After reading the US GT ONLY Updated FAQ
It got me thinking … there’s something I hadn’t considered before; treating BC literally as an elite infantry. Modelled as upper torso of dwarfs and two legs of a bull (on 20mm).
They could remain M7, but realistically M6 instead? They would be a rare slot still.
This would be an interesting unit, also it keeps a flavour of the old unit with the mutated legs. I guess they would be taller than the average CD. The name would have to change, I’m not sure to what though?
Potentially a good idea, or not?
More likely Movement 5
Honestly, I’m not sure ifI like it… It coul work maybe, but would work best as it is. An interesting idea could be making them ogre sized.
I think you missed the point of Bull Centaurs…
They aren’t really meant to be unique or different, they are just a way to do Dwarven Cavarly without having to have dwarves actually riding anything.
The Flying Beaver:
Here’s an entire forum dedicated to that idea!
Point taken, but the image I have in my mind is like the supposed BC on the front cover from that WHRP link I put up a while ago, but with 2 muscly bull legs.
Now sure in principle the idea is very similar to beastmen, but IMO that in itself shouldn’t be enough to rule out the idea entirely.
If covering many bases by having ‘heavy’ cavalry is often cited by the disbelievers of Hashut (those who collect all them other weedy armies ;)), as being unfair, this would sort of sort that out whilst still keeping a good part of the image (well literally half of it), and the vast majority of the existing fluff.
Basically it would totally reinforce the infantry heavy approach.
Anyway, it was just a thought. :happy
Here's an entire forum dedicated to that idea! :P
The Flying Beaver
Hehe. It's still a cool idea. After all, WDP:CD speaks of those who have grown hooves.
As for a name, Bull Tauren?
Well that turned out to be split more evenly than I expected…��Perhaps too early to tell, but if opinions are split evenly I might have to make a prototype model or drawing and see for myself.
Just out of curiosity, what in particular is it that those who think its a bad idea disagree with?
The rules side?
The model side (perhaps finding it hard to visualise)???
The fluff side?
The whole idea in principle?
Ha, I voted yes before reading the entire question properly.
From a rules standpoint, the infantry ruling with respect to weapons makes sense.
From a modelling standpoint I prefer the cavalry base and centaur aspect.
As I have previously said (on HoH), I think it makes sense, but we keep BC characters (after all, the piece of fluff I remember reading not long ago on here [about 2-3 days ago] syas the best warriors became BCs, but others just grew hooves/bull heads/horns etc). But, I think even M6 is too fast. M5 is much more realistic, because “cloven hooves” gives +1M basically, but bull legs are strong and muscly, giving them +1M on top. M6 is as fast as a minotaur/ogre, which is a little TOO fast IMO. I like Bull Tauren as a name and sounds MUCh better than my suggestion of Bull Fawns.
Just this enforces the idea of a slower army, focused on infantry, but gives us a slight element of speed. They would have to be limited special or just rare though.
Just what I feel and think.
Ya, might be too fast at M6.
You really have to look at the old rules for Bull Centaurs (WDP:CD) They were 41 points (most points costs were higher) and they had 2 wounds, but no options for Heavy Armour or AHWs. So now they are 1 wound fighters at 20 points with Heavy Armour and AHW options.
As single wound fighters, I prefer an ‘Infantry’ styled unit. But I would prefer they return to the 2 Wound level myself.
—As a replacement for the Bull Centaurs, these are a bad idea. I do not like forcing players to shelve entire units in their army. That is an extremely frustrating experience. An example is the Wood Elf Glade Guard. There are no basic Wood Elf spearmen any more, and those models have been dropped from the range. However, those models can “count as” Eternal Guard, because the Eternal Guard entry specifically mentions that some of them use spears and shields. This was done specifically to allow WE players to field those models. There is no way that BCs can “count as” anything else currently in the list.
DOW heavy cavalry
No something to consider is that most of those who will buy the CD when they come out will probably not own BC models, many won’t have even seen the current ones before.
Now you have to make some sketches.
Now you have to make some sketches. :D
I'm not happy with a few things, the legs are just wrong as they need to go a lot further back at the hips (damn bovine skeletal structure).
I thought I'd put this first sketch up anyway to get feedback.��This is what I would call heavy armour, I have ideas for one in stone armour, but stone armour and M5 seem a bit odd??
The additional hand axes would based on this great one, with one going 'up', and the other 'down' in the shape of the blade.
I wasn't sure whether to go all out on the religious side and give them holy books and small bits of parchment coming off the axe?
Looking good. I guess you should have drawn the feet first, hehe.
Cool axe. As for parchment, that could be cool.
Argh! After that picture (even with the dodgey legs), I can suddenly see them actually working! I guess that’s a good thing, but I still really like the idea of Bull Centaurs. I guess it’s possible to have both in the same army, but it doesn’t fully seem to make sense to have “Hashut’s holy soldiers” and “Hashut’s holy soldiers v1.1” . I’m still not sure whether I’d prefer these guys to replace Bull Centaurs, but I can see them fitting possibly better with the slower, infantry based image, and not be too much like Beastmen.
As far as rules go, are they going to be ranked, or in skirmish/raider formation? I think both could work, but ranked perhaps fits their style in fluff better.
Making them skirmish would only make them even more similar to Beastman. Ranked, I think.
I'm still not sure whether I'd prefer these guys to replace Bull Centaurs, but I can see them fitting possibly better with the slower, infantry based image, and not be too much like Beastmen.
That's what I'm thinking as well.��Its going to be very tricky getting the image right, but I think if I can I will happily drop the traditional BC.
This btw is not a particularly evil looking one, I could have a go at doing one of those?
I think as well he needs to be broader and perhaps a little more hunch-backed.
Actually… I quite like it. I didn’t think I would, but seeing the sketch popped it for me. A real unique infantry unit with some flavour.
As for the religious parchment and book bits - don’t go there. IMO it’s too empire-ish. Rather, load them with bull icons to point our their religious allegiance.
I prefer regular heroes with the occasional minor mutation, like this guy.