CDO Forums

These look about right.  It will be a shame to lose out Ld10 Hero, hehe.   But I'd lose it for an Army Book any day.

ah hegemony fluff... the bane of chaos dwarf domination fluff...
i would suggest itz irreconcilable... two fluffs that are contradictory...

however as you are attempting to add to a CD list, on a CD site...
i suggest you follow chaos dwarf fluff... in which Hobgoblin lords are highly unlikely...

A) In CD society, it is unlikely that a HG would be allowed to lead CDs. Unless, there is a rule about any HG character can NOT be the army general under ANY circumstances... (Makes sense to me, unless you have no CD units. But, then, I think HG shouldn't count towards core.)
BCs should have one of their attacks as Trample.

Otherwise, I currently can't think of anything. Well done!

actually it is quite possible to have a Hobgoblin general... and therefore leading chaos dwarfs...
you just use all Hobbie heros... or hobbie heroes and a BSB...
such a character set up suffers from a lack of magic defense... but is not illegal...

well i had proposed (long ago) that an army with a hobgoblin general should have Hobgoblin count as core...
and CDs count as non minimum core...

i also proposed a hobgoblin special character (Gorduz Backstabber) who would count as a lord choice...
i gave him a leadership equal to a CD sorcerors Ld... so 9 in the current list... or 8 should that leadership drop...
he was the only hobgoblin capable of leading CDs in battle... making him quite the special character...

it was scrapped along with all my ambitions of army development...
to be honest i don't hold out much hope for hobgoblins in a future list...
if the Khan's command "the largest army in the world"...
its hard to believe any of their ilk would be enslaved... no matter how favorable their enslavement might be...
and as no hobgoblins make an appearance in the grudgebearer... instead we see slaves of all races...

You seem to have misunderstood. I meant that I was suggesting that HG characters shouldn't be able to be the general.

---While the stats for the Hobgoblin Lord look about right, except for initiative, which often gets a 2 point jump for heores (a 1pt jump for elite infantry and cavalry). I believe that a Hobbo Lord should not be there. I also feel strongly that Hobbo characters should have a special rule that prohibits them from from being the general. Any Hobbo who gets that uppity would likely be executed.

---I would like to make a really big suggestion: that basic Chaos Dwarfs be LD 8. Yes, I really want them to have less leadership. This is because while CDs are as stubborn as their mountain-dwelling kin, they do not share their loyal nature. Chaos Dwarfs are far more conniving and paranoid. They simply do not have the same "family Values" that bind other dwarfs together. Note that Heores would still be LD 9 and Lords LD 10. This suggestion also has the benefit of giving the list a disadvantage: something CD designers often overlook. The list has everything: heavy cavalry, fast cavalry, elite infantry, cheap infantry, war machines, flying monsters, spellcasters and maybe even skirmishers depending on what is done with Sneaky Gitz. We should be looking all over the list for characterful ways to chip away at CD effectiveness. Better the list be not powerful enough then too powerful.

---Are we going to go S4 for the elite CD infantry?

---Another stat line to look at is that of Sorcerers. It would be characterful to give them a bonus to LD, being at the top of the pecking order in CD society. The problem with that route is that Lords might get displaced by Bull Centaur Lords for fighting power and Sorcerer Lords for LD.  Both of the other Lord choices would need drawbacks to make CD Lords a viable choice. It would also be cool to keep the Initiative 1 Sorcerer Lord from the RH list.

---That leaves Bull Centaurs. 2 basic attacks only makes sense in the context of other cavalry who get attacks for a rider and horse. Along those lines, I made sure in my list to give them a specail rule to say that one of their Attacks suffers not weapon bonuses or penalties. This may appear to hurt their great weapons abilities, but one of their Attacks does not strike last, for whatevet that's worth. I would like to see Bull Centaur Lords on a 50mm base, if only because big models are cool. If we go that route, a fourth Wound might be appropriate. I would also like to see Bull Centaurs be Movement 6. Hear me out on this one. First of all, bulls are not as fast as horses, so M8 should be scrapped for M7. Secondly, while they do not have barding they might as well: their heavy armor should weigh them down as much. In the list I posted, I compromised a bit on the Movement by giving them a special rule that allows them to flee and pursue 3D6 instead of the 2D6 as normal for M6 troops. M6 BCs are another area where it is reasonablt to chip away at CD capability. Speaking of barding, the fact that BCs do not get it makes them less poerful then comparable heavy infantry elsewhere. A Scaly Skin save is an option, but I prefer to go the route of T5. After all, being significantly large then a normal CD should nake them harder to kill somehow.

I say keep the Hobbo Lord, so long as he can't be general.  A cheap but powerful figure that can turn a unit of Wolf Riders into something really dangerous.

I think the BCs should be M7. A knight with heavy armour still moves at M8 without barding, but bulls DO move less quickly than horses. Also, something that runs on four legs (BCs) will move faster than something on two (E.g. Minotaurs).

---Heavy armor for BCs should be the equivalent of barding. After all, it covers all the same places (or it shouldn't qualify as heavy armor). BCs are not as big as minotaurs and significantly more heavily armored. Dwarfs are supposed to be slow, and that should carry over onto the Bull Centaurs.

---It should be noted that according to the definitions in the basic rule book, Bull Centaurs are cavalry, and so they can't use two hand weapons, suffer from great weapon nerfing, and don't qualify for the bonus HW+S save. However, they are not "riders and mounts", so they don't get the bonus armor save either. Unless we want a special rule to deal with those things, BCs really get the short end of the stick.

Yes, but a BC will way less than a human with a horse on. The human then has 30-40lbs of armour on (in heavy/full plate) and the horse will have almost the same, maybe more, in barding. For a BC, they weigh more than a horse or person individually, but a fair amount than the two combined, then, there is still less area to cover with armour, making less weight. M7 is fine, unless they can have an upgrade to armour that basically copies the barding rules. BCs should have the "Fight as Infantry" rule IMO, I know they don't , but they should. Yes, Dwarfs should be slow. The Chaos Dwarfs are Dwarfs. They are slow. BCs are bulls with a dwarf body replacing the head. They are not completely Dwarfs. The fact that we have cavalry of ANY kind nerfs the argument of our army must be slow. Besides, HG wolf riders move at M9 (maybe 8, I think 9, not sure right now).

---The weight difference between havy armor on BCs and an armored and barded knight is negligable. You know that you are grasping at straws there. Perhaps BCs should have a further bonus to their armor save; I am more then happy to have a discussion on that.

---There is a good reason why cavalry cannot use the weapon options that infantry can, and I can see no difference between BCs and heavy cavalry that justifies making them the exception.

---Yes, Chaos Dwarfs have cavalry, but that does not mean that they should be as fast as other cavalry. Chaos Dwarfs do not need to be the best at everything nor do they deserve to be. It is only fair that they pay a price for their incredible tactical flexibility.

Negligible? You consider 20lbs of weight (minimum) negligible? Either you've been powerlifting or you don't realise how much 20lbs is. I am NOT grasping at straws, just trying to get you to understand the criticism I am giving. I am agreeing with you, albeit to an extent, but it is agreement nonetheless. BCs ARE different, they do not get trained to fight on horseback etc, they live as they are. They have spent their entire lives dealing with their body type, thus giving them a greater degree of control over what they can do. I would say that HW+S MAYBE get the bonus and they should be allowed to hold 2HWs (not holding reigns or anything is my excuse for that), but cavalry rules for GWs (that is what I would compromise, not what I would like. I am prepared to always compromise if it makes sense). You are HEAVILY implying that I am trying to make the CDs overpowered, when in fact, I was stating, unit by unit, what makes sense for them. If you disagree with our speed element, you should say do not allow HGs to ride wolves (M9, faster than BCs) and I am saying still reduce the BCs movement (making them slower), but not quite as slow as you suggest. If BCs came with light armour (e.g. covering the Dwarf half) and could take barding as an upgrade (e.g. covers the bull half) I would say that the barding rule could reduce it. But, again, that is a compromise.

---On a beastie likely weighing upwards of 2400lbs, yeah, that extra 20lbs is not exactly a big deal. Bulls can easily break 2400lbs each (thank the good Lord for Wikipedia). Warhorses push 2000lbs by themselves. Those are BIG critters.

---THAT is a good argument. The point of the cavalry rules, however, is to stop them from being overpowered more then representing any difficulties associated with using weapons on horseback. If we can't make them work without breaking the rules, then I will be happy to go ahead and make Bull Centaurs an exception.

---Whoa, backpedal a bit there. I'm the one advocating Toughness 5 after all. In any case, nothing is overpowered if the price is right. I would have a problem if they got significantly tougher, kept their 2 Attacks, got the full +2 Strength from great weapons AND cost 25pts/models.

---It's not that there cannot be any fast elements in the army, or even that Bull Centaurs need to be really slow. My problem is that the Chaos Dwarfs have a lot of tactical flexibility and I see a chance to cut that down a bit in a characterful way, without nerfing the unit.

---A solid suggestion. Adding to the armor save, even bringing it to 3+ without the shield, is entirely within the realm of possibility. Bull Centaurs will need to be rock hard if they are going to end up with Movement 6, and I think that this is entirely reasonable and characterful for Dwarf cavalry.

First of all, before I comment at all, I would like very much to apologise to you itcamefromthedeep. I was in an incredibly foul mood due to reasons I'd rather not explain on the internet and so said things in a slightly less than kind manner. Please forgive me (that has been playing on my mind all day).

Your first point about my 20lbs argument is solid. I kind of was thinking in terms of humans. Whoopsy, apologies there! I understand your second point and don't mind them having +1S GWs, just as long as they are allowed to use 2HWs. Makes sense after all. The third point was me writing in a foul mood and should be ignored entirely. 4th, I agree, but am not sure that M6 is right. It feels a little weird. Perhaps reduce wolves to M8 and BCs to M7. Wolves being slower because HGs are heavier... But, I'm happy to concede to general consesnus. I think they should be M7 with the option of Barding/Heavy Armour. Or just say that the Heavy Armour counts as Barding. They come with shields and LA automatically perhaps?

---Forgiven and forgotten.

---Perhaps I could phrase it more clearly. If you accept that a Bull Centaur is slower then a horse, then it follows that a Bull Centaur covered in armor should be slower then a barded warhorse (which has M7). Slower then M7 is obviously M6, but I would not really like them to suffer a 2D6 flee/pursuit move, so I made a special rule to allow them the 3D6 move.

---Mandatory equipment is not a great idea. With armor its fine, but shields should be optional

---Wolves should not be faster than horses, in any army list. I don't care what excuse you use, but M9 appears far too often in cavalry.

Does anyone know what the Centigor rules are? When in doubt, go with what's been established.

So, if they come with Heavy Armour, they are M6, if they come with LA that can be uprgrdaed with barding, they are M7 (but at -1 for barding...). Think that would work better? Or just come with HA and be M6? I also agree with the special rule (although if they have the barding option, would it be a special rule? I am pondering to myself...). Wolves are able to run through underbrush better than horses, so if anything, they should have the same movement, but move through woods, however, I doubt there are many woods where the HGs live and so the riders wouldn't have that rule (maybe getting knocked off by branches and the like). Make them cheaper than a human then, but have M8. It just makes sense...

---Centigors are cavalry as defined in the basic rule book. They get no advantage in survivability over their counterparts on foot. Centigors get a trample attack, but I believe that only works on the charge. Centigors have no Hero or Lord equivalent.

---Good to know. Thanks.

---The big thing to note is that Centigors are no tougher than Gors. I really do not like the idea keeping the glass cannon Bull Centaurs, because that just does not make  sense to me.