Centaurs are cavalry?

24_Cigarettes

24_Cigarettes

Serf
Apologies if this has been posted before.
My query: Are Centaurs cavalry?
I recently got into a fairly heated discussion (argument) over this topic with my regular competitive opponent. IMHO yes, YES, they are cavalry for the following reasons:
1>Base Size is 25x50mm otherwise known as a cavalry base, which is not a be all end all answer as many models are mounted on cavalry bases but are not cavalry: jezzailachis (usually), some chaos beastmen hell I've even seen trolls mounted on them.
2>they may be given Barding in the same way as horses
3>their physique is described as having the bodies of horses
these points are listed on pg 212 of the 3rd ed. rulebook

My opponent had the counter argument that
1>their description does not say they are cavalry.

I understand his point of view: and he's right on that count: It doesn't say they are cavalry in their description. He's a VERY competitive player. If you count as being mounted (cavalry) it is a big deal and I can see why he as a competitive player wouldn't want to meet them across the table;
+1 to your army save
6+ save against some spells to which other troops/targets get NO save at all
Forming cavalry wedge
Access to lances
I'm sure there are more reasons besides. I wouldn't count the good movement because it is dependent on the creature ridden and has nothing to do with being cavalry; being cavalry does not give you or a bonus to your movement (semantics I know)

I'd just like to hear anyone else's thoughts on this matter and any rules points on the subject I may have overlooked.
Thanks
 
There is so much stuff that isn't covered in 3rd that you have to use "common sense" to fill in the gaps.

IMHO their cavalry, for all of the reasons you mentioned & also because it's fucking obvious!!!!

Have fun convincing the rules Nazi :grin:
 
Cavalry = a combination of man and horse. Centaurs are the very perfection of that combination. Not only are they very, very obviously cavalry, they are probably the best cavalry around.

That's all opinion, of course. But it is ridiculously obvious that they are cavalry.
 
Not cavalry, any more than a cavalryman is automatically a centaur :)

25*50
Base size doesn't really define what something is - Boars, Jaguars, Bears etc.
+1 to your armour save
Don't see why a centaur should get this. The 3rd Ed rulebook says the protection comes from " horse and trappings", as the 'horse' is essentially the beast, and there is no trappings.
6+ save against some spells to which other troops/targets get NO save at all
??? as above?
Forming cavalry wedge
Should definitely be able to do that, very cool.
Access to lances
See no reason why not.

Also, the PV paid for the centaur doesn't include a x2 multiplier suggested for mounted troops.
 
I don't think it is clear cut at all, there could be arguments made either way, please be aware that I'm not particularly knowledgeable regarding the details of 3rd edition and this is largely subjective, so feel free to disagree with me.

Here are my thoughts:
  • In 6th edition (bull) centaurs seem to have counted as infantry for all purposes, but even then it wasn't particularly clear.
    There seems like there ought to be a distinction between mounted troops (i.e. human equivalent models on a horse equivalent steed) and cavalry (any 25*50mm base unit with a speed of 6 or more). Some special rules seem to rely on a model being mounted (e.g. the +1 to armour save), whereas others seem to rely on a model being cavalry (e.g. use of lances).
    In Warhammer Armies, centaurs are unable to take barding as an option, but in WFB3 they have a racial special rule specifying that they may have barding like cavalry and armour like humans. The fact that they need a special rule like this implies that they are not wholly one or the other.
    In WFB3, Double handed weapons and halberds (both of which are listed as infantry weapons) are options for centaurs, but they can also take lances which are cavalry weapons.
    It is stated the mounted troops receive a +1 armour save for having a mount. Centaurs clearly don't have a 'mount' as such. I believe the +1 armour save is thematically due to the fact that the mount takes some of the punishment in place of the rider.
    Points value doesn't seem to have been doubled up for centaurs, although this is somewhat hard to tell for sure.

So overall, here are the rules I would put into place:
  • Centaurs count as cavalry for the purposes of formations and maneuvers , they have access to lances and barding.
    In addition they also have access to 'foot' weapons and can use them with all normal rules, except for spears which must be used as per the mounted weapon rules.
    Centaurs do not receive an additional armour or magic save modifier for being mounted.

I hope this seems like a reasonable compromise and note that all units, cavalry or not, can use the wedge formation. On a similar note, do Zoats count as cavalry?
 
It's not a clear cut case at all; I don't think they should gain the armour bonus for having a mount, because they ARE the mount (so as to speak), so they can hardly count themselves as protection. That said, they obviously have the physique to act as cavalry in terms of lances, lance formation etc. Vyper's compromise therefore seems like the reasonable way to see that.

But to be honest, I don't think rules lawyers are ever going to really get into the spirit of oldhammer. Obviously it's your choice to play whoever you want, but I'd say if this is the kind of thing that occupies peoples minds during a battle (rather than the story, the strategy, etc.), then I would personally want no part of it!
 
It's not a clear cut case at all; I don't think they should gain the armour bonus for having a mount, because they ARE the mount (so as to speak), so they can hardly count themselves as protection. That said, they obviously have the physique to act as cavalry in terms of lances, lance formation etc. Vyper's compromise therefore seems like the reasonable way to see that.

But to be honest, I don't think rules lawyers are ever going to really get into the spirit of oldhammer. Obviously it's your choice to play whoever you want, but I'd say if this is the kind of thing that occupies peoples minds during a battle (rather than the story, the strategy, etc.), then I would personally want no part of it!
 
lenihan":2i8nghjv said:
But to be honest, I don't think rules lawyers are ever going to really get into the spirit of oldhammer.
Click to expand...

Let's not be too hard on his opponent here as one can be competitive without being a rules lawyer and he's already been called a Nazi, which seems highly unreasonable!

By the sounds of it, both parties have strongly held views about this issue and this seems to be the ideal place to discuss it and come to a compromise if they cannot reach one themselves. In 3rd edition there are things that are not clear cut and sometimes an outsiders perspective can be helpful so there is certainly no shame in requesting assistance from other people in a disagreement such as this.
 
I'd have to go with the "it depends" answer.

Armour - the rulebook says "Centaurs may wear armour in the same way as humans, and may have barding in the same way as horses". I'd say this strongly implies they're treated as cavalry for armour saves (i.e. unarmoured: 6+, light armor: 5+, light armour and barding: 4+). I'm not sure how else to interpret that rule (e.g. if they're just oddly shaped infantry do you dice to see where the hit is, then if it's the human part use the armour and the horse part use the barding? If so that would be unusual and you'd expect it'd be mentioned in the rules (although conversely the rules are far from exhaustive!)).

Equally you could argue that there's no trappings other than armour, and the "it hit the horse" defense doesn't apply, so perhaps unarmoured you don't get a save, and hence light armour and barding is 5+.

Can you give an example of a spell where mounted troops get a save? I'm not sure about that one, but I'd guess it depends on your view on the above but also the specifics of the spell (i.e. are you getting a save because of speed or...?).

Weapons - I'd definitely use the mounted rather than on foot rules for spears and lances (just seems common sense to me).

Just while we're on the subject I thought I'd mention that in Warhammer Armies it mentions that Chaos Centaurs can act as mounts in which case they're treated as war beasts... Doesn't really tell us much but tends to imply they're creatures rather than cavalry.
 
My comments came from my 'counts as' mindset. Centaurs counting as cavalry seems an easy sort of equivalent to use, and then the game continues. In the campaigns I play we have a lot of 'counts as' models, and if we use 'em as counts as something else then we don't need to come up with extra rules. Unless players want to come up with rules for new stuff, in which case we do!

I think this approach is indeed (according to several people's definition) 'oldhammer'.
 
'Counts as' is certainly a reasonable and fun approach to building armies, not just for oldhammer but for modern warhammer also. If you wish to just use your centaurs as cavalry why not field them 'counts as' Thug horse or Marauder horse for instance? There can certainly be no issues from your opponent then, no additional rules are required and there would be no confusion. :)

Alternatively, if your opponent believes that the full cavalry rules give the centaurs too much of an advantage,particularly with regards the armour save, why not just stick some extra points on them (40pts doesn't seem unreasonable) to make up the difference?

Please don't think that I'm trying to instruct you, or anyone else, on how to best enjoy your game, but these are just the solutions that I would try if I was in the same situation. As I've just bought some centaurs on eBay I might just have these same discussions soon so it's been good to think it through.
 
Vyper":2ji3k6d8 said:
Please don't think that I'm trying to instruct you, or anyone else, on how to best enjoy your game, but these are just the solutions that I would try if I was in the same situation. As I've just bought some centaurs on eBay I might just have these same discussions soon so it's been good to think it through.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I'm planning on getting some centaurs for a future project myself, so thinking these things through is definitely a good thing. But the "heated argument about the rules" thing mentioned in the op is always going to ring alarm bells for me!
 
Thanks to all for their thoughts. I was not expecting such a huge response so quickly. The best response I read was find a new opponent that one made me laugh out loud.
A few people had a problem with the 6+ save against some spells to which other troops get no save at all. Read Fireball rulebook pg 153. It states there is NO saving throw allowed for armour but models mounted on riding animals get a saving throw of 6. Every game of 3rd I've played with a wizard in it this spell has been cast so I was really surprised nobody else caught on this one.
 
Vyper":o0ddpb62 said:
I don't think it is clear cut at all, there could be arguments made either way, please be aware that I'm not particularly knowledgeable regarding the details of 3rd edition and this is largely subjective, so feel free to disagree with me.

Here are my thoughts:
  • In 6th edition (bull) centaurs seem to have counted as infantry for all purposes, but even then it wasn't particularly clear.
    There seems like there ought to be a distinction between mounted troops (i.e. human equivalent models on a horse equivalent steed) and cavalry (any 25*50mm base unit with a speed of 6 or more). Some special rules seem to rely on a model being mounted (e.g. the +1 to armour save), whereas others seem to rely on a model being cavalry (e.g. use of lances).
    In Warhammer Armies, centaurs are unable to take barding as an option, but in WFB3 they have a racial special rule specifying that they may have barding like cavalry and armour like humans. The fact that they need a special rule like this implies that they are not wholly one or the other.
    In WFB3, Double handed weapons and halberds (both of which are listed as infantry weapons) are options for centaurs, but they can also take lances which are cavalry weapons.
    It is stated the mounted troops receive a +1 armour save for having a mount. Centaurs clearly don't have a 'mount' as such. I believe the +1 armour save is thematically due to the fact that the mount takes some of the punishment in place of the rider.
    Points value doesn't seem to have been doubled up for centaurs, although this is somewhat hard to tell for sure.

So overall, here are the rules I would put into place:
  • Centaurs count as cavalry for the purposes of formations and maneuvers , they have access to lances and barding.
    In addition they also have access to 'foot' weapons and can use them with all normal rules, except for spears which must be used as per the mounted weapon rules.
    Centaurs do not receive an additional armour or magic save modifier for being mounted.

I hope this seems like a reasonable compromise and note that all units, cavalry or not, can use the edge formation. On a similar note, do Zoats count as cavalry?
Click to expand...

I was going to write a lengthy post, but this one already sums up my thoughts. 8-)
 
Clearly, the best way to solve the problem is to not use your centaurs anymore. I run a home for unwanted, unloved and confused centaurs, so you can send them to me and continue to enjoy years and years of argument free WFB3 games, knowing your centaurs are being loved and cared for as only they should...

;)
 
weazil":1o6nghet said:
Clearly, the best way to solve the problem is to not use your centaurs anymore. I run a home for unwanted, unloved and confused centaurs, so you can send them to me and continue to enjoy years and years of argument free WFB3 games, knowing your centaurs are being loved and cared for as only they should...

;)
Click to expand...

I fully endorse this product and/or service.
 
Sorry for the slight thread necromancy but I've used centaurs for years without ever worrying about these things and now that the question is asked for the life of me I'm not sure what we normally do in all situations. Shh...I think we make it up as we go along and either change now and then or remember some sort of precedent.

I endorse Vypers response but would also allow centaurs to form shield wall and use spears as foot troops if they want. Centaur Cataphracts anyone?

Having said that the real use of centaurs is to look cool and whizz down the flank to take out skirmishers and warmachines.
 
Erny":1t5sdw2t said:
Sorry for the slight thread necromancy but I've used centaurs for years without ever worrying about these things and now that the question is asked for the life of me I'm not sure what we normally do in all situations. Shh...I think we make it up as we go along and either change now and then or remember some sort of precedent.

I endorse Vypers response but would also allow centaurs to form shield wall and use spears as foot troops if they want. Centaur Cataphracts anyone?

Having said that the real use of centaurs is to look cool and whizz down the flank to take out skirmishers and warmachines.
Click to expand...

Damned right sir. I'm using them to replace marauder horse, centaurs have worse stats but they definately have much nicer curb appeal in a minotaur/beastmen list such as mine. My opponent and I have resolved they count as cavalry, in all respects except for the rules for dismounting & entering buildings.
Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top