This one has always puzzled me. I'm never sure which is the best combination. Now if bull centaurs take additional hand weapons (in a unit of 5) that gives 15 S4 attacks, compared to 10 S6 attacks. However, the 10 S6 attacks will strike last. Now the problem is the BC don't have a very good armor save (+5) and are easily killed. Not only that, they are a fast unit, and charging something then hitting second kind of seems silly. They also have I3 which isn't as bad as their dwarven counterparts.
I usually take additional hand weapons, but I think a good remedy is a BC hero with a GW. That way you get 4 S6 attacks at a high WS that can take out characters and monsters.
Let's say that 5BC with GW charge a unit of 20 orcs (5x4,FCMD). 4A = 2h = 1 wound = .833 dead + 2A (champion) = 1 hit = .66 dead == 1.5 BC dead. BC - 7 A = 4.66 hit = 3.83 orcs die.
That CR would be very close.
Let's say that 5BC with AHW charge a unit of 20 orcs (5x4,FCMD). 15 A = 10 hit = 5 wound (assuming orcs have a shield and LA) = 3.33 orcs die. Orcs return attacks: .7 A = .35 hit = .175 wound = .146 BC die + 2A = 1 hit = .66 wound = .8 BC dead in total.
Again it would be close, and the next round the Orcs would lose their choppa and probably kill no BC at all. But from this it definitely looks as though the BC with AHW would do better. Because in the next round they would have less casualties and more attacks,
I'm confused help!
Erik
Actually NM. For some reason (been a couple years since I played) I thought GW attacked last even after a charge. Well actually I now believe that GW are the better choice. Theoretically they both have their different purposes (AHW for hacking skellies for example) but I think the GW are a a better choice as they can not only kill light units, they can also take on the mean stuff.
Cheers,
Erik
The thing about GW is that they reduce any AS from +4 and up to nill. So in that way they can take on well armored units. Imagine if thainey charged with AHW agst hw/shield dwarfs; 50% hit, 50% wound, and then only 50% kill. So 15 attacks turns to 1.875 kills. Whereas GW turns that to 50% hit, 83% wound, 83% die meaning 3.46 die.
So they kick butt against AS and high T.
Erik
Quick question to throw into the mix, Do BCs count as cavalry? if so they now only confer a +1S...?
this is only correct if you use US GT rules...
if you use the rules in the rulebook... imagine that...
they are cavalry and only gain +1S from GWs...
the maths in the post above were calced with these 6th ed (US GT rules)...
strictly speaking they are wrong...
But then they would gain +1 save instead since they count as mounted
- Tallhat
We had this discussion over at HoH as well. It makes sense for them to work like Centigors Id say since they are pretty much the same (apart from us being cooler of course
)
- Tallhat
The way I read it is that they are exactly like the Centigors. US2 but with all the other rules that infantry have (Parry bonus, +2S Great Weapons).
except this is not like centigors at all...
centigors use only HWs as tho on foot... they use other weapons (spears) as tho mounted...
to follow the rules model BC would have to use GW as mounted...
Sooo basically we are at exactly the same point as we ended up with over at HoH. No clear answer
- Tallhat
Hobgoblyn what I meant wasnt really what one would choose it was rather what the argument about what the BC count as. We couldnt find a clear answer to that over at HoH either.
- Tallhat
No but youre right... We should really write them a letter and at least demand an answer on this subject...
- Tallhat
Sometimes I really dont like the buggers...
- Tallhat
no the answer is clear... we just dont like it...
one must not mistake distaste for unclear rules...
So the rule is what? We count as cavalry for GW but dont get the extra save? Way to go ruining a brilliant unit.
-Tallhat
I always liked them tbh. Sure they are not a super kill unit but thats not fun to begin with. It just seems that they have been nerfed for no reason :/ *sigh* And even through all my complaining I still cant get myself to not use the little buggers..
- Tallhat
well the nerf was for great weapons... not BCs...
BCs just happen to be one of the few mounted units that use them...
Questing knights were similarly nerfed... for "no reason"...
tho it would seem game balance is a perfectly legitimate reason to nerf anything IMHO...
the GW nerf was meant to control mounted characters (of which we have a few)... and promote magic items...
mission accomplished GW...
you can still turn to the US GT rules pack... the only rules for legal CD tourney play anyway...
but unless you are at that tourney you can expect to be challenged on the "infantry" ruling...
Thankfully I only really play people I know so it is very rare that I will be challenged on things such as this. My mates know that its not always easy to play with the CD because of the lack of clarifications so they are usually quite forgiving.
- Tallhat
Hey guys, any questions you have are usually already cleared up in a FAQ. Like this one:
Dire Wolf FAQ
Or you can go straignt here and scroll down:
7th Chaos Dwarf FAQ
You will be happy that BC DO recieve +2 strength bonus!!
Cheers,
Matty
Is this official? Doesnt really seem like it since the faq isnt on GWs site. Plus the source of the BC rules clarification seems to be Warhammer Chronicles 2004 which doesnt really make sense since those rules are pretty much obsolete now.
- Tallhat