Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hello! The Bullgor Stampede costs 120pts in the Warscrolls Compendium section for Beastmen. It consists of 1 Doombull, 1 Ghorgon, and 3 units of Minotaurs. There are no pitched battle points for Minotaurs even in the Compendium section. Bullgors are what Minotaurs used to be...would it be out of line for me to use Bullgors in that Warscroll Battalion as Minotaurs?

Word for word they have the same stats and weapons, so in my mind its not like they'd be priced any different...

I would discuss the discrepancy with your opponent. I don't think anyone would mind.

I'd say it would be a pretty TFG move not to let you do that. It's such a trivial technicality and "Bullgor" is even in the name of the battalion!

I have the exact same thing with my State Troop Detachment and the fact that every unit has now been renamed "Freeguild" something or other. FAQ states to play with the most up to date Warscroll so I do, but I don't let that stop me using the battalion as well :-)

Problem is when you want to use the Warherd allegiance to have Bullgors as battleline. Would the formation prevent you from doing so, since it is in the compendium? I think technically it would, but you'd have to be a douche to enforce it.

Solaris wrote:
Problem is when you want to use the Warherd allegiance to have Bullgors as battleline. Would the formation prevent you from doing so, since it is in the compendium? I think technically it would, but you'd have to be a douche to enforce it.

The battalion would give me Battleline up to 2k points, as long as I stay Warherds and the formation is all Warherds...It actually comes out to 1k points! So for my 2k list it would be two of those (more than covers Battleline)... and then add 2 more Doombulls and another Ghorgon for 2.5k.

Speaking of that last 500pts. I have two options:

1. As above, add two more Doombulls and one more Ghorgon

2. A Doombull, one more unit of Bullgors, and a Cygor.

I'm leaning towards option 1 as the Cygor isn't all too good imho and the Bullgors would be out of the battalion, which is the same reason I think more Bullgors to fill those 500pts wouldn't be a good idea either. More Doombulls would be good because I have 3 Artefacts to pass around. Option 1 would also give me a chance at the triumphs table as it is 40pts short. Option 2 is right on the money 2.5k. Whatdo you guys think would be the better option?

Why not increase the size of the Bullgor units in the battalion?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why not increase the size of the Bullgor units in the battalion?

I feel like MSU works better for the objective based games. Their 5+ save and 6 bravery worries me a bit for a larger squad (they should be fine in combat, what with their +1 to bravery for each enemy unit near them...gotta get there first though). If I did go that rout I'd still add one more Doombull just so I can take advantage of the three Artefacts...so 1 Doombull and two more units of Bullgors added to existing ones. Giving me 3 Doombulls, 24 Bullgors, and 2 Ghorgons.

Although I kinda like the idea of a third Ghorgon that option 1 brings and I get a Doombull I can send with to the frontlines without risking an Artefact holder early on. Thinking about it though, it is a toss up for more Bullgors or option 1...what do you all feel would be better?

How about Command Traits? If facing Order then Dark Avenger is a no brainer, outside of that I think Lord of War would be best. It would grant one unit 2 more attacks per 5+ rolled and if I get a lucky Unpredictable Destruction then I'm hitting on 2+ with 4+ being an extra two attacks and wounding on 2+ with the Doombulls Command Ability. If facing a range heavy army, then I think Cunning Deceiver would be best. I've not used it yet and it seems pretty damn good.

For Artefacts I'm thinking the Favour of the Gods (+1W) on the General, then the Crown of Conquest, and the Chaos Runeblade...the others seem meh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another interesting question with these fellows...What should their loadout be? I was going to just give everyone Great Axes...but rerolling 1s if I use two 1h weapons and more attacks gives me more chances for 2 extra attacks...though at a -1 rend and 2 damage as opposed to the -2 rend and 3 damage the Great Axes pump out.

Why are you getting three artifacts? Afaik you only get one from allegiance.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why are you getting three artifacts? Afaik you only get one from allegiance.

You get an extra Artefact for each warscroll battalion you include in your army.

Ahhh I see, thanks for the info! Definitely a solid advantage to two battalions then. However you slice it I would run a mix of weapon loadouts since they are better against different things. Maybe one of each type in each battalion?

Good idea and the more i think on it the more I'm leaning towards more Bullgors.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ahhh I see, thanks for the info! Definitely a solid advantage to two battalions then. However you slice it I would run a mix of weapon loadouts since they are better against different things. Maybe one of each type in each battalion?

I'd skip the dual axes though. The great axes are better on offense, and the shields are better on defense. Dual axes don't really serve a purpose.

Solaris wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ahhh I see, thanks for the info! Definitely a solid advantage to two battalions then. However you slice it I would run a mix of weapon loadouts since they are better against different things. Maybe one of each type in each battalion?

I'd skip the dual axes though. The great axes are better on offense, and the shields are better on defense. Dual axes don't really serve a purpose.

The dual axes grant 3 more attacks and rerolls of 1s. The formation grants 2 attacks on a 6+ rather than 1. If that unit is fully buffed (Unpredictable Destruction + Art of War) they are hitting on 2+, with rerolls, and two extra attacks on a 4+. The Great Axes are the same fully buffed, but lack the rerolls and has less attacks..the damage is potentially more devastating, but not as reliable (the reroll 1s wouldn't be as important if they didn't give more chances at 2 extra attacks.). So I think an even split is warranted. Shields though I feel aren't worth it...relatively less damage and reliability for a +1 save in combat seems meh.

Also take into account that most of my army will not be buffed with plus to hit. So hitting on 4's with a reroll of 1s becomes even more important.

The double weapons will put out more wounds on swarmy low-save stuff. The shields are good because in any given game there is going to be that unit or two which is just going to take a beating one way or another. Having a shield unit for that is nice, since a living minotaur with a shield hits a whole lot harder than a dead one with a great axe!