PDA

View Full Version : New Dwarfs All Bonuses?



DarkTerror
26-01-2006, 10:14
I was just listening to the changes to the dwarfs in the new book (I don't have the book, just hearing second-hand), and for all I can tell they just made the dwarfs better! The dwarfs were already one of the better armies, then they decided to make the units which weren't already great into wonderful choices?

Please tell me I'm wrong. If they simply took the old dwarfs and made the not-so-powerful into powerful units, I don't know what to say. I'll probably look at every dwarf player as a sellout.

I think I've already heard what they've done to make them better (and lots of it). Please tell me what I haven't heard about making them worse.

Avian
26-01-2006, 10:23
Well, some units got cheaper and some units got better and a few got cheaper and better.

However, the things the got cheaper were generally the ones that were overpriced and never used and some of the ways that things get better doesn't matter all that much, so the end result isn't so bad (apart from the Anvil). And of course, advantages (generally) have a price, so while you can have cannons that do D6 wounds instead of D3, you are paying 70+ pts and a Hero choice for the privilege. Or you can have Miners re-roll the dice for when they show up, but it is nowhere near cheap.

I think what they really succeeded in, is to make sure you had a lot of tough choices to make and that nothing is exceedingly good or exceedingly bad. Some flexibility is definitely taken out of the list (thunderers can't move and fire, warriors have to take heavy armour, etc.), but over all there are more viable choices than there were.

Morph
26-01-2006, 11:08
Dwarfs certainly weren't one of the better armies before hand, trust me, I have a lot of frustrating experience with playing them. (Until I gave up and went on to more interesting armies).

Having read through the book the changes are mostly fair and characterful. A lot of underused units have been given a boost. But everything seems to be at a fair price, nothing seems particularly undercosted.

The most pleasing change is that they've encouraged armies that aren't the boring gunline (which is what put me off Dwarfs in the end). A number of runes and rules encourage movement, making it possible to build an army that isn't about standing still and shooting. It's encouraged me to go back to my Dwarfs and try out new and interesting tactics, which is definitely a good thing.

Gorbad Ironclaw
26-01-2006, 11:23
The dwarfs were already one of the better armies


Oh, really? I thought Dwarfs were consider one of the underpowered armies and generally not all that good.

From what I have seen it seems the changes give them a fair chance of competing now. But nothing more than that.

Borthcollective
26-01-2006, 13:32
Please tell me I'm wrong. If they simply took the old dwarfs and made the not-so-powerful into powerful units, I don't know what to say. I'll probably look at every dwarf player as a sellout.


Read the book before you start making statements like that.

What makes any army powerful is it's commander, there are very few (cheese) lists in this game that a bad general can play vs a great general playing a mediocre army and come out on top.

Jim Reaper
26-01-2006, 13:38
If you look at it, the improved things are almost entirely things that were rarely taken in the old book.


Longbeards
Anvil of Doom
Organ Gun
(Master) Engineers


The other things that have been added are either for coolness (eg. Shieldbearers), appropriate backgroundness (compulsory heavy armour on Warriors) or in order to offer new play style possibilities (the movement runes, the removal of 0-1 restriction on Miners, etc).

And yes, there are one or two things that have got worse - Thunderers can no longer move or shoot, Miners have gone Special, and the Master Rune of Groth One-Eye (which I must confess I nearly always took) along with a few others have been removed.

Crazy Harborc
26-01-2006, 16:01
We who don't have the new armybook await it. My worthy older old fart opponent who does, is reading and learning.

IMHO, the 6th Edition version was/is a good army. Several opponents were surprised that I play(ed) them as an aggressive army.

Here's hoping the Anvil is now worth the money and game points.

Why lament Thunderers now being no better than other handgunners? They can still have armour and shields can't they??

Arnizipal
26-01-2006, 16:50
Here's hoping the Anvil is now worth the money and game points.

Having recently been on the receiving end of one I can confirm it's a nasty piece of work.

The anvil's Rune of Duty and Honour (free movement in the shooting phase for one unit) combined with Strollaz Master Rune (entire army gets a free move at the start of the battle) and two units of miners (one with a Dwarf Lord) showing up in the rear of my army on turn two hurt like hell.

The fact that you can't dispel runes from the anvil anymore makes it really annoying. Dwarf have never been faster than with the current rules...

Fredrik
26-01-2006, 21:52
Have only browsed the book but have looked at the anvil more closely, some really nasty stuff on it you sure as h***donīt want to let much of that magic get through.

orangesm
26-01-2006, 22:03
Actually while the Thunders may no longer be able to move and shoot they get a +1 no matter the range, this means that the Dwarf Thunders are hitting on 4s at long range and 3s at short range - I think that is worth it.

I general I am happy with the new list. I have played Dwarfs since 5th Ed and they are a difficult army to play and win with. The previous list did tend towards artillery based armies, this made it nearly impossible for the Dwarf player to take ground. In some sceniros you literatily could just shake your opponents hand before you even deployed, since it took you 6 turns of nothing but marching to cross the board.
But now you can have a rear area with a little less artillery and fewer missile troops and actually pose a threat in manuvering. The Anvil allows the Dwarf player to move a unit in the shooting phase. A banner allows a move before the game even starts. Simply put the Dwarfs can go on the offensive!

The Anvil isnt Magic anymore - Dwarfs do not magic in their own magic phase, so your opponents dispel dice are useless!

Fredrik
27-01-2006, 00:26
Ar we talking about the same thing here? Im talking about the "spells" the runesmith can CAST with power dice in the dwarf magic round. And those are really nasty and would be way to good not to be able to be dispelled.

Mad Makz
27-01-2006, 00:34
The new Dwarf book has new rules for the anvil. They are no longer spells, but work much more like a warmachine.

Shuya
27-01-2006, 00:36
They cant cast spells and they have 0 bound spells, the Anvil isnt a spell casting thing either. No spells, because A) fluffwise dwarfs are null to magic B) rules wise they don't generate power dice do they? so a dwarf army would get no spells of.

EDIT: Got their before me Mad

Fredrik
27-01-2006, 00:40
Yes the anvil generates power dice and it says thet the runesmith can cast them CAST.

Fredrik
27-01-2006, 00:47
"In game terms, the Runelord may cast each of the four runic powers one per magic phase using the power dice provided by the anvil. He may use a maximum of four dice to power a runic spell" These are the exact words in teh book hoping i donīt say to much. But that sounds very much like spellcasting to me. I have looked but canīt find anything saying they cant be dispelled. Please feel free to point me to specific pages.

Shuya
27-01-2006, 00:48
The Dwarf Book Says this "While the owning Runlord lives, an Anvil adds an extra dice to the Dwarf's dispel pool." no mention of powerdice their.

And about using the anvil runes. "During his own Shooting phase the Runelord may strike a single rune each turn......." It dosent mention Casting or Power dice.

Shuya
27-01-2006, 00:49
"In game terms, the Runelord may cast each of the four runic powers one per magic phase using the power dice provided by the anvil. He may use a maximum of four dice to power a runic spell" These are the exact words in teh book hoping i donīt say to much. But that sounds very much like spellcasting to me. I have looked but canīt find anything saying they cant be dispelled. Please feel free to point me to specific pages.

Ohh right, your using the old book, their is a new book out, its got new rules for it, and its shiney.

Fredrik
27-01-2006, 00:57
OK my bad ;)

foehammer888
27-01-2006, 15:24
I was just listening to the changes to the dwarfs in the new book (I don't have the book, just hearing second-hand), and for all I can tell they just made the dwarfs better! The dwarfs were already one of the better armies, then they decided to make the units which weren't already great into wonderful choices?

Please tell me I'm wrong. If they simply took the old dwarfs and made the not-so-powerful into powerful units, I don't know what to say. I'll probably look at every dwarf player as a sellout.

I think I've already heard what they've done to make them better (and lots of it). Please tell me what I haven't heard about making them worse.
Rarely, if ever, does revising an army book make anything "worse". This is really on necessary if a single army with certain units continuously wins, which rarely happens. More often, it happens that viable armies are only possible when certain unit selections are taken. If different units are selected, then the player is at a disadvantage. Dwarf armies had an average win loss record, but all the armies had the same composition, the "gun line". In the revision, adjustments were made to rarely utilized units to make them more viable choices, thus diversifying army composition.

An abstract example. Assume you like apples and oranges equally. You go to your local store with $10, apples cost a $1 and oranges cost $2. Since you like both types of fruit equally, you buy 10 apples, as you get more fruit for your money. Now, the store manager realizes that no one is buying oranges, so he lowers the price to $1. The next time you go to the store, you now buy 10 oranges, because you're sick of apples. This has not "unbalanced" or "overpowered" your fruit consumption, because you are not getting MORE fruit than you got before. You are only getting DIFFERENT fruit.

The Dwarf list revision is the same. No one was fielding hammerers or longbeards, because point for point and slot-for-slot iron breakers, slayers, cannons, stone throwers, and bolter throwers were more worth while. As a result, longbeards went to core, and hammerers had a rule change and became a little cheaper (however, if you notice the character which allows them to take advantage of some of their rules got more expensive). In a way this does make them "better", but if you want to take a unit of hammerers when you didn't take them before, you have to sacrifice a few hundred points of other, now equally effective units to take them.

So many people are quick to see units getting cheaper or improved rules and yell :cheese: , but they fail to realize that if that unit wasn't actually used before, existing armies will need to make sacrifices to include them. At their core, army list revisions are used to turn previously "easy" army composition decisions harder.

Foehammer