[WHFB] WAP Chaos Dwarfs 8th Ed. FAQ & Errata


Page 44: Replace the Relentless rules text with the following:

Relentless: Units entirely composed of models with this special rule do not need to pass a Leadership test in order to march, regardless of the proximity of enemy units.

So the upcoming CDO meetup 2022 will be the first time I’ll actually use the WHFB 8th Edition “Chaos Dwarf” army list by the Warhammer Armies Project. While reading through it and add it to my BattleScribe, some questions came up and I thought I ask how you guys handle these or how we should treat those at the retreat. The 9th edition army list seems to have addressed some of those already. This would also be the place where we could make changes to the list, e.g. add the “small” Bull Centaurs.

Altar of Hashut
How do the mechanics work here? Can the Altar be targeted/destroyed separately and the Daemonsmith just needs to be in 3" to use it (similar to his Infernal Engineer rule) or is the Altar more like a mount, akin to the Anvil of Doom? Does the 4+ Ward Save only apply to the Altar or to the Daemonsmith as well? In the 9th edition it seems to work exactly like the Anvil.

Blazing Body
We have two different versions of the special rule in the army list (K’Daai vs Taurus). The Taurus has the Blazing Body rule from the LoA army list (as written in Tamurkhan, not the FAQ-version), the K’Daai have their own version. In 9th ed. they both have the one the K’Daai have in 8th. I have no problem handling it all like this, just wanted to bring it up.

I thought it was a mount, but checking the book, now I’m not too sure. I think the intent is for it to be a mount as it doesn’t follow the 8th Ed War Machine rules (iirc in 8th the crew act as wound markers, but the Altar only has two crew despite having 6 wounds).

Don’t have my copy of the Tomb Kings book to hand, but might be worth looking into that to see how the Casket of Souls is handled as that’s something similar.

1 Like

So the Casket of Souls is not a mount and is not even selected as an upgrade for a character, it is simply a rare choice. The closest official unit indeed seems to be the Anvil of Doom.

But you are right, the 6 wounds for the Altar in the 8th army book are odd. I think it is indeed intended to work as a mount. That would mean it can be targeted and destroyed separately, shooting attacks are distributed between Daemonsmith and Altar and the ward save does not affect the Daemonsmith. We could treat the two guards as resembling the first two wounds.

Sorry if I’m derailing your thread a bit Jasko. But 8th Ed WAP on BattleScribe??? I can only seem to find 9th Ed WAP. I’d love to have an army builder with the 8th Ed book on my phone - would be much easier than what I’m doing now

1 Like

I make BattleScribe files myself. Happy to send you mine, but it will be pretty corrupted, since I have all shared items and upgrades in the main WHFB file and so there will be a lot of links not working.

1 Like

That’s very impressive! So essentially it only works cos it cross references various other files you have so it probably wouldn’t work just being shared?


Exactly. I have all magic items, common upgrades for weapons, armour and mounts as well as special rules and options like general or battle standard bearer in the main Warhammer 8th edition file.

I’ll send it anyway, worst case you have a separate Warhammer installment for the wap list, better than having no BattleScribe file at all

1 Like

I’m not mega experienced with BattleScribe especially anything this customised but I’ll give it a go. Thanks Jasko

1 Like

Well hopefully, if you only use it on your device, it feels exactly like the “regular” battlescribe. doesn’t matter for the user where the app gets the stats and options from etc.

1 Like

So here would be my suggestion for the smaller Bull Centaurs in WAP 8th edition.

Bildschirmfoto 2021-11-22 um 09.20.54

Basically it’s their stats/equip from WAP 9th, but like regular Chaos Warriors or Renders they don’t swap their shields for another weapon but can add it. Most notably is the change from troop type cavalry to war beast. It might be nitpicky, but, well, they are not a mounted unit, they are essentially beasts (like Renders are monstrous beast and not monstrous cavalry). But that also has some real-game implications: Since they are not mounted, Bull Centaurs (like Renders) can parry. They also don’t fail dangerous terrain tests on 1-2, only on 1, which makes sense, since the reason for the 1-2 is the increased difficulty of handling a mount, which Bull Centaurs obviously don’t have. However, Bull Centaurs are still quite large, easily bigger than a horse, which would raise some questions regarding (thunder)stomp, where war beasts can be stomped but cavalry cannot. Also for combined units and look out sir, they should be more like cavalry. I therefore just gave them a special rule for these instances. It might seem to be cherry picking, but I honestly believe Bull Centaurs should have the best of both worlds here. Accordingly, I upped their points. What do you all think? Different stats, equipment or rules? Maybe even 22 points?


Im a little unsure of their armour save.
If they are cavalry theyd have heavy armour, shield thick skin , mounted +1,

2+ save

But lets be fair, great weapons are a must so 3+ and +2? Strength. (2+ against shooting)
Warbeasts can be stomped by other stuff but cavalry cant, id think keep them listed as cavalry, lose the parry save that nobody will ever use because …great weapons.

These sort of rules would allow for boar and pony cd riders as proxies better (which i intend to paint up). Sadly our 1 unit entry must suffice for many different units

Interestingly the stats took a bit of a nerf from ravening hordes. It is fine if the armour slightly improves.

1 Like

Mhm, but then they would have the same armour save as the Renders (or some heavy cavalry with a barded mount), which also seems not right for me? And I just keep coming back to the fact they are just not mounted :sweat_smile:

Like it says in the rulebook: “The rider does receive a modicum of additional protection from his mighty mount.” In a way, the scaly skin (6+) represents that. Renders would then be barded, if one would keep this line of reasoning.


Aha! We have a precedent: Beastmen Centigors! From the 7th ed GW army book

Centigors count as cavalry, albeit of an unusual type with a single characteristic profile. They follow the normal rules for cavalry models, including the +1 bonus armour save.

Interesting! So that at least settles the troop type thing. Now just to decide whether Bull Centaurs should be more heavily armoured naturally than Centigors or not. WAP 8th Beastmen army book is no help here.


OK, so when using the Centigor rule/wording, we would come to this:

Bildschirmfoto 2021-11-23 um 14.35.41

Armour Save 3+ with Heavy Armour and Shield, so they are tougher than human or elf heavy cavalry, but less armoured. I decreased the points to 20 again, I think it’s more in line with other armies. If you compare it to an Empire Knight with Great Weapon, he clocks in at 22 pts, a Bull Centaur with Heavy Armour and Great Weapon is 23 pts but has +1S, +1T and +1A for his -2AS. Adds up if every stat-point is worth 1 pt.

1 Like

Does heavy armour and shield cause -1 to movement?

Maybe that was dropped in 8th i forget

No trusty steed attack though :cd1980:

No, only barding reduces the armour by 1"

True, but I rather have a second attack at WS4 S4 (S6 with great weapon) than one by the steed though :wink:

1 Like

Here’s a Q for everyone’s consideration. This is about the balance between hobgoblins and slave units.

According to the ruleset, we can’t have more slave orc units than hobgoblin warrior units. We also can’t have more slave goblins than hobgoblin warrior units. Do these stack or not?

Let’s say, for example, that I have two units of hobgoblin warriors.

Can I take two units of slave orcs and two units of slave goblins, following the rule to the letter?

Or can I take one unit of slave orcs and one unit of slave goblins, or conversely, only two units of slave orcs, following the rule to the spirit?

1 Like

Good Question!

I’d say definitely like you said, rules-as-written vs rules-as-intended. Only problem always is, we are rarely really sure how something is intended (a great example are the official Ogre Kingdom errata with Slaughtermaster and magic armour. I will never give mine anything besides an iron fist), but we can be very sure how it is written.

Personally I’d be fine with both solutions. When in doubt, I tend to lean towards fluff/spirit/intention, but I would not complain if someone follows it as written.

1 Like

I hobbo unit unlocks an orc unit and a goblin unit in my mind, it doesn’t say either/or. I don’t think anyone would ever question you or your army list.

There is so little choice in that list as it is :dead: