[Archive] GW has done it again. Calvary bullcentaurs

cornixt:

In either case, do we get the +1 save for being cav then?

Swissdictator
No models get +1 save for being cavalry, they get it for being mounted.

Tarrakk Blackhand:

you can't read too much into an update from GW France

Thommy H
Is this just because the French do things differently? ~ joke!

I'm going to try and look at this on my store computer tommorrow. At least i know it will have a better chance of uploading it.

snowblizz:

you can't read too much into an update from GW France

Thommy H
Is this just because the French do things differently? ~ joke!

I'm going to try and look at this on my store computer tommorrow. At least i know it will have a better chance of uploading it.


Tarrakk Blackhand
Its nothing spectacular. Just the same US chart that they released for 6th a bit updated. With luck it will eventually turn up in English as well. Hashut knows its been asked for since 7th ed came out...

Groznit Goregut:

Well, I am happy I am in the US and that question has been answered by that GT ruling.

Thommy H:

The GT ruling has no bearing on where you live. It was made for a tournament in the US, but that doesn’t mean America uses different rules for Bull Centaurs than everyone else.

The US GT ruling is a guideline for how the design studio would be likely to interpret the rules if they specifically addressed the issues with Bull Centaurs. It, officially, applies only to the tournament for which it was written. By the rules, Bull Centaurs are cavalry, and get only +1 Strength when using their great weapons, and can’t utilise their option for a second hand weapon at all.

Now, the way everyone plays them is in line with the US GT. You’d be insane to do otherwise. But there’s no denying what the rules are, and no point debating which to follow. Either you house rule it in line with the US GT ruling, or you go by RAW.

cornixt:

For those who want to double check for themselves, I wrote this thread:

https://discourse.chaos-dwarfs.com/t/6710

dedwrekka:

IIRC they're ruled as being able to use weapons like Centaurs (IE: They benefit from extra hand weapon, can use GW for +2 S) or am I wrong?

In either case, do we get the +1 save for being cav then? As if I can't use their weapons like Centaurs can, I think we should get the +1 save... we're neither eating or having our cake... and that will make HB very sad :P

Swissdictator
That was from the US GT, and no, no +1 cav save.

The GT ruling has no bearing on where you live. It was made for a tournament in the US, but that doesn't mean America uses different rules for Bull Centaurs than everyone else.

The US GT ruling is a guideline for how the design studio would be likely to interpret the rules if they specifically addressed the issues with Bull Centaurs. It, officially, applies only to the tournament for which it was written. By the rules, Bull Centaurs are cavalry, and get only +1 Strength when using their great weapons, and can't utilise their option for a second hand weapon at all.

Now, the way everyone plays them is in line with the US GT. You'd be insane to do otherwise. But there's no denying what the rules are, and no point debating which to follow. Either you house rule it in line with the US GT ruling, or you go by RAW.


Thommy H
Additionally, according the the US GT FAQ it's a ruling for that seasons USGTs only, not rogue trader tournaments, not friendly leagues, not playing on your grandma's table. Unless both sides agree, it's as worthless as whatever you print it on.

There is a thrid option to playing them by USGT or RAW. Play them as they were in 6th ed, extremely fast infantry.

Thommy H:

Additionally, according the the US GT FAQ it's a ruling for that seasons USGTs only, not rogue trader tournaments, not friendly leagues, not playing on your grandma's table. Unless both sides agree, it's as worthless as whatever you print it on.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I said. And, since Chaos Dwarfs occupy the same nebulous area of "legality" as the US GT FAQ, I think if an opponent is willing to let you play with them at all, they'll probably let you run Bull Centaurs in the most logical and internally consistent way.

But yeah, it is a house rule. It won't fly with rules lawyers, but who cares about those guys anyway?
Play them as they were in 6th ed, extremely fast infantry.
Which is what the US GT says, in fact. Cavalry are defined by the way they use weapons, so if you let them use weapons as infantry then that's exactly what they are: speedy infantry.

Kera foehunter:

cool thanks Tommy h At least i can read it !! on to the Gt and then the world

figures bY september

wizuriel:

I suppose if people really follow RAW you can just pull out another earth shaker

dedwrekka:

Play them as they were in 6th ed, extremely fast infantry.
Which is what the US GT says, in fact. Cavalry are defined by the way they use weapons, so if you let them use weapons as infantry then that's exactly what they are: speedy infantry.


Thommy H
As I recall, they still used Great Weapons as cavalry by the GT FAQ, not as infantry.

two_heads_talking:

oh noes… RAW vs RAI… It’s the biggest and worst debate ever. the problem with RAI is that no one knows what the intention of the developers was… and the problem with RAW is that no one seems to be able to read and comprehend English anymore… lol

snowblizz:

oh noes.. RAW vs RAI..  It's the biggest and worst debate ever. the problem with RAI is that no one knows what the intention of the developers was.. and the problem with RAW is that no one seems to be able to read and comprehend English anymore..  lol

two_heads_talking
Let's put blame where it is deserved shall we? I contend that if the writing was better than "I guess they'll figure it out this is how we play" the reading would less onerous. After all we pay them to wrote rules, not to have to do the interpretation ourselves. And for the record in a majority of all RAW/RAI cases RAW is used to justify some weird or dubious interpretation. Often in an attempt to "show how badly rules are written" (in itself often abused as an excuse to just cheat).

Revlid:

The fact of the matter is that, in any friendly game, your opponent would rather you used Bull Centaurs with +2S Greatweapons than an(other) Earthshaker. Use this as leverage when deciding House Rules.

Tarrakk Blackhand:

Got to read this on my store computer. I swear that if my home computer gets any slower, I’m going to install a crank on the side of it.

dedwrekka:

oh noes.. RAW vs RAI..  It's the biggest and worst debate ever. the problem with RAI is that no one knows what the intention of the developers was.. and the problem with RAW is that no one seems to be able to read and comprehend English anymore..  lol

two_heads_talking
Considering that they were written several editions ago, I'd say that they were intended to be played with that edition's rules. However, that opens a whole load of crazyness.

Kiwichris:

If you’re looking for a contemporary example to BC’s perhaps Centigors for Beastmen. The can use weapons like infantry (although they use spears like cav) and don’t get the +1 save but are considered cavalry in all other ways.

angryboy2k:

If you're looking for a contemporary example to BC's perhaps Centigors for Beastmen. The can use weapons like infantry (although they use spears like cav) and don't get the +1 save but are considered cavalry in all other ways.

Kiwichris
Shh! You're being the voice of reason. No one wants that!
:)

Steve

Swissdictator:

If you're looking for a contemporary example to BC's perhaps Centigors for Beastmen. The can use weapons like infantry (although they use spears like cav) and don't get the +1 save but are considered cavalry in all other ways.

Kiwichris
This is how they're treated in my neck of the woods. Doesn't the direwolf FAQ treat them like this? The Direwolf FAQ is basically a backup to the GW FAQ in my area.

Thommy H:

For the record, there was actually also an FAQ on the subject in a White Dwarf shortly after the release of 6th Edition (#259, I think) that specified that single-wound “cavalry” models used weapons like infantry. Now, whether you assume 7th Edition’s cavalry definition overrules this or not is down to personal preference, but it’s another GW FAQ in favour of the US GT ruling.