PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone else think the Dwarves need more in their army list?



QuantumO3
01-09-2009, 17:25
I hope this is posted in the right section, if not i apologize. The thing i want to know is do Dwarves need more in their army list, I really like Dwarves, their history the models and most of the rules but i think that they should get something other than artillery and infantry. I would like to know if any feels that Dwarves should be able to get some kind of funky unique Dwarf cavalry, or maybe a strange and bizarre monster unit. On a side note completely unrelated is the Empire as mediocre as it seems to me?

Thanks for any opinions or advice or anything really.

lcfr
01-09-2009, 17:32
No, I don't think Dwarfs need any more units or newfangled things that move fast or are weird monsters. As far as I'm concerned the changes made to Dwarfs from 6th to 7th edition were exactly how Army Book updates should be made; take what isn't quite up to snuff or what several years of non-GW playtesting (i.e. several years of you and I playing outside of the studio against other real players) has revealed to be a major flaw, and tweak it. Compare the 6th and 7th Dwarf book and you'll find only one radical change, which is the Anvil of Doom (and a definite improvement it was, Thorek notwithstanding).

The 'top tier' level armies don't accurately reveal deficiencies in the Dwarf army either if you ask me (these books are the ones that need to be errata'd first imo), and Dwarfs still get along just fine in my eyes. There are obviously some things that can be improved (bring Foresters back!) and some new additions that can be made (AoD-specific runes!) but the Dwarf book doesn't require radical changes or total makeovers like some books do.

nosferatu1001
01-09-2009, 17:54
This isnt a rules question, I would suggest getting a mod to move it to Fantasy General.

No, Dwarves occupy a unique place in warhammer, and don't need changing with anything new and wacky - new being the antithesis of dwarven engineering.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
01-09-2009, 18:12
I think the Dwarfs list is one of the best in Warhammer Fantasy, and by that I do not mean the toughest. I think that is fits the nature of Dwarfs very well. Too often people fall into that mindset where every army needs to have A, B, or C. Dwarfs don't have cavalry; that's not how they roll. They don't need cavalry to be effective, and it doesn't fit in with their background. They don't need a big monster either, although I wouldn't be adverse to them having some more steam-powered contraptions. I think the games developers should make the new army books more like Dwarfs: closer to the background, a little more specialization (unless their fluff specifically suggests they are good generalizers i.e. Empire), and going away from the RTS computer game mentality of "every race needs to be have at least one unit of each type."

Loq-Gor
03-09-2009, 06:51
Dwarfs have some issues true, but those are balance problems caused by other lists where nobody reined in the writers and said "No, you don't need to be able to take 13+ power dice when half the spells your casting take only one die." Dwarfs have some truly awesome abilities as it is. Nobody does artillery like them, even if other pieces might be more powerful. Their magic weapons, armour, trinkets, and banners can be loads of fun.

I just put together a Dwarf list to take on VC where the banner runes have allowed me to make most of my melee units immune to fear and terror. Most armies could do that once with a magic item and then they need to work out more complex tactics to ensure they aren't outnumbered too often. Dwarf characters can be tailored to an even greater level than most other armies to deal with specific threats.

Plus their special characters are some of the most powerful in any army. Bugman for instance can heal himself or any other character in the same unit for a wound a turn and the only caveat is that the unit not be in combat. Plus he's a hero, so you can take him in smaller games, and makes his unit immune to fear and terror and can scout, so you can have him and a unit of rangers march blocking from the very start. All this for 155 pts, so you can still afford him in smaller games, and he's the weakest of their special characters. Thorek can be insane and Thorgrim could give any warrior special character from any other army a run for their money.

The Dwarfs are great, no new wacky units required. Oh and Dwarfs don't do cav.

Putty
03-09-2009, 12:08
um...

move the gyrocopter to special

and allow it to drop bombs

Cortomaltese
03-09-2009, 15:44
well, i can add just a simple thing..

dwarfs (as well as empire, for example) it's a typical example of what a WHFB army book should be in my opinion.
it's an average army, with the option to build one or two army lists that can rule on opponents, being cheesy and almost broken.
i'm talking about thorek gunline, or double steam tanks + popemobile for empire..
the problem comes when other army books were written with such a different philosophy: made lists which are almost always broken, and the hard thing is trying to made them "average"
that's why often we talk about dwarfs, empire, o&g, and all the older armies being "weak", not because they need more new units or things like that..

BlackVomit
03-09-2009, 20:19
move the gyrocopter to special
Seconded


and allow it to drop bombs
Nice to have but the above is preferred

perplexiti
03-09-2009, 20:31
Seconded


Nice to have but the above is preferred


Doing that would clog up the special section even more though, I already have trouble taking all the stuff I want out of there. If my gyro was there as well that means less artillery or 1 less elite regiment.

lcfr
03-09-2009, 23:52
Doing that would clog up the special section even more though, I already have trouble taking all the stuff I want out of there. If my gyro was there as well that means less artillery or 1 less elite regiment.

Yeah I'm happy to havea Gyrocopter as a Rare choice...they fulfill a very, very unique role in the army and, in terms of fluff, are...well...rare!

Ultimate Life Form
03-09-2009, 23:59
I still want a Clockwork Dragon, be it for the awesomeness of the model alone. It's definitely more fitting than the Empire's 'Brave Starr' horse.

Urgat
04-09-2009, 02:15
Yeah I'm happy to havea Gyrocopter as a Rare choice...they fulfill a very, very unique role in the army and, in terms of fluff, are...well...rare!

Really? Reading Gotrek and Felix, they seem pretty numerous to me...
I wouldn't mind them in units of three, too. And... pfff... new unit, w/o making up crap? Well, I'll nick the gatling cart from Dragonslayer then :p You got a cart, pulled by a poney, in the cart there's a gatling gun, and behind the gun there's an angry dwarf who can toss grenades at close targets, too. That's pretty much all I could think of :p

Sarah S
04-09-2009, 02:30
the problem comes when other army books were written with such a different philosophy: made lists which are almost always broken, and the hard thing is trying to made them "average"

This is all relative. All the 7th edition books are roughly on par with each other (yes, even Daemons) once you drop Empire and OnG.

GW just did a **** poor job on those two, they've done a great job on all the rest.

Axis
04-09-2009, 03:07
I think it is a bit harsh to say they did a **** poor job. From a tournament perspective, yes they stuffed up on empire and the greenies.

However, the magic items sections from both those books are quite good with a number of viable options.

For the casual gamer those two books are excellent with a lot of flavour and stuff that makes collecting and playing each army a joy.

However, i must reiterate that i agree that from purely a balance/gaming perspective those two books skew everything since they are a bit too weak. But i don't think they are **** poor.. maybe just poor.

GodSlayer
04-09-2009, 03:18
My two cents:

No, no bombs with the Gyrocopter. Leave the SteamGun.

But a skirmish unit would be soooo nice...

Other than that, I agree. The dwarven army is one of the most fluff fitting and equilibrated. Not that the army is equilibrated(no magic, cavalry), but it fits the background.

sulla
04-09-2009, 07:09
No they don't need anythiong else. There are a few things that could be improved inside the list (and one obvious thing that could be depowered by requiring it to have LoS for it's damage ability) but there is plenty of variety in the dwarf book, while still keeping in character with the dwarven playstyle.

Harwammer
04-09-2009, 07:15
bring back the foresters rule or do something for rangers,

Bring back bombing runs for gyrochopters. Maybe have gycrochopters taken as multiple model units, but they might need to be skirmishers so they can't break ranks.

Crube
04-09-2009, 11:43
Thread moved to WFB General


Crube
The Warseer Inquisition

snurl
04-09-2009, 11:47
Let slayers and rangers skirmish.

And bring back crash rules for 'copters.

studderigdave
04-09-2009, 12:15
i am new to dwarfs, but i think the book is pretty solid. i have no real problem with it. i would like to see slayers be skirmishers. but really i think the book is fine.

Gaargod
04-09-2009, 13:28
Unfortunately, dwarfs are very limited in their playstyle.

1: Full on gunline, usually led by Thorek. Like 5-7pieces of artillery and a lot of thunderers. Boring to play as and against.

2: Castle. 3-4 pieces of artillery, maybe some thunderers and a few infantry blocks. Usually sit on a hill in deployment zone and wait for enemy to come to them. Better than a gunline, but still not fascinating.

3. Infantry line. Maybe 1-2 pieces of artillery, mostly infantry blocks and characters. More interesting, but has the problem that its incredibly slow and relies of characters for combat. Taking a runelord/thorek to make them move twice a turn improves this, but means less dwarfs...

4. Deathstar. Big unit of ironbreakers with BSB, couple of characters and dwarf king (usually Thorgrim, as he's just crazy), with a couple of thunderer units for core. Maybe 1-2 pieces of artillery. Basically, a very powerful deathstar.


Other than that, can't really think of ways of playing dwarfs. Which is ok, sort of. It reflects the dwarfs nicely, but does mean they're somewhat limited (compared to say, dark elves or lizardmen, who have quite a few ways of playing).

Zaonite
04-09-2009, 13:58
I still want a Clockwork Dragon, be it for the awesomeness of the model alone.

I'm with Ultimate Life Form on this one - A clockwork dragon would be amazing!

O&G'sRule
04-09-2009, 14:00
Asolutely not. They certainly shouldnt get cavalry, that would destroy the whole army style. Also monsters don't fit their fluff.

O&G'sRule
04-09-2009, 14:01
I'm with Ultimate Life Form on this one - A clockwork dragon would be amazing!

thats a good idea

mrtn
04-09-2009, 14:13
A skirmishing unit would help in making offensive armies a better option. "Stand back and shoot" isn't how I imagine dwarves to be, but then the coolest dwarf ever is Thorin Oakenshield wading out into the orcs, getting his shield split but cutting a piece of wood to parry with instead. And continue to cut up orcs.

rhaze
04-09-2009, 14:13
bear calvary, i'm just saying.

Malorian
04-09-2009, 14:19
Dwarfs are fine and have a lot of different options open to them, so although new units are always a good thing dwarfs have it pretty good (it's just too bad half of the list is a special choice).

However to use these special units you need to play bigger games since they are an elite army (I find the same is true with lizardmen). Try playing a few 3000 point games (or bigger) and then you'll have a lot more fun as a lot more options are open to you.

Condottiere
04-09-2009, 14:21
Reintroduce the Dwarven catapult that repatriates Goblins.

Leogun_91
04-09-2009, 14:48
The list doesnīt need anything new, if I would be asked to add one thing it would be slayerpirates as a rarechoice......when they are redone they will get some specialcharacters and I donīt mind that but letīs not give them much more. Slayers should probobly get skirmish and something more (maybe frenzy to make them less viable to guard warmachines) to make them do what they should and there are some balance tweaks when comparing to new books but these can be fixed without adding something new.

Phaedron2
04-09-2009, 15:31
weve actually been playing with a home brewed edit to the Dwarves for a while. Our biggest edit is slayers, to which we gave killing blow versus their namesakes and any below them (i.e. Dragon slayers have KB versus dragons, giants and trolls) and we gave them a scalable ward save in close combat, starting with a 6+ for troll slayers and finishing with a 3+ on Damonslayers. other then that we made some minor changes like allowing quarrelers to move and fire, adjusting some points values and the like

DarkTerror
04-09-2009, 15:32
What the Dwarfs need is +2" to total movement on the charge, just to rival humans. That way you might actually worry about them charging you every once in a while. Without an anvil they have no chance.

I really find this issue to be the biggest problem with Dwarfs. I want my opponent to worry about me charging him. The last thing Dwarfs need is another unit which makes your opponent fear your shooting phase.

Dwarfs get 7? warmachines, yet only charge when your opponent screws up royally or on the support-charge. Sorry, but that's boring to play against.

Let the Dwarfs charge!

Necromancer2
04-09-2009, 15:42
Dwarfs are fine how they are. They Don't need Cav or Monsters. I'm sick of armies being the same anyway. Dwarfs deal with things they don't have just fine.

theunwantedbeing
04-09-2009, 15:54
Mobility is the biggest weakness of the dwarven army
They have only one runic item that allows them to move faster than normal, which is only available to the battle standard bearer.

Having runes like...
+D3" to the charge
+D3" to any march move
Free reform at the end of their movement
Free reform at the start of their movement

Would go a very long way to allow you to make a much more mobile dwarven army.

Slayers also could do with being skirmishers
2 tyes of unit would be useful.
The first being troll and giant slayers 5-20 in size, you can upgrade as many as you want to giant slayers.
The second being a lone dragon slayer(possibly a rare slot), which is upgradable to a daemon slayer..these would be allowed runic items(weapons).

So you can make a largely slayer based list if you want to, although it wont be cripplingly powerful like the the storm of chaos slayer list. Plus it means slayer character's wont get in the way of regular characters. Much like how the DE army moved assasins from the character selection (and skaven will do the same).

Another option (or rune)
would be to make dwarves that are flanked(or rear charged) only suffer -1 to their rank bonus for each side that is engaged.
eg.
They get flanked, so lose a point of rank bonus rather than it all.
They get flanked on both sides, they lose 2 points of rank bonus.

This would allow them to be more aggressive with their movement as it wouldnt matter so much being caught out by the enemy and flanked. So their lower movement rate would be less of a hindrance to them.

As it stands, even with strollaz rune and an anvil, the dwarf army isnt overly mobile. And is still fairly easily caught out and flanked (which is pretty crippling to even a large block with a BsB nearby).

The other option is to simply make them all stubborn on ld9
But I dont think anyone really wants that to happen as that'll just make the game more boring for everyone.

Alathir
04-09-2009, 16:04
Personally, I think Dwarfs should get movement 4 - movement 3 really encourages these very static, often artillery based armies. If the dwarfs persue a unit and go a fair distance they can often be out of the battle for the rest of the game, to me that is a flaw.

I think Slayers should be skirmishers and get a 2D6" extra movement before the game begins. I think one of the Dwarf elite units should get two attacks and I think Hammerers should get gromril armour with no option for shields. Also, the ability for elite unit champions to take rune weapons would be very nice. Although, that would require the creation of some cheap, effective runes.

gorenut
04-09-2009, 16:29
I'm taking a risk here and agreeing with you on this one. I know movement 3 is fluffy... but then look at all the other short-legged denizens in Warhammer that have MV 4... goblins, gnoblars, etc. I think what makes dwarfs not as popular is that they can't really compete in 2 major phases of the game (movement and magic)..

I also think Dwarfs should really get atleast another fast element in the game. Something that can reliably charge and get a flank. I think an ogre-sized model with MV 6 in the form of a steam/clockwork golem would be awesome. Or maybe even a compact, more efficient version of the Steam Tank. Right now.. it seems like only real incentive to play Dwarfs is fluff and models.

I think these additions would make it so Dwarfs don't have the ability to just skip across the battlefield.. but would make them very lethal once they're within a certain range. Especially if they kept their rule to always being able to march.


Personally, I think Dwarfs should get movement 4 - movement 3 really encourages these very static, often artillery based armies. If the dwarfs persue a unit and go a fair distance they can often be out of the battle for the rest of the game, to me that is a flaw.

I think Slayers should be skirmishers and get a 2D6" extra movement before the game begins. I think one of the Dwarf elite units should get two attacks and I think Hammerers should get gromril armour with no option for shields. Also, the ability for elite unit champions to take rune weapons would be very nice. Although, that would require the creation of some cheap, effective runes.

grumbaki
04-09-2009, 16:46
Speaking as a dwarf player, having an 8'' charge (6'' move) and skirmishing slayers would really revolutionize the way the army is played. We still wouldn't be that fast (infact, we'd still be the slowest army out there), but it would open up new aspects to the movement phase. Enemies could no longer walk up to 8'' of us without fear, and my slayers could actually see some real combat without dying to shooting first.

Sure, chaos warriors will still chew us up in close combat, but I'd be much more likely to take a more close combat approach. (Gaargod is right on the mark with how dwarf armies play. I always go for option 2 or 3, personally. With the changes mentioned above, (and add foresters to rangers), then I think that you'd see much more close combat oriented dwarf forces.

DeathlessDraich
04-09-2009, 16:54
Improving/compensating for M3, skirmishers are all aimed at improving the Dwarven army's effectiveness in gameplay but these changes should keep the Dwarven themes in mind.

I shall focus on their background instead:

Some suggestions:

1) Their ground/rock expertise could be highlighted e.g.
i) different types of underground advance (not just via Miners), like extra movement after deployment or 1st turn for some units
ii) ability to create cover/obstacles in open ground, for units which do not move during their turn
iii) land mines deployed within a certain distance of some special units (Miners and Rangers?)/characters -D3 S2 AP per mine? (I've used this in my Rebels of the Empire - see my sig. below)
iv) creating tunnels through hills/buildings to facilitate LOS and hence a charge over a blocking hill or building.

2) Their Grumbling could be incorporated but not in a negative way like O&G Animosity but more similar to Skaven rolls of 1 e.g.

i) A Dwarf unit breaking from combat within 6"? causes Dwarves to grumble that they're not as strong as they used to be. These units become charged up to prove themselves and can re-roll al Ld tests

And/Or
ii) Slayers striking their enemy in their death throes
And/Or
iii) S5 when standing and shooting but all 1s hit themselves

3) Dwarven Beer:
Every unit can drink Beer before a battle which immediately reduces WS by 1.

Roll D6 : No effect for 6s. Adverse effect for 1 (zonked out) - re-roll on a chart similar to Miners' Tunneling mishap.
2-5 confers one of the following - i) Extra movement after deployment (temporary intoxication only) ii) Stubborn/Unbreakable or Hatred (positive long lasting intoxication)

4) Generate Slayers rule
A fleeing unit which rallies can generate Slayers. Ashamed of their flight from combat, they dye their hair and always move towards the nearest enemy unit seeking death.

txamil
04-09-2009, 17:19
The Dwarf list is by far the most boing list in the game I think. Boring to play, boring to play against.

Midevil216
04-09-2009, 17:24
I think there fine.

Bheerme Evardrunk
04-09-2009, 17:36
I think the Dwarfs could use a few new units, and some upgrades. As is, its very static combat resolution won Army. Where as other Army's have more spice to them, compared to just simple axe and shield.

I'd suggest, some more Stat enhancing runes like +1 initiative or attack, free pivot, etc etc on Banners, not just weapons.

Maybe some more special rules like Dwarf shield wall. +1 AR when fighting dwarfs in the front. Front rank doesn't attack, 2nd rank does with -1 to hit. Option to use or not.

Because as-is it comes down to people picking and choosing which Dwarf block to fight. "hmm the warriors, or the Iron Breakers" Plain Jane troops with no upgrades except stats (long beard) is bland. And Dwarfs dont choose the fight most of the time, they react and try to steer the fight in their favor.

I'd like to see more 'usable' runes. Runes you can Strike. As of now, besides the Anvil, I can think of 2 runes that can be struck, Challenge, and Immolation. Why can't we have a few more runes like Magic-item nullification (null stone) that's struck when we want. Or just more of those in general.

The fluff supports it as Priestess of Valaya are always opening Tomb books, and using the power with-in for this or that.

War Machines are OK. I think Im in the middle of the road on that one. Upgraded with runes Dwarf WM are deadly. But they are the same machines everyone else has, and used in similar fashion, besides the runes.

You'd think the Dwarf Engineers would make different munitions, and at least figure out that a Dwarf cannon could be used as a Mortar as well. I mean they figured out the road pavers in the under ways could be turned into Deathrollers. Why not put a wind-age, and elevation gauge on the Cannon, and aim it upwards. One machine two uses.

I like my Dwarfs fine as they are. I will always play them, and my Slayer army no matter how the rules end up. But it never hurts to get new stuff just for fun.

Von Wibble
04-09-2009, 18:51
This is all relative. All the 7th edition books are roughly on par with each other (yes, even Daemons) once you drop Empire and OnG.

GW just did a **** poor job on those two, they've done a great job on all the rest.

Really? My empire army does a lot better than my high elves, and I have never ever used a steam tank.

Dwarf book - I don't like it myself, since Khorne aside its the army requiring the lowest amount of skill to play. They don't move much and are most active in the phases where its just rolling dice and guessing ranges. The winner of a game involving Dwarfs is pretty much decided by the skill of the dwarfs opponent, or in some cases which army he plays. High elves can't beat them unless they hide away their units and snatch quarters, maybe snping a couple of war machines, for example, but I imagine VC have quite an easy time against them.

Imo the dwarf book does need major changes, simply because you rarely see armies that aren't missile heavy. An advancing army of dwarfs should be viable - until this is the case the dwarf army isn't ready.

Condottiere
04-09-2009, 20:12
Maybe a slight revision in the BRB, that non-armoured, non shield carrying troops get 1D3 extra movement on the charge - that should give Slayers extra mobility.

Sarah S
04-09-2009, 20:16
Really? My empire army does a lot better than my high elves, and I have never ever used a steam tank.

Good on you then. Different strokes for different folks. If I was only interested in winning, I would much rather pick High Elves than Empire for myself.

Freman Bloodglaive
04-09-2009, 21:25
Welcome to the world of overpriced units that get shot to pieces.

Slayers as skirmishers with +D3 charge range would be a good modification I think. The -1 to hit would help them with shooting and the charge increase would make Slayers slightly more likely to hit the enemy rather than be hit. It really makes no sense that a bunch of slightly crazed Dwarves seeking to die at the enemy's hands rank up into nice tidy blocks behind a banner.

Someone brought up the death roller (blood bowl secret weapon) and I have to agree. Whilst Dwarves aren't much for cavalry, something steam powered that grinds the enemy into the ground would appeal to the dwarvish sense of humour.

Something like.

Special: 1 to 2 units per slot.

M WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
6 4 3 5 5 4 2 D6 10 3+

Fear, Stubborn
Grinding: The Deathroller generates D6 attacks in each round of combat, when it charges it generates D6+1

Not sure how many points it should be, but since it's the equivalent of a Dwarf chariot I'd say about 65 points to start. No strength 7 demolishing though, Dwarves build em tough.

Signius
04-09-2009, 21:48
I play high elves and I dread playing dwarves more than any other race (I've yet to play DE and DoC though). Makes me completely change my army list (I usually go magic heavy, even with two casters a 1k points and the Sorc banner I was getting 0 or 1 spell off per turn the only time I actually tried keeping my list the same). I am required to have as much cav as possible and if I actually had a lord it would have to be a dragon. And honestly I think it would come down to who gets the first turn. If I do, I've only got about one turn of shooting on my important units, but if the Dwarfs do they get two and my guys are probably too close to dead by the time I get there. Not particularly fun, for either of us really. Might as well play "flip the coin."

Leogun_91
04-09-2009, 21:48
Dwarfs get 7? warmachines, yet only charge when your opponent screws up royally or on the support-charge. Sorry, but that's boring to play against.Or when you take rune of slowness but well your point still stands.

You'd think the Dwarf Engineers would make different munitions, and at least figure out that a Dwarf cannon could be used as a Mortar as well. I mean they figured out the road pavers in the under ways could be turned into Deathrollers. Why not put a wind-age, and elevation gauge on the Cannon, and aim it upwards. One machine two uses.Beacouse the cannons have always worked as they do now.......pointing them upwards is silly manling buisness and why fix what aint broken.

Someone brought up the death roller (blood bowl secret weapon) and I have to agree. Whilst Dwarves aren't much for cavalry, something steam powered that grinds the enemy into the ground would appeal to the dwarvish sense of humour.

Something like.

Special: 1 to 2 units per slot.

M WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
6 4 3 5 5 4 2 D6 10 3+

Fear, Stubborn
Grinding: The Deathroller generates D6 attacks in each round of combat, when it charges it generates D6+1

Not sure how many points it should be, but since it's the equivalent of a Dwarf chariot I'd say about 65 points to start. No strength 7 demolishing though, Dwarves build em tough.
Make it rare....it aint traditional, 2 for 1 rare could work though.

larabic
05-09-2009, 01:53
I thinks they needs some tweeks to bring them on par with some other races, but nothing major.


- New Core - Beardlings WS 3 LD 8 Dwarfs
- Make Hammerers Rare
- Make Royal Blood an upgrade for heroes and lords
- Make the oath Stone able to move
- Make the Cannon the same as the empire or cheaper
- Upgrade Hammerers to 2 A or strike at I with the great weps
- Unit champs can have limited runes
- Rangers should skirmish or move thru trees
- Slayers get a 6+ ward Save in H2H to represent their skills at not dying
- Miners come out of the ground like Tomb Scorpions
- Make the Throne a upgrade for a lord
- Bring back Gotrek and Felix
- Anti magic banner Similar to the ring of hotek but 6" or all spells get -D6 from casting
- Anti fire rune works like Dragon Armor

Those are the tweeks i suggest, nothing drastic but would be very helpful.

Urgat
05-09-2009, 01:59
- Make Hammerers Rare

Just wanted to say that, considering they made black guards special, it's very unlikely this will ever happen, regardless of any other consideration.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
05-09-2009, 02:30
bring back the foresters rule or do something for rangers,
SNIP

Seconded [or thirded, etc. depending on how many others have read this post].

In fact, maybe just the warmaster rules or something like them- if enemies break from a combat involving rangers they roll a max of 2 dice to flee with. Rangers need something because currently there is no reason to take them.

Other than that no real changes are needed. I like that the fact that my Dwarfs charge all time [only after another unit holds up an enemy charge of course], but find that the Dwarfs actually take a lot more skill [so much more unforgiving] than my Empire army to play.

Freman Bloodglaive
05-09-2009, 02:43
True, Empire have similar options to Dwarves, blocks of infantry and warmachines, but with their mobility (and Empire can be very quick if you focus on it) a unit or two out of place won't hurt you.

Get a Dwarf block 7 inches out of place and someone will make it pay.

snurl
05-09-2009, 07:27
New plastic drunken dwarf regiment for the win!

Ozorik
05-09-2009, 09:19
Dwarves dont need much updating, they can still do well on the current battlefield without resorting to 'competative' builds.

Gyros are perfect as they are. If they move to special then they will compete with the worthwhile options there and as the organ gun will certainly lose its autohit ability then there isnt much else in the rare section that will rival it. A bomb option wouldnt add much to its utility but would add to its cost so, no thanks. A new model that doesn't fall to peices at the slightest opportunity would be great though.

The only thing in the list that really needs changing is that rangers either get skirmish (I'm not that keen on this TBH) or have a move through terain ability. A scouting ranked unit with no movement special rules is all but worthless.

Slayers should definately skirimish though.

New steam monster things would be a bad idea IMO, they dont need one and it cuts through the Dwarven theme.

Dwarves are only tedious as a gunline, The answer is simple; don't take a gunline.

snurl
05-09-2009, 11:38
Longbeards ought to be stubborn too.

Ozorik
05-09-2009, 11:41
That would make them too powerful without a price increase, and it would blur he line with hammerers. The royal blood rule should be army wide though.

Grom Wronghand
05-09-2009, 11:52
I vote for the option to have warriors/longbeards use halberds/spears. Mainly halbeds, I'm not too fussed about spears, but it seems like halberds would be perfect weapons for dwarves to fight heavy cavalry fluff wise.

snurl
05-09-2009, 12:30
I vote for the option to have warriors/longbeards use halberds/spears. Mainly halbeds, I'm not too fussed about spears, but it seems like halberds would be perfect weapons for dwarves to fight heavy cavalry fluff wise.

Seconded. Then i will be able to use all of my "dwarf with spear" miniatures again.

ivrg
05-09-2009, 13:47
I find the dwarfs main weakness to be when you play against lizards(old book) or new vampire counts. They have a hero with M9 in a regiment. The regiment marches forwards and the hero charges out aginst your warmachine. A specially designed vampire can also have 3+ward save aginst ranged. He comes in with S7 attacks and kills the crew. This situation is hard to tackle i think.
Then you have this M9 hero running wild behind your lines. Lizardmens M9 was nerfed, VC got boosted and WE alter cant join a regiment. Even an alter can do some damage ofc, All he need to do is place himself in terrain 18 inches from the warmachines. Maybe a 3+ ward save as well. Do you want to spend a round of shooting on an alter when dryads and stuf are swarming all around?

This can also be done by other armies that have M9 steeds, wolfs etc.

Make the gyrocopter a mount for an engineer.

DDogwood
05-09-2009, 14:14
I think that the Dwarf army needs to be totally re-written so it is less boring to play. As it stands, most Dwarf armies seem to end up as gunlines.

"Gunline: the army that plays itself!"

"Gunlines: now you can play Warhammer against your hamster!"

Dwarfs should have a base move of 4, and they should have some sort of cavalry or cavalry equivalent (merc ogres?). Slayers should be fast-moving skirmishers. Ranged weapons should be limited, except for war machines. Warhammer is a game of maneuver, so having a whole army that is based on not maneuvering is stupid.

Dwarfs are my favorite army in terms of background and story, but their implementation has sucked so horribly since 4th ed. that I wish they weren't even part of the game. They are boring to play and boring to fight.

Von Wibble
05-09-2009, 15:19
That's exactly it. They just don't give an entertaining game. Doesn't help that the armies I use are poorly suited to facing dwarfs (how exactly do tomb kings even stand a slither of a chance?!) oc.

I find it odd that people claim halberds are an ideal weapon for dwarfs to take on heavy cav when you can just have great weapons for 1 more S. Its not like you were going to strike first anyway.

For slayers- I liked the Warmaster mechanic that the dwarf player gets the vps for the unit if they are killed. Give skirmish, triple charge range vs anything with T5+, and if they survive the battle the opponent gets teh VPs for the unit to balance it out and you have a unit that is encouraged to be thrown at the enemy regardless of danger - surely a perfect representation.

I also think the dwarf army would benefit if the anvil had weaker effects but applied them to more uits. Effects such as +1M (whatever happened to the sceptre of norgrim) or -1 to armour saves. Too similar to COB I suppose though.

Ultimately, what is needed is more variety in scenarios. M3 is not a weakness in a pitched battle when you can just castle. It is a weakness if you have to capture objectives. I'm not saying dwarfs need nerfing - they would need options in the list for such scenarios, other than blasting the enemy off any objective in sight. Just something to add a bit of variety.

Ozorik
05-09-2009, 15:29
As it stands, most Dwarf armies seem to end up as gunlines

Thats mainly due to lack of player imagination rather than a weakness with the book. Non gunline armies do perfectly well.


Make the gyrocopter a mount for an engineer.

They already are, its just not stated but they have Engineers stats (+1 T but he is riding a warmachine after all) and Engineers special rules have no effect on them anyway.

Dwaves do not need M4, In fact I am completely opposed to the idea, warhammer is already becoming too homogenous as it is. What would be beneficial is unit special rules or magic items/banner which augment their mobility, +D6 charge range, free reform etc.

Reducing the penatlies of a flank/rear charge is an interesting idea but it would make Dwarven blocks all but impossible to break without using some of the new super units. This is not a solution as it would only add to power creep.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
05-09-2009, 15:47
Thats mainly due to lack of player imagination rather than a weakness with the book. Non gunline armies do perfectly well.



They already are, its just not stated but they have Engineers stats (+1 T but he is riding a warmachine after all) and Engineers special rules have no effect on them anyway.

Dwaves do not need M4, In fact I am completely opposed to the idea, warhammer is already becoming too homogenous as it is. What would be beneficial is unit special rules or magic items/banner which augment their mobility, +D6 charge range, free reform etc.

Reducing the penatlies of a flank/rear charge is an interesting idea but it would make Dwarven blocks all but impossible to break without using some of the new super units. This is not a solution as it would only add to power creep.


I agree here. I would like to see a lesser version of the Master Rune of Challenge as well. Not a master rune [so there can be more than one- though not more than one in the same unit], which makes an enemy charge or spend the turn motionless [rather than fleeing]. The truth is non-gunline armies can do fine, but invariably need some firepower to give the enemy a reason to engage the Dwarf infantry.

Condottiere
05-09-2009, 16:08
New plastic drunken dwarf regiment for the win!That's an upgrade, like Longbeards.

EC15
05-09-2009, 16:49
Non gunline dwarfs can actually be quite fun to play, it just requires a player to make the most of the very limited options that expand the tactical versatility of the list.

Here are some suggestions

1) Adjusting the org chart placement would make lists a little less prone to gun line. When our rare options are nothing but fantastic warmachines it just leads to people filling them with war machines. Hammerers are the elite of the elite troops personally chosen by the king, but somehow are both a special option and have the same stats as all the other elite dwarves. Boost the stats and gear and make them rare to represent this.

2) Make the rank and file core choices worth taking. While the longbeards option helps mitigate this slightly, warriors can't stand up in against the elite troops of other lists anymore. Rangers are kind of like core (they don't count as anything in the org chart) but aren't worth taking due to lack of forester/skirmish rule. With the only decent core being our range troops, it is again no wonder that dwarf lists often trend to boring gunlines.

3) Tactical versatility is can be had even in an M3 army, but we don't have enough. Currently our only tricks are the oathstone, the anvil, and the rune of slowness. The first fails as it is a one shot deal and after that it is an expensive unmoving and easily avoided unit. The anvil is great but really expensive and prone to blowing up, and the rune of slowness is also prohibitably expensive.

Solution: Make more tricks available to the dwarfs, free reforms, increased charge range, more useful miners, skirmishing slayers, forester rangers, and maybe even a way to make one block M4. Such things can help make non gunline lists both more worth playing and more fun to play.

Ozorik
05-09-2009, 18:04
1) Adjusting the org chart placement would make lists a little less prone to gun line. When our rare options are nothing but fantastic warmachines it just leads to people filling them with war machines. Hammerers are the elite of the elite troops personally chosen by the king, but somehow are both a special option and have the same stats as all the other elite dwarves. Boost the stats and gear and make them rare to represent this.


I dont agree with you here. Special slots have a lot of competition, all 3 special infantry units are good choices aside from the obvious warmachines. Beware of power creep which is essentially what you are suggesting.


2) warriors can't stand up in against the elite troops of other lists anymore

Warriors are core so that is no suprise. Warriors are certainly worth taking, so much so that they are the only core troop type I use.

Nephlite
05-09-2009, 18:25
Dwarfs should not get higher movement or Calvary, it goes against what the army is.

That said Dwarfs have lost a lot of their edge not because something wrong with their army book but because of the power creep in all the other army books since. While this can hurt/annoy all its uniquely worst off for Dwarfs due to their static nature. I'm not talking about Gunlines as I have always tried to play a heavy combat army with minor shooting support.

Consider, that what made combat Dwarf lists special was their high toughness, high armor allowing for good static combat res. The way a lot of newer armies hit, you can't count on your units holding like they used to. Lizardmen, Chaos Warriors, Deamons, Vampire counts and hell even Dark Elves can break a unit of Iron Breakers with a single frontal charge. With so many recently updated armies now having very high str attacks, killing blow, regenerate and good leadership the resilience dwarf units were famous for is no longer there. Hell you almost don't even have to bother flanking them anymore as a Dwarf battleline can no longer hold like it used to.

Thankfully we still have good war machines and a few tricks left but dwarfs could seriously benefit from an update.

EC15
05-09-2009, 18:29
"I dont agree with you here. Special slots have a lot of competition, all 3 special infantry units are good choices aside from the obvious warmachines. Beware of power creep which is essentially what you are suggesting."

The special choices have great competition I agree, but as I said before the rares do not have enough and because of it trend army to gunlines. For there to be fewer gunlines there needs to be a viable non-warmachine option in the rares.

"Warriors are core so that is no suprise. Warriors are certainly worth taking, so much so that they are the only core troop type I use."

I guess we just have a difference of opinion then.

Rogue
05-09-2009, 18:32
Dwarves dont need much updating, they can still do well on the current battlefield without resorting to 'competative' builds.

Gyros are perfect as they are. If they move to special then they will compete with the worthwhile options there and as the organ gun will certainly lose its autohit ability then there isnt much else in the rare section that will rival it. A bomb option wouldnt add much to its utility but would add to its cost so, no thanks. A new model that doesn't fall to peices at the slightest opportunity would be great though.

The only thing in the list that really needs changing is that rangers either get skirmish (I'm not that keen on this TBH) or have a move through terain ability. A scouting ranked unit with no movement special rules is all but worthless.

Slayers should definately skirimish though.

New steam monster things would be a bad idea IMO, they dont need one and it cuts through the Dwarven theme.

Dwarves are only tedious as a gunline, The answer is simple; don't take a gunline.

I totally agree with you here in all but the slayers per sae. I would allow for a ward save or killing blow to be included instead but I like the idea of a skirmish unit that does not have a scout rule. I would also think about having Hammerers have Gromril Armour and no shield. It makes sense to me for them to have expensive suits of armour on these elite as opposed to shields and HA.

The reason why people are boored with the army has more to do with whom they play rather than what your opponant plays. I have never played a gun line, and never will since I dont posses that many thunderers, and I have been sucessful with them. I dont think that I have one player talk bad about my army, and I have had several people tell me that playing with me can be a challenge that they look forward to.

Perhaps before we think about doing monumental changes to an established army like increasing movement or a new steamtank contraption, why dont we work on fixing the balance issues on armies like the big 3(I really would include Lizzardmen with them using spammed Stegadons and engine of Gods) that every one seems to complain about in this fourm and elsewhere. Does it really make sense to have yet another army have another rare unit that they will spam all over the place just so that it can be competitive with other spammed units? How fun will that really be?

Dodgy Ed
05-09-2009, 18:42
I'm probably going to regret posting this but here goes anyway.

Dwarfs are still a good army. The list doesn't need a major overhaul. A few tweaks would go mitigate a lot of the current issues.

Gameplay wise I find the main problem with dwarfs comes from the other lists rather than the dwarf list.

Fear is the killer, especially when combined with low cost troops as they autowin combat on a point for point basis (assuming no wounds caused) and force dwarfs to break on anything but snake eyes.

Essentially the fear mechanic needs to be reworked at a core game level, perhaps making wounds caused count double, instead of out number=autobreak.

Magic also leaves dwarfs SoL, Again I think this is a core game problem and I have no idea what could be done, the all or nothing nature of magic needs a severe re work.

Ok on to dwarfs.

Characters
For the most part I think characters are ok, maybe give increase the dispel dice runesmiths/lords get (but again this leads to an all or nothing magic phase which is not really the desire)

The Anvil; hate it hate it hate it, always have done! but... I think it needs a compromise, after all if it was back to casting dice it would never get a power off. I think it should probably needs LoS to it's target and also have a limited range. And Thorek in his current state it just an abomination unto <insert deity of your choice> Much like the daemon book.

Core

Allow warrior blocks to take a 25point banner (seems to be the norm these days).

Bring back move and fire for dwarf handguns. Although it was a cock up in the previous edition the ability to move and fire really added something; it made the army (slightly) more fluid.

Give rangers foresters as standard, it's a no brainer really.

Special

Slayers; I dunno, ya got me. Skirmishing seems to be the way forward but it's just so undwarfen.

Give Hammeres +1A to bring them in line with current elite infantry and give them a rune of stone/gromril armour but remove the shield option.

Controversy Give Ironbreakers a rune of stone but keep them at one attack. This would give them a 1+ armour save to the front and 2+to the side and make them the ultimate anvil as a partner to the Hammerers, well, Hammer.

Rare

Gimme my bombs back on the gyro dammit.

The Organ gun will need some work. With auto hit leaving the game the Organ gone will need either more shots or a considerable points alteration (as it stands it is an equivalent cost to a hellblaster with a 1/3 of the shots).

And I'm done.

DDogwood
05-09-2009, 18:56
Dwarfs should not get higher movement or Calvary, it goes against what the army is.

Warhammer armies should not have universally slow troops, it goes against what the GAME is.



That said Dwarfs have lost a lot of their edge not because something wrong with their army book but because of the power creep in all the other army books since.

I disagree. The problem with Dwarfs isn't that they aren't competitive - Dwarfs still do just fine against most armies. The problem that Dwarfs have, and have always had, is that they lend themselves almost exclusively to an extremely static and boring playstyle. Stand and shoot, stand and shoot, stand and shoot. Every other army can out-maneuver and out-charge Dwarfs.

By contrast, Dwarfs in Warmaster are one of the most maneuverable forces around, even though they don't have cavalry. Only High Elves can outmaneuver them. The army still feels like a Dwarf army, but they are fun to play and to play against.

My point is that the game isn't ultimately about balance between armies, it's about fun games. Balance is part of that, but I'll take a fun-but-uneven game over a boring-but-balanced game any day of the week.

Ozorik
05-09-2009, 19:02
+1 attack for hammerers and gromril armour (although a rune of stone would be better from a fluff persepective IMO) isnt that bad an idea really, they would need a points increase though. This would also create a nice tier system for Dwarven elites which isnt that clear cut in the current edition. Longbeards>Ironbreakers>Hammerers which makes sense given their respective roles in Dwarvern society.

Currently hammerers get used as stubborn longbeards in 'competative' builds which completely goes against their role.

Skirmishing slayers makes far more sense than ranked up ones really. Killing blow etc isnt really needed and it would up their points cost. I really hope they get their old victory point rules back though, it was one of the most fluffy rules in the game.

GodSlayer
05-09-2009, 20:08
I'm reading all this (and I didn't think people were that much in dwarfs) and I think the main problem is that all the army fits in three roles:

Anvils : Hammerers, IronBreakers, Slayers
Long range weakening: Warmachines, Thunderer, Quareller
Hunting: Miners, Gyro and Ranger.

As hunters, they're not that good. But the strenght is the first two. In the end, I think something with punch (as slayers should be:angel:) and a good unit that could find combat would be nice.

Personnaly, I'd like the Anvil of Doom to be moved and create a area of effet (similar to the DE caldron) which could be changed in each turn. Say like, 5+ save vs shooting, MR1, +1CR, autorally (etc...) or strike a rune.
I would gladly go for somekind of mecanical chariot. Snotlings makes one, why would dwarves do it?

silashand
06-09-2009, 03:48
I'd say just allow the gyro to be fielded in squadrons of 1-2 or 1-3. It's not like they are overpowered by any stretch of the imagination.

Other than that the only things that really *need* fixing in the Dwarf list are:

- Rangers (who cannot reliably do the job they are supposed to do due to not ignoring any terrain)

- the Goblin Hewer needs to be added back in only because the model already exists and it's just cool. Heck, you could just add it and Malachai as a SC in the book if that's the easiest, but at least it would allow players to use such a nice model.

- Slayer characters still need to be made attractive enough that players will want to bring them. I would suggest a Slayer Doom save (ward save) of 6+/5+/4+ for Giant/Dragon/Daemon slayers. This would represent the idea that there are some slayers the Dwarf Ancestors have marked out for a mightier doom than others, i.e. they survive longer in order to accomplish it. As it stands they simply cannot compete with the other slots which is unfortunate since the idea of them is pure Dwarfishness.

- bring back some of the iconic Dwarf characters such as Burlock Damminson, Kragg the Grimm, etc. *ESPECIALLY* bring back Gotrek & Felix!

There are some other things I'd like to see brought back from previous editions such as bear riders simply because they used to exist and IMO are very characterful. However, these aren't strictly necessary like the issues above I think. JMO though...


I'm reading all this (and I didn't think people were that much in dwarfs)

Dwarfs have some of the strongest character and imagery in the Warhammer world setting. While people may argue that the individual backstories for each army are well done or not, Dwarfs have mananged to stay pretty much the same since their inception which is kind of an anomaly in GW games because they keep changing their mind as to what they want each of them to represent. Dwarfs in Warhammer have quite a following even though they are not really a top-tier tournament army at all.

Condottiere
06-09-2009, 07:20
Rangers could have the Woodsman Special Rule, that allows them to ignore movement restrictions in forests. If Slayers do get Ward Saves (like Savage Orcs), they need a hike in cost.

Grom Wronghand
06-09-2009, 14:39
I agree with most people here, in that Dwarfs don't need an overhaul. They're a good, relatively competitive army who are for the most part well balanced. Most units don't need too manychanges, just tweaks IMO, while two or three units could do with some big change. A shield wall rule for shield using units would be groovy, possibly giving units facing them -1 to hit, but removing the ability for the dwarfs to chase them down if they run.

Giving slayer characters killing blow against large targets and ogre sized creatures would be a nice, fluffy addition. After all, to become such a powerful slayer, they would have to have a knack for killing big beasties.

The Anvil of Doom definately needs balancing. LOS requirement to strike runes, while also having area of effect powers like the cauldron of blood.

Giving warriors and longbeards the ability to carry halberds I would like, if nothign else the for the modelling oppurtunites. But I'd only take them if the halberds were redone, possibly given armour piercing.

Thunderers and quarrellers don't need any changes, but rangers do. Either made cheaper or given scout. Though it would be nice for additional weapons to give thunderers. (disclaimer here: I'm a big fan of dwarf engineering stuff) I like the idea of carbines. Just as a rough idea, I'm improvising here, you could move and shoot, but with less range, say 18". No armour piercing, but keep the dwarfy +1 to hit. Or gatling guns for thunderer champions with d6 shots, 24" range, S4 and armour piercing. Modelled in the same way as the steam drill, it could be groovy. Dunno about point cost for it. Malakai Makaisson had one in one of the gotrek novels, so they do exist in canon.

Ironbreakers are good enough as they are IMO, and hammerers should be given gromril armour, no shield option, moved to rare and given two attacks to bring them in line with current elites. Miners are probably good enough, as are slayers. Maybe a 6+ ward save and M4 for slayers would be nice, as surely they can move faster than other dwarfs when not weighed down by armour. An an obvious points increase would be needed though to accompany these.

The war machines are nice enough as they are. I can't think of any changes they need. Gyrocopters should maybe have the option to drop bombs at additional cost, but shouldn't be taken as a unit. I can't imagine they're that common, I mean they're helicopters for god's sake. I like organ guns as they are but if they're getting rid of autohit, then I don't know how I'd balance that out. The Flame cannon is probably good as it is. I'd like a dwarf dreadnought, but I don't know about rules for it.

silashand
06-09-2009, 17:19
Rangers could have the Woodsman Special Rule, that allows them to ignore movement restrictions in forests. If Slayers do get Ward Saves (like Savage Orcs), they need a hike in cost.

Actually, I don't think so. They aren't tough enough to survive long enough now to justify their cost. That's one reason why no one ever fields them. Besides, even the character slayers still have no armour so a 5+/4+ ward save is unlikely to save them for very long. It might, however, give them a chance to get in a couple blows which is the whole idea. As it stands now they can't even do that.

Leogun_91
06-09-2009, 19:12
Rangers could have the Woodsman Special Rule, that allows them to ignore movement restrictions in forests. If Slayers do get Ward Saves (like Savage Orcs), they need a hike in cost.Which slayers would that be? The troll ones could maybe cost one more point but they wouldnīt be one bit overpowered if they got it without a point increase, the giantslayers are the most overpriced thing there is, you pay 26pts per model in a movement 3 unit without AS, a small wardsave and a mayor pts drop might make them competative, the only good reason to take a dragonslayer is beacouse itīs the cheapest throw away unit a dwarf can get and a wardsave wonīt make it overpowered and the deamonslayer is very expensive considering you take a lordchoice with absolutely no form of protection what so ever.

Condottiere
06-09-2009, 19:24
If the Trollslayers received a 6+ Ward, that should still cost a point; but it could always be an upgrade, as if they received a blessing of some sort before battle.

gorenut
06-09-2009, 21:00
What if Slayers had a modified "Raiders" rule like the beastmen. I can see them as wild Dwarfs that have the discipline and skirmish while running.. then quickly ranking up once they hit the lines. Except ofcourse.. allow them to form into any formation instead of the 7th ed messed up version of Beastmen only ranking 4 wide. Maybe even allow them to have an upgrade to scout.. I can see them being the most eager for battle.. appearing on the field long before the rest of the army.

Aside from that.. maybe the army should get special rules to control the actual battlefield, dictating the enemies' movements somewhat. Landmines and such would be a neat option.

Condottiere
06-09-2009, 21:08
Would make it difficult to get to gunlines, and there's not enough time to get the goblin clearing teams to secure corridors and then send through the heavy hitters.

Astromarine
07-09-2009, 14:41
the main problem with dwarves is whining opponents that cry when they see a gunline. I already have no cavalry or magic, you think shooting is cheating, so what now? I'm supposed to take footsloggers only?

Oh and Slayer heroes should be better.

TheSil
07-09-2009, 16:29
The problem that Dwarfs have, and have always had, is that they lend themselves almost exclusively to an extremely static and boring playstyle. Stand and shoot, stand and shoot, stand and shoot. Every other army can out-maneuver and out-charge Dwarfs.


That is not really true is it? As has been said multiple times, you can play dwarfs with very little shooting support. If you take an Anvil one unit of your choice (or more) can move 12 inch per turn, which is enough to stop many outmanouvering attemts.



My point is that the game isn't ultimately about balance between armies, it's about fun games. Balance is part of that, but I'll take a fun-but-uneven game over a boring-but-balanced game any day of the week.

I fully agree that games should be about fun, which makes me wonder why you have only encountered the boring and pretty un-funny stand-and-shoot dwarfen armies when it could also be otherwise.

TonyFlow
07-09-2009, 16:35
There are alot of interesting ideas in this thread. I too think that all that needs to be done is changing a few of the units.
One of the major problems with dwarfs in my experience is that they only have anvil units... No heavy hitters at all. Doing a combat focused dwarf army means that you take a lot of blocks, wait for the charge, hope to hold it and flank the charging unit. Thereby winning through CR instead of kills. IMHO this is a bit boring... Way too passive even with an anvil and strollaz rune.
Most of what i would change has already been said.
1: Something should be done to the slayers. They are too easily killed as it is now and dont do much offensively. Options are: Skirmishers, Ward save, killing blow.
I prefer the first two.
2: We need a hammer unit... So why not the hammerers? Give them 2 attacks and Gromril Armour, this would (as already said) bring them in line with most other elite units.
3: Rangers... Foresters, what else needs to be said? This must have been a mistake when writing the armybook. They are useless without it!
4: Some runes that would help with manouverability... Maybe a one use only standard rune that gives +d3 to charge distance for 25 points or something like that?

I normally play with many combat blocks. Not because i win more games that way, but because i want some action. I rarely win but it is a lot more interesting than playing a gunline. With some of the above changes it would be alot more viable to play a combat oriented dwarf army, hopefully without making them cheesy.

Condottiere
07-09-2009, 17:25
Considering their nature Slayers would more likely be in an open formation, but maybe Dwarves inherently are inclined to cluster together. It might even be instinctive, a legacy from the distant past when cave-dwarves found themselves surrounded by savage sabre tooth tigers and staying in tight formation was the only method preventing a pack of them ripping their tribe apart.

silashand
07-09-2009, 18:05
Considering their nature Slayers would more likely be in an open formation, but maybe Dwarves inherently are inclined to cluster together.

Not according to any of the fluff or books. As for why they are the way they are now, according to some friends who helped playtest the existing book (back when they allowed external playtesting still) the reason Slayers weren't made skirmishers is that players tended not to use them in a manner that reflected their background. Instead they were used as Unbreakable war machine guards (making a ring around the machine(s) and waiting for an enemy to charge, thus keeping the machine out of combat. IMO they should have been given the Beastmen Raiders rule anyway, but also amend the Monster Hunters rule to say they move directly toward an enemy unit each turn using their maximum movement rate, preferring those with the Large Target special rule over any other options. Sure, it would need playtesting, but it would allow them to be a skirmishing formation and thus attack in whatever direction was appropriate, but also enforce the background element in that they are lone Dwarfs attempting to atone for their failures by getting killed in the most glorious manner possible. Just because the designers couldn't fix them last go around doesn't mean they *can't* be fixed. It only means they chose the simple answer of leaving them as is which unfortunately keeps them off the tabletop in most circumstances.

Leogun_91
07-09-2009, 19:00
One of the major problems with dwarfs in my experience is that they only have anvil units... No heavy hitters at all.Except Hammerers,Slayers, Longbeard rangers, miners and greatweaponarmed longbeards.

Condottiere
07-09-2009, 19:33
Not according to any of the fluff or books. As for why they are the way they are now, according to some friends who helped playtest the existing book (back when they allowed external playtesting still) the reason Slayers weren't made skirmishers is that players tended not to use them in a manner that reflected their background. Instead they were used as Unbreakable war machine guards (making a ring around the machine(s) and waiting for an enemy to charge, thus keeping the machine out of combat. IMO they should have been given the Beastmen Raiders rule anyway, but also amend the Monster Hunters rule to say they move directly toward an enemy unit each turn using their maximum movement rate, preferring those with the Large Target special rule over any other options. Sure, it would need playtesting, but it would allow them to be a skirmishing formation and thus attack in whatever direction was appropriate, but also enforce the background element in that they are lone Dwarfs attempting to atone for their failures by getting killed in the most glorious manner possible. Just because the designers couldn't fix them last go around doesn't mean they *can't* be fixed. It only means they chose the simple answer of leaving them as is which unfortunately keeps them off the tabletop in most circumstances.Maybe a rule needed to be added that they must always move towards an enemy formation, if not engaged in combat.

kdh88
07-09-2009, 22:03
Maybe a rule needed to be added that they must always move towards an enemy formation, if not engaged in combat.

What about the "Look Snorri, Trolls!" rule from the old SoC list? On a side note, slayer chars should be able to buy Talismans in the form of Runic Tatoos.

IMO, Dwarves don't really need more options for mobility; rather, their existing options need to work properly. That means improvements to Miners (perhaps "it came from below"), Rangers (move through terrain obviously), and Gyrocopters (Master Engineer mount). I also like the idea of giving Runesmiths/Lords access to the AoD runes as bound items. Actually, I've never understood why the AoD wasn't made into a "super bound item" to begin with. The only new thing I might be in favor of would be a war wagon (something like this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Husitsky_bojovy_vuz_replika.jpg), but based on a mining cart rather than a farming one).

More general changes would be throwing axe options for warriors, gromril armor/no shields for hammerers and something for ironbreakers (no idea what though). Maybe allow Thunderers carry pistols (brace of pistols?) instead of handguns.

silashand
08-09-2009, 01:03
IMO, Dwarves don't really need more options for mobility; rather, their existing options need to work properly. That means improvements to Miners (perhaps "it came from below"), Rangers (move through terrain obviously), and Gyrocopters (Master Engineer mount).

Agreed (though I still like bear riders, even if only as a character option since they used to exist and are just way cool :)).



I also like the idea of giving Runesmiths/Lords access to the AoD runes as bound items.

The best solution I have always felt was simply to bring back the old Rune of Passage (it was a 15pt talismanic rune - bearer and unit ignores terrain). This way it doesn't actually add anything new to the list, rather it brings something back that the Dwarfs used to have and IMO still need.

Condottiere
08-09-2009, 08:05
Anvil of Doom during the magic phase certainly gives a chance to counter it. I always felt that if you had it during the shooting phase, at the very least it needed LoS in order to target anything.

silashand
08-09-2009, 16:56
The problem with the Anvil is that because it's the only spell-like power in the Dwarf arsenal, when you put it in the magic phase it becomes far too easy to dispel. This was proven categorically in the 6th edition army book when that was the mechanism used. While I think it may be more appropriate in the magic phase, from a game design standpoint it just doesn't seem to work using the existing system unless you add/modify the rules for it so that the Dwarf player who brings one actually has a chance of getting the abilities off. In that respect it almost has to work in the shooting phase and realistically, it actually does function relatively well there. All that said, I do agree it should require LoS. I'm not bothered about not being able to dispel it since there are lots of semi-magical abilities such as the Screaming Bell, Cauldron of Blood, etc. that cannot be dispelled in the game. While some opponents may not like it, it is not unique in that regard, nor does it have to be as they would prefer.

TheSil
08-09-2009, 17:11
I like how it works now, my major complaint is that it blows up on a double 1, which annoys the crap out of me

It appears that I roll this result unrealistically often and nothing is more frustrating than blowing up the 315+ point general in turn two or so :(

This is really not what should happen frequently to the masters of the runes :/

Dwarfs are supposed to be reliable, its not like they would be whacky empire engeneers tinkering with forces beyond their control

(and I am not even speaking of using this ancient power rune stuff)

Shiodome
08-09-2009, 17:20
I don't think dwarves need more in their list. I think a lot of other armies need things removed so that each army has significant differences, rather than lots of armies that have "a bit of shooting, a bit of fast cavalry, a bit of heavy cavalry, some basic infantry, some elite infantry, some warmachines, a monster". the armies are slowly becoming copies of each other, with the difference being they have different names for the same things. i like the fact that dwarves DON'T have fast units and skirmishers.

silashand
08-09-2009, 17:25
This is really not what should happen frequently to the masters of the runes :/

I agree. The 5th edition Anvil never blew up unless the player attempted to store the Total Power card in the thing. Why they decided to add that "feature" in 6th edition and the current book for non-Ancient power uses I don't know.

gorenut
08-09-2009, 17:39
Yea.. I thought it was strange for Dwarfs to have such an unreliable item in their list. I too think it should only be vulnerable to blowing up (or maybe just wounded) on the big bad runes. In other scenarios, it should work closer to the DE's Cauldron of Blood.



I like how it works now, my major complaint is that it blows up on a double 1, which annoys the crap out of me

It appears that I roll this result unrealistically often and nothing is more frustrating than blowing up the 315+ point general in turn two or so :(

This is really not what should happen frequently to the masters of the runes :/

Dwarfs are supposed to be reliable, its not like they would be whacky empire engeneers tinkering with forces beyond their control

(and I am not even speaking of using this ancient power rune stuff)

kdh88
08-09-2009, 17:43
The problem with the Anvil is that because it's the only spell-like power in the Dwarf arsenal, when you put it in the magic phase it becomes far too easy to dispel. This was proven categorically in the 6th edition army book when that was the mechanism used. While I think it may be more appropriate in the magic phase, from a game design standpoint it just doesn't seem to work using the existing system unless you add/modify the rules for it so that the Dwarf player who brings one actually has a chance of getting the abilities off. In that respect it almost has to work in the shooting phase and realistically, it actually does function relatively well there.

I agree that having the Anvil alone wouldn't work, which is why you'd need to give runesmiths/lords access to other bound items (iirc there's fluff precedent for this in WHFRP). You might also need to make the Anvil usable more than once a turn.



All that said, I do agree it should require LoS. I'm not bothered about not being able to dispel it since there are lots of semi-magical abilities such as the Screaming Bell, Cauldron of Blood, etc. that cannot be dispelled in the game. While some opponents may not like it, it is not unique in that regard, nor does it have to be as they would prefer.

Meh, I tend to think most of those should be dispellable as well (the ones that are kept anyway; I'm not a huge fan of GWs new buffmobile obsession).

static grass
08-09-2009, 19:31
This is my favourite topic :) Dwarfs are crippled by their movement phase. Having a poor movement phase doesn't make the dwarfs fluffy just boring. Not having Cavalry makes the dwarfs fluffy and characterful.

Every Dwarf is a link in the chainmail that makes the unit. <- The fluff. This implies the dwarfs are able to move in unison as well as being relatively flexible, this is in addition to dwarfs being tough.

I want to see:

8" charge range. - Great natural sprinters :)
Free move (6") after deployment. - Invent a fluff reason, umm, - dwarfs can march the pants off other armies. Yes they are slow but boy can they grind.
Free reforms at either start or end of movement and being able to march. Short legged never hindered discipline nor the ability to move as a unit. Regiments move according to how well they are drilled not on their leg length. Empire regiments get their detachment rule because of their drilling. Dwarf units are based on a clans and are better drilled within the unit rather than inter unit.

Could you want anything else? No runic gimmickery to achieve the above.

I have heard the the thing about the slayer skirmishers being warmachine guards. How about giving them a special rule making them hate a specific unit of your choice(?) and giving double victory points for killing it. Not all slayers need to be skirmishers - could be an upgrade.

Gyrocopter units? Nah, Give me a nice big plastic Gyrocopter kit so I can customize mine. I want gatling guns, flame guns, cannons, grenades, grape shot, giant bombs. Slayer paratroopers and anything else it can carry (under slung kitchen sink). I want it to look like the Chinook of Doom or failing that a Spectre Gunship.

I want it to look so awesome that 40k players will wet themselves and start all converted squat armies using them instead of Valks.

silashand
08-09-2009, 21:03
Gyrocopter units? Nah, Give me a nice big plastic Gyrocopter kit so I can customize mine. I want gatling guns, flame guns, cannons, grenades, grape shot, giant bombs. Slayer paratroopers and anything else it can carry (under slung kitchen sink). I want it to look like the Chinook of Doom or failing that a Spectre Gunship.

You mean like this one? ;)

http://www.bugmansbrewery.com/topic/8764-gyrocopter-variants-conversion-ideas/


I want it to look so awesome that 40k players will wet themselves and start all converted squat armies using them instead of Valks.

Would this be what you're looking for?

http://home.comcast.net/~silashand/WFB/Dwarfs/Pics/thunderer_gyro_WIP17.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~silashand/WFB/Dwarfs/Pics/thunderer_gyro_WIP18.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~silashand/WFB/Dwarfs/Pics/thunderer_gyro_WIP19.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~silashand/WFB/Dwarfs/Pics/thunderer_gyro_WIP20.JPG

Link to the thread when I built it:


http://www.bugmansbrewery.com/topic/8856-thunderer-assault-gyrocopter-conversion-wip

Condottiere
08-09-2009, 21:15
If Dwarves rest for one round (no movement or combat), they are allowed to sprint.

DDogwood
08-09-2009, 21:41
That is not really true is it? As has been said multiple times, you can play dwarfs with very little shooting support. If you take an Anvil one unit of your choice (or more) can move 12 inch per turn, which is enough to stop many outmanouvering attemts.

That doesn't change my opinion at all. The fact that you can play a non-gunline list doesn't mean that most people do, or that the army lends itself towards it. Having one special war machine that allows one unit to make an extra move (instead of using the Anvil's other cool powers!) doesn't make the army maneuverable or interesting.

At the end of the day, Dwarfs still are (and always have been) an army that works best when they take up a defensive position with lots of shooting, and wait for the enemy to come to them.

YAWN.



I fully agree that games should be about fun, which makes me wonder why you have only encountered the boring and pretty un-funny stand-and-shoot dwarfen armies when it could also be otherwise.

I've encountered non-shooty Dwarf armies, but they usually turn into gunlines when their players get frustrated by everyone else constantly out-maneuvering them.

I also disagree with the idea that armies are getting too similar to each other. In a misguided attempt to make armies "more different", GW has taken away vital aspects from almost every army. It ruins my suspension of disbelief when vampires and Chaos armies are too stupid/proud/arrogant/whatever to use ranged weapons, or that Bretonnians are the only ones who have figured out how to fight in a cavalry wedge, or that mercenaries are slowly being removed from each and every army list. The special rules bloat, which has been going on since 4th ed, continues without any logic or consistency.

Having every army bereft of a major part of the game, like cavalry, shooting, magic, or whatever, does NOT make for more interesting games. It makes for boring, one-dimensional armies that are unbalanced and prone to bad matchups.

larabic
08-09-2009, 21:53
Not according to any of the fluff or books. As for why they are the way they are now, according to some friends who helped playtest the existing book (back when they allowed external playtesting still) the reason Slayers weren't made skirmishers is that players tended not to use them in a manner that reflected their background. Instead they were used as Unbreakable war machine guards (making a ring around the machine(s) and waiting for an enemy to charge, thus keeping the machine out of combat. IMO they should have been given the Beastmen Raiders rule anyway, but also amend the Monster Hunters rule to say they move directly toward an enemy unit each turn using their maximum movement rate, preferring those with the Large Target special rule over any other options. Sure, it would need playtesting, but it would allow them to be a skirmishing formation and thus attack in whatever direction was appropriate, but also enforce the background element in that they are lone Dwarfs attempting to atone for their failures by getting killed in the most glorious manner possible. Just because the designers couldn't fix them last go around doesn't mean they *can't* be fixed. It only means they chose the simple answer of leaving them as is which unfortunately keeps them off the tabletop in most circumstances.

I don't believe this for a second, harpies often block war machines LOS by standing in front of it and blocking, like this would occur to harpy's and they would just stand around all battle instead of getting in and doing some killing. I don't buy "they did it for fluff reasons" as an excuse for anything GW does these days, it's about selling models and moving more product and not much more else IMHO.

silashand
08-09-2009, 22:28
I don't believe this for a second, harpies often block war machines LOS by standing in front of it and blocking, like this would occur to harpy's and they would just stand around all battle instead of getting in and doing some killing.

Not the same situation. Harpies aren't Unbreakable.

Condottiere
08-09-2009, 22:31
For a second I read that as Herpes.

But they're both damned annoying.

Charistoph
09-09-2009, 06:23
My thoughts for your brutal assessment:

Army: (You know something like this is going to happen) Stubborn Special Rule on all units so long as the General is on the board, switches to Hatred when the General is killed.

Slayers: Add Skirmish. Have Frenzy when seeing any large infantry or Target or Monster, and only towards those targets. If you really want to tool them up, move them up to Rares.

Rangers: Either woodsmen rule or skirmish rule. Allow more than one to be taken, but no more than Warrior units on the field.

Thunderers and Quarellers: The new fancy gunmen have reliable weapons, but the reliable crossbowmen don't? Something fishy's going on here. Amend Quarellers to include that rule, and possibly move and shoot.

Special Characters that move Hammerers and Ironbreakers, and possibly Miners, to Core. Slayers get one to move them up one slot.

Rare Infantry of some kind. This is the heavy infantry army, but all there are in Rares is War Machines.

Some sort of movement rule would be nice for them.

Freman Bloodglaive
09-09-2009, 11:04
Special rule: Dangerous over short distances. Although Dwarves have a movement stat of 3, they always add D3 inches to their range whenever they charge.

TeddyC
09-09-2009, 21:30
i dunno.... im a long time dwarf player and think the newest book adds a lot of variety when compared to previous lists.

Ive often thought slayers would be better as skirmishers though but not taking anything away from what they have now. Make smaller units more attractive as well as fluffy.

I thought hammerers should be more elite to make the hammers worth using.... or give them the option to drop the 2 handed hammers entirely.

Bring back move and fire for thunderers!

I dont think they need anything particularly fast but what you could see was something along the lines of a custom war machine.... e.g. pick base (Cannon/bolt thrower/stone thrower) pick secondary function (e.g. army standard/moving mount), pick extras (e.g. close combat attacks/move and fire capability). something only available with an engineer hero model. represents mad experimental weapon.

you could end up with some steam punk dreadnoughts or a massive mortar or whatever. ive not given it much thought

dwarfhold13
09-09-2009, 21:42
i think the what the dwarfs have is great.. just overpriced. all they really need to do is drop the price of add on's, such as runic weapons and banners and stuff like that. although the idea of skirmishing slayers sounds like it would fit the fluff more... it doesn't seem like you would be able to keep a bunch of blood thirsty crazies ranked up and marching into battle!

maze ironheart
10-09-2009, 08:53
No, I don't think Dwarfs need any more units or newfangled things that move fast or are weird monsters. As far as I'm concerned the changes made to Dwarfs from 6th to 7th edition were exactly how Army Book updates should be made; take what isn't quite up to snuff or what several years of non-GW playtesting (i.e. several years of you and I playing outside of the studio against other real players) has revealed to be a major flaw, and tweak it. Compare the 6th and 7th Dwarf book and you'll find only one radical change, which is the Anvil of Doom (and a definite improvement it was, Thorek notwithstanding).

The 'top tier' level armies don't accurately reveal deficiencies in the Dwarf army either if you ask me (these books are the ones that need to be errata'd first imo), and Dwarfs still get along just fine in my eyes. There are obviously some things that can be improved (bring Foresters back!) and some new additions that can be made (AoD-specific runes!) but the Dwarf book doesn't require radical changes or total makeovers like some books do.

I aggree the only thing they need is a point reduction on a few things.

Keller
10-09-2009, 13:49
By and large, I am happy with the Dwarves as they are. I would only suggest a few things for them, all of which have already been suggested.

Rangers: Need some sort of terrain rules, either Woodsmen, Skirmishers, or something else. Also, the option to take more than 1 unit would be great, perhaps limited by warrior units or characters w/ Rune of Brotherhood.

Slayers: skrimishers perhaps, but should get incentive to fight monsters more. They die far too easily against anything above S3, and their low I usually leaves them dead at the monsters' feet before they can do any damage.

Movement: Dwarves need some movement boost to threaten enemy with charges, just to keep the game interesting. Either a blanket rule boosting charge range, or access to runic items/banners with provide said bonus.

New unit: Dwarven Airship. Akin to the Gyrocoptor, but slower, better shooting attacks and a bombing option. Perhaps a 10" fly, crewed by several dwarves w/ handguns, a steam gun, and bomb it can drop on units it passes over. High T and/or AS.

Condottiere
10-09-2009, 13:59
What you want is the war balloon. Though I thought they had a zeppelin somewhere.

grumbaki
10-09-2009, 16:39
Magic!

Ok, I said it. But bear with me. Really...

Right now Runesmiths are like Empire warrior priests, only they can take dispel scrolls and don't get bound spells. So how about this...runesmiths have runic options only open to them. This allows them to cast bound spells through the runes.

Runesmith: 70pts (same stats, still generates 1 dispel die)
Rune of Grimnir: 30pts
Power level 5. Range 24'', d6 str 3 hits with no armor saves allowed,. str 4 against greenskins and skaven.

Rune of Vallaya: 30pts
Power level 5. All mages (even friendly mages) within 24'' generate 1 less Power Die. They may still cast spells as normal. The runesmith gains 1 (only 1) Dispel Die.

Rune of Grungni: 30pts?
Power level 5?. Range 12''. Effects one unit, the unit may make one charge/move action in the magic phase.

Anvil: Only takes up 1 lord choice. Knows all 3 runes and has no range limit on them or line of sight requirements and power level 8. May use 1 rune per turn. All other anvil rules stay the same (2dd, guards, unbreakable, may not move). Not as powerful as it is now but it won't blow up for fail. It seems more dwarven to me this way. Plus enemies can dispel it, so everyone should be happy.

This gives us a dwarf magic phase that is lighter than what other armies can bring to the table, but it still makes them take magic defense. It also gives us something to do. A 2k dwarf 'magic heavy' list would look like this: 4 bound spells a turn. If the bound spells are all around power level 5 then most armies could shut down most of it but some will sneak through, especially with an anvil that has higher casting values and one higher power shot a game. And because they are bound spells it fits in the dwarf line of thinking of magic, as they don't throw it around like men or elves. In a way it acts like a tomb king magic phase, just less random (no d6/2d6 for power levels).

Not only that but this gives dwarfs the option for more mobility through their runesmiths. It also makes a dwarf player think carefully about their hero choices and how many runes you want to give the runesmiths. With 75pts of runes do you go for protection in combat? Dispel Scrolls (runes of spell breaking) or bound spells?

I personally think that this will open up two phases for us dwarf players. We will get the magic phase and movement phase back. Gone will be the days of moving up to 8'' away from a dwarf block and feeling secure, even in 1k point games.

Sorry for the long post, I just like the idea.

Emeraldw
10-09-2009, 19:08
It isn't a terrible Idea Grumbaki. Runes are by no means new and the Anvil already pretty much does that only in the shooting phase. Putting the anvil on the magic phase would a good way to add "magic" to the Dwarf list.

I like the idea of stubborn on Dwarves, but you can't have them stubborn across the board on Ld9. I personally like the idea of making the army Stubborn Ld 6 for the rule. They are still ld 9, but if you lose badly, you never get a ld test (other than fear causers) lower than a 6. Just a thought really.

Urgat
10-09-2009, 19:27
What you want is the war balloon. Though I thought they had a zeppelin somewhere.

They have both, at least they had balloons in man o war, and zeps and airships in warmaster (according to FW at least).

lcfr
10-09-2009, 19:40
I like the idea of stubborn on Dwarves, but you can't have them stubborn across the board on Ld9. I personally like the idea of making the army Stubborn Ld 6 for the rule. They are still ld 9, but if you lose badly, you never get a ld test (other than fear causers) lower than a 6. Just a thought really.

This is a slippery slope, though, in my mind. Instead of balancing armies viewed as overpowered GW would be giving a boost to already balanced armies; being hit in the front by the enemy and then in the flank by elite cavalry is often and should remain a backbreaking maneuvre, giving an army rules to help counter all the ways its units can be horribly beaten in combat is messing with the game's fundamental dynamics.

Emeraldw
10-09-2009, 19:50
This is a slippery slope, though, in my mind. Instead of balancing armies viewed as overpowered GW would be giving a boost to already balanced armies; being hit in the front by the enemy and then in the flank by elite cavalry is often and should remain a backbreaking maneuver, giving an army rules to help counter all the ways its units can be horribly beaten in combat is messing with the game's fundamental dynamics.

True, but *looks at daemons and Vampire Counts and sighs*

I agree with you, but those things exist already. Plus, ld 5 or 6 is still quite low but it was just an idea.

Dwarves are however going to be the ones getting flanked as their movement is terrible and should remain so. Their toughness and hardiness is already being represented by their defensive stats and base ld 9. This is simply another example. Besides, even if they do hold in the situation you describe, it is unlikely they will win combat next round in the same situation.

Keller
10-09-2009, 20:38
True, but *looks at daemons and Vampire Counts and sighs*

I agree with you, but those things exist already. Plus, ld 5 or 6 is still quite low but it was just an idea.

Dwarves are however going to be the ones getting flanked as their movement is terrible and should remain so. Their toughness and hardiness is already being represented by their defensive stats and base ld 9. This is simply another example. Besides, even if they do hold in the situation you describe, it is unlikely they will win combat next round in the same situation.

Eh, Dwarves already can get some great bonuses to help them when they lose combat. Runes for +1 CR, test on 1 die, and the 4+ roll for stubborn runes all help make sure they can take even a massive combat loss much better than most races. Of course, normal Warriors and such with no access to runic-standards aren't so lucky...

lcfr
10-09-2009, 21:14
True, but *looks at daemons and Vampire Counts and sighs*

I agree with you, but those things exist already. Plus, ld 5 or 6 is still quite low but it was just an idea.

Yeah, I know...it can be really frustrating against certain opponents, but I still don't think this is the answer. WoC and Lizzies came out after VC and DE and seem pretty well-rounded, so at least we're not seeing a terrible trend in high-power armies. Hopefully some mistakes will be rectified and more care will be taken next edition with how the books are written.


Dwarves are however going to be the ones getting flanked as their movement is terrible and should remain so. Their toughness and hardiness is already being represented by their defensive stats and base ld 9. This is simply another example. Besides, even if they do hold in the situation you describe, it is unlikely they will win combat next round in the same situation.

Personally, I feel that the 7th ed. designers knew this and created the Oath stone ias the answer to this. It's balanced, well-priced, and gives excellent benefits when we're willing to use it (and it seems a lot of Dwarf players don't for whatever reason). This is a case where a specific item accessible to Dwarf characters only can not so much change the game's dynamics by adding excessive special rules but by giving particular benefits balanced by costs and the disadvantage of not being able to move.

Entropolus
10-09-2009, 23:56
My 2 cents:

Ditto what everyone has said about rangers (i would prefer skirmish over bringing back to forester rule, with a capped unit size of 12)

Give miners deployment/arrival similar to tomb scorpions and tunnelers; cap unit size at 12.

Give Hammerers 2 attacks, but make the hammers count as halberds.

Make Slayers skirmishers, provide a ward save upgrade option, and require movement towards enemy units, but not necessarily the closest. (why would they move towards a skink unit just because they were an inch closer than a stegadon?)

Add a list of runic tattoos that slayer characters can take.

Move the anvil to magic phase, and have it generate power die equal to the dispel dice generated by the opposing army, or one for each power die used by the opposing army in the previous turn (as is binds the winds of magic flowing on the battlefield or something along that line of thought). Make the spells cast like the orge kingdom magic, 3+ to cast the first time, 6+, 9+ on subsequent casts of the same spell. Possibly include a anvil specific miscast table. (Mind you this is just something that I came up with in the last 20 minutes.)

silashand
11-09-2009, 07:17
Personally, I feel that the 7th ed. designers knew this and created the Oath stone ias the answer to this. It's balanced, well-priced, and gives excellent benefits when we're willing to use it (and it seems a lot of Dwarf players don't for whatever reason).

The primary reasons few players use an Oathstone are:

1. the limitations on the character moving within the unit may be fine as per the fluff, but if you get hit from the flank/rear the character stays out of combat completely, making probably your main combat character in the unit essentially useless. It's supposed to represent him standing in the middle of the unit where the enemy can reach him, but the static formations used in WFB don't support the enemy ever getting to him to fight as per the rules. In short, unless you get attacked from the front it's worthless.

2. Once you have defeated your enemy there is no rule for picking up the stone and moving on to other combats. So if you fight in one location and win, either breaking or destroying your enemy, you effectively take the unit/character out of the battle for the rest of the game.

The combination of the above two issues with the Oathstone make it *very* unappealing to most long-time Dwarf players I've spoken to (including myself). Very cool fluff idea, but horrible implementation and now that I think about it, this is probably a "must fix" item for the next book IMO.

Doyl
11-09-2009, 08:38
...
1. the limitations on the character moving within the unit may be fine as per the fluff, but if you get hit from the flank/rear the character stays out of combat completely, making probably your main combat character in the unit essentially useless...


I have used an oathstone character in units guarding my flanks and typically place the them on the front flank-corner of the unit to avoid this problem. If that unit is getting hit from the rear or other side then odds are the enemy unit already went through the other combat units and you're not in very good shape by that point, or that unit is badly out of position.

In general, I agree with the sentiment that Dwarfs could use some sort of a boost to the movement beyond strollaz or the anvil either as an army-wide charge bonus or through further use of banner/talisman runes. Slayers as skirmishers along with some rule to represent their unique 'talent', such as getting their attacks for a round even if killed at a higher initiative, would make them both fluffier and more functional. Rangers NEED to be skirmishers or have some specific special rule allowing them to ignore terrain, as it stands they need help. Making numerous bound spells/runes and turning the AoD into a magic phase item could open up yet another phase for the army, but would have to be very carefully done feel appropriate in gameplay and I would be hesitant to agree with this change.

Condottiere
11-09-2009, 09:20
It seems that Dwarves are gregarious, and seem reluctant to leave the company of their fellows. Might be a psychological characteristic that's inherent, with few exceptions.

static grass
11-09-2009, 23:54
Eh, Dwarves already can get some great bonuses to help them when they lose combat. Runes for +1 CR, test on 1 die, and the 4+ roll for stubborn runes all help make sure they can take even a massive combat loss much better than most races. Of course, normal Warriors and such with no access to runic-standards aren't so lucky...

Fear trumps everything.

GodSlayer
12-09-2009, 03:20
Fear trumps everything.

Yet, there's a Rune of Courage, Rune of Lords and/or Royal Blood.
But I admit it's not a failsafe...

TeddyC
12-09-2009, 09:36
Yet, there's a Rune of Courage, Rune of Lords and/or Royal Blood.
But I admit it's not a failsafe...


but nothing... other than fear or Immune to psychology is against fear causers

lcfr
12-09-2009, 15:34
but nothing... other than fear or Immune to psychology is against fear causers

Not sure I understand this...what's wrong w/just being immune to Fear?

Lijacote
12-09-2009, 15:53
but nothing... other than fear or Immune to psychology is against fear causers

Numerical advantage, actually beating fear-causers in combat... ? Unbreakable?

Ozorik
12-09-2009, 17:47
Forcing Slayers to move forward will simply mean that they never get used in anything other than a fully offensive Dwarf army and probably not even then as it would be too easy to draw them out of position. It may be fluffy but its not a good idea game wise. Losing VPs if they are still on the table at the end of the game should do well enough IMO.

Using up your only unit of slayers (and 110+ points) to protect 1 or 2 warmachines from skirmishers and light cavalry doesn't seem that good an idea to me.

As for fear I would like fear causers to outnumber dwarfs 2:1 in order for them to autobreak. This would fit the fluff better while still allowing VC players the ability to clear Dwarf blocks.

Urgat
12-09-2009, 19:35
As for fear I would like fear causers to outnumber dwarfs 2:1 in order for them to autobreak. This would fit the fluff better while still allowing VC players the ability to clear Dwarf blocks.

Yeah, well that should be true for everybody, not just dwarfs.

Ozorik
12-09-2009, 22:14
I don't have a problem with other races, its quite a nice mechanic, but it doesn't sit well with Dwarven stoicism IMO.

Condottiere
12-09-2009, 22:52
Making units unbreakable or stubborn by default tends to unbalance the game, especially when combined with high AS and Toughness.

Maybe they can re-roll psychological tests.

Gadhrain
13-09-2009, 03:56
Just my 5 cents :)

Simple fix:

Add +1" to any move not triggering the relentless rule.
=>This way advancing dwarfs potentially "hit" the opponents deployment zone turn 4 just like M4 troops.

Make slayers skirmishers and cap them at 10. For every slayer character present one unit of slayers can be taken as core (not counting for the obligatory 3 core, unless army is lead by a deamon slayer) and size cap changed to 25. Units bigger then 10 may not skirmish.
=> This way one can take a slayer army which is cool :D but more importantly is gives flank protection to an advancing army.

And some obvious stuff:
- Give move through woods to rangers.
- lower long beard cost.
- Make the bloody anvil work in the magic phase (!).

There are more details needing a fix but I wont rant on :p

/Rob

silashand
13-09-2009, 04:50
Making units unbreakable or stubborn by default tends to unbalance the game, especially when combined with high AS and Toughness.

You mean like combining high WS with army-wide ASF? Nah... say it isn't so ;)

EC15
13-09-2009, 05:19
Making the army stubborn would be just as bad, if not worse than the whole deamon book and personally I like to be able to play my dwarves with a bit of dignity. Ld 9 counts for a lot and easy access to banner runes like courage and stocism trivializes fear and terror for us.

Army wide rules should work right into the character of the army, the brettonian's blessing is a great example of an army wide rule done well. It is useful, limited, not overpowering, works with magic items, and fits perfectly with the fluff.

While I think the dwarves have every reason to hate greenskins, giving the army a distinct advantage over the greenskins is a bit broken and one sided (HE and DE balance it by each getting a bonus against the other). I would love to see something like a "book of grudes" item that gives a character hatred against all foes (it is odd that only special characters make use of one of the core bits of dwarf fluff).

The Dwarf army generally does pretty well with unit level special rules and as long as the next book does a good job making all the units worthwhile to take and not OP in comparison to other books I'll be happy

silashand
13-09-2009, 06:29
A non-special character Book of Grudges would be a good addition to the army I think since every Dwarf hold has one, and clans, families and even individual Dwarfs often do as well. It's also why I think they should bring back the generic version of the Throne of Power since all the larger holds have one as well, they just aren't as powerful or impressive as the one ridden by the High King.

As for hatred, I have always felt the Dwarfs should hate Skaven as well as greenskins since they both played an equal part in the downfall of the Dwarf's golden age. I don't think the Ancestral Grudge rule unbalances the Dawi vs the greenskins either since the Greenies have a higher movement rate and will undoubtedly be the ones to get the charge in and thus strike first.

JMO though...

Condottiere
13-09-2009, 06:52
Maybe there should be a chart which shows which armies hate each other.

Charistoph
13-09-2009, 06:54
Making units unbreakable or stubborn by default tends to unbalance the game, especially when combined with high AS and Toughness.

Maybe they can re-roll psychological tests.

How is army-wide Stubborn any more broken than rerolling all your panic tests (WoC) or Hatred (DE)? It actually makes more sense for ANY army in Warhammer to be universally Stubborn is Dwarfs. It even works better for them being the most defensive army in the game. Unbreakable might be a bit much to put in, but if there is any army that would be capable of it, and wasn't supernaturally made that way (Daemons, Undead), it WOULD be the Dwarfs. Personally, I don't advocate them being Unbreakable, but they darn near would be if they were Stubborn at their Ld.

I know it may not be the most balanced, but since the High Elves got ASF on everyone, balance has kind of taken a small back burner...

Charistoph
13-09-2009, 06:55
Maybe there should be a chart which shows which armies hate each other.

Add fear to that chart while you're at it. Empire militia would show F on almost everything.

Condottiere
13-09-2009, 07:02
How is army-wide Stubborn any more broken than rerolling all your panic tests (WoC) or Hatred (DE)? It actually makes more sense for ANY army in Warhammer to be universally Stubborn is Dwarfs. It even works better for them being the most defensive army in the game. Unbreakable might be a bit much to put in, but if there is any army that would be capable of it, and wasn't supernaturally made that way (Daemons, Undead), it WOULD be the Dwarfs. Personally, I don't advocate them being Unbreakable, but they darn near would be if they were Stubborn at their Ld.

I know it may not be the most balanced, but since the High Elves got ASF on everyone, balance has kind of taken a small back burner...Re-rolling psychological tests still leaves the possibility that the unit can be broken in
close combat, rather than leaving it at 9 or 10.

EC15
13-09-2009, 08:36
Though hatred and ASF are powerful, army wide stubborn dwarves would break the game. Dwarf blocks are pretty tough as it is, forcing opponents to hack their way through every unit with little chance to break them would make us unbeatable.

The reason the elves got those rules in the first place is that their high initiative values don't serve them as well as they should (fixable by changing the charge rules). While I agree that those rules certainly take away from the game, how would breaking it further help anything>

maze ironheart
13-09-2009, 08:51
Their are still people that wine about dwarfs being able to march even when march blocked so stubborn would turn it into another witch hunt for another warhammer army.

WLBjork
13-09-2009, 09:35
- Make the bloody anvil work in the magic phase (!).


The anvil is so much better now it isn't used in the magic phase.

As it's impossible to scale the anvil, it was only useful in small-meduim (2000-3000pt) games. In bigger games (and against small, magic-heavy armies) it was too easy to shut down, whereas it's current incarnation makes it useful at all levels.

Leogun_91
13-09-2009, 09:50
While I think the dwarves have every reason to hate greenskins, giving the army a distinct advantage over the greenskins is a bit broken and one sided (HE and DE balance it by each getting a bonus against the other). I would love to see something like a "book of grudes" item that gives a character hatred against all foes (it is odd that only special characters make use of one of the core bits of dwarf fluff).It is not an advantage for the dwarfs to hate greenskins, they are extremely easy to bait when hating the foe and the dwarfs units are important enough for a single one beeing in the wrong possition being able to ruin everything, and that happends alot when you must pursue.

How is army-wide Stubborn any more broken than rerolling all your panic tests (WoC) or Hatred (DE)? It actually makes more sense for ANY army in Warhammer to be universally Stubborn is Dwarfs.Well Hatered against all is a doubleedged sword although it gives a good advantage and the WoC bit just helps them against heavy shooting which they need as they have no shooting of their own and is also not that big of a boost. While Stubborn would fit the fluff it would be very, very powerfull, yes more so than ASF for HE or Daemonic instability. Stubborn could be good for them but it would be hard to balance and make fun.

Dodgy Ed
13-09-2009, 11:34
How is army-wide Stubborn any more broken than rerolling all your panic tests (WoC) or Hatred (DE)? It actually makes more sense for ANY army in Warhammer to be universally Stubborn is Dwarfs.



Also the problem is stubborn dwarfs doesn't help them where it's needed; it buffs them against units where they should already do well and doesn't help vs fear.

To re iterate fear is one of the main problems with dwarves, especially vs undead where it is so easy for them to outnumber dwarfs. Point for point the dwarfs need to put at least one and more likely two more wounds on an undead unit just to tie combat, if they don't the much vaunted stubborn troops will still be still breaking on anything but a double one.

Maths hammer; spoilered so as not to clutter up the thread.


Equal points of skeles vs warriors (200 ish in this case) results in a tie which will eventually favour the undead.20 warriors with hvy armour full and full command (205) vs 23 skeles full cmd (204) and assuming skeles charge

On average:
skeles cause 1/3 a wound to dwarfs
and
dwarfs cause 1 wound in return
Leaving the combat tied (dwarfs up by a kill and undead outnumbering.

The problem is the undead only need to put a single kill on the dwarfs to beat them and leave them having to roll double one to stay, stubborn won't help here.

Sylass
13-09-2009, 20:36
Dwarfs:
All Dwarf units are stubborn (exception: Gyrocopter).
Fear causing enemies can only autobreak a Dwarf unit if they outnumber them at least 2:1 (exception: Gyrocopter).

Problem solved. ;)

However, I fear Dwarf units will never see close combat again then...who'd want to fight against a whole army of skilled, tough, highly armoured, stubborn units featuring an average LD of 9?

silashand
13-09-2009, 21:25
who'd want to fight against a whole army of skilled, tough, highly armoured, stubborn units featuring an average LD of 9?

Who'd want to fight against a whole army of skilled, strong, essentially unbreakable units who are immune to psychology, cause fear, have magical attacks and a built in ward save? ;)

Oh, sorry. We were discussing Dwarfs, not Daemons... :D

Grom Wronghand
13-09-2009, 22:16
I don't think Dwarfs need army wide stubborn and I'm a little puzzled as to why it was suggested. The only thing i'd sugegst in that department would be being able to re-roll all psychology tests except break tests, making them much less likely to flee from panic. Having my full unit of ironbreakers flee off the field the other day because a unit of 10 thunderers were wiped out by fanatics I thought would be rather strange for dwarfs. the 2:1 fear outnumbering thing sounds good to me.

Flash Felix
14-09-2009, 02:52
I agree, Dwarfs don't need army-wide stubborn. You could get something similar by making one or two runes slightly cheaper (RoCourage, 25 points, not 30), and allowing core Dwarf units to take 25 point runic standards. They get the benefit, but they're paying for it. In reality this means Warriors, as Longbeards already have runes, and the missile troops won't take standards (easy VPs)

Other suggestions;

1. Dwarfs have the ability to set up obstacles, similar to Bretonian archer stakes. In the same way that Bretonians can forsake going first for their ward, if a Dwarf player volunteers to go second, they can create obstacles across their deployment zone. Worried about your flank in the face of cavalry? Put some obstacles in the way to slow and/or channel movement. This is how I'd see a race of engineering heavy infantry with war machines and no cavalry, adapting to face Chaos Knights and Dragon Princes.
2. Throwing axes for units, say 10pt for a unit to be equipped. It's only 5 shots to the front, though a Large Target might be getting 20 or so (which is good; too many damn Dragons and Daemons in this game). Maybe 15-20 points.
3. Slayers to have a 5+ ward save vs missiles, so that you're tempted to actually send them into battle. Grimnir wants them to die on a blade, not pincushioned 100 yards short.
4. MRoChallenge affects ItP troops, particularly Khornate ones. I really can't see Khorne the Mighty letting his Bloodthirster back down from a Dwarf Lord, just so he can kill some Thunderers. Who's got the worthiest skull.....?
5. A cheap anti-flyer engineering rune. Turn your Bolt Thrower into an anti-aircraft gun. If can be done now, but is far too expensive for a one off shot. Again, this is how a race of engineers with war machines would deal with Wyverns, Dragons and Bloodthirsters (all of whom are ancient race enemies.).
6. Champions can take 25pts worth of Runes. It'd be nice to have a Longbeard champ with wither S5 or ASF on his axe. Maybe the RoStone too.

kdh88
14-09-2009, 04:39
I don't think Dwarfs need army wide stubborn and I'm a little puzzled as to why it was suggested.

I think it's easy enough to see why; "stubborn" is one of the most used descriptions for dwarfs, along with "miners" and "acoholics". Being desribed as stubborn while not getting the stubborn rule is rather unsatisfying, even if the rule doesn't actually work in the context of the army. Fixing that involves either changing the name so you can give dwarfs a "Stubborn" special rule or changing the "Stubborn" special rule to work differently (which is really six of one, half a dozen of the other).

Emeraldw
14-09-2009, 04:59
My original suggest of Stubborn was not at base ld. That would be overpowering against armies that don't have a lot of fear. It would cause Brets to be impossible to use against dwarves.

I suggested the idea of a lower level Stubborn so that they never have to roll snake eyes from loses in combat. For example, if you lost by 5, that is ld 4, I suggest ld 6 at minimum. Of course, this presents the same possible issue with Brets and others as there is still a chance for your charge to fail horribly and even against Undead and deamons, they do lose a lot when they get mutilated, Daemons are just awesome and Undead can come back.

sulla
14-09-2009, 05:30
My original suggest of Stubborn was not at base ld. That would be overpowering against armies that don't have a lot of fear. It would cause Brets to be impossible to use against dwarves.
My problem with stubborn as an army wide rule for Dwarves (even a weakened version as you suggest), is that it essentially boosts gunline dwarves more than it boosts combat block dwarves. There are enough runes to make the combat stuff reliable even if only for a turn but we don't want to be making 10's of thunderers too reliable in combat do we?

I say fix the basic rules which make ranked infantry a liability in warhammer 7th ed and Dwarves instantly become more viable as a combat force. Reduce the power of fear causers who outnumber by an insignificant number (less than 2:1), reduce the power of cav to break ranks, reduce the power of large flyers to break ranks and Dwarven blocks are much better already.

soots
14-09-2009, 06:10
Im going to be upfront about this. And a lot of people will disagree with me here.

Dwarves need to be Movement 4.

Theyre not that slow, they march faster than halflings and goblins. And Movement 3 only does one thing and thats force them to play the boring gunlines.

With Mv3, its 5th turn into combat against an army thats playing gunline, thats just not on.

Condottiere
14-09-2009, 07:25
We start adjusting the movement rates, we'll also have to bring back the heavy armour penalty.

silashand
14-09-2009, 07:29
I think it's easy enough to see why; "stubborn" is one of the most used descriptions for dwarfs, along with "miners" and "acoholics".

Which reminds me, I want the old rules for Dwarf drunks to be brought back. Heck, if they did that I'd do a whole army of them... :D


We start adjusting the movement rates, we'll also have to bring back the heavy armour penalty.

No, they just need to bring it back period. That's the whole problem - they removed the penalty, but didn't compensate the Dwarfs who were immune to the effect anyway. Relentless doesn't help because losing the penalty actually made other armies faster. All Relentless did was make Dwarfs a bit more mobile, but did not compensate for the fact that their base/max movement rate did not change to match the other races.

Keller
14-09-2009, 14:40
I really don't like the idea of army-wide stubborn. Special rules like this really make the game dull, taking much of the tactical challenge out of playing. With such powerful rules, it doesn't make one think and have to play well to be rewarded. Just like the HE ASF, suddenly movement doesn't matter much anymore; why worry about getting charged when you still strike first? Just run out there and stop 2" short of them....

I still say just some movement options to make Dwarves threaten charges more often would go a long way. Runic standards and talismans that add +D3" (even at 1 use only).



Add fear to that chart while you're at it. Empire militia would show F on almost everything. Nonsense! Empire militia are not cowardly whelps like Bretonian Men at Arms! They are the blood-thirsty, ill disciplined brawlers and mercenaries of the Empire, ready to tackle anything.

Charistoph
15-09-2009, 01:44
Nonsense! Empire militia are not cowardly whelps like Bretonian Men at Arms! They are the blood-thirsty, ill disciplined brawlers and mercenaries of the Empire, ready to tackle anything.

Militia represents a wide selection of peoples from the Empire, from the brawler to the farmer with his pitchfork. These also tend to be the most uneducated and superstitious of the Empire. True, they don't quite match the level of dessication that the peasants of Bretonnia meet, but we're still not talking about soldiers trained to the level of the Halberdiers.

Back to the Dwarfs, I merely suggested the army-wide Stubborn as a previous posted mentioned, it fits the fluff. There is going to be at least one or two army-wide rules, let's at least let them fit! If I wanted to be a real terror it would be:

<sarcasm>
Dwarf Stoicism: Dwarfs reroll all LD tests, Break, Panic, Fear, everything. They always take it on their base leadership, or the General's if in range. In addition, any Dwarf in heavy or Gromril armor does not count as having a facing of it's block, meaning no bonuses gained by the enemy for attacking the rear or the flanks. Also, Dwarf ranks maintain cohesion amidst battle, and do not lose their rank bonus when attacked in the flank.
</sarcasm>

Stubborn looks better all the time...

Ozorik
15-09-2009, 03:12
Dwarf in heavy or Gromril armor does not count as having a facing of it's block, meaning no bonuses gained by the enemy for attacking the rear or the flanks. Also, Dwarf ranks maintain cohesion amidst battle, and do not lose their rank bonus when attacked in the flank.


Thats a really bad idea, and it would make Dwarves extremely hard for some armies to break given the resilience of Dwarven infantry. Empire players may as well pack up and go home for instance.

Its also not needed.

Army wide stubborn is also a bad idea, psychology re-rolls are fine but universal stubborn is a step too far. Look at the slayer list for example, an army of unbreakable infantry is about as fun to play as watching paint dry, your suggestion is mearly a lesser version.

Power creep destroys games, don't nurture it.

Militia are mostly mercenaries (hence the WS3), they have at least some idea of what they are getting in to.

Condottiere
15-09-2009, 06:18
Militia represents a wide selection of peoples from the Empire, from the brawler to the farmer with his pitchfork. These also tend to be the most uneducated and superstitious of the Empire. True, they don't quite match the level of dessication that the peasants of Bretonnia meet, but we're still not talking about soldiers trained to the level of the Halberdiers.

Militia is a pre-selected group from a locality that has had some training, usually together.

Levies tended to be enforced conscription, whether trained or not.

shabbadoo
15-09-2009, 06:56
Giant wooden badger. Er...giant metal "Battle Badger". Steam-powered(of course).

No, I don't think Dwarfs need anything.

Sylass
15-09-2009, 19:31
A few ideas to boost the usage of double handed weapons (when was the last time time you saw these used instead of the precious extra save from hw&s?) and help reducing casualities when flanked (happens quite often if you are a M3 Dwarf):

Hand weapons:
a) Dwarfs armed with hand weapon & shield are always able to claim the hw&s armour save bonus, not only if they are fighting to the front.

Double handed weapons:
idea a) Dwarfs armed with double handed weapons may use them in a defensive way claiming +1 S only, but fighting in initiative order instead of striking last. (Aggressive way: current rules for dhw)

idea b) Dwarfs armed with double handed weapons may use them in a defensive way claiming +1 S only, but receiving an extra +1 armour save (using the shaft to parry). (Aggressive way: current rules for dhw)

-> Choose one way to fight at start of hth phase.

c) Dwarfs armed with double handed weapons always fight in I order (except when charging, normal charging rules apply then).

Beardlings:
new troop choice, WS3, LD8, light armour + shield, spears.

Condottiere
15-09-2009, 19:36
I know that High Elves train their cadets before assigning them to archer units, and I assumed the Dwarves did the same.

Coragus
17-09-2009, 15:41
I play Dwarfs. Have for years, although I've taken the last year off. I'm getting back to them.

I'd like to see something mimicing the Ogre Hunter. Think of a Dwarf Hunter with a unit of 5 hunting hounds, fast cav. The command could be, "Release the hounds!" Give him some kind of souped up hunting rifle, make him a loner, and you're there. A unit that can protect the exposed flank in your refused flank castle setup.

Ozorik
17-09-2009, 15:53
Double handed weapons:
idea a) Dwarfs armed with double handed weapons may use them in a defensive way claiming +1 S only, but fighting in initiative order instead of striking last. (Aggressive way: current rules for dhw)

idea b) Dwarfs armed with double handed weapons may use them in a defensive way claiming +1 S only, but receiving an extra +1 armour save (using the shaft to parry). (Aggressive way: current rules for dhw)

-> Choose one way to fight at start of hth phase.


Thats a really good idea. Hammerers should certainly get something like this.

I actually use GW warriors :)

I'm not in favour of reducing the effectiveness of being flanked. Its the achilles heel of Dwarves, and given that Dwarven infantry are extremely durable there needs to be a way of countering them.