Dogs of War (http://uk.games-workshop.com/dogsofwar/lists/)

Care to find me a copy of the 2004 Chronicles Q&A at the GW site?

Brother Siccarius
08-06-2007, 09:39
Care to find me a copy of the 2004 Chronicles Q&A at the GW site?

Care to find me a copy of the section that states that Chaos Dwarf heroes can select magic items?

Without referring to an out of date, out of print, or not-offered-by-GW-book or ruling.

It's not there, which was the point of the last part of my argument that you chopped apart. It's not in the Army List, it's not in the FAQ offered by GW, it's just simply not there unless you either look to an old FAQ from previous versions which are no longer offered by GW, or by looking at the Ravening Hordes book itself, which is not offered by GW anymore either.

So you're already using a previously stated FAQ or ruling when you give your Chaos Dwarf Characters a magic item. However, you just stated that they are overruled and not used in this current rules system. So what's a Chaos Dwarf to do if they cannot use an old Q&A, FAQ, or ruling?

WLBjork
08-06-2007, 10:58
Go without! :p

Atrahasis
08-06-2007, 12:21
Zuh....absolutely worst argument ever, and I've made some pretty bad ones. The person who wrote the FAQ had to run it by the person who wrote the rules, not to mention both had to be approved by the same people to get written.If then it was approved and available to the team writing the 7th edition book, why was it not included in the 7th edition rules? Lots of other FAQs and cvlarifications were incorporated. Assuming that this one was an oversight is wishful thinking at best.




Does this mean that Dogs of War are no longer usable, because they were from the 2004 Warhammer Chronicles, and haven't been changed since. Or heck, if we want to go further, are the Chaos Dwarf lists themselves no longer usable as they were from even farther back and have no models currently availablefrom GW online aside from several Blood Bowl models.Yes, it does. At least at UK GTs.

You can continue to use them in games using whatever rules you wish but as far as UK tournaments are concerned Chaos Dwarves and Dogs of War no longer exist.

metro_gnome
08-06-2007, 15:33
well the 07 rules pack allows use of the 2004 chronicles as they pertain to DoW armies...
you do have to have the actual document tho... whcih may be purchase from mail order trolls...

likewise Chaos Dwarfs are also legal for Uk GT 07...
but you must have the whole of the Ravening Hordes publication...
the .pdf is not sufficient... but again this documents may be mail ordered...

BS... it is in this document (in the introduction)...
that you will find the magic item allowance of all characters listed in the RH text...
which of course includes the Chaos Dwarf characters...
who are now the only tournament legal characters from the book...
not suprisingly the magic item allowance is the same as all lord and hero characters from every army...
except dwarfs...

but you have hit upon a good point the common magic items now no longer have point values in the rulebook...
so technically the CDs can no longer take them...
i have however come across no person who would deny acess to them...
and the 6th ed point values which are universal to all but the newest army books are what is applied...

Atrahasis
08-06-2007, 15:45
well the 07 rules pack allows use of the 2004 chronicles as they pertain to DoW armies...Nope. Not even your overuse of ellipses can make that true.

Masque
08-06-2007, 16:06
Nope. Not even your overuse of ellipses can make that true.

Actually it does seem to be true. Go here http://uk.games-workshop.com/events/diary/default.aspx?display=tournaments and click on the rules pack for any upcoming WH GT.

Atrahasis
08-06-2007, 17:08
If you actually read the page you linked, it says "download of the 2007 pack to follow". The link on that page leads to last year's pack.

The 2007 Pack can be found here : http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/warhammer_world_news/2007/06/warhammer_grand.html#more

metro_gnome
08-06-2007, 17:30
well the rules pack does say 2006/2007...
but i will defer to superior wisdom... and typing skills... and nationality... on the matter...

my point was that the pdf was never the legal document... RH was...
technically a CD player without a copy of RH was not compliant with the tournament...

UK bans the big hats while US makes up rules for them... what a confusing company...

DeathlessDraich
08-06-2007, 20:39
I'm done, if a yet to be overruled GW decision on how they use their weapons is tossed aside by those who want the Bull Centaurs to have all minuses of everything, then I'm done.
You argue that we cannot tell the intent of GW, there it is, in black and white. In a 2004 annual.

1) Intent? Any discussion on intent is futile. There are no mind readers who can verify 'intent' in this world.

2) Chaos Dwarves rules: Since there is no official army book, there are no official rules.
Give Bull Centaurs the Bull charge if you like! Give them udders and large teats! Why not?
You have my full support.:p


So, you would expect a new player to be aware of a ruling in a no-longer available book with a Q&A that is not available online?

6th edition rulings are not valid in 7th edition.

This is been mentioned a few times by the newly appointed chief of rules lawyers (name witheld to protect me!) but until GW officially says so, we don't know.

My opinion is:

1) Only 6th ed main rules and related FAQs etc are obviously not valid.

2) 6th ed army books are very valid because they have to be. There are new FAQs for these books which are quite inadaequate and old FAQs etc related to these army books should certaily be used as a guideline unless they contradict the new FAQs.


So, you would expect a new player to be aware of an army that hasn't gotten a rule update since Ravening hordes?
Seriously, if someone is using and old army with old rules, old rulings would have to be used as well. Or the most up-to-date if you like, which is annual 2004.

1) What? A new player dabbling with the unknown Chaos Dwarves! Give him a Hob Nob!:p

2) If a new player has to face them, etiquette requires that the new player should be the sole arbiter of any interpretation.

3) Chronicles 2004 has to be *considered* in this particular case but should not be regarded as an authority.



Nope. Not even your overuse of ellipses can make that true.

LOL! Counted them below


well the rules pack does say 2006/2007...
but i will defer to superior wisdom... and typing skills... and nationality... on the matter...

my point was that the pdf was never the legal document... RH was...
technically a CD player without a copy of RH was not compliant with the tournament...

UK bans the big hats while US makes up rules for them... what a confusing company...

10! making metro-gnome Unbreakable. :p Stick to your guns metro , old boy and don't let Atra break you.

On the original question and 'official rules' for Chaos Dwarves:
1) This is an obvious case for mutual agreement in a game.
2) I think all players should denounce the GW rule making process which is too similar with the Computer Software industry with constant Upgrades requiring more future upgrades.
Shame on you Games workshop:p

Brother Siccarius
08-06-2007, 21:35
DD wins at the internet, life, and all forum discussions.

Festus
08-06-2007, 21:39
DD wins at the internet, life, and all forum discussions.
I object, your honour! :D

Brother Siccarius
09-06-2007, 04:27
I object, your honour! :D

Festus, of course, comes in at a very close second.