[Archive] Taur'ruk vs 4 Centaurs?

Spencer:

Hi guys

I was just making a first list with a taur’ruk and i just saw that for the same amount of point: 220 i can have either:

1 taur’ruk with 0+ rerolable / 6++ and 4A CC5 S6 4 wounds

or

4 Centaurs with GW, banner, musician and one Command test rerolable, 3+ 8A CC4 S6 and 8 wounds

Just asked myself is really the taur’ruk worth it? I ve near 2 times as much impact as the taur’ruk with 4 centaurs and maybe a similar durability for both choices (both T5, 8 wounds with 3+ vs 4 wounds with 0+ rerolable/6++)

I can’t make my mind about this choice!

Thommy H:

You can’t get a 0+ save.

gashnag:

Since you have to have the centaurs to use the Taur’ruk I’m guessing that you’re asking should you take the hero or a second unit of centaurs.

Spencer:

@gashnag: I m talking purely about a question of rentability and in an optimisation point of view. But you can consider this as do we have rather to choose a taur’ruk or an additional 4 centaurs unit.

@tommy h: I think you can have a 0+ before any modificators are applied. But after you’ve applied them you can’t have anything better than a 1+. That’s always what told me experiented players in my club. Do you have got any other information about it?

Thommy H:

The rulebook says you can’t get higher than 1+. It’s pretty explicitly spelled out in the section on armour saves.

Spencer:

Ok i though there was a “FAQ” or errata about it ^^

let’s move back to the topic! What would you choose and why?

in my point of view and in a pure optimisation discussion i would choose the 4 centaurs.

Dînadan:

@tommy h: I think you can have a 0+ before any modificators are applied. But after you've applied them you can't have anything better than a 1+. That's always what told me experiented players in my club. Do you have got any other information about it?

Spencer
I think you've gotten a bit confused. The best you can get is a 1+, but even before negative modifiers a 1+ save will still fail on a 1 and only pass on a 2+. There's nothing stopping you having items and spells that could go better, but they won't have any effect (and won't even have an effect against negative modifiers) once you get to 1+ so are almost completely pointless (the only time I can think they'd be of use is if a spell/special rule destroyed/turned off/etc a specific item but wasn't a straight up save modifier).

Roark:

The advantage of the Taur’ruk to my mind:

- harder to kill, via magic items

- kills hard-to-kill things, via magic items

- can break off, with a small frontage

Spencer:

By the way i just found the part of the errata about the save it’s at the page 2 of the errata of the rulebook on the left side. They confirm that your save can go below 1+ before any modificators are applied (0+ or -1 is possible for example). Which makes a hudge difference in the situations where you fight vs high strengh characters/units

vs Strengh 6 a 1+ armor save would moove to 4+

vs Strengh 6 a -1 armor save will moove to 2+

really not the same situation at the end! So 0+ matters in the case of the taur’ruk!

so let’s move back to the topic! who prefers the 4 centaurs and who prefers the taur’ruk and why? (with the options that i proposed at the beginning of the topic)

tenebre:

you need Taur’ruk to inspire your centaurs. they just dont feel the same edge and bravery without him on the field… at least thats my logic when building my army :wink: and he looks cool!

Dînadan:

By the way i just found the part of the errata about the save it's at the page 2 of the errata of the rulebook on the left side. They confirm that your save can go below 1+ before any modificators are applied (0+ or -1 is possible for example). Which makes a hudge difference in the situations where you fight vs high strengh characters/units

vs Strengh 6 a 1+ armor save would moove to 4+
vs Strengh 6 a -1 armor save will moove to 2+

really not the same situation at the end! So 0+ matters in the case of the taur'ruk!

Spencer
Umm, I think you've either completely misread the Errata or are looking at an outdated one. The current errata (on the BL site) says pretty much what I said above - you can have items that can make it better, but it's capped at 1+, meaning that even if your items could give you a 0+ or -1+ save they still work like a 1+ and negative modifiers will effect them exactly as if they were a 1+ save.
so let's move back to the topic! who prefers the 4 centaurs and who prefers the taur'ruk and why? (with the options that i proposed at the beginning of the topic)
Going with your layout I think the Taur'ruk may be the better option as he's more resilient (as they share the same Toughness and they're only 1 point of WS apart, the enemy will probably cause roughly the same number of wounds before saves on each, and with the layouts you've given, assuming no modifiers to armour saves, theoretically the enemy would need to cause ~36 wounds to kill the Taur'ruk but only 24 to kill the Centaurs. I won't bog this down with working out the odds with saves, but I'm fairly sure the Taur'ruk still comes out ahead).

Further, the Taur'ruk is smaller than the unit so is less likely to be hit with templates, not to mention it'd only take one hit from the template, whereas the unit can take up to four; and against cannon and bolt throwers the Taur'ruk only takes one hit whereas the unit can take up to two (only upside for the unit is that the Multiple Wounds rule won't wipe out the whole unit against cannon and bolt thrower).

The Taur'ruk also has a smaller frontage (and depending on how you field the unit possibly a smaller flank) meaning that less enemies will be able to attack, meaning he's less likely to take a wound. On top of that, he can challenge, potentially reducing the number of attacks against him even further.

The Taur'ruk is also more mobile, needing less room to manoeuvre and consequently less likely to get blocked by other units/terrain and thus less likely to fail a charge. He can also be positioned such that an enemy is blocked from charging him, but he is able to charge them through the gap in the blocking units/terrain. He's also less likely to accidentally enter dangerous terrain when wheeling/manoeuvring, so less likely to take damage that way.

Being a character he can also bunker down in another unit of Bull Centaurs for protection if needed which the unit couldn't do. Doing so he can pass on his higher leadership to keep that unit around.

Speaking of higher leadership, in the event he's out of range of the General's Leadership he's more likely to stick around than the unit.

There's probably more, plus cons to the Taur'ruk, but this is all what I could think of off the top of my head.

ThorAxe:

Why not run both? Since you need bull centaurs to run the Taur’ruk anyway…

I personally prefer the Taur’ruk due to the fact that I feel that it can fullfil more roles than normal bull centaurs. I run mine with a re-rollable 1+, OTS, and great weapon so that it can hunt monsters and most characters, while still holding up other infantry units. RE-rollable 1+ is silly against S3 or 4 models. Bolt throwers are its main problem, as are canons to a degree, though I find that these are usually more occupied shooting at the destroyer or at my flying lord earlier on in the game. I run my bull centaurs with shields and a musician, being cheaper than a magma canon and either try and run interference with enemy chaff (elf fast cav cannot hold up to them in small numbers) or try and tie up S3 units.

Depending on your list, I think you should stay with just the centaurs the way you are going to run them, as the extra Taur’ruk might be too pricy