[Archive] Should we recommend the GT-US rules

cornixt:

but no one is ever really interested in talking about how bad the FAQ is as a whole...
they defend it on principle cause it gives them their S6 BCs...

metro_gnome
One of the points of this thread was for that. Personally, I think they are good as a whole, the only poor part being the Sneaky Git rules but then I don't use them in my army and I'm not completely up to speed with some of these new rule changes introduced in 7th ed, so I didn't notice. None of the others look bad at all to me.
this change was made for a reason... M8 models running around with +2S is supposed to be a thing of the past...
Tell that to the guys with lances. I think it was really to stop so many mounted characters from taking them as a really good cheap upgrade, plus it never really made that much sense in a realistic way. It would be nice to have an exception for us so we can actually use our only unit of non-fast cavalry, low armour save, Rare choice, unit of cavalry. You'd think we had them as core and 2+ AS like Empire, the way some people think it will unbalance things.
to give you a wacky example of what this actually means... infantry BCs can enter buildings... interesting eh?
Beats standing outside in the rain, but then again the Temple of Hashut needs someone to add fuel to the fire every now and then.

metro_gnome:

Tell that to the guys with lances. I think it was really to stop so many mounted characters from taking them as a really good cheap upgrade, plus it never really made that much sense in a realistic way. It would be nice to have an exception for us so we can actually use our only unit of non-fast cavalry, low armour save, Rare choice, unit of cavalry. You'd think we had them as core and 2+ AS like Empire, the way some people think it will unbalance things.

cornixt
you mean the -1M, -1S, -1T, -1Ld, +2 cost empire knight?
whose second attack is at WS3 and S3 regardless of "on the charge only" weaponry?

but you are right it is not really an issue for the rank and files...
the impact is felt at the character level... of which there are still two BCs...
one whom can attain with a 6 point upgrade 5x S7 attacks... at M8... and prolly a 1+ AS...

Yaghnu Nigamwamp:

Beats standing outside in the rain, but then again the Temple of Hashut needs someone to add fuel to the fire every now and then.

cornixt
Lol! :hat off

Now that's just exactly right. A Bull Centaur needs some time to rest inside. It takes good conditioning to wield a great weopon at strength 6. :P

AGPO:

Some good points all of you :hat off. I think most people would agree the centigor ruling is sensible as a guideline. However, there are some other considerations, for instance, what about law of beasts spells that affect cavalry, swarms and monsters. This is supposed to be because they affect dumb beasts but bull centaurs are decidedly sentient. I think the “animal’s head” idea is isnterestig, but I would change it a little and say that the reduction in strength represents the difficulty of wielding tricky weapons - which require a lot of co-ordination in the first place - whilst trying to control a steed in combat. This does cover cases like the disc of Tzeentch, but not bull centaurs or centigors, who are standing on their own - abliet four - good feet (or indeed hooves) and therefore only have the same co-ordination problems as infantry.

Another point to be taken into account is that bull centaur’s points costs were written back when the rule was +2S for all models. I know this is the case for other older armies, but it WAS mainly the characters for which the rules were changed. The only other unit for whom this ruling is relevant is Questing Knights, and they have +1S compared to other Bretonian Knights to allow for this. However, there are only a few chaos dwarf players around, we are unlikely to get an update any time soon and therefore the most logical solution is to agree a house rule with regular opponents/within clubs, then go by any tournament’s judgement when you attend. If you can’t agree with a given opponent, simply roll for it.

metro_gnome:

lore of beast spells affect centigors… there is no reason for it not to affect Bull Centaurs…
it also affects shaggoths… are they “dumb beasts”?

again the “centaurs are just as stable and people on 2 feet” argumet is speculative at best…
how long and flimsy is the BCs spine? or how rigidly connected to other bones is it?
is there a pelvis/shoulder situation in the middle of the animal acting much like a saddle?

GWs are meant to be used by bipeds…
who can easily shift its feet to accomodate swinging weight… well not easily… they still strike last…
how would such a creature redistribute their weight to their hind quarters in a similar manner?
is it easily done when packed together in ranks with similar animals?

Liger:

Personally, I really don’t think that Bull Centaurs deserve any special treatment to do with great weapon rules. The fact is that IIRC the great weapon rule change was mainly to curb the power of S7 mounted heroes (mainly applying to Chaos and Lizardmen I assume), and of course, if this is the case then it should also apply to Bull Centaur Lords, who IMO had a hell of a lot of killing power. As for Bull Centaurs, 2 S6 attacks was pretty unprecedented for cavalry, and for their cost I felt that they were certainly pretty good.

However, I definitely agree with Metro’s suggestion that they use hand weapons as if they were infantry, and leave it at that. Right now, there is a glaring problem in that they have the option for 2 hand weapons, but can’t use it (and also can’t use the parry rule for a bonus armour save). If they were able to gain these two rules, then I would be happy, and IMO they would be fine.

It seems to me that talking about co-ordination and skill required to use a great weapon while mounted was just an excuse for the rule change, and it should not, IMO, be used in any argument about Bull Centaur arguments - the main point should be looking at rules, and whether the new great weapon rules (and others) should affect Bull Centaurs in terms of rules, not fluff.

As for the other rulings, I would personally just call a rank 5 models and say that the Blunderbuss needs that to gain +1S from now on. The Sneaky Gitz ruling I don’t really get, but then I haven’t played properly for ages.

Xander:

Liger puts is very well. Nicely done. :slight_smile:

AGPO:

However, I definitely agree with Metro's suggestion that they use hand weapons as if they were infantry, and leave it at that. Right now, there is a glaring problem in that they have the option for 2 hand weapons, but can't use it (and also can't use the parry rule for a bonus armour save). If they were able to gain these two rules, then I would be happy, and IMO they would be fine.

liger
If you use the centigor ruling then they can indeed use two hand weapons or hand weapons and shields as infantry