Tutorial Chaos Dwarf Tactica (now with Rock Paper Scissors Chart!)

I have a question for you guys about the Lore of Hashut spelll Dark Subjugation:



Assume that you have successfully cast the spell on a unit containing the enemy general in it and they fail their leadership test (at -3). They now suffer a permanent -1 to their leadership for the remainder of the game. Here is my question, what happens if the general then leaves the unit? We have the following possibilities:

• Both the general and the unit still count as having -1 leadership for the rest of the game
• Only the unit counts as having -1 leadership for the rest of the game, but the general reverts to his normal leadership
• Only the general counts as having -1 leadership for the rest of the game, but the unit reverts to their normal leadership (this seemly highly improbable)

On page 97 of the BRB we have:

"When a character joins a unit that is under the effect of a spell that affects the entire unit, the character only benefits or suffers from the effects of the spell whilst he remains in the unit. Similarly, if a character is the subject of a spell that is capable of affecting a unit, the effect will also apply to any unit he joins, for as long as he remains part of it, and the spell lasts."


This doesn't quite apply to a situation where the character is already in the unit when the spell is cast. That BRB reference is speaking of a character joining a unit that is already under the effect of a spell (so the spell didn't include him as a target when it was originally cast). In the scenario I posted above, the character is part of the target of the spell when it is cast.


This same question applies equally to the Lore of Metal Spell Plague of Rust.

Any rule/page references would be greatly appreciated!

@Scalenex @Chicken Lips @airjamy @Killer Angel @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl @Lord-Marcus

 

Interesting. What makes you lean towards the character reverting to his/her normal leadership after leaving the unit? Is it something in the passage I provided, or a different rule/passage entirely?

Done... HERE

 

My inclination is to say that the general reverts back to his own leadership. It is something that, interestingly, the rulebook covers, the character loses the effect of any spell that was cast on the unit. Normally this feels logical, a character leaving a unit that has Wyssans on it, loses Wyssans as soon as he leaves. Because this is quite frankly a weird spell giving permanent status debuffs (does anybody know of any other case of that actually happening? I mean, we have Unforging, that is the only thing that comes close), it feels different, but RAW, nothing is different from a character losing Wyssans as soon as he leaves, which is something nobody will argue.

Interesting cornercase though.

 

The only difference might be a focus on the word "permanent".

I tend to lean towards @Killer Angel 's interpretation, but not with any significant degree of certainty.


It definitely seems like some sort of grey area.

 

So I had also posted this question over on the EEFL forum and received some really good analysis.


First some indirect evidence of a similar example arising from the Skaven spell "Wither" and the FAQ ruling on it...

First the spell:


And second the FAQ:



Next from the BRB (page 100) we have:
"On the other hand, many spells and magic items bestow special rules and other effects on units. In this case, everyone (including the character) in the combined unit will be affected."

Looking at the evidence above, I agree with the conclusion put forth by FvonSigmaringen of the EEFL forum, that since the effect of Dark Subjugation is a permanent reduction in leadership, it will continue to apply to both the character and the unit when/if the character leaves the unit.

 

It's nice when everyone can come together to solve a little mystery.



Bringing it back to the topic of the thread, letting the spell through (especially early in the game) on the Slann + Temple Guard bunker is a bit risky as many lower leadership units rely on his leadership bubble. Of course dispelling spells such as Ash Storm and Flames of Azgorh (the two best spells of the lore IMHO) are of a much higher priority, but if Subjugation strips a couple points of leadership of the Slann, that definitely is great either. Still, with cold blooded we should be okay. I think the spell would be much more effective against armies like Orcs & Goblins and Skaven.

 

Hits from the Demolition Rocket firing mode are NOT flaming. The Flaming Attacks special rule (and the rule about causing panic test if a single wound is caused) is part of the Infernal Incendiaries special rule. Only the Deathshrieker firing mode has the Infernal Incendiaries special rule:




Also keep in mind, as per the FAQ, a successful Demolition Rocket hit on a character riding a monster (like an Oldblood on a Carno) is worked out in the same way as a cannonball, so both the rider AND the monster would take the strength 8 hit with the multiple wounds (D6) special rule!

 

I agree with you. I think it should be randomized (1-4 = monster, 5-6 = rider).

At least in the case of the Deathshrieker, it isn't nearly as accurate as a cannon.

 

Actually, Skink Skirmishers are immensely good against the K'daai Destroyer. One of the Destroyer's primary and most important lines of defense is its toughness of 6 in conjunction with its Blazing Body special rule that forces successful wounds from mundane attacks to be re-rolled. Successful poisoned attacks bypass this defense entirely. Sure, the Destroyer has a 4+ ward save, but it will have that save against everything else too. Good Chaos Dwarf generals will go to great lengths to keep the K'daai Destroyer as far away from poison as possible... and for very good reason!

 

I’m sure that’s how it was done during 7th Edition, and that’s certainly how I’ve always been playing it...

 

If you want to fight a K'daai Destroyer with an Oldblood or a Scar-vet, I can't stress how important it is to give him a Cold One and not a carnosaur.

The Destroyer's attacks are all flaming, so it will have a very hard time hurting the Oldblood/Scar-vet. As such, a savvy Chaos Dwarf general will immediately pour all of his attacks into the Carnosaur. Let's breakdown the fight between a Carnosaur and a K'daai Destroyer.

The Destroyer has significantly better initiative so it goes first...

Blazing Body special attack (automatic S4 hit)
=1*[wounding on 5's][5+ armour save]
=1*(1/3)*(2/3)
=0.22 wounds

Destoryer's regular attacks (an average of 8 attacks @S7)
=8*[hitting on 3's]*[wounding on 2's]
=8*(2/3)*(5/6)
=4.44 wounds

Total number of wounds = 0.22 + 4.44 = 4.66 wounds



So before the Carno even has a chance to strike, the Destroyer averages 4.66 wounds on it. The Carno only has 5 wounds, so it stands a very good chance of being dead right there and then. Let's give the Carno the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is sitting on 1 wound and can strike back.

Carnosaur has 4 attacks (5 if Blood Frenzy is active) @S7 doing d3 wounds each.
=4*[hitting on 4's]*[wounding on 3's, with successful wounds having to be re-rolled]*[4+ ward save]*[d3 wounds averages out to 2]
=4*(1/2)*(2/3 * 2/3)*(1/2)*(2)
=0.89 wounds (1.11 if blood frenzy was active)


So chances are your Carnosuar doesn't even get to strike, and if it does, it performs very poorly against the Destroyer and bleeds a great deal of combat resolution. Best case scenario, you pass your break test but your poor Carnosaur is pretty much certain to die before it can strike again. Now we are left with the Oldblood/Scar-vet on foot to face the Destroyer. This is where things get very bad. As the Oldblood/Scar-vet is now classed as infantry, it is no longer immune to Thunderstomps. Worst of all, the Destroyer's S7 thunderstomps are not flaming attacks so they circumvent the 2+ ward save (via Dragonhelm and Dragonbane Gem) that was keeping the Oldblood/Scar-vet in the fight.


In summary, the Carnosaur is a very poor choice against the Destroyer for the following reasons:

• it has a good chance of dying before it even gets to strike
• even if it gets to attack, it doesn't perform that well against the Destroyer
• it bleeds combat resolution
• when it dies the character now suffers S7 thunderstomps that bypass the Dragonhelm / Dragonbane gem
• it is more expensive than the Cold One and leaves you significantly more vulnerable

 

I'm not sure if this is of interest to anyone (I don't think many people are reading this thread ), but over on the Chaos Dwarf forum they did a survey examining the effectiveness of each an every Legion of Azgorh unit/character/mount on a 1-5 scale. While I don't agree with all the results, they maybe useful to consider when facing off against Chaos Dwarf armies. Keep in mind that the results are based off of the votes of only 14 respondents. I've ordered the list from best to worst...

Magma Cannon 4.50

K'daii Destroyer 4.43

Hellcannon 4.14

Deathshrieker Rocket Launcher 3.93

Chaos Dwarf Infernal Castellan 3.43

Chaos Dwarf Sorcerer Prophet 3.36

Chaos Dwarf Deamonsmith Sorcerer 3.36

Bull Centaur Taur'ruk 3.21

Bale Taurus (mount) 3.21

Great Taurus (mount) 3.15

Giant Wolf (mount) 3.15

Hobgoblin Khan 3.00

Hobgoblin Cutthroats 2.93

Hobgoblin Wolf Raiders 2.93

Iron Daemon 2.71

Dreadquake Mortar 2.71

Chaos Dwarf Infernal Guard 2.64

Bull Centaur Renders 2.64

Lammasu (mount) 2.62

K'daii Fireborn 2.57

Chaos Seige Giant 2.00

Chaos Dwarf Infernal Ironsworn 1.64

 

Bull Centaurs are more defensive and more versatile while Kroxigor are more offensive and more of a specialist.

Advantages in favour of the Bull Centaurs:

• Movement (M7 + swiftstride vs. M6)
• Weapon skill (WS4 vs. WS3)
• Toughness (T5 vs. T4)
• Initiative (I3 vs. I1; usually only matters for characteristic tests, as Bull Centaurs usually sport GWs)
• Armour Save (AS 3+ vs AS 4+)
• More weapon/shield options (although they usually end up with GWs anyways)
• Access to Full Command
• Access to a Magic Standard (up to 50pts)
• Access to same troop type character support (Bull Centaur Taur'ruk hero)
• No forced pursuit via Predatory Fighter

Advantages in favour of Kroxigor

• Strength (S5 vs. S4)
• Attacks (3.5 attacks vs. 2 attacks, the "0.5" accounts for Predatory Fighter bonus attacks)
• Leadership (Leadership 7 cold blooded is better than plain Leadership 8 without cold blooded)
• Better stomps (due to strength)
• Smaller footprint (smaller base size)
• Aquatic

So the Centaurs have more advantages while the Kroxigors have the biggest one in terms of differential between the two (3.5 attacks is significantly more than 2).

I do not believe that Bull Centaurs are hard counters to Kroxigors. Interestingly they both have just the right amount of strength (assuming GW for Centaurs) to negate the other's defense (toughness and armour save). Meaning they each have just enough strength to negate the other's armour and just enough strength to wound the other on 2's.


Let's take a look at the first round of combat...

Let's assume a unit size of 8 for both, 4X2, (with the Centaurs wielding GWs). Comes out to 400 points each.

As they both have ASL, they will strike simultaneously.


Kroxigors attacking:
[24 attacks + 4 via PF] * [hitting on 4's] * [wounding on 2's] * [no armour save]
28*1/2*5/6
11.7 wounds

Bull Centaurs attacking:
[16 attacks] * [hitting on 3's] * [wounding on 2's] * [no armour save]
16*2/3*5/6
8.9 wounds


So not only are Bull Centaurs not a hard counter to Kroxigors, but actually Kroxigors fair a bit better in a head-to-head match up. Even when you account for the BCs having a standard bearer, they still fall a bit short mathematically.