[Archive] Basic Unit Stats


Getting into the specifics, I’d like to create a few threads about how we should revise the basic units of the army. These are for the basic warrior units. So this is excluding magic, calvary, ranged, machines or specially equipped units. Now the army has 3 races so listing them out…

Chaos Dwarves

|���������M����WS�� BS�� S����T����W����I����A����Ld
Hero������3����6����4����4����5����2����3����3����9 (Based on Dwarf Hero)
Warrior�� 3����4����3����3����4����1����2����1���� 9
Basic Equipment: Hand weapon & heavy armor


Lord - Additional hand weapon, great weapon, blunderbuss, handgun, shield, Mount

Hero - Same as above except Mount

Champion & Warrior - Additional hand weapon, great weapon, shield

|���������M����WS�� BS�� S����T����W����I����A����Ld
Lord������4����6����5����4����4����3����5����4����8��(Based on Ghazak Khan -1WS, -1 BS, -1I)
Hero������4����5����4����4����4����2����4����3����7��(Oglah Khan +1I)
Warrior�� 3����3����3����3����3����1����3����1�� ��6
Equipment: Hand weapon & light armor

Lord: Additional hand weapon, great weapon, spear, bow, heavy armor, shield, mount, mount2

Hero: See above

Champion & Warrior: Additional hand weapon, spear, shield

Bull Centaur
|���������M����WS�� BS�� S����T����W����I����A����Ld
Warrior�� 7����4����3����4����4����1����3����2���� 9
Equipment: Hand weapon, Great axe,��Light Armor, Shield

Special Ability: Trample, Ability to use 2 hand weapons

Upgrade: Heavy Armor or Bull Centaur Armor (4+ armor, Movement reduced by 1)

Okay, I want everyone who is interested in army development to ring in here whether these look good or bad and if they look bad, what needs to be changed. Remember, the ranged units, calvary and special units are missing intentionally right now and will be covered in other topics! (although these stats would be the basis for those other units)


These look about right. It will be a shame to lose out Ld10 Hero, hehe. :stuck_out_tongue: But I’d lose it for an Army Book any day. :smiley:


I don’t think that there should be a hobgoblin lord, it seems a bit out of character to me.


I don't think that there should be a hobgoblin lord, it seems a bit out of character to me.

Given that there are normal Goblin Warbosses, ones that can even command Black Orcs...
Given that Ghazak Khan, a mercenary no less, is a Hobgoblin running around with beyond normal Lord stats...

How exactly does it seems even remotely unlikely to you that Hobgoblin Lords exist?...
It is basically a given that of course they do.


ah hegemony fluff… the bane of chaos dwarf domination fluff…

i would suggest itz irreconcilable… two fluffs that are contradictory…

however as you are attempting to add to a CD list, on a CD site…

i suggest you follow chaos dwarf fluff… in which Hobgoblin lords are highly unlikely…


I do understand what you are saying, but at the same time I REALLY suggest you don’t burn your bridges like that so fast.

Later we can work out rules for utilizing a Hobgoblin Lord.

Perhaps any Chaos Dwarf hero still counts as the Army’s general regardless of choosing a Hobgoblin your Lord slot (the CD Hero still has higher Ld).

Or perhaps you can only take the Hobgoblin Lord(s) if you are utilizing only Hobgoblin and slave troops (or at least have very limited number of CD in the army). It could be tacked on as an appendix to the primary army list in the style of a usual ‘expansion/alternate list’ such as those you find in Storm of Chaos.

Really, those kind of details can all be worked out later. Right now it is just the set of stats for a Hobgoblin at Lord level.

What is more important right now is paying attention to the stats themselves and the equipment options and making sure everything checks out.

Hashut’s Blessing:

A) In CD society, it is unlikely that a HG would be allowed to lead CDs. Unless, there is a rule about any HG character can NOT be the army general under ANY circumstances… (Makes sense to me, unless you have no CD units. But, then, I think HG shouldn’t count towards core.)

B) BCs should have one of their attacks as Trample.

Otherwise, I currently can’t think of anything. Well done!


actually it is quite possible to have a Hobgoblin general… and therefore leading chaos dwarfs…

you just use all Hobbie heros… or hobbie heroes and a BSB…

such a character set up suffers from a lack of magic defense… but is not illegal…


Again, it should be easy enough to work out. Either it would count as your second Lord choice for a 3000+ point army OR if you use that as your first Lord choice you get limited number of Chaos Dwarves and Hobgoblins become your core choices (normally they do NOT count as core choices) and you get to focus on the slave and greenskin units.

It would be similar to Peasant army or something.


well i had proposed (long ago) that an army with a hobgoblin general should have Hobgoblin count as core…

and CDs count as non minimum core…

i also proposed a hobgoblin special character (Gorduz Backstabber) who would count as a lord choice…

i gave him a leadership equal to a CD sorcerors Ld… so 9 in the current list… or 8 should that leadership drop…

he was the only hobgoblin capable of leading CDs in battle… making him quite the special character…

it was scrapped along with all my ambitions of army development…

to be honest i don’t hold out much hope for hobgoblins in a future list…

if the Khan’s command “the largest army in the world”…

its hard to believe any of their ilk would be enslaved… no matter how favorable their enslavement might be…

and as no hobgoblins make an appearance in the grudgebearer… instead we see slaves of all races…


Well, that is why I created a topic first that asked whether everyone would rather see a list that makes maximum potential of the Hobgoblins in their true Goblin/Human-hybrid with Dark Elf tactics form then have the CD list steal from it in the same way as they take from the O&G list or would rather all CD & Hobgoblin units into a single list.


As you can see, the ‘we want all units in a single list’ seems to have won the poll by nearly 2x over.


ah… i see… well it is a demographic of 8…
i wonder what would happen if i voted…

the solution up above i found did very little to disturb the exisitng list… which was part of the mandate…
while at the same time gave hobgoblins their own list… limited as it was… it was met with opposition…

i think (and maybe is should post it in the other thread)…
that having some units being not available due to general type is unprecedented and unecessary…
there should always be a way to assemble a single army consisting of all of the entries in the list…
there always is…

Hashut’s Blessing:

actually it is quite possible to have a Hobgoblin general... and therefore leading chaos dwarfs...
you just use all Hobbie heros... or hobbie heroes and a BSB...
such a character set up suffers from a lack of magic defense... but is not illegal...

You seem to have misunderstood. I meant that I was suggesting that HG characters shouldn't be able to be the general.


—While the stats for the Hobgoblin Lord look about right, except for initiative, which often gets a 2 point jump for heores (a 1pt jump for elite infantry and cavalry). I believe that a Hobbo Lord should not be there. I also feel strongly that Hobbo characters should have a special rule that prohibits them from from being the general. Any Hobbo who gets that uppity would likely be executed.

—I would like to make a really big suggestion: that basic Chaos Dwarfs be LD 8. Yes, I really want them to have less leadership. This is because while CDs are as stubborn as their mountain-dwelling kin, they do not share their loyal nature. Chaos Dwarfs are far more conniving and paranoid. They simply do not have the same “family Values” that bind other dwarfs together. Note that Heores would still be LD 9 and Lords LD 10. This suggestion also has the benefit of giving the list a disadvantage: something CD designers often overlook. The list has everything: heavy cavalry, fast cavalry, elite infantry, cheap infantry, war machines, flying monsters, spellcasters and maybe even skirmishers depending on what is done with Sneaky Gitz. We should be looking all over the list for characterful ways to chip away at CD effectiveness. Better the list be not powerful enough then too powerful.

—Are we going to go S4 for the elite CD infantry?

—Another stat line to look at is that of Sorcerers. It would be characterful to give them a bonus to LD, being at the top of the pecking order in CD society. The problem with that route is that Lords might get displaced by Bull Centaur Lords for fighting power and Sorcerer Lords for LD. Both of the other Lord choices would need drawbacks to make CD Lords a viable choice. It would also be cool to keep the Initiative 1 Sorcerer Lord from the RH list.

—That leaves Bull Centaurs. 2 basic attacks only makes sense in the context of other cavalry who get attacks for a rider and horse. Along those lines, I made sure in my list to give them a specail rule to say that one of their Attacks suffers not weapon bonuses or penalties. This may appear to hurt their great weapons abilities, but one of their Attacks does not strike last, for whatevet that’s worth. I would like to see Bull Centaur Lords on a 50mm base, if only because big models are cool. If we go that route, a fourth Wound might be appropriate. I would also like to see Bull Centaurs be Movement 6. Hear me out on this one. First of all, bulls are not as fast as horses, so M8 should be scrapped for M7. Secondly, while they do not have barding they might as well: their heavy armor should weigh them down as much. In the list I posted, I compromised a bit on the Movement by giving them a special rule that allows them to flee and pursue 3D6 instead of the 2D6 as normal for M6 troops. M6 BCs are another area where it is reasonablt to chip away at CD capability. Speaking of barding, the fact that BCs do not get it makes them less poerful then comparable heavy infantry elsewhere. A Scaly Skin save is an option, but I prefer to go the route of T5. After all, being significantly large then a normal CD should nake them harder to kill somehow.


Obviously the Hobgoblin Lord is a distraction, I am thinking I should move him (and things in the other two threads I made) that are primarily for Hobgoblin armies (most of the Beasts thread) to a Hobgoblin Appendix Army List thread despite the vote against having a list for each race.

The elite CD infantry will have their own thread made (I can only make so many at a time) as well the Sorcerer (I’ll probably have that one up today)

However, if we can get a consensus on ICTD’s suggestion on the lower leadership (actually, Bull Centaur’s Ld would be lowered too in order to make it fair) and the changes on the Bull Centaurs I’ll happily make the edits.


I say keep the Hobbo Lord, so long as he can’t be general. A cheap but powerful figure that can turn a unit of Wolf Riders into something really dangerous.

Hashut’s Blessing:

I think the BCs should be M7. A knight with heavy armour still moves at M8 without barding, but bulls DO move less quickly than horses. Also, something that runs on four legs (BCs) will move faster than something on two (E.g. Minotaurs).


—Heavy armor for BCs should be the equivalent of barding. After all, it covers all the same places (or it shouldn’t qualify as heavy armor). BCs are not as big as minotaurs and significantly more heavily armored. Dwarfs are supposed to be slow, and that should carry over onto the Bull Centaurs.

—It should be noted that according to the definitions in the basic rule book, Bull Centaurs are cavalry, and so they can’t use two hand weapons, suffer from great weapon nerfing, and don’t qualify for the bonus HW+S save. However, they are not “riders and mounts”, so they don’t get the bonus armor save either. Unless we want a special rule to deal with those things, BCs really get the short end of the stick.

Hashut’s Blessing:

Yes, but a BC will way less than a human with a horse on. The human then has 30-40lbs of armour on (in heavy/full plate) and the horse will have almost the same, maybe more, in barding. For a BC, they weigh more than a horse or person individually, but a fair amount than the two combined, then, there is still less area to cover with armour, making less weight. M7 is fine, unless they can have an upgrade to armour that basically copies the barding rules. BCs should have the “Fight as Infantry” rule IMO, I know they don’t , but they should. Yes, Dwarfs should be slow. The Chaos Dwarfs are Dwarfs. They are slow. BCs are bulls with a dwarf body replacing the head. They are not completely Dwarfs. The fact that we have cavalry of ANY kind nerfs the argument of our army must be slow. Besides, HG wolf riders move at M9 (maybe 8, I think 9, not sure right now).


—The weight difference between havy armor on BCs and an armored and barded knight is negligable. You know that you are grasping at straws there. Perhaps BCs should have a further bonus to their armor save; I am more then happy to have a discussion on that.

—There is a good reason why cavalry cannot use the weapon options that infantry can, and I can see no difference between BCs and heavy cavalry that justifies making them the exception.

—Yes, Chaos Dwarfs have cavalry, but that does not mean that they should be as fast as other cavalry. Chaos Dwarfs do not need to be the best at everything nor do they deserve to be. It is only fair that they pay a price for their incredible tactical flexibility.