CDO Forums

The rules given by the GT-US clarify a lot of the superceded or out of date rules in the Ravening Hordes army list.  In some cases though, they make judgments that aren't supported by Rules As Written.  There have been many discussions on these parts and I think we have had enough time to digest them all by now.

Personally, I think all of what it says is a good idea and should be recommended to all Chaos Dwarf players as long as they understand that it isn't 100% official.  

What do you think?

Edit: The rules are here: http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/Rules/as...gt_faq.pdf

I voted no because they're completely unofficial and somewhat and therefore irrelevant to the rest of the world.
I just think that it would be a bad habit to get into rules that are unofficial, that's all. It's deffo a good idea to have the rules clarified for tournament purposes.

the exisitng official FAQ made that BB ruling... the validity of US GT is irrelevant on this issue...

i also voted no...
the sneaky git ruling is so poorly worded that it doen't mean anything...
you cannot be "in combat" "after combat"...
BB ranks (while RAW) should have been the first thing to be fixed with an errata...
Blorcs loss of magic standard while Big Uns retain the option is bizarre...
its just a sloppy document...

I voted No because we need something more comprehensive.  The GT US rulings take too many leaps, instead of just fixing the bare bones.

I agree that the Sneaky Git wording is pretty poor, it looks like they missed out the word "phase" after it says "after every combat".  I don't see a problem with Black Orcs not getting a banner but Big 'Uns do, it's in the fluff that we don't trust BOs and Orcs are just too disorganised to worry about.  Yes there is loads more I'd add to improve the army list, but these only affect things that have changed since it was first written which is what an FAQ should do.  A few useful steps (the BC and BB rulings at least) make it worthwhile IMO.

I voted no as it's fairly sloppy, and as metro said, bizzare in many cases, centianly souldn't be suggested for gneral use.
That said:
All bar the Sneaky Git ruling, the BC ruling and the Magic Banner ruling are RAW anyway
The former is in the spirit of the rules, and might be good to discuss as a house rule; in any case my local GW was using this even pre FAQ
The latter is also fluffy, although IMO it does make sense for BO and Big 'Uns to have banner of slavery although not really war banner

The BC ruling is contreversial either way.  A suggested hose rule sould be to treat them as centigor however

the sneaky git ruling is more problematic than it appears...

lets say it can do what we think it can do...
it can make a free maneuver every turn... even when engaged by two enemies...
if the gitz are subject to a rear charge while engaged to the front...
they can expand their frontage by moving up to five models to their front rank...
thereby moving out of base contact with the rear charged enemy...
regaining ranks and probably breaking the enemy engaged to the front...

is this within the intent?
its certainly sneaky

i have corrected this elsewhere... no model on a base size larger than 25x25 have 360 LoS...
BCs like all cav models, ogres, daemon princes etc follow the movement and LoS rules for monsters...
90 degree for you...

If the gits got hit so hard that they lost two ranks worth of models in a single turn, would the unit in the rear suddenly become unengaged?  Of course not.  This situation is no different.

you mean...

no actually... i dont see the similarity at all...

I'll have to call you on that quote out of context.  It refers to a model causing more casualties than it is in contact with, not moving units to make up for lost ranks.

p46 Redress the Ranks is far more appropriate, in fact I would have conceded to you after reading the final paragraph.  However, the Free Manoeuvers section that follows makes it clear that the situation you describe cannot happen since it can only perform a Free Manoeuver if engaged in only one side, no exception is made for two or more units in the GT-US rules unless you use the meaning of the word 'every' to include situations explicitly forbidden by the rule.  I wouldn't go that far but maybe you would.  Maybe there should be an FAQ for this FAQ!  I'd say it was sloppily worded and supposed to mean that they can Free Manoeuvre even if they lose combat, rather than just if they win, but that's just my opinion.

I didn't realise this one thing would cause so much debate.  Maybe I was wrong when I thought we all had time to digest it.  Why didn't you bring this up before?

Haha, Metro's recently been involved in a lengthy argument over on Warseer over these rules, particularly as they pertain to Bull Centaurs.

To be annoying, I voted Yes, but the only reason I voted Yes is that I believe that Bull Centaurs should be treated as infantry as regards weapons (it seems to me that a weapon is more difficult to wield when you have to avoid hacking your mount's head with it) and armour saves (why would a mount give them an improved save when they ARE the mount).

As for the other points at issue here, I completely agree that the Sneaky Git wording is ridiculous, although I had never paid attention to it before.

Steve

well i dont know how out of context it was...
your unit did have to destroy 10 of my sneaky gitz to maintain contact...
but you are correct redress the ranks makes the point clearer...

the restrictions for the maneuver are thrown out the window...
the gitz do not have to win... they do not have to be engaged by only one enemy...
they may expand frontage while flanked... and they could turn during a front charge...
every turn is every turn... otherwise "every turn" means nothing as any unit can do it every turn...
so long as they win combat, are engaed by only one enemy, etc...
thats is if gitz can do it all... being "in combat" "after combat"...
its a clear case some who didnt know what a free maneuver was tossing it in a FAQ...

for the record... i have brought this up before...
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...

speaking of which...
the heads of animals would not explain chariots or the disc of tzeench angryboy...
and no one has ever argued that they should get the mounted AS... wolves do not...
all i have ever argued is that the mounted GW rules should be looked at more carefully...
this change was made for a reason... M8 models running around with +2S is supposed to be a thing of the past...
and no rule supports the BCs are infantry position... infact they support the opposite...
to give you a wacky example of what this actually means... infantry BCs can enter buildings... interesting eh?

as ive said i perfer a centigor style ruling...
where hand weapons are treat as tho on foot...
and other weapons are treated as if mounted...
its the closest example of a similar creature type...
and the most amicable solution all around...

I'm just stirring the s***, mate. I haven't played fantasy battle since third edition (I did cram the fourth edition Chaos Dwarfs into 3rd for a few months, but I never had the rules), and I'm only collecting and building an army for the modelling. I had never realized the implications of the poorly-worded FAQ until recently and the only army book I have to compare rules to is the dwarf book (which with its overall lack of 25x50mm bases is useless in this case).

In any event, I certainly wouldn't dream of defending an FAQ based solely on the advantages conferred to my models. I'm the kind of guy who puts useless units in his army purely for aesthetic reasons.

To be fair I think you have obviously thought it through very thoroughly. I read your house rule over on Warseer and thought it sounded eminently fair and well-considered.

Cheers,
Steve

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.

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.

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.

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 probably a 1+ AS...

Lol!

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.

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?

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.

Liger puts is very well. Nicely done.