[Archive] CD Lord on Taurus vs Mage Lord

warweasel:

I am Planning out a new CD army after taking several years off from them, and I though I might ask some of you cagey vets which lord choices you tend to get the most bang for your buck from at 2250 points.

My default choice has been a CD Lord on Great Taurus with the normal toys (Armour of the Furnace & Black Hammer), but with needing 2 mages any way for magic defense, I am wondering if it might not be better to go whole hog & use a lvl 4 mage lord instead, accompanied by a BSB and 2 lvl 2’s.

Does any one had any advice one way or the other?

Thanks!

Grotsnik:

i say take sorcerer lord lvl 4 bull centaur battle standard bearer, one CD hero and a lvl 2 sorcerer

Baggronor:

The Taurus lord looks cooler and is more fun.

But if you want competitive, go for the sorcerer lord with lv2 apprentices.

51la5:

Go with the sorcerer lord for one thing if you want s Battle standard bearer your going to need a second hero level one to be your general since the Great Taurus mounted lord will be flying off places and end up ill positioned to give your army his leadership.

<— woo 100

Swissdictator:

I actually like the Lord on Great Taurus. It’s a lot of fun… and Black Hammer + Armour of the Furnace is a fun combo. Especially with more people taking flaming attacks these days… sometimes they find some attacks don’t effect your lord and mount. :slight_smile: (The Taurus is already immune to fire, mind you).

warweasel:

I’m still leaning towards the Redbull myself, if for no other reason that it is such an iconic model.

Especially with more people taking flaming attacks these days… sometimes they find some attacks don’t effect your lord and mount. :slight_smile: (The Taurus is already immune to fire, mind you).

Swissdictator
I was under the impression that Amrour of the Furnace granted immunity to “Flame based attacks”, not just any attack that is Flaming. Am I mistaken on that?

Alan the evil:

I love both configurations but now I’m playing with sorcerer lord.

I played a lot with Lord on great taurus, 2 sorcerer level 2 and hero general with armor of gazrak and GW (94 pt).

Now instead I use sorcerer lord (with black gem and power stone/s), BSB BC with gazrak and sword of might and other 2 level of magic (sorcerer level 2 or two sorcerer level 1 with a mix of dispel scroll/staff of sorcery)

Willmark:

Go with both as both are cool!

ryanamandaanna:

I’ll throw this out there, if you DO use a Sorcerer Lord, is it worth it to use the Lammasu? I’ve got the 4th edition model, but don’t know how high on the priority list I should make it for painting…

btw, the Lord on Taurus is a lot of fun! :hat

BilboBaggins:

I’m on the magic men side of things (Sorceror Lord and two level 2’s). My idea is that if I’m going to have a model flying around the board I rather have him not be the General (3000 points and 2nd Lord choice).

cornixt:


I was under the impression that Amrour of the Furnace granted immunity to "Flame based attacks", not just any attack that is Flaming. Am I mistaken on that?


warweasel
Fire-based.

It's an unfortunate wording of the rules. I can't think of anything which is one but not the other though.

I love the way that a cannonball would smack him in the face, but as soon as it is on fire it just bounces off. Complete nonsense. It didn't used to be that way, but I think it is now.

Baggronor:

I love the way that a cannonball would smack him in the face, but as soon as it is on fire it just bounces off. Complete nonsense. It didn't used to be that way, but I think it is now.
Yep, like Dragon Armour for HEs.

Maul:

So many other armies do magic better then we do and magic can be so unpredictable. I am favoring the taurus at present. The Lammasu is so expensive for what it does.

BilboBaggins:

I had a Lammasu and it couldn’t even kill a war machine crew for me.

dedwrekka:

Lord on Taurus with Armor of Furnace and Black Hammer of Hashut. Makes him a powerful combat monster that’s very good at jumping behind the enemy or flying around terrorizing enemy troops and march blocking at the same time (He works very much like a Gyrocopter that has some brass in combat.

Beastybeastbeats:

I had a Lammasu and it couldn't even kill a war machine crew for me.

BilboBaggins
Shittiest highest priced mount in the game. The thing is more worthless then an arctic style terrain piece.

BilboBaggins:

I think it’s 2 Attacks that gets to me. It should get at least 3.

Maul:

Knock 75-100 points off of its price and I would field a lammasu.

warweasel:

I had a Lammasu and it couldn't even kill a war machine crew for me.

BilboBaggins
Shittiest highest priced mount in the game. The thing is more worthless then  an arctic style terrain piece.

Beastybeastbeats
Well on the upside, due to the archaic working of its entry in RH, it can protect you from AoE Spells.

Border Reiver:

Gentlemen, Lammasus are not intended to allow you sorcerer lord the opportunity to become a close combat monster - there is no way that any strategy you have should revolve around putting a very expensive model with no armour and a 6+ ward save (at best) into combat, regardless of how you tool the character up. Lammasus are intended to give your sorcerer lord the opportunity to move fairly freely around the board, avoiding close combat and lending his Ld and magic where required.

If you really need to lay a beating on someone, that’s what the lord and the taurus are for. There are a number of really good combos to get you to your maximum “beat the tar out of your opponent” with a lord and a taurus.