[Archive] How to equip Bull Centaurs

AGPO:

From a modeling point of view, you can model your centaurs so that you can pick whichever best suits the game your playing. Just model your centaurs so that they hold a large axe in one hand, a shield in the other, and then stick the axe from the new thunderers to its back. If your using additional hand weapons then the large axe and the one on it’s back both count as hand weapons. If you want great weapons then the axe on the model’s back is its standard hand weapon, and the large axe in its hand a great weapon. Its still WYSIWYG, just make things clear to your opponent before you start. The Chaos Dwarfs would be fully capable of forging an axe well balanced enough to be swung in one or two hands.

metro_gnome:

well here is some mathshammer…

we’ll use 6th ed (US GT) rules for the BCs… and assume a frontage of 5 models…
GW = 10 x S6 attacks @ WS4
AHW = 15 x S4 attacks @WS4

WS3, T3
GW = 6.67 hits, 5.6 wounds
AHW = 10 hits, 6.67 wounds
WS4, T3
GW = 5 hits, 4.18 wounds
AHW = 7.5 hits, 5 wounds
WS3, T4
GW = 6.67 hits, 5.6 wounds
AHW = 10 hits, 5 wounds
WS4, T4
GW = 5 hits, 4.18 wounds
AHW = 7.5 hits, 3.75 wounds

as you can see…
the additional HWs are more effective vs lower T opponents like elves or undead…
and GW pick up the slack vs high T opponents like orcs, chaos or dwarfs…

EDIT
actually the numbers change dramatically if you add a champ…

WS3, T3 with Champ
GW = 7.34 hits, 6.12 wounds
AHW = 10.67 hits, 7.12 wounds
WS4, T3 with Champ
GW = 5.5 hits, 4.58 wounds
AHW = 8 hits, 5.33 wounds
WS3, T4 with Champ
GW = 7.34 hits, 6.12 wounds
AHW = 10.67 hits, 5.36 wounds
WS4, T4 with Champ
GW = 5.5 hits, 4.58 wounds
AHW = 8 hits, 4 wounds

the champ is clearly more valuable if the unit is using GWs… i’ve underestimated his effectiveness…
so to conclude… choose your equiptment based on your opponent… and even then choose your targets wisely…

qwe50:

you need to take armour saves in

so GW nearly always win

e.g.

WS3, T3 4 + save

GW = 6.67 hits, 5.6 wounds - 3 to save - 5.6 wounds

AHW = 10 hits, 6.67 wounds - 1 to save - 4.4 wounds

Lord Zarkov:

although with WS3 T3 5+ sv it is the same and then steadilly gets better for the extra hw as the save decreases.

metro_gnome:

i have the armor saves too…

WS3, T3
GW = 6.67 hits, 5.6 wounds… 3+AS = 4.67, 2+AS = 3.73, 1+AS = 2.80
AHW = 10 hits, 6.67 wounds, 5+AS = 5.63, 4+AS = 4.46, 3+AS = 3.35, 2+AS = 2.22, 1+AS = 1.11
WS4, T3
GW = 5 hits, 4.18 wounds… 3+AS = 3.48, 2+AS = 2.79, 1+AS = 2.09
AHW = 7.5 hits, 5 wounds, 5+AS = 4.16, 4+AS = 3.33, 3+AS = 2.50, 2+AS = 1.67, 1+AS = 0.83
WS3, T4
GW = 6.67 hits, 5.6 wounds… 3+AS = 4.67, 2+AS = 3.73, 1+AS = 2.80
AHW = 10 hits, 5 wounds… 5+AS = 4.16, 4+AS = 3.33, 3+AS = 2.50, 2+AS = 1.67, 1+AS = 0.83
WS4, T4
GW = 5 hits, 4.18 wounds… 3+AS = 3.48, 2+AS = 2.79, 1+AS = 2.09
AHW = 7.5 hits, 3.75 wounds 5+AS = 3.13, 4+AS = 2.50, 3+AS = 1.88, 2+AS = 1.25, 1+AS = 0.63

itz a moot point tho really as most T3 units have a 5+ save…
the exception being Bretts… and i believe i included them in the GW group…

here they are with the champs…
WS3, T3 with Champ
GW = 7.34 hits, 6.12 wounds… 3+AS = 5.10, 2+AS = 4.08, 1+AS = 3.06
AHW = 10.67 hits, 7.12 wounds, 5+AS = 5.93, 4+AS = 4.75, 3+AS = 3.56, 2+AS = 2.37, 1+AS = 1.19
WS4, T3 with Champ
GW = 5.5 hits, 4.58 wounds… 3+AS = 3.81, 2+AS = 3.05, 1+AS = 2.29
AHW = 8 hits, 5.33 wounds, 5+AS = 4.44, 4+AS = 3.55, 3+AS = 2.67, 2+AS = 1.78, 1+AS = 0.89
WS3, T4 with Champ
GW = 7.34 hits, 6.12 wounds… 3+AS = 5.10, 2+AS = 4.08, 1+AS = 3.06
AHW = 10.67 hits, 5.36 wounds 5+AS = 4.44, 4+AS = 3.57, 3+AS = 2.68, 2+AS = 1.79, 1+AS = 0.89
WS4, T4 with Champ
GW = 5.5 hits, 4.58 wounds… 3+AS = 3.81, 2+AS = 3.05, 1+AS = 2.29
AHW = 8 hits, 4 wounds 5+AS = 3.33, 4+AS = 2.67, 3+AS = 2.00, 2+AS = 1.33, 1+AS = 0.67

but it proves that the champ is a far more valuable asset with the GW BCs… than the AHW BCs…

Ishkur Cinderhat:

Whoa that’s impressive math. ^^ I like the idea of modelling both types of weapons onto my bull centaurs, actually. There is still a long way to go however until I start work on these… lots of standard stuff to do first.

metro_gnome:

true… you probably shouldn’t bother below 2K…
and even then its not the most effective choice for your second rare…
even using the dubious US GT rules…

AGPO:

This is just another instance of me revealing my ignorance of the 7th edition, but what are the cavalry great weapon rules? As I’ve mentioned previously on this site I only came back into the hobby a few weeks ago and thus have not yet aquired anew rulebook or BfSP set yet. Can anyone advise?

Lord Zarkov:

In the standard weapon rules section (in a simmilar way to how spears were in 6th ed)

AGPO:

Thanks, but I was wondering what the new rules were as opposed to where to find them

Hashut’s Blessing:

Due to copyright issues, ect, we can’t post them on here, hence why LZ said where to find them. If I say it’s +1 LESS strength then usual, that shouldn’t breach it…

AGPO:

Thanks very much, I really need to get a copy of the new rules, but time and cash are limited ATM and i’m more of a modeller anyway

Hashut’s Blessing:

AGPO, don’t worry, I don’t have the cash for it either yet. Most of the rules are the same, just when you play, remember the mounted rules for GWs and the new power dice distribution. Pretty much 7th ed rules!

metro_gnome:

actaully there are a whole bunch of subtle changes…

enemy in the way for example can come as a big shock to those not prepared for it…

and is now the bread and butter tactic for fast cav, flyers, necros and beast herds…

dedwrekka:

both these weapons are reliant on weight to be effective... and (now) have both infantry and cav rules...
it is natural that they be considered in a similar manner...
and the rule was probably implemented so that centigors would have +1S on the charge... :sick
otherwise the trample rule (another rule BCs have escaped) would be pretty pointless...

metro_gnome
Actually a cavalry spear is reliant on momentum to be effective, a bit like trying to manually propel a balitsa bolt by running really fast with it.

A Great Weapon is reliant on the weight of the head of the weapon to slice through an opponent's armor. However, the reduced effectiveness of the weapon from horse back comes from the fact that the horse's head is in the way of the most efficient swinging arch as well as most people not being quite that stable while mounted to deal with the momentum of the swing. A Bull Centaur has no such problem as their upper, humanoid, torso begins where the head of the steed would be, and the fact that they are fully connected to their four legs they are more stable than someone on horse back.

Just a correction.

metro_gnome:

Just a correction.

dedwrekka
just conjecture you mean...
its certainly no where in the BRB...
it certainly doesnt explain the disc of tzeench... or chariots at all...
is Chaos lord on dragon penalized twice? one for each head?...
if the chimera returns will the GW give a negative S value?... swiss cheese...
"restricted movement" (p.56)... is cited as the reasoning... whatever that means...

why were heads of ridden creatures not a problem in 6th ed?
did 7th edition change the physics of the universe?

no it didn't... it changed the game balance of cav units...
there is no reason to asume that BCs should be exempt from a game balance issue...

dedwrekka:

Just a correction.

dedwrekka
just conjecture you mean...
its certainly no where in the BRB...
it certainly doesnt explain the disc of tzeench... or chariots at all...
is Chaos lord on dragon penalized twice? one for each head?...
if the chimera returns will the GW give a negative S value?... swiss cheese...
"restricted movement" (p.56)... is cited as the reasoning... whatever that means...

why were heads of ridden creatures not a problem in 6th ed?
did 7th edition change the physics of the universe?

no it didn't... it changed the game balance of cav units...
there is no reason to asume that BCs should be exempt from a game balance issue...


metro_gnome
It was a correction on the comment that both weapons use weight, and hence are used the same way or have the same negatives. Not a comment on the rules, but of the reasoning.

A person fighting from horse back would be less effective than a person on foot with a greatweapon, and I agree with the change in rules between mounted and unmounted, though not necessarily on how the Bull Centaurs would have such difficulty in using the weapon.

metro_gnome:

why not?
arent bull centaurs twice as long as people on two legs?
would they not have to back up further?
coupled with being ranked creatures of a similar body type… i could see how they might be resrticted…
and there is the small matter of their 90 degree spine curvature…
do they have a “pelvis” at the base of the torso spine that connects to the bull type shoulders?
or is it all straight nimble (yet fragile) spine?

you make too many assumptions here… everyone does…
cavalry model = cavalry rules… end of story…

AGPO:

I think the change in rules represents the difficulty of swinging two handed weapon whilst riding a horse or other creature. A bull centaur does not suffr from this problem. There is a lot of conjecture about this but the best solution is to go with the most recent set of rules GW give us. If GW state bull centaurs are cavalry then they are cavalry. If they state for an official event that they use infantry rules then use them instead. For your own games agree with your opponent what seems the most logical solution to the two of you. If you are part of a gaming group, agree a rule between all of you and stick to it.

metro_gnome:

well the flail may be used to full effect whether on horse back or not…
so its obviously about more than just handage…
whatever… i can use logic to support the rules… i cannot use logic to discredit the rules…

can a BC scratch its ass? can he wipe it?
can he attach that silly armor attachment to his own tail?
i’d say its range of movement is significantly different to a biped…

theres no way it could possibly masturbate… no wonder they are so ill tempered… :hat off

agree with your gaming group…
here we use the centigor rule model…
it is the most amicable solution IMHO…
but you can easily push the US GT ruling…
no one wants to see 2 earthshakers on the table… no one…

but proving either with the BRB…
or with conjecture about the number of heads or hands…
is fraught with failure…