Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2022 10:12:33 GMT
I have a couple of Centigor related questions that I'm hoping the good people of this forum can answer:
1) Can Centigor make Supporting Attacks?
2) Can Centigor assault buildings? And if they can do they keep the +1 armour save for being mounted?
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 17, 2022 13:29:02 GMT
Beastmen AB p. 46: "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."
1) Yes. Centigors have options and upgrades, which are limited to cavalry riders, not mounts. Hence, they count as riders in this respect.
2) Yes. Like all cavalry, they can assault a building, but not garrison it. Unless specifically stated otherwise, normal rules apply, and the rules for Centigors do not specifically state otherwise. Hence, they lose the +1 AS. I know there is a fluff explanation on BRB p. 83 on how an assault is assumed to work for cavalry, but that is just fluff, and fluff has no bearing on the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Jun 17, 2022 14:41:08 GMT
Beastmen AB p. 46: "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." 2) Yes. Like all cavalry, they can assault a building, but not garrison it. Unless specifically stated otherwise, normal rules apply, and the rules for Centigors do not specifically state otherwise. Hence, they lose the +1 AS. I know there is a fluff explanation on BRB p. 83 on how an assault is assumed to work for cavalry, but that is just fluff, and fluff has no bearing on the rules. I'm not saying you are wrong. But that is a bizarre ruling. I think this is truly a spot where the GW rules are not clear. Players would be better served making a house rule that aligns better with the fluff. |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 17, 2022 15:24:43 GMT
It is hardly bizar - it is inherent in each and every table top game. There are numerous instances where the rules contradict the fluff, but no one would contest them for that reason, for instance (just from the top of my head):
- True Line of Sight
- Paired weapons for mounted models
- No parry save for mounted models
- Damage of miscasts in buildings
- Spear of Kurnous
....
Indeed, if cavalry is able to assault a building, because the riders tether their mounts and charge on foot, the fluff reason why they cannot garrison a building makes no real sense. After all, they could just tether their horses outside the building.
That said, if you and your opponent agree feel free to play it differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Jun 17, 2022 16:22:21 GMT
I agree there are countless rules vs fluff inconsistencies.
The bizarre part of your ruling for Centigors assaulting a building is where they lose the +1 armor save for being mounted. Normal cavalry lose that because in the fluff they dismount before assaulting the building. But Centigors obviously can't dismount. So why do they lose the bonus? Well because the rules for cavalry assaulting buildings says they lose it. That is bizarre!
I would think they either can't assault the building. Or they can assault, but they retain the +1 armor save.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 17, 2022 18:06:19 GMT
When answering a rules question, this is the relevant bit: So why do they lose the bonus? Well because the rules for cavalry assaulting buildings says they lose it. Just forget the fluff, and it all makes perfect sense. |
|
|
|
Post by thegoat on Jun 17, 2022 18:11:42 GMT
When answering a rules question, this is the relevant bit: So why do they lose the bonus? Well because the rules for cavalry assaulting buildings says they lose it. Just forget the fluff, and it all makes perfect sense. If only I could. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2022 12:31:45 GMT
Thanks for the rapid response
|
|
