CDO Forums

Maths is good but experience and fun are better ,nothing is more pleasing than seeing a unit of gw carve up the flank of the enemy.Must say tho i also use big uns which as metro gnome says have animosity to contend with but those extra choppas are mean and lean for the points.
Warriors with hw+sh are the best core choice and are great flanked by blunders and screened by hobbos.
Great stuff this article

Well, let's examine the wording of the sentence:

"Can you fire Chaos Dwarf blunderbusses if there is a friendly unit in combat with an enemy in the zone of fire?"

To me, that's saying "if there is a friendly unit...in the zone of fire..."

In catbarf's examples, there wouldn't be.

However, it could also be read the following way:

"if there is a....in combat with an enemy in the zone of fire."

So, if they're in combat with the enemy which is in the zone of fire then you can't fire.

There's actually no way to tell the intent of that sentence, sadly, as either reading is perfectly valid. The "in the zone of fire" bit could be referring to the friendly unit or the enemy unit equally.

Uh...no, that isn't what I meant. I was leaving some of the phrase out for clarity so that the reading I was demonstrating was clearer.

Look at the sentence: you can read it in two ways, depending on who the "in the fire zone" bit applies to.

Either it applies to the friendly units: "A friendly unit (in combat with the enemy) in the fire zone".

Or it applies just to the enemy units: "A friendly unit in combat with (the enemy in the fire zone)".

You're reading it in the second way; if the enemy that are fighting the friendly units are in the fire zone, that you can't target them.

Catbarf is reading it the first way; if the enemy (and only the enemy) are in the fire zone, then they can be targetted, as long as no friendly models are.

See what I'm getting at? The sentence works both ways.

I get everything else that you're saying, but the sentence in the FAQ could clearly be read one of two ways.

Well you obviously aren't reading it both ways, since one way makes it sound like you can't shoot if your own unit is engaged in combat with enemy in the fire zone, and the other one says you can't shoot if just the enemy are in the fire zone.

I don't think I can explain it any better. Catbarf's (perfectly valid) reading of the FAQ means that you can target enemy in combat, since it specifies only that no friendly units need be in the fire zone.

Your (also perfectly valid) reading says that you can't fire on enemy in the fire zone if they're in combat.

There's no way to know the intent, though there are other reasons to believe that you're probably right.

Better rules writing is all thats needed with gw having lots of badly written sentances ,i couldnt do any better grammatically, langauge is a two edged sword.Reading it either way is unimportant because we all know there intent was not to allow bb to fire into enemys units that��were engaged in combat regardless of whether the freindly unit was in the firezone.
Back on thread
earthshakers are great for protecting blunders not just disrupting enemy fire(a risk with bbs) but slowing down the enemy enough to get of those all important blasts.They can also protect the earthshaker from fliers and surprises by turning and firing (especially if there is a hobbo unit hovering around there front to draw the enemy away )

On hobbos as stated earlier the unarmoured ones are your meatshield who will always flee when charged so are useful for drawing enemy units where you want them like in front of bb's and who cares if they keep running or get overrun as long as there suitably in advance of your line.
The light armour shield hobbos work well flanking CD units as they wont usually take a charge from tooled up opponents but could if needed, i prefer more hobbos rather than std 100vp's ouch!
Bow hobbos are not the only medium range missile troops as orc arrer boyz are only one point more and can really help cleaning up any mess by charging into combat(as its cheesy to have 8 hobbo BT's there can be enough special slots).I prefer orc arrer boyz to watch over my precious ES as they can cause problems for enemy fliers when used wisely.
Nice thread Catbarf
Now hobbo wolfboyz are the flankers of the CD force
they can be tooled up with std if you are putting a hero in there(Hobbo or BC) if baiters the musc is the only addition worth taking and to be honest i dont bother.
I liketwo units one combat and one baiter,light armour and shield is essential regardless of the role tho

Page 3 of this thread. Do your research. For the purpose of large melee blocks, 'ard hobgobs are worth the points.

Weak maths proves very little,for these sorts of situations you need the maths of Hyperdimensional physics.
You cant use the three dimensional maths hammer results as verbatum as there are Non Euclidian geometries to factor ,a series of higher,hyperspatial dimensions if you like ie. the field of battle ,the composition and��deployment,,the unfolding process of the game, the tactics of your adversary,the randomness of luck (or the force).
25 armoured hobbos are useful
50 unarmoured hobbos are useful
take your pick its all good
I use unarmoured hobgoblin meatshields ,my orcs get some armour ..if there lucky
if they serve well they can collect it off the dead

I use both, as I said in my article. However, I refuted the notion that unarmored hobgobs are better in all situations.

Since we are computer effectiveness in a certain combat, extra factors can be discounted. Luck also goes out the window- we're working with averages.

True situations vary, more units is statisically better on average as well��
Averages could mean 5x10 hobbos running of the field panicing taking your hobbo wolfriders in turn one destroying alot of tactical advantages for the general.
Averages can also show all units charging or��being charged with a naked hobbos supporting gets more wins/ better meatshield protection and table quarter contesters.
Averages also come into play when the armoured hobbos you thought (planned )to stand flee from combat with��greatsword(no advantage there) leaving you open
Which combat ,extra factors make the game what it is

Oh, are Chaos Dwarf Warriors worthless? For the price of a unit of 20 CDWs, I could have 90 Hobgoblins, in different units! Obviously that is much better! I'm not trying to tell you that armored hobgoblins are always better, simply that BOTH CAN BE USED AND ONE IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER THAN THE OTHER.

In round two, in fact, the 'Ard Hobbos will win again, whereas the naked Hobbos will lose against the spearmen.

Bottom line: Your naked hobbos will take twice as much CR damage and, thus, lose combats. If you like I can run you some numbers, even accounting for flank charges- remember that that gives the enemy extra attacks, since the troops at the side can hit you back.

Nonetheless, armor is not always necessary. Anything like a Handgun is going to butcher them anyway, so in some cases it's better to just keep them cheap.

Nonetheless, once you have fulfilled your minimum obligations, then by your logic of more = better you should just take as many naked hobgobs as possible.

Except, as I have demonstrated, when they are paired with a heavy melee block and equipped correctly.

Except when hit by a cannon. Whoops, there goes the 'always'. I'm sick and tired of you proclaiming that this or that is 'always' better when it is a ludicrous notion that is easily disproved and based on no real fact.

I can't even understand what this means. Punctuation would be nice.

O.K. lest just agree to disagree here, it seems you both have different oppinions and don't seem content to let the other keep theres, so how about we move on from hobgoblins so you two stop arguing and draging down what seems to be a very good topic

Well, I'd be fine with that, if it weren't for the fact that he keeps popping back with comments like:

Anyway, next up I'll see what I can do about Sneaky Gits.

The problem is the cost. They're too expensive to be efficient meatshields, too weak to kill things, and too easy to kill to survive against enemy shooting.

You could use the Skull Pass archers, with the bows cut off and replaced with knives.

Black Orcs can be interesting, but are rather expensive. It seems that the artillery is the strength of the Special selection.

Looks like I'm getting back into Chaos Dwarfs. Having taken sculpting classes and done research on casting, I figured another tactics article would be a good way to return and write down the thoughts I've had percolating in the interim.

TACTICS: SNEAKY GITS

So. Sneaky Gits. These are by far one of the most interesting choices in the book, as they are not directly copied from any of the other armies- like Bull Centaurs and Earthshakers, they directly express the flavor of the CD list.

I believe the first thing we must do is find a baseline with which to compare them. Empire Free Company seem like a good choice.

In comparison, SGs have:
-A point less of I
-A point worse Ld
-No detachment rule
-Poisoned attacks
-Going by the US GT, free reformation in combat (Near-useless)

It seems to me that many CD generals, displeased by the loss of Lap Round in 7th, decided that they had been nerfed and became useless. This is not necessarily true. The other concern is the Special slot they take up- a valid point which I address at the end of the article.

As you can see by the comparison above, Sneaky Gits appear to be a severely underpowered if not entirely useless unit. But that little ability of Poison comes in handy, and owing to the somewhat unique nature of the CD list, they have uses.

Poisoned attacks. Certainly an interesting ability- it gives the Hobgobs the ability to hurt high-T enemies with comparative ease. However, Hobgobs are very fragile. They cannot hope to win through their attacks, and relying on static CR is difficult at best. The trick, then, is to use them in conjunction with other units, but in a manner that does not compromise the combat due to their fragility.

There are two uses for the Gits.

TRIPLE ENTENTE

First is attaching a unit of 10 (5x2) to a HW+S Warrior unit. At just fifty points, it’s a small investment. Throw in 10 naked Hobbos (20pts) and you’re golden. 12 Hobbos could work, but you’re trying to flank and most regiments are only 4 deep which could pose a problem.

The use of Sneaky Gits is to kill off tough things, preferably without armor or an ability to fight back. Orcs, Ogres, and the like fit the bill perfectly.

In order for the Sneaky Gits to be successful you must break the enemy on the charge. And you absolutely must get the charge.

In your deployment, you want the unit of 20 Warriors in front. To either flank about 5” away you want the Sneaky Gits. And in front of the Gits, the naked Hobbos.

The naked Hobbos are meatshields. If the Sneaky Gits get shot, you’re out of luck. So keep them covered.

So, you use the Warrior unit as oversized bait. Having a character in the unit will help, as the objective is to keep them in combat by whatever means possible, and that means they must not flee. As described earlier in the thread, there are tricks and tactics that can win the fight, or at least minimize losses. I won’t discuss those again.

The enemy has two options. He can either charge the naked Hobbos and get hit in the flank by the Warriors, or he can charge the Warriors and face the Gits. Most likely, your opponent will charge the Warriors. Assuming you stay in combat, when your turn rolls around it’s time to put the plan in motion. Get the naked Hobbos out of the way, and then charge with the Gits. With this combination you negate a shield bonus they may have, and attack first. It is absolutely vital that you win this combat, so if it’s something like a unit of Ironbreakers, it might be best the redirect the Gits towards better prospects. But, assuming you’ve charged a unit of Orc Warriors or similar, you now have a great opportunity.

Remember, they have an I of 2. You need to kill as many as possible, because any attacks they get back are going to hurt.

So, 10 attacks on T4 5+ (hypothetically) is going to be 3.33 hits, 1.66 Poisons. Of the 3.33 hits, you get about 1.11 wounds. 2.77 wounds total, 1.84 kills. That’s about two kills, plus flanking, plus outnumbering, plus whatever your Warriors can do- and you’ve only got a couple of return attacks, unlike what would happen with ‘Ard Hobbos.

In other words, Sneaky Gits are a substitute for flanking ‘Ard Hobbos in situations where they can make the most of their Poison.

MANO-A-MANO

The second role is in infantry blocks, giving a substantial offensive punch while retaining good static CR due to their low cost (enabling higher numbers or flanking units) as well as command options.

In this role, Gits can also be used very effectively against blocks of lighter infantry like Empire troops, as 10 Poisoned attacks will be able to kill off most of the first-rank combatants and leave you virtually unscathed (Again, you must win in the first round or you're dead). But remember that they can never be thought of as an alternative to Warriors, and they absolutely cannot win against heavier infantry or cavalry on their own. When you’re up against armies like Empire or Bretonnia, Sneaky Gits are an excellent means of dealing with their foot troops so your Warriors can fight the elites without being flanked.

But the real question is whether they are worth the Special slot they use up. In the first role, not really. Ten troops with a marginal advantage over a Core choice aren’t an effective use of your slots. In the second role with a unit of 25, I say absolutely. Greenskins aren’t terribly useful, and unless you want to be called nasty names (and get wrecked by Gorgers) you should refrain from filling up on Bolt Throwers. So when you’ve got a slot or two left, 155pts isn’t bad at all for an infantry block that can take on the mainstay of other armies and fight without support- or have a near-guaranteed victory with the addition of a few flanking Hobbos. In this manner, Sneaky Gits provide the only medium infantry unit in the army that is based on charging and thus taking the fight to the enemy, and I think that’s worth the price you pay.

All comments appreciated.

Edit- Forgot to say this, if you're using option 2 stay the hell away from anything with ASF or Pikes. In fact, anything that fights in two ranks will probably eat you alive.

It's true that Hobbo archers aren't very good- but they're cheap, and they're all we have. An Empire player pays more than 1.5 times what we do to get +1 S and Armor Piercing, while remaining just as easy to kill. However, unlike Empire, we have little choice. The Blunderbuss is 12", so unless you use Archers you've got no way to deal with light cavalry and infantry.

TACTICS: BULL CENTAURS

Along with the Earthshaker, Sneaky Gits, and the Great Taurus and Lammasu, Bull Centaurs are one of the units in the Chaos Dwarf army that are readily identified as unique to the army and give flavor to the list.

First thing, let’s set the record straight. If you’re building a tournament army and just want the most effective units, skip the BCs and help yourself to another Earthshaker. That’s not to say that these monsters are a very poor choice- but when it comes down to it, an Earthshaker is just one of the best units in the army.

Since Bull Centaurs are obviously neither infantry nor cavalry from the models, we need to set the record straight on how they work. There are many different interpretations, and since we’re using a list that should have been updated years ago there is no clear consensus. If you go by RAW, they are cavalry that get no armor bonus. If you use the (unofficial) ruling in the US GT, then they are infantry but with US2. Centigors, the other centaur-like unit in the game, act as US2 infantry but use spears like cavalry. I believe that the latter two rulings are enough of a basis to decide that Bull Centaurs are infantry with a Unit Strength of 2. Please note that if you use a different ruling then the comparisons between weapons will not be accurate.

Because they are exotic in design, it is necessary to compare their stats to other units before determining how they be used. Bull Centaurs have M8, which makes them slightly faster than most heavy cavalry and nearly as quick as fast cavalry. They have S4, which is useful in an army that is comprised almost exclusively of S3 attacks. They also have I3, a point above their Dwarf brethren. Two attacks add to their attack power, and Ld9 like the basic Warriors will ensure that they can overcome a Fear-causing enemy and get the charge in, or hold in combat when necessary. The obvious weakness of the Bull Centaurs is their fragility. Each one is at best just as hard to kill as a normal Chaos Dwarf Warrior, and that involves forgoing the benefit of your weapon. With this in mind, we can move on to equipment.

There are two options for equipment- additional hand weapons and heavy armor. Weaponry I’ll discuss shortly, but armor is a no-brainer. Take it. It’s only one point per model, and while using a weapon will reduce casualties by 1/6 against anything up to and including S4. With such fragile units, you need everything you can get to minimize casualties and avoid a Break Test.

Weaponry is the most focal point of discussion amongst Chaos Dwarf Generals on the subject of Bull Centaurs. Let’s suppose a unit of 5 BCs charges a block of WS3 T4 4+ troops- in other words, Orcs.

AHW gives 15 attacks. 10 hit, 5 wound, 3.33 kills.
GW gives 10 attacks. 6.66 hit, 5.55 wound, 5.55 kills.

In this case, the Great Weapons are significantly better. If the enemy unit was 5 across, they likely have no one left to strike back, whereas the AHW will likely leave two. If you flank charged a unit with 4 ranks, then while their armor will be slightly weaker, the GW will still eliminate the entire file and leave no return attacks.

Let’s also see Empire Swordsmen, WS3 T3 4+.

AHW gives 15 attacks. 10 hit, 6.66 wound, 4.44 kills.
GW gives 10 attacks, 6.66 hit, 5.55 wound, 5.55 kills.

Even against Swordsmen, the Great Weapons are the better choice. As a test, we can assume the Empire troops had just light armor; in this case we see 6.66 kills for the AHW. As you can see, it requires a very fragile opponent for the AHW to be better than the GW. And if you use your troops well, you’ll ensure that you’re only fighting the more dangerous targets.

Note that if you treat BCs as cavalry in regards to great weapons, the numbers will be far closer together. In this case, the two are roughly equal- use the AHW if you face lighter enemies like Empire, use the GW if you’re up against heavier ones like Dwarfs.

Now, based on their equipment and statistics, it is fairly simple to ascertain their purpose. It has been my observation that much of the Chaos Dwarf list is built to support a central nucleus of Warriors- they provide static combat resolution, while the support unit denies ranks and possibly inflicts damage. Bull Centaurs are one of these units. They are not survivable enough to act on their own as shock cavalry, so they are best employed as flankers. Their high speed ensures that you can get them into position for a side or rear charge swiftly, and can also be used to chase characters, harass war machines, or intercept enemy light cavalry. The only enemies you should steer clear of are missile troops- they will slaughter your fragile BCs before you can ever get close.

Chaos Dwarf Warriors and Bull Centaurs are a match made in heaven. CDWs provide resilience, ranks, and numbers; BCs add in denial of ranks and potent attacks. Together they can take on nearly any unit in the game and come out on top. Such a combination isn’t very expensive, either- 5 BCs (Hvy Arm, no command) and 20 CDWs (full command) will run you just 315pts. The only weakness of this setup is ranged troops- but it is a fortunate trait of the army that Chaos Dwarfs are very well-suited to preventing enemy fire.

As an alternative theory, a unit of 20 or 25 Hobgoblins with LA + S and a standard can be used as a far cheaper substitute for the Chaos Dwarf Warriors. You can use the Hobbos alongside a unit of Warriors and send the Bull Centaurs where needed as support. However, don’t think of them as replacements for Warriors- Hobgoblins are far more fragile, and so you should never use this combination in a situation where the enemy unit is one that can inflict a lot of damage on them for easy CR. If you lose and the Hobgoblins flee, the Bull Centaurs lack the staying power to keep up the fight and you may lose the standard and/or the BCs.

For uses other than infantry support, Bull Centaurs are sadly limited. Their high cost makes them inefficient for defending war machines or the army's flank, and their fragility results in BCs being a poor choice against powerful multiwound monsters like Ogres. As a general rule of thumb, keep them within 12" of an infantry block when possible. But feel free to break this rule when you have specific tasks, and always put their speed to best use. A unit of five is stellar at running forth to strike a rallying unit or lone character. Just make sure that they don't stay on their own for too long and you'll be fine.

Some food for thought- 10 Bull Centaurs with Heavy Armor and no command cost the same as 20 Chaos Dwarf Warriors with full command- 210pts. Not terribly important, but interesting nonetheless.

The only remaining articles of discussion are unit size and command. I always use the bare minimum of 5. Any more than that in one rank is unwieldy, and using two ranks wastes points. Bull Centaurs aren’t a frontline unit that can survive on their own, so adding extra bodies in case of casualties is simply preparing yourself for an undesirable and often unwinnable scenario. Command is also of little use; one attack isn’t worth 15pts and if you’re using Bull Centaurs with a unit of Warriors then a standard is unnecessary. Musicians can be useful, but Ld9 is fine for rallying, the Warriors will provide a musician with which to break ties, and it’s 15 points better spent elsewhere.

That about wraps this up. All discussion is much appreciated.