[Archive] GW or additional hand weapons for BC?

Hobgoblyn:

No, there is a very clear answer.

Even if they only get a +1S, the great weapons are still better against heavy armored opponets and high toughness opponets. They are also better against cavalry since you need the hard-hitting power, plus you are likely to go last during the first turn anyway and cavalry vs. cavalry battles tend not to last much longer than that.

Additional Hand Weapons are better against hordes of light armored enemies.

So it all depends on how you intend to use your bull cavalry. If you want them to be can-openers, then use the great weapons. If you intend to use them to flank and smash large blocks of enemies (particularly those with good leadership) then go with the hand weapons.

Though between the two choices, it seems far more likely that you are going to be using them for the former. You have other things available to deal with the hordes (and if you can flank them and charge, 80+% of the horde blocks will break when you slash them up with the great weapons.)[/align]

wallacer:

The problem, I guess, is that in a tournament setting (or in an all-comers list) one either has to take GW OR extra hand weapon.

I would think that CD Warriors and even Hobgobs could stand a decent chance against the kind of stock standard infantry you’re likely to encounter in a horde army.

With extra hand weapon, BCs can kill lots of stock standard infantry, but is that really what BCs are for?��

I would argue that in an army which lacks heavy cav, chariots and uber heroes like Vamps or Chaos Lords, Bull Centaurs are the unit which should be performing the can-opener role.��In other words, give them Great Weapons so that they can perform the role to which they are most suited to the best of their ability.��

Let the CD warriors, Orcs and Hobgobs deal with the normal infantry, there is no point in letting BCs get distracted by the small stuff.

Just my 5 cents, take it for what it’s worth :cheers

Tallhat:

Hobgoblyn what I meant wasnt really what one would choose it was rather what the argument about what the BC count as. We couldnt find a clear answer to that over at HoH either.

- Tallhat

wallacer:

We couldnt find a clear answer to that over at HoH either.

Tallhat
That's hardly surprising, since there is no clear answer.
They're taking an army list that should have been updated years ago and trying to interpret it through the lens of 7th edition rules.

There is no answer, just heated debate about a question that only GW can give a definitive response to.

Sorry, I know that wasn't very constructive......

Tallhat:

No but youre right… We should really write them a letter and at least demand an answer on this subject…

- Tallhat

wallacer:

It’s a nice sentiment, but it won’t help.

Other have tried and gotten nowhere.

GW will sort it out when they’re good and ready and not a second before.

Tallhat:

Sometimes I really dont like the buggers…

- Tallhat

Willmark:

GW has ever had a curious relationship with their customers… “love/hate” comes to mind…

metro_gnome:

no the answer is clear… we just dont like it…

one must not mistake distaste for unclear rules…

Tallhat:

So the rule is what? We count as cavalry for GW but dont get the extra save? Way to go ruining a brilliant unit.

-Tallhat

cornixt:

It was never that great to begin with. I’ll stick with it being a support unit only, rather than one that races out to kill the enemy from the first turn.

Tallhat:

I always liked them tbh. Sure they are not a super kill unit but thats not fun to begin with. It just seems that they have been nerfed for no reason :confused: sigh And even through all my complaining I still cant get myself to not use the little buggers…

- Tallhat

metro_gnome:

well the nerf was for great weapons… not BCs…
BCs just happen to be one of the few mounted units that use them…
Questing knights were similarly nerfed… for “no reason”…
tho it would seem game balance is a perfectly legitimate reason to nerf anything IMHO…

the GW nerf was meant to control mounted characters (of which we have a few)… and promote magic items…
mission accomplished GW…

you can still turn to the US GT rules pack… the only rules for legal CD tourney play anyway…
but unless you are at that tourney you can expect to be challenged on the “infantry” ruling…

Tallhat:

Thankfully I only really play people I know so it is very rare that I will be challenged on things such as this. My mates know that its not always easy to play with the CD because of the lack of clarifications so they are usually quite forgiving.



- Tallhat

Colzey:

Hey guys, any questions you have are usually already cleared up in a FAQ. Like this one: Dire Wolf FAQ

Or you can go straignt here and scroll down:

7th Chaos Dwarf FAQ

You will be happy that BC DO recieve +2 strength bonus!!

Cheers,

Matty :slight_smile:

Tallhat:

Is this official? Doesnt really seem like it since the faq isnt on GWs site. Plus the source of the BC rules clarification seems to be Warhammer Chronicles 2004 which doesnt really make sense since those rules are pretty much obsolete now.

- Tallhat

zagor66:

The only official mention of CD in GW is the raveneing hordes army list.

metro_gnome:

direwolf is not official nor has it ever been…
quoting direwolf is like quoting roolz boyz… 50% either way…
but in most cases likely to get your argument thrown out…

that this “interpretation” is based on '04 chronicles…
which was for an enirely different editon of the game does not bode well…