PDA

View Full Version : Dwarf Revision - A quick fix for the most balanced book



anarchistica
24-05-2005, 01:58
This is a post from a topic on Bugman's Brewery. The thread asked people to mention 5 changes they would want to make to the Dwarf list. After 50 posts i added up the amount of times certain things were mentioned and came up with some solutions for these problems, or used solutions suggested in the thread. I know the Dwarf book is the most balanced book out there, but it was one of the first so some "errors" crept in because the standard was not set yet, think of the randomising of shots fired at the Anvil of Doom. The Runelord, Miners and Rangers thus suffered from "codex creep", which you cannot prevent in some cases. Aside from that there were some poorly thought out things, like the flat bonus of 2 Dispel Dice and the lack of real use for some units. Engineers and Organ Guns were both less useful than their Empire counterparts. Longbeards could not compare to Ironbreakers, Hammerers and even normal Warriors. Finally, over time it's showed that playing "static" is the only thing that works for them. Giving them a weaker version of "fleet of foot" and making them alot harder to break through Fear should alow the player to play more dynamically.

The post:

It's been pretty consistent, with the number of OOT suggestions being limited to a handful. Some stats. The number obviously represents the amount of people mentioning a problem related to the subject.

Units

Runelord (19) - Pretty much everyone wants him to give 2 Dispel Dice. One person also wanted crossbows and throwing axes for him and his little brother, which is silly of course. ;)
Longbeards (15) - Making them Immune to Fear and sometimes Terror or just Immune to Psychology was most popular. Also, having them as an upgrade for Dwarf Warriors was mentioned, and allowing them special movement rules.
Slayers, including characters (15) - Alot of people want them to Skirmish and/or have some save. Characters should get the Slayer Skills and Runic Talismans according to a couple of posters.
Engineer (12) - Everything suggested for him related to him not helping warmachines out enough. Someone even suggested making him a 20 points upgrade for them. :D
Organ gun (11) - Range and/or number of hits are found lacking.
Dwarf Cannon (9) - The Wounds issue. Most suggested D3+1, a couple even D6. A points reduction was suggested too.
Rangers (8 ) - Probably because of the Mountain Rangers, people want these to Skirmish.
Gyrocopter (3), Miners (1) and King Alrik (1) were mentioned, but most people seem to think they're fine.

Other

Movement (15) - People either want them to be faster through triple/quick marching or giving them some manouvering benefit.
Magic (10) - Aside from the Runelord thing, this was brought up mostly because of the protection issue. Some wanted to improve the Anvil and make Runesmiths weak Wizards.
Outnumbering (10-13) - Especially Fear-Causing units seem to be what Dwarf players have problems with. Suggestions ranged from ignoring Outnumbering to giving them US2.
Runes (7) - Mostly the availability of Runic Standards seems problematic.

Also a number of other things related to the general army were brought up, like suggestions to make all of them +1In, making rules for Clans or character upgrades (Miner/Ranger/Engineer), make nearly everthing cheaper, adding Mountain Rangers to the list and allowing heavy armour for everyone aside from Slayers.

The handful of Out Of Touch suggestions were making all Dwarfs Unbreakable, allowing 2 BSB's, making the enemy Crumble like Undead and making Dwarf Handguns always +1 to hit. :lol:

The balance

Not mentioned at all were Dwarf Lords, Thanes, Dwarf Crossbows, Bolt Throwers and Stone Throwers. These apparently don't need any tweaks.

Virtually no one had complaints about Runesmiths, Flame Cannons, Iron Breakers, Hammerers, Thunderers, Warriors and Gyrocopters. They're likely best left alone.

Units with a single flaw were Runelords, Rangers, Miners, Dwarf Cannons, Longbeards and Organ Guns. They could do with a single change.

Troublesome are Slayers of any kind and Engineers. There's no real agreement on what would help.

Aside from these units there are the outnumbering, magic protection , runic standard availability and movement issues. I think these could be helped alot with just a simple change.

Suggested tweaks

Looking at this topic and drawing from experience, i've come up with a small list with suggested tweaks which improve the list a bit, mostly the weaker elements. I doubt many people would not let you use at least some of them if you asked them (nicely and before the battle starts ;)).

The ones at the top seem the most simple andreasonable. Note that all of this is of course in addition to any existing rules (except where noted). Dwarf Runelords add 2 dice to the Dispel pool.
Longbeards are Immune to Fear. In accordance with the rulebook, this means they're still subject to Terror but threat it as Fear instead.
Instead of the normal amount of Power and Dispel dice, the Dwarf army gets 1 Power Die and 2 Dispel Dice per 1000 points.
If there are no enemy units within 8", a Dwarf unit can choose to perform a "Quick March". This follows all the rules for marching and allows the unit to move an additional d3". A character that performs a Quick March can't do anything during the Shooting Phase (i.e. can't throw a weapon with Rune of Flight, can't fire a missile weapon, etc).
Dwarf Rangers are Skirmishers.
Dwarf Miners can use their Underground Advance rule or the It Came From Below rule from the Tomb Kings army book.
As long as any unit with the Slayer special rule is not in close combat, he will recieve a 6+ Ward Save.
A Bolt Thrower, Cannon or Stone Thrower joined by a Dwarf Engineer can re-roll dice used do determine multiple Wounds and gets a bonus of +1 on the dice rolled on the machine's Misfire Chart.
An enemy unit only counts as Outnumbering a Dwarf unit if it outnumbers by 2:1.
An Organ Gun rolls 2 Artillery Dice instead of 1 to determine the amount of hits caused. This fixes the major problems: Runelords give 2 DD, bringing them in line with Archlectors and High Priests of Ulric.
Longbeards are Immune to Fear, making them better especially against Undead, which Dwarfs tend to have alot of prolems with.
Dwarfs get more Dispel Dice in battles of 3000 points and less in battles below 2000 points.
Dwarves are faster if they don't shoot, moving 7-9" per turn.
Rangers are Skirmishers, like their cousins from the mountains and every other Scouting unit.
Miners can Come From Below, bringing them in line with TK diggers and Eshin Skaven.
Slayers can survive 1 in 6 Wounds suffered outside of combat, making them more resilient against missiles and magic, which is fluffy but not overpowering.
The Engineer finally is useful, as he makes it impossible for a Cannon or Stone Thrower to destroy itself by rolling a 1 on the Misfire Chart. Also, the re-rolling on the dice for Wounds fixes the Cannon problem, as Stone Thrower already roll a D6 and is used mainly against single-Wound units and the Bolt Thrower usually is for the S7 against chariots and Flaming Attacks against Trolls.
The Outnumbering bonus i had my doubts about, but this should work. Really big units can still outnumber them and elite units can be outnumbered too. Combined with Longbeards being Immune to Fear, it vastly improves your chances against Undead.
Organ Guns rolling 2 instead of 1 Artillery Dice to determine amount of hits not only makes them more deadly, but also reduces the chances of rolling just 2-4 hits. The fact that the chance to Misfire is doubled balances it out. I considered making it use the Hellblaster Misfire Chart, but decided against it. Perhaps you could suggest to allow 0-1 Dwarf Warrior unit to have a Runic Standard with a value of up to 25 points, but i think they're good enough already.

Comments anyone?

flain
25-05-2005, 10:49
The ones at the top seem the most simple andreasonable. Note that all of this is of course in addition to any existing rules (except where noted).
Dwarf Runelords add 2 dice to the Dispel pool.
Longbeards are Immune to Fear. In accordance with the rulebook, this means they're still subject to Terror but threat it as Fear instead.
Instead of the normal The Dwarf army gets 1 additional die Power Die and 2 Dispel Dice per 1000 points.
During the Shooting phase, instead of firing a missile weapon, a Dwarf unit can move D3". This movement is subject to the normal rules for movement, so you cannot move to within 1" of an enemy and penalties for difficult terrain and still apply, etc.
Dwarf Rangers are Skirmishers.
Dwarf Miners can use their Underground Advance rule or the It Came From Below rule from the Tomb Kings army book.
As long as any unit with the Slayer special rule is not in close combat, he will recieve a 6+ Ward Save.
A Bolt Thrower, Cannon or Stone Thrower joined by a Dwarf Engineer can re-roll dice used do determine multiple Wounds and gets a bonus of +1 on the dice rolled on the machine's Misfire Chart.
An enemy unit only counts as Outnumbering a Dwarf unit if it outnumbers by 2:1.
An Organ Gun rolls 2 Artillery Dice instead of 1 to determine the amount of hits caused.

I like most of the rule changes proposed, but I think that the CFB rule for miners can be too nasty. With Skaven and TK the units that have them will never ignore ranks, while miners do. They do need something, but I do not know if this is the best solution. A unit with S5, charging and negating ranks... seems too painful for me. Maybe give them the rule that they never negate ranks, but that they can claim rank bonus. Then they are still very painful, but not wiping every unit they charge the first turn.
And with the engineer: the problem with him is more the points cost. You can get an additional bolt thrower for him, almost a stone thrower and 3/4 of a cannon.

And I do have my doubt of the fleet of foot... Dwarves are slow and should stay that way. Other armies should get slower when wearing the heavier armours as in the previous edition (knight with movement 6 :evilgrin: ). Then you would hear less Dwarfs complain about movement. And it would mean that there is more time to shoot, making the organ gun have more impact on knights.

Griefbringer
25-05-2005, 10:59
During the Shooting phase, instead of firing a missile weapon, a Dwarf unit can move D3". This movement is subject to the normal rules for movement, so you cannot move to within 1" of an enemy and penalties for difficult terrain and still apply, etc.


Ahem - Dwarves are supposed to be slow - if you want something faster, just go out and play pansy elves. And movement is supposed to take place in the movement phase - this is not 40K. If you really want to make Dwarves as fast as humans, then just give them M4.

anarchistica
25-05-2005, 22:50
I like most of the rule changes proposed, but I think that the CFB rule for miners can be too nasty. With Skaven and TK the units that have them will never ignore ranks, while miners do. They do need something, but I do not know if this is the best solution. A unit with S5, charging and negating ranks... seems too painful for me. Maybe give them the rule that they never negate ranks, but that they can claim rank bonus. Then they are still very painful, but not wiping every unit they charge the first turn.
Well, remember that you have to put down a marker so the enemy could just make sure that the marker doesn't face their flank or simply place an enemy on it so the Miners will charge that unit in the front once they emerge.

And i don't think it'd be a bad thing to have Dwarfs that are actually capable of flanking! ;)


And with the engineer: the problem with him is more the points cost. You can get an additional bolt thrower for him, almost a stone thrower and 3/4 of a cannon.
True, but put some runes on them and you will likely want to keep them alive. Re-rolling multiple Wounds dice and +1 on the misfire chart are a big bonus. The machines can't blow up and are far more likely to be usable in every turn.


And I do have my doubt of the fleet of foot... Dwarves are slow and should stay that way. Other armies should get slower when wearing the heavier armours as in the previous edition (knight with movement 6 :evilgrin: ). Then you would hear less Dwarfs complain about movement. And it would mean that there is more time to shoot, making the organ gun have more impact on knights.
I would prefer to have movement penalties similar to those in 5th, or better, a combat fatigue system (i'm working on this actually) that finally actually shows that Dwarfs can easily carry heavy equipment.

With the removal of movement penalties for shields + heavy armour Dwarfs were made less powerful, and making cavalry cost about 50% of what they used to makes it even worse! If you look at the newest Dwarf list (Slayer list), what did they do? Hey, they made a rule to make them get to the enemy faster, maybe a hint? Maybe they figured out they kind of fethed that up? ;)


Ahem - Dwarves are supposed to be slow - if you want something faster, just go out and play pansy elves.
And humans aren't supposed to be able to march constantly while wearing full plate armour, nor are horses carrying those.

And i don't play Dwarfs, i play Dark Elves, Nurgle/Khorne Chaos and have warband-size Orcs and Goblins and Empire armies. All are infantry heavy.


And movement is supposed to take place in the movement phase - this is not 40K. If you really want to make Dwarves as fast as humans, then just give them M4.
Erm, movement spells?

I don't want to make them as fast as humans, i want to show how they can keep on marching where a human would be tired.

And ugh, it's all the fault of the inferior turns system that GW loves so much. Any proper game has an Action based system where this would not be a problem. :p

flain
27-05-2005, 09:44
Well, considering that Dwarves are really used to heavy armour (they even mine in it) it indeed should show in the game. Maybe make the fleet only available when the Dwarfs would normally be able to march, so when there are no enemies whitin 8".

And I tested the organ gun... it was extremely painful for the enemy and the next battle for me. first battle I blew up a unit of 8 knights at once. second battle I rolled a misfire and was not allowed to shoot next turn (and then got overrun by the same knights). To me this is a bit too unreliable. It still is Dwarven made and should be (as all Dwarf things) reliable even when they invented it only a couple of 100 years ago. I think that it would work better when you roll 2D6 for the hits, double is misfire.
With the current rules you score 0-10 hits and is therefor not a reliable thing and won't be put on a battle field. With the 2D6 you score 3-11 hits (2 and 12 are misfires). that is far more reliable as 1/6 times it is 7 hits. Then I really would put it on the battlefield again. And you still have 1/6 times a misfire as it is now.

And of topic: a combat fatique system? sounds interesting.

Griefbringer
27-05-2005, 10:02
I don't want to make them as fast as humans, i want to show how they can keep on marching where a human would be tired.


Well, adding D3 to their movement would make their average marching speed 8" per turn (same as humans), and average non-marching speed 5" (faster than human).

anarchistica
27-05-2005, 19:20
Well, considering that Dwarves are really used to heavy armour (they even mine in it) it indeed should show in the game. Maybe make the fleet only available when the Dwarfs would normally be able to march, so when there are no enemies whitin 8".
Yeah i considered that too, perhaps that'd be better.


And I tested the organ gun... it was extremely painful for the enemy and the next battle for me. first battle I blew up a unit of 8 knights at once. second battle I rolled a misfire and was not allowed to shoot next turn (and then got overrun by the same knights). To me this is a bit too unreliable. It still is Dwarven made and should be (as all Dwarf things) reliable even when they invented it only a couple of 100 years ago. I think that it would work better when you roll 2D6 for the hits, double is misfire.
With the current rules you score 0-10 hits and is therefor not a reliable thing and won't be put on a battle field. With the 2D6 you score 3-11 hits (2 and 12 are misfires). that is far more reliable as 1/6 times it is 7 hits. Then I really would put it on the battlefield again. And you still have 1/6 times a misfire as it is now.
How about rolling 1 Artillery Die and doubling the result? It would be Dwarfishly reliable, be in line with the Hellblaster and be quite dangerous all of a sudden (4-20 possible hits!) without being too deadly (it doesn't have the "30 hits misfire" for one thing!).


And of topic: a combat fatique system? sounds interesting.
It's quite easy to implement actually. Armour and certain other equipment can in some cases make you more tired which hampers your CC ability and disallows you to march, etc. It could also work for magic.


Well, adding D3 to their movement would make their average marching speed 8" per turn (same as humans), and average non-marching speed 5" (faster than human).
Well, if they want to move and shoot they can still only move 3" for one thing.

EDIT: Ok, new idea:

If there are no enemy units within 8", a Dwarf unit can choose to perform a "Quick March". This follows all the rules for marching and allows the unit to move an additional d3". A character that performs a Quick March can't do anything during the Shooting Phase (i.e. can't throw a weapon with Rune of Flight).

zephyro
04-06-2005, 13:07
There are just some small problems with these things I see.

Firstly, by giving them quick march, you take away the one factor that makes them balanced. They stay slow.

I do believe dwarfs should be more pushed to go combat heavy, or at least with less shooting units, but not like in the slayer list.

Do you know how much people are complaining about the slayer list?
The extra movement makes them so powerfull, that they are on combat at turn 2, and then can slaughter eneme regiments with their powerfull attacks.

The ''give slayer skills'' idea shouldn't be done.It makes over-powerfull combat lords of dwarves, capable of killing greater daemons, which shouldn't be happening (come on, a 200 points dwarf killing a 665 points guy)

What I would suggest, is that dwarfs get a small bit off shooting, but more for combat.

What about giving dwarfs +d6 charge range??As if they are so focused on combat, that they are in some kinda rage to kill the enemy.

The 2:1 outnumbering thing is much too powerfull.

Let's say you take a cheap warrior unit of 20 guys with heavy armour and shield.
I (as TK player) have to take a unit of 40 skeleton warriors to outnumber and break them, which is just not right, as no players TK players take skeleton warrior units of 40 guys (they cost 360 points, and take up a big space in your battle line, can be easily flanked, ETC.)

Even for VC it can become a hard job.

I myself have only ahve seen the problem that dwarf players have to focus on shooting too much to be powerfull.

For the rest they are a powerfull enough army (especially in low point games, they are the ruling force with 500 points and such).

Zephyro

Griefbringer
04-06-2005, 13:55
If there are no enemy units within 8", a Dwarf unit can choose to perform a "Quick March". This follows all the rules for marching and allows the unit to move an additional d3". A character that performs a Quick March can't do anything during the Shooting Phase (i.e. can't throw a weapon with Rune of Flight).

Still makes Dwarves as fast as humans on normal march, plus they also get to do normal march moves when within 8" of the enemy on top of that, making them overall faster than normal humans!

But at least the rule is now relatively coherent, though needing to throw that D3 separately for every unit might be a bit clumsy (and can you roll for all units before moving the first one?).

As for throwing those weapons with rune of flight, I think they should count as shooting attacks and be disallowed if the dwarf makes any sort of march move.

Megilain
04-06-2005, 20:51
Maybe give them the rule that they never negate ranks, but that they can claim rank bonus. Then they are still very painful, but not wiping every unit they charge the first turn.

How about making them a little bit similar to Beast herds. Skirmishers that have rank bonuses up to +2, always rank at least 4 wide, 25% of the unit must be within charge distance and as skirmishers do not negate ranks bonuses. With their movement of 3 they still wouldn´t rival the herds mobility, but could really pack a punch. Perhaps it would be going to far to suggest that they could move to board similarly to Ambush-rule...

Festus
06-06-2005, 11:11
Hi

Interesting thread!

I think that the proposed changes are well thought out, but some still need a lot of thinking put into them nonetheless.

First: Remember the synergy certain changes will have. All of those together will make the Dwarves too good IMO.

Second: to the changes in particular:

Runelord/Magic:
The two dice runelord seems like a good idea, especially considering other similar concepts in WHFB. And I really like the increasing amount of DD with the points. But I would not raise the amount of Energy Dice simultaneously.
Just stay with the basic amount.

Movement:
The M of the Dwarves is perfect as it is, IMO: The 6" makes them move slower as all others (as should be), but once the fighting gets close and personal, they are at a distinct advantage because they will be faster than even elf infantry within 8". I like the chage the 6th Ed brought about for the Dwarves, as this increases their tactical flexibility.
In 5th, you couldn't react a bit as soon as there were some skirmishers/flyers within marchblock-range and you were a sitting duck.
Now you can react. This flaw was fixed very elegantly by GW IMO.

Outnumbering:
True, outnumbering against fear causers is the main problem for Dwarves, as all their high Ld (which is paid for heavily by M and points cost ... compare Elves and Dwarves and you'll see what I mean) comes to nothing against cheap fear causing troops (Zombies, Skellies, et al.) This makes Undead nigh on impossible to beat with Dwarves.
The solution is simple:
In the same vein as ignoring enemies while marching, the Dwarves can be stubborn enough to ignore the being outnumbered.
Just let them ignore the autobreak-rule for being outnumbered by a fear causing enemy as long as they have passed a necessary fear test against them (being charged, charging themselves, and similar. If there was no fear test to be taken - e.g. overrun - they will still be immune automatically against the fear-autobreak).
This is just a small exception which even solves the Longbeard's problem in one go. Such is the determination of Dwarves, that they won't run from a few piles of bones shambling towards them.


The 2:1 outnumbering thing is much too powerfull.

Let's say you take a cheap warrior unit of 20 guys with heavy armour and shield.
I (as TK player) have to take a unit of 40 skeleton warriors to outnumber and break them, which is just not right, as no players TK players take skeleton warrior units of 40 guys (they cost 360 points, and take up a big space in your battle line, can be easily flanked, ETC.)

Even for VC it can become a hard job.

For the rest they are a powerfull enough army (especially in low point games, they are the ruling force with 500 points and such).

The problem is not the Dwarf Warriors but the Elites, who are at the short end of the stick here...
... jut make the immunity only encompassing the elite infantries? Longbeards, Ironbreakers, and Hammerers?
And Dwarfs are of course superior in games of 500 points, as their statline makes them fomidable on the skirmish level (T4 and much armour and Ld9 sure is something), but this becomes a liability with M3 in higher level games with a more stratecic aspect.
The same holds true for Elves the other way round: They fold as easily as Humans in tactical games, but become strategically superior in strategic games due to their M and their specialisation.

Rangers:
I really like the Beastherd approach, but I still think that rangers are fine the way they are: Scouts that rank up and are able to move through woods unhindered? Great in my book, as woods usually are the terrain they will end up in.
As they are, they are a major pain in the *** for most enemies.
Maybe make them ignore mountaineous terrain as well for fluff purposes (hill-dwarves anyone?) and to make them more adaptable to the different terrain collections of the players?

Slayers:
Come on, Slayers are one of the best Swarms in the game: T4 swarm with WS4 and 4W and 4 A on a 40mm frontage, and they can even have Champions and Characters - complete with runes!
For 44 points a base (4 Slayers are exactly 40mm x 40mm) they are a steal compared to other swarms.
They even have rank bonuses and can have a full command!

They are THE tarpit if used correctly!

Add to that the spiffy Slayer-rule and the hatred against Greenskins, and you have one of the best units in a balanced force.
Every shot at the slayers is a shot away from your Elite regiments, so use them wisely: They are brilliant the way they are (although I for one would like to see them skirmishing: The added flexibility weighs up the missing rank bonus nicely IMO).

Miners:
I really think they should have the ICFB, if only to reduce the amount of special rules and to streamline the game.

Anything shooty (Engineers, Cannons, OGuns, etc.):
If you have any problem with the Dwarves War Machines, you are relying too much on shooting IMNSHO (apart from the fact that playing a Dwarven gunline is etreeeemly boring).
War Machines are support pieces, not the end of your strategy.
If you had War Machines that were more reliable than the Dwarf ones are right now (with all the runes and stuff), you would go the way of a Skaven SAD: A very silly thing IMO.
The only thing I would change is to make Engineers radically different: Profile of a normal crewman (he is not a fighter but an engineer!) and being an upgrade for the War Machine: As proposed the +1 on the Misfire chart is good (and ther is no rune already covering that) and fluffy, as the engineer takes care of the machines function.
Let's see:
An added crewman, thus more survivability for the machine vs shooting and a better chace against most close combat, plus a nice little insurance against blowing up: How does 25 points sound to you? :)

That is my 2c, and I think that those changes won't have too many synergy effects to make the Dwarf list broken - which it isn't up to now. As others said: The Dwarves just need a few minor tweaks...

Greetings
Festus

flain
07-06-2005, 12:15
The M of the Dwarves is perfect as it is, IMO: The 6" makes them move slower as all others (as should be), but once the fighting gets close and personal, they are at a distinct advantage because they will be faster than even elf infantry within 8". I like the chage the 6th Ed brought about for the Dwarves, as this increases their tactical flexibility.
The additional movement we got is a little bit cancelled out due to the fact many armies got faster since last edition. Dwarfs not having penalties for heavy armour/shield and the rest did. Now no-one has that penalty. This has not been compensated for the dwarfs.

And I don't know what your experiences are with the rangers, but mine are bad. They do nothing against knight, other scouts just run around them and shoot them, against mass armies I cannot even deploy them with having effect. The only armies it works on is small armies which are not too fast.

And the problem with the shooting that the army so-called best warmachines sees that many armies have better versions. Pure shooting is boring, but others should not have better ones when the fluff says we have the best/most reliable.

Last of all: the gyrocopter. It is too many points to auto-crash when it has lost combat (which is quite easy with 1A and US1) Give it the steam tank rule that it is allowed to leave combat and that it cannot flee from combat (not unbreakable, it still suffers from normal phychology)

Festus
07-06-2005, 12:54
Hi

And I don't know what your experiences are with the rangers, but mine are bad. They do nothing against knight, other scouts just run around them and shoot them, against mass armies I cannot even deploy them with having effect. The only armies it works on is small armies which are not too fast.
The rangers are one of the best units in the dwarfs arsenal:
You just have to deploy them in a wood on the table to deny basically every enemy unit the passage along this wood.
Take knights for example.
The knights can either start their move outside of the 8" range, allowing them to march and present their flank to the rangers lying in waiting, or they are marchblocked and will do simply the same.
The rangers (like all scouts) are not here for the damage potential, but as a tactical tool in your box to deny the enemy's options or to herd him to where you want him.
And a unit of Rangers charging a knight unit's flank usually sees the knights of pretty well :)



And the problem with the shooting that the army so-called best warmachines sees that many armies have better versions. Pure shooting is boring, but others should not have better ones when the fluff says we have the best/most reliable.
No, please don't. Basing your logic on fluff is to much High-Elf for me. They are described as the best out of the west and their infantry is just a bit better than other's core, so the HE players whine to no end...

The Dwarf Artillery is good, very good with runes, so nothing to complain here.


Last of all: the gyrocopter. It is too many points to auto-crash when it has lost combat (which is quite easy with 1A and US1) Give it the steam tank rule that it is allowed to leave combat and that it cannot flee from combat (not unbreakable, it still suffers from normal phychology)

Mate, if you let your Gyro get into close combat, you deserve to lose it, really.
It has to be used just like fast cavalry, with the exception that it is faster (20") and is much shootier!
It was never meant to fight hand-to-hand.

Greetings
Festus

Lordmonkey
07-06-2005, 13:29
The 2:1 outnumbering thing is much too powerfull.

Dunno if it's just me misintepreting something, but it isn't 2:1, it's just MORE.

I think Dwarfs are nicely balanced as they are. Probably one of the most balanced armies in the game...

I'd still like to see their elites get a bit more bang for the buck. Too many dwarf warrior armies out there atm.

flain
07-06-2005, 13:54
No, please don't. Basing your logic on fluff is to much High-Elf for me. They are described as the best out of the west and their infantry is just a bit better than other's core, so the HE players whine to no end...
True enough.


Mate, if you let your Gyro get into close combat, you deserve to lose it, really.
It has to be used just like fast cavalry, with the exception that it is faster (20") and is much shootier!
It was never meant to fight hand-to-hand.
I know it wasn't meant for HTH, but the possibility that it gets charged by skinks or beastmen is huge with the amount of skirmishers they got. It doesn't feel right that it would auto-crash when 2 skinks just look at it. Against other armies it is fine.

But the problem with the fear-causers remains. 2:1 to claim outnumbering is nice, but then we get the other way around: the VC and TK players complaining that dwarfs are too hard. Giving it to longbeards seems fine (in addition to the immune to panic) and maybe the other elites should get it too. It would make them more worthwhile then they are now (especially the long-beards)

zephyro
07-06-2005, 14:45
But the problem with the fear-causers remains. 2:1 to claim outnumbering is nice, but then we get the other way around: the VC and TK players complaining that dwarfs are too hard. Giving it to longbeards seems fine (in addition to the immune to panic) and maybe the other elites should get it too. It would make them more worthwhile then they are now (especially the long-beards)

What about turning this into a unit upgrade for either 1 unit of longbeards, ironbreakers or hammerers per lord??.

About +2-3 points per model extra.

That seems like a good deal to me.

Zephyro

Avian
07-06-2005, 15:29
The additional movement we got is a little bit cancelled out due to the fact many armies got faster since last edition. Dwarfs not having penalties for heavy armour/shield and the rest did. Now no-one has that penalty. This has not been compensated for the dwarfs.
It must be mentioned that pretty much nobody were affected by the HA+SH penalty in the last edition, apart from Empire Knights. High Elves and Dwarves ignored the penalty and pretty much nobody else who could would take a shield with heavy armour.

Thus the change we see in this edition is that Empire Knights have M7 instead of M6. That's it and Dwarves do not need a rule to compensate for that (and the changes suggested here wouldn't help anyway).



Dwarves have M3 for a reason, and that is that the designers wanted them to be slow. I really do not think they will go for a change that makes them move at average speed. :rolleyes:

Lady Bastet
07-06-2005, 15:39
I would have suggested rules along the lines of “look Snorri Trolls” or that Black Templar vow that gives the army the free movement towards Psykers.

Gotrek
08-06-2005, 04:15
TK would actualy be the most affected by the 2:1 rule couse they cannot create more skellies than the initial unit and are the only ones that can't march in any way but consider this. a bunch of zombies with a vampire thrall charge a unit of hammerers with a general in there. dwarf chalanges. champion accepts. a few bad rolls and a unit of 600+ pts with LD 10 and most likely a reroll from a BSB (never leave home without one) flees with 2d6-1 inches and gets caught by a unit half it's cost. i don't want VC and TK to cry out unfair but i don't want the same thing for dwarves. a 2:1 ratio would make small units such as miners and rangers to flee anyway but would make the rock hard dwarven units hold. besides i cannot feel sorry of one of the cheesiest army books out there (VC) and i'd be delighted if they actualy had to use their head instead of just go in a straight line against our troops with some cheesy character.

zephyro
08-06-2005, 16:46
ok, since nopbody reacts to it, I'll post my idea again.

What if 1-2 elite units per lord could get the rule for 1-2-3 points extra??

Zephyro

Avian
08-06-2005, 17:45
That would be a really clunky rule to implement and I doubt it would happen.


BTW: My favourite solution for Longbeards is to make them a 0-1 Core unit choice, instead of Special. Empasizes the eliteness of Dwarves dontcherknow. ;)

zephyro
08-06-2005, 19:46
OR they could give the dwarf army something like ''shieldwall'' rules. At least, that's how I always imagine them, and how they are described in fluff. Like 1 big wall where whenever a dwarf falls, jumps in another one.

Zephyro

anarchistica
09-06-2005, 00:37
Firstly, by giving them quick march, you take away the one factor that makes them balanced. They stay slow.
No, it's a factor that makes them static. Even if they move faster they're still Dwarves. The only unit in the army which can have more than 1 Attack are Slayers, who don't wear armour. Aside from that, they're a bunch of 1A guys who will always get charged and rarely get to strike back once in combat due to their crappy In. With this i mean that either they focus on defense and strike back at best with S4, or they have a 5+ save at best and S5/6. No re-rolls (aside from Gobbo Hatred), only 1A and nothing else (Poison, etc) to help them. Not very scary.

Dwarves are also the only army in which every model (bar the Gyrocopter) moves 3". Skaven don't have cavalry either, but they move 5/6". Arguing that this would make them too good is silly also because everyone will still be faster. Skaven march 10/12" and all the other armies have cavalry.


I do believe dwarfs should be more pushed to go combat heavy, or at least with less shooting units, but not like in the slayer list.
I did not take into account what this would mean for the Slayer list, as it is different from the main list. One could simply remove "Look Snorri" or the quick march.


Do you know how much people are complaining about the slayer list?
The extra movement makes them so powerfull, that they are on combat at turn 2, and then can slaughter enemy regiments with their powerfull attacks.
Turn two? At best the move 12" + 6" march. That's 18", leaving the enemy at least 6" away. I hate the "Look Snorri" rule too by the way, it shows what a pathetic piece of rules writing it really is. If you have one roll that is so important it can all but determine the outcome of the battle you don't make it so the highest result is 6 times as high as the lowest. :rolleyes:


The ''give slayer skills'' idea shouldn't be done.It makes over-powerfull combat lords of dwarves, capable of killing greater daemons, which shouldn't be happening (come on, a 200 points dwarf killing a 665 points guy)
Huh? What Slayer skills? They just get a 6+ Ward Save outside of close combat (i.e. against ranged attacks).


What about giving dwarfs +d6 charge range??As if they are so focused on combat, that they are in some kinda rage to kill the enemy.
A possible doubling of their charge move? No way.


The 2:1 outnumbering thing is much too powerfull.

Let's say you take a cheap warrior unit of 20 guys with heavy armour and shield.
I (as TK player) have to take a unit of 40 skeleton warriors to outnumber and break them, which is just not right, as no players TK players take skeleton warrior units of 40 guys (they cost 360 points, and take up a big space in your battle line, can be easily flanked, ETC.)

Even for VC it can become a hard job.
Wait, they can be flanked? How? With a Gyrocopter? Or the non-existent Dwarf cavalry? And indeed, Dwarfs should be a hard job for VC! Remember that Dwarfs are the only army with no Fear-Causing units, and can only get it with a 75 point banner rune. GW often 'solves' such things by giving some benefit to counter it. DE have Cold Ones and HE have a bunch of anti-Fear things to counter this. Skaven don't have cavalry, but tons of weapons that don't allow or greatly reduce armour saves. What do Dwarves have to counter Fear? One unit of Slayers and 2 50+ points banner runes?

The VC player still have lots of things going for them that could win them the combat, they have powerful characters, skirmishers and cavalry. Dwarves have none of those things. Keep in mind too that even with this rule Dwarves will often be outnumbered because they get shot more because they're slow and can easily be set up to be charged by multiple units.

Hardly overpowered, IMHO.


I myself have only ahve seen the problem that dwarf players have to focus on shooting too much to be powerfull.
I've played against combat-heavy Dwarfs many times and a few times even against Steamroller Dwarfs (all non-shooting infantry + 2 Gyrocopters). I only had 6 levels of magic, 2 RBT's, 5 Shades and 10 RXB's, but it was a traumatic experience for my opponent. After i'd taken out his units one by one i set up a charge on his über unit (23 Ironbreakers + General + BSB). Only time i ever got to charged a unit with 6 of mine...he never played Steamroller again.


For the rest they are a powerfull enough army (especially in low point games, they are the ruling force with 500 points and such).
The point of revisions is not to make the army more powerful but to make the weaker elements be worth it.


Still makes Dwarves as fast as humans on normal march, plus they also get to do normal march moves when within 8" of the enemy on top of that, making them overall faster than normal humans!
No, humans move 7". Remember, human infantry isn't worth it. It's the cavalry that is used, and the cavalry moves more than twice as fast as Dwarfs.


But at least the rule is now relatively coherent, though needing to throw that D3 separately for every unit might be a bit clumsy (and can you roll for all units before moving the first one?).
You roll per unit and when you move them. Units aren't moved at the same time so you don't get to roll for all before moving the first.


As for throwing those weapons with rune of flight, I think they should count as shooting attacks and be disallowed if the dwarf makes any sort of march move.
Yes, but GW is shtoopit:

Q : Is a weapon with the Master Rune of Flight considered a missile attack when thrown? Can you march move and throw the weapon?
A : The Dwarf can target any model it likes within range (this means it can pick characters out of units), and the Dwarf can throw the weapon even if it marched. However, in regards to things like special ward saves against missile attacks, this IS classed as a missile attack.


How about making them a little bit similar to Beast herds. Skirmishers that have rank bonuses up to +2, always rank at least 4 wide, 25% of the unit must be within charge distance and as skirmishers do not negate ranks bonuses. With their movement of 3 they still wouldn´t rival the herds mobility, but could really pack a punch. Perhaps it would be going to far to suggest that they could move to board similarly to Ambush-rule...
Nah, it doesn't fit the Dwarfs at all. They can do good old-fashioned quick marches (you can quick march in WAB, only there it's simply 3*Mv) but none of this newfangled tactical movement nonsense.


First: Remember the synergy certain changes will have. All of those together will make the Dwarves too good IMO.
I simply suggested fixes for the 10 things that are considered to be most problematic in the Dwarf list (according to almost 50 Dwarf players). You don't have to use them all, some of them would help already.


The two dice runelord seems like a good idea, especially considering other similar concepts in WHFB. And I really like the increasing amount of DD with the points. But I would not raise the amount of Energy Dice simultaneously. Just stay with the basic amount.
Remove the first occurence of 'die': "Instead of the normal The Dwarf army gets 1 additional Power Die and 2 Dispel Dice per 1000 points.". The wording is a bit odd perhaps, but GW words it very similarly. In effect, where normal armies get 1PD/1DD, Dwarfs get 1PD/2DD. Not 2PD. ;)

Continued in next post...

anarchistica
09-06-2005, 00:42
W00t @ 17830 characters.


The M of the Dwarves is perfect as it is, IMO: The 6" makes them move slower as all others (as should be), but once the fighting gets close and personal, they are at a distinct advantage because they will be faster than even elf infantry within 8". I like the chage the 6th Ed brought about for the Dwarves, as this increases their tactical flexibility.
In 5th, you couldn't react a bit as soon as there were some skirmishers/flyers within marchblock-range and you were a sitting duck.
Now you can react. This flaw was fixed very elegantly by GW IMO.
See above.


Just let them ignore the autobreak-rule for being outnumbered by a fear causing enemy as long as they have passed a necessary fear test against them (being charged, charging themselves, and similar. If there was no fear test to be taken - e.g. overrun - they will still be immune automatically against the fear-autobreak).
This is just a small exception which even solves the Longbeard's problem in one go. Such is the determination of Dwarves, that they won't run from a few piles of bones shambling towards them.
I think LB's should be Immune to Fear flat out. Also, being outnumbered generally is a problem for Dwarves, as everyone's twice as fast and has skirmishers/flying units. With this, Outnumbering Dwarfs has become twice as hard and that also helps their elite infantry.


The problem is not the Dwarf Warriors but the Elites, who are at the short end of the stick here...
... jut make the immunity only encompassing the elite infantries? Longbeards, Ironbreakers, and Hammerers?
I think it should apply to all of them, just because of the sake of simplicity.


I really like the Beastherd approach, but I still think that rangers are fine the way they are: Scouts that rank up and are able to move through woods unhindered? Great in my book, as woods usually are the terrain they will end up in.
As they are, they are a major pain in the *** for most enemies.
Maybe make them ignore mountaineous terrain as well for fluff purposes (hill-dwarves anyone?) and to make them more adaptable to the different terrain collections of the players?
Point is, all other Scouts skirmish. Rangers are Scouts, not White Lions (the other 'Forester' unit). IMO, all Scouts should Skirmish, to maintain the standard.


Come on, Slayers are one of the best Swarms in the game: T4 swarm with WS4 and 4W and 4 A on a 40mm frontage, and they can even have Champions and Characters - complete with runes!
For 44 points a base (4 Slayers are exactly 40mm x 40mm) they are a steal compared to other swarms.
They even have rank bonuses and can have a full command!
Broken logic. You need to inflict 16-20 Wounds not to have Swarms retaliate, but only 4 not to have Slayers retaliate. Big difference. Also, other Swarms are up to twice as fast and often Skirmish too. Slayer and Flagellants suck. They're slow, have no armour, can't be joined by characters (read: useful ones, Slayer characters are pathetic), can't flee from charges and though they have some staying power because of T4, they lack killing power despite having 2A. Flails only work in the first turn, Slayer-rule only reduces required roll to 4+. You pay 110 points for 10 T4 Wounds that don't break. Crap.


If you have any problem with the Dwarves War Machines, you are relying too much on shooting IMNSHO (apart from the fact that playing a Dwarven gunline is etreeeemly boring).
War Machines are support pieces, not the end of your strategy.
Erm, the problem is that Engineers, Organ Guns and Cannons are useless. Dwraf shooting is still very valid with their S7 Bolt Throwers, laser-guided S5/10 Stone Thrower and Flame Cannon!


If you had War Machines that were more reliable than the Dwarf ones are right now (with all the runes and stuff), you would go the way of a Skaven SAD: A very silly thing IMO.
LOL! Dwarfs would still be slow, not all be Ld10, not have S5 magic missiles, not have 70 point Ratguns, not have dead cheap huge units, not have CC skirmishers, not have units of up to 10 slightly underpowered Bolt Throwrs, etc. SAD is very much a completely different army.


The only thing I would change is to make Engineers radically different: Profile of a normal crewman (he is not a fighter but an engineer!) and being an upgrade for the War Machine: As proposed the +1 on the Misfire chart is good (and ther is no rune already covering that) and fluffy, as the engineer takes care of the machines function.
Someone suggested that, but that wouldn't work with the Dwarf and Empire books. If it was up to me, i'd radically change it to create batteries led by Engineers a la IG Heavy Weapon Platoons.


Let's see:
An added crewman, thus more survivability for the machine vs shooting and a better chace against most close combat, plus a nice little insurance against blowing up: How does 25 points sound to you? :)
Well i'd like him to keep his current Master Engineer rules, so perhaps it should be a bit more.


Last of all: the gyrocopter. It is too many points to auto-crash when it has lost combat (which is quite easy with 1A and US1) Give it the steam tank rule that it is allowed to leave combat and that it cannot flee from combat (not unbreakable, it still suffers from normal phychology)
Leaving combat should indeed be an option, both Warhawk and Terradon Riders can!


Dunno if it's just me misintepreting something, but it isn't 2:1, it's just MORE.
It is 2:1. The enemy must have twice as high US as the Dwarfs too Outnumber them. Note that Dwarfs don't count as having US2, so they still won't ever Outnumber themselves.


I think Dwarfs are nicely balanced as they are. Probably one of the most balanced armies in the game...
They are, but they do very poorly at tournaments and you always get the same Warrior/S7 BT/Flame Cannon army.


But the problem with the fear-causers remains. 2:1 to claim outnumbering is nice, but then we get the other way around: the VC and TK players complaining that dwarfs are too hard.
I don't think so. Cavalry, CC skirmishers, ICFB, powerful characters...VC/TK would be silly to even consider complaining!


What about turning this into a unit upgrade for either 1 unit of longbeards, ironbreakers or hammerers per lord??.

About +2-3 points per model extra.
Nah, that wouldn't work, you'd still have it on just 1 unit in that case.


It must be mentioned that pretty much nobody were affected by the HA+SH penalty in the last edition, apart from Empire Knights. High Elves and Dwarves ignored the penalty and pretty much nobody else who could would take a shield with heavy armour.
Broken logic. There was no Parry bonus in 5th either.

Oh, and this isn't Herohammer 5th, it's Cavalryhammer 6th. Vast difference.


Thus the change we see in this edition is that Empire Knights have M7 instead of M6. That's it and Dwarves do not need a rule to compensate for that
No, the change we see is that everyone goes all out on magic, cavalry and things that do auto-something. Ever seen tournament statistics? Skaven, VC, Bretonnia. Those are the dominating armies. Skaven have magic and auto-something, VC have magic, cavalry and auto-something and Bretonnia have cavalry and auto-something (they automatically get the charge because they move 16" and they automatically break with their huge amount of S6 Attacks ;)).

Dwarfs are always at the bottom of the stats, they're outpaced, outmagiced, outgunned and outfought. The statistics speak for themselves.


(and the changes suggested here wouldn't help anyway).
It's true that they would not completely fix the Dwarfs' problems, but it would most certainly help.


Dwarves have M3 for a reason, and that is that the designers wanted them to be slow. I really do not think they will go for a change that makes them move at average speed. :rolleyes:
Average speed is 14, not 8. Also, they still only charge 6", still move 2" through difficult terrain, etc.


I would have suggested rules along the lines of “look Snorri Trolls” or that Black Templar vow that gives the army the free movement towards Psykers.
I hate "Look Snorri" and the BT rule wouldn't work because, well, what would they get free movement to? All of the enemy army?


TK would actualy be the most affected by the 2:1 rule couse they cannot create more skellies than the initial unit and are the only ones that can't march in any way. <snip>
TK get lots of magical movement to compensate for it. Your points are all but the same as mine, good to see i'm not mad then.


BTW: My favourite solution for Longbeards is to make them a 0-1 Core unit choice, instead of Special. Empasizes the eliteness of Dwarves dontcherknow. ;)
That would help. For 5 points/model and a more costly command group you'd get +1WS, +1S, immunity to panic and a magic banner. However, they're still 50% more expensive than a normal Dwarf Warrior, don't have a 2+ save in CC like cheaper Ironbreakers and aren't Stubborn like Hammerers. If they would (also) cost 12 points and could have a shield (+1 pt) and/or a great weapon (+1 pt), that'd make them far better as you could dedicate them to offense or defense.


OR they could give the dwarf army something like ''shieldwall'' rules. At least, that's how I always imagine them, and how they are described in fluff. Like 1 big wall where whenever a dwarf falls, jumps in another one.
Nah, stuff like that doesn't work in WFB.

anarchistica
09-06-2005, 00:43
Last note: Festus, Dwarfs can't react because no one ever gets within 8" of them to profit in this way from Relentless. Everyone skirmishes or can charge further than 8".

flain
09-06-2005, 11:36
Thus the change we see in this edition is that Empire Knights have M7 instead of M6. That's it and Dwarves do not need a rule to compensate for that
And it makes a big difference. now they can move 28" in 2 turns, thus making it too the other deployment zone, while in the previous edition they moved 24" in 2 turns and not making it too the other deployment zone.

Like Anarchistia stated, the "always march" rule is not very good. It only helps versus a shooty army. Now we have a chance of getting to the other side of the table and maybe seeing combat.


I think Dwarfs are nicely balanced as they are. Probably one of the most balanced armies in the game...
Then it is very typical that a balanced army always ends up in the lower half at tournaments. Dwarfs should get a little bit of tweaking to make it possible to end up in the upper half. And I agree that they do well against some armies, but the ones that always end high (eg, Skaven, VC and Bretonnia) mostly beat the Dwarfs on many fronts.


That would help. For 5 points/model and a more costly command group you'd get +1WS, +1S, immunity to panic and a magic banner. However, they're still 50% more expensive than a normal Dwarf Warrior, don't have a 2+ save in CC like cheaper Ironbreakers and aren't Stubborn like Hammerers. If they would (also) cost 12 points and could have a shield (+1 pt) and/or a great weapon (+1 pt), that'd make them far better as you could dedicate them to offense or defense.
Something like Big 'uns. Well, the points reduction alone would make them a more viable option. Getting them is 0-1 core is fair, now it is possible to get a unit of longbeards, which is crazy when you do not have the youngsters.


I do believe dwarfs should be more pushed to go combat heavy, or at least with less shooting units, but not like in the slayer list.
It would be nice to do that, but the problem right now is that either you get surrounded by a complete army or you want to shoot the hard things down first which is not possible when you run towards it. And even then the enemy chooses when to charge, which combat he fights. It will never be the dwarfs that choose combat unless you can force him in combat (which is quite rare).

The fact that Dwarfs are slow already says they are more shooting orientated. They are tough in combat with a high T, armour and Ld, but then they have to see it first. The main objective is to put enough shooting in your army so that your opponent doesn't want to hang around and see his troops getting shot down. Then you have to get the charge, stand and (most of the times) hope you reduced his numbers enough with the shooting so you win on ranks.

That is why you see so many warrior units/armies. The elite troops can easily be ignored by the enemy as they are slow. He only chooses to combat them when he knows he will break them.

McGonigle
11-06-2005, 22:04
Suggested tweaks

Looking at this topic and drawing from experience, i've come up with a small list with suggested tweaks which improve the list a bit, mostly the weaker elements. I doubt many people would not let you use at least some of them if you asked them (nicely and before the battle starts ;)).

The ones at the top seem the most simple andreasonable. Note that all of this is of course in addition to any existing rules (except where noted). Dwarf Runelords add 2 dice to the Dispel pool.
Longbeards are Immune to Fear. In accordance with the rulebook, this means they're still subject to Terror but threat it as Fear instead.
Instead of the normal The Dwarf army gets 1 additional die Power Die and 2 Dispel Dice per 1000 points.
During the Shooting phase, instead of firing a missile weapon, a Dwarf unit can move D3". This movement is subject to the normal rules for movement, so you cannot move to within 1" of an enemy and penalties for difficult terrain and still apply, etc.
Dwarf Rangers are Skirmishers.
Dwarf Miners can use their Underground Advance rule or the It Came From Below rule from the Tomb Kings army book.
As long as any unit with the Slayer special rule is not in close combat, he will recieve a 6+ Ward Save.
A Bolt Thrower, Cannon or Stone Thrower joined by a Dwarf Engineer can re-roll dice used do determine multiple Wounds and gets a bonus of +1 on the dice rolled on the machine's Misfire Chart.
An enemy unit only counts as Outnumbering a Dwarf unit if it outnumbers by 2:1.
An Organ Gun rolls 2 Artillery Dice instead of 1 to determine the amount of hits caused.

Taking them in turn

1: I can't see any reason against this, nice little rule and Dwarves are meant to be good at anti magic
2: Once again does not seem to unbalanceing
3: Forgive me if I'm mistaken but why the extra power Dice it seems that would be
1000 -1/2
2000 -2/4
3000 -3/6
The extra dispel make sense but unless bringing all armies into same style the power dice is seriously messed up
5 and 6. No real opinion either way
7. Yep every one knows that dying your hair a different colour or painting your body gives you a Ward save
8. If Organ guns are aparently so awful shouldn't the engineer help them as well
9. If this is because of fear then make it specifically against fear
10. Never seen one of these used so probaly a good idea


4. Fleet of footing Dwarfs, randomised movement, with exactly the same negative problems as marching. In the shooting phrase. Does not really sound hugely dwarf like, even if you want to speed them up randomised movement

My surgestion is make it 3 times normal speed and give another disadvantage in addition to:
Outside of 8 inches and can't shoot

Renka
11-06-2005, 23:45
*Give the Dwarfs BS4
*Make Long Beards Immune to Psychology alltogether
*Use the Dispel-/Power Dice system as proposed by the creator of this thread
*Use the Engineer-as-a-crew-upgrade-rule as proposed by... some one else

That should solve most problems, aight?It would allow dwarf armies to wither the Fear-causers down a little before they hit them (because of BS4 and Engineers), it would make the magical movement/ troop raising abilities of the undead less of a threat (due to more Dispel Dice) and it would mean Long Beards actually have a use (they can hold up Fear-causers).
The only REAL problem left would be the Organ gun, I suggest a Engineer crew-upgrade would allow you to re-roll the Artilery dice when determing how many shots it fires.

Megilain
12-06-2005, 00:42
How about making the dwarfs ignore penalties for difficult and very difficult terrains. This would certainly make them more maneuvarable, while still keeping them slow. It would also be fluffy, no dwarf is hampered by a few twigs on his way, they just march on no matter what... :)

Xisor
12-06-2005, 00:58
Possibility of 'mediocre' striking back rule when they are charged? Based primarily on the phrase "Bring your pretty face to my axe..." it shows that Dwarfs are pretty good at recieving charges, not devastatingly good...not sure where I'm going with it, someone can probably come up with a better rules mechanic than I can for it(or simply smash it to the ground if it's that bad)

Xisor

anarchistica
12-06-2005, 01:19
And it makes a big difference. now they can move 28" in 2 turns, thus making it too the other deployment zone, while in the previous edition they moved 24" in 2 turns and not making it too the other deployment zone.
Dude, how did you get to those numbers? :p

The point you make is what i meant though. Dwarfs now move 6". It will take them 4 turns of moving to even make it to the enemy deployment zone! We all know infantry sucks because they're slow, and Dwarfs are the slowest of them all...and they can't have any cavalry (aside from DOW/Kislev...). With Quick March, they can reach the enemy deployment zone in 3 turns on average. Four if you roll less than 6 on 3D3 and still three if you roll over 6 on 3D3. Cutting the amount of turns required to get at the enemy is a huge help, it will also make the game more enjoyable for the opponent!

Oh, and it might break up their line too, because of the randomness. This also help keep this in check.


3: Forgive me if I'm mistaken but why the extra power Dice it seems that would be
1000 -1/2
2000 -2/4
3000 -3/6
The extra dispel make sense but unless bringing all armies into same style the power dice is seriously messed up
Poor wording on my part. It's exactly how you think it should be, just edited in the correct wording.


7. Yep every one knows that dying your hair a different colour or painting your body gives you a Ward save
It works for Valten. Point is that Slayers are really determined to die a honourable death, and this is the easiest way to reflect this and to make them more than Dutch-loving pincushions.


8. If Organ guns are aparently so awful shouldn't the engineer help them as well
As any Dwarf player knows, no normal Engineer would even consider fiddling with that newfangled nonsense! "Oi, we're not gonna put Runes on those things, let alone stand anywhere near it!"

A radical engineer would do this, but the Malakai Gurnissons of this world are quite rare and it would take alot of changing of the list to make those available. However, i once, ages ago, did work on a full revision for 6th and covered all the army books (until i got distracted by something shiny and wandered off). I wrote this, note that it was devised ages ago but indeed with many of the above points in mind:

Engineer: Can be upgraded to Radical Engineer for +25 points. Radical Engineer: Cannot crew Cannon, Stone Thrower or Bolt Thrower. Measure range with Flame Cannon. Re-roll up to 1 Artillery die with Organ Gun.

I would probably change this now and give him Radical Runes or experimental weapons of some kind.


9. If this is because of fear then make it specifically against fear
It's mostly because of Fear, but (also because of their slowness) indeed also a problem when facing non-Fear Causing opponents.


4. Fleet of footing Dwarfs, randomised movement, with exactly the same negative problems as marching. In the shooting phrase. Does not really sound hugely dwarf like, even if you want to speed them up randomised movement

My surgestion is make it 3 times normal speed and give another disadvantage in addition to:
Outside of 8 inches and can't shoot
Heh, i changed that later on, now edited it in. Aside from it being a random amount of inches to not make this too reliable, it's the same as your version.


*Give the Dwarfs BS4
*Make Long Beards Immune to Psychology alltogether
BS4 Dwarfs? Sure, as soon as we get BS4 Tau, which will coincide with Cavatore writing a balanced armybook. ;)

Immune to Psychology altogether i would not like them to be. They're just experienced, not out of their head. They still know what fear is, are mightily pissed off by Goblins and they indeed have gotten this old by running away from the enemy now and then. ;)


How about making the dwarfs ignore penalties for difficult and very difficult terrains. This would certainly make them more maneuvarable, while still keeping them slow. It would also be fluffy, no dwarf is hampered by a few twigs on his way, they just march on no matter what... :)
No movement penalties for elevated terrain i had in mind, but forests and soggy ground will still slow Dwarfs down. "Oi, what do yer think we are? Pansy fleet-footed pointy-eared Elves?"

Dargon
12-06-2005, 04:00
Dude, how did you get to those numbers?He's referring to the movement of Empire Cavalry ;) . Previously, with the movement penalty for Heavy Armour, they could only move 6", which gave them a total marching movement of 24" over two turns. Sit your Dwarfs an inch behind the Deployment Zone, and it meant the Cavalry needed at least three turns to reach you.
Now, with that penalty gone, the movement of Empire Cavalry has been increased to 7", resulting in a potential 28" movement over two turns... pretty much ensuring they can charge on the second turn.



My experience with Dwarfs is pretty similar to the tournament stats I've seen. Dwarfs are one of the most balanced armies in the entire game, but they don't pull out the decisive victories. Solid and dependable, my opponents are very hard pressed to inflict a massacre, or even a solid victory over my Dwarfs... but by the same token I have never achieved a massacre with Dwarfs, and it is very difficult to even get a solid victory.

I've never had a problem with movement - mostly because with the cheap cost of basic infantry and the Relentless rule, I can afford alot of decent units that can always closely support one another. Gyrocopters are always handy too (that flame template fits rather nicely over a long line of missile troops ;) ), for ensuring my opponent can't just sit back and hit me from a distance. Dwarfs have worked well for me when it comes to mobile agressive play.

A few of the changes I'd love to see though...

Rangers
A whole bunch of expensive rules thrown together that just don't work together. Most scouts pay only 1pt for the Scout ability, while Rangers pay 3pts due to keeping their ranks. Problem is, ranks don't work for Missile weapons, and long lines don't work for an infiltrating unit that should keep moving. I'm also not a fan of being forced to pay 2pts for a great weapon as standard issue.

Solution - just have them skirmish like every other scout unit, and make the Great Weapons an equipment option instead of standard issue.
Result - 9pt Dwarf Rangers that become very versatile, more resistant to enemy shooting, and alot more maneuverable (not needing to wheel, turn, etc).

I also wouldn't mind seeing the 0-1 restriction removed, and replaced with "doesn't count towards the minimum Core Unit requirement". Allowing the potential of multiple scouting units would further alleviate the Dwarfs Movement issues without requiring the addition of a "Triple March" rule (plus, I just love the concept of Rangers and would love to have a second unit).

Slayers
Just like the Rangers, the simple fix for Slayers is Skirmish. They get their improved resistance to shooting, and a bit of extra speed in the bargain. Slayers are loners, and I can't think of any unit in the game more deserving of Skirmish than Slayers from a fluff perspective.

Throwing Axes as an equipment option for Slayers might be a fun addition too.

Also (just like the Rangers) I'd love to see Slayers as a Core choice that doesn't count towards the minimum Core Unit requirement. Potential multiple Slayer units would help alleviate the problem of fear (plus, I know many players love the concept of Slayers and would love to have a second unit).

Longbeards
Personally, I'd be perfectly happy with Longbeards if their Great Weapons were an equipment option instead of standard issue. This would reduce them to 12pts and make them the cheapest and most numerous of the elites (as they should be).

Immune to Psychology seems a little extreme, and there are plenty of magical options for countering Fear (Runes of Battle, Fear, Courage).

I rather like the idea of Longbeards as an upgrade to Dwarf Warriors, although not as 0-1. I've always seen Longbeards as far more common than the other elites and would like to see multiple units remain an option in some way.

Engineers
Champions for War Machines!!!
(I lay claim to being the originator of this idea - at least on Portent ;) )
Basically allow each War Machine to upgrade one member to an Engineer (+1BS). Bolt Throwers would use the Engineer's BS4, while Cannons/Stone Throwers would gain the ability to add/subtract 1" from the distance on the artillery dice.
Current Engineers can be re-named Master Engineers. I wouldn't mind seeing a return of the War Machine Battery rules for Dwarfs - and allow the Master Engineer to effect a full battery (currently, it's better value to just purchase a second Machine than invest in the Engineer's abilities).


One of the ideas I'd love to see in a Dwarf revision (that I've been toying with in my own personal revision) is of creating a Dwarf Guild system.

The idea is, you start with a very limited basic list (Clanlord/Thane/Warriors/Crossbowdwarfs/Longbeards), and then have the option of adding options (in the form of additional troops or upgrades) from up to two Guilds - hopefully resulting in a wide variety of very different armies that are instantly themed. For example, Cannons & Thunderers might only be available through the Engineers Guild.

The Engineer, Runesmith & Slayer Characters would be replaced by a single character called a Guildmaster - who could then be upgraded to gain abilities from a single Guild (Runesmith/Slayer/Ranger/Brewer/Engineer/Miner/etc). Purchasing this character allows access to the additional Guild options.

Want to recreate Bugman's Rangers - recruit the Ranger & Brewer Guilds.
Slayer & Brewer Guilds... Norse Dwarfs?
Rangers and Miners Guilds... Karak Izor?
Slayer and Craftsmiths Guilds... Karak Kadrin?
Miners and Engineers Guilds... Zufbar?
Craftsmiths and Runesmiths Guilds... Karak Hirn?

Just a thought...

Megilain
12-06-2005, 12:06
Slayers
Just like the Rangers, the simple fix for Slayers is Skirmish. They get their improved resistance to shooting, and a bit of extra speed in the bargain. Slayers are loners, and I can't think of any unit in the game more deserving of Skirmish than Slayers from a fluff perspective.

Throwing Axes as an equipment option for Slayers might be a fun addition too.

Also (just like the Rangers) I'd love to see Slayers as a Core choice that doesn't count towards the minimum Core Unit requirement. Potential multiple Slayer units would help alleviate the problem of fear (plus, I know many players love the concept of Slayers and would love to have a second unit).

As a former dwarf player who has now turned to wielding a slayer cult from time to time, I am against the skirmishing slayers. I agree that from the fluff perspective there is no unit more suitable for the skirmish status, but it would also completely break the concept of slayer army. You just can not justify destroying the only variant list (and probably the funniest ideas the studios have had in along time) just to make the mother list a little bit more flexiple.

As for the core choice, I think slayers slot is good just at it is. They should be special fighting with warmachines and elite troops for a spot in the sun. If move to core they would probably either be used as a replacement for units of 10 warriors with GW, who you sometimes see positioned on the flanks of larger units or they could just be used to make the dwarfs more static putting several units to protects the gun hill.

On the issue of getting the slayers alive into the close combat, perhaps you could make them a special upgrade for a banner, which would give them the ward or perhaps +1 toughness againts ranged attacks. This wouldn´t require any changes made to the slayers and could be perhaps fluufily explained that they have gathered to their old clan one more time carrying the clan colours and are even more determined to not to go down without a fight... :cries:

And I think throwing axes are un-fluffy for slayers, they do not have the time to throw things at the enemy while they are running to their deaths and besides why would they take the chance of denying themselves the glorious death in close combat... :p

WLBjork
13-06-2005, 20:54
Dwarf Runelords add 2 dice to the Dispel pool.
Yep, long past time this discepency was fixed. At the moment, it's better to take 2 Runesmiths as they cost the same, have the same runic allowance between them and generate 2 DD to boot.


Longbeards are Immune to Fear. In accordance with the rulebook, this means they're still subject to Terror but threat it as Fear instead.
Agree that Longbeards need something other than Immune to Panic, and this seems quite reasonable.


Instead of the normal amount of Power and Dispel dice, the Dwarf army gets 1 Power Die and 2 Dispel Dice per 1000 points.
If I've read the replies correctly, this is 1PD full stop and 2DD per 1Kpts right?
If the Runelord does get 2 DD then this doesn't need adjusting IMO, otherwise it should be.


If there are no enemy units within 8", a Dwarf unit can choose to perform a "Quick March". This follows all the rules for marching and allows the unit to move an additional d3". A character that performs a Quick March can't do anything during the Shooting Phase (i.e. can't throw a weapon with Rune of Flight, can't fire a missile weapon, etc).
I'm not convinced on this - I can see where you are coming from, but I'm not completely happy with the justification.


Dwarf Rangers are Skirmishers.
Makes sense.


Dwarf Miners can use their Underground Advance rule or the It Came From Below rule from the Tomb Kings army book.
Makes sense - although they should have very little chance of a cave in (I'm not completely up to speed with TKs)


As long as any unit with the Slayer special rule is not in close combat, he will recieve a 6+ Ward Save.
I'd like to see the Slayers get all the kit from the Slayer list - after all what happens to it when it's not in a Slayer army? I don't see it getting hung on a wall to rot somehow!


A Bolt Thrower, Cannon or Stone Thrower joined by a Dwarf Engineer can re-roll dice used do determine multiple Wounds and gets a bonus of +1 on the dice rolled on the machine's Misfire Chart.
Looks like this would make them worth their points more. Is the +1 on misfire charts supposed to be the same as the one Burlock Damminson gets?


An enemy unit only counts as Outnumbering a Dwarf unit if it outnumbers by 2:1.
Whilst I see where you are coming from I feel that this is overpowering. I think re-writing the Fear rules so that Fear results in a doubing of the LD modifier after combat resolution is calculated would be better.


An Organ Gun rolls 2 Artillery Dice instead of 1 to determine the amount of hits caused.
Needs something. How do these 2AD work though? Roll like a HBVG?

anarchistica
14-06-2005, 21:47
If I've read the replies correctly, this is 1PD full stop and 2DD per 1Kpts right? If the Runelord does get 2 DD then this doesn't need adjusting IMO, otherwise it should be.
Point is, Dwarves get a flat bonus of 2DD, which is stupid. In small games, this is a huge benefit, in large games, all but useless. With this change, a Dwarf army of 1999 points or less would have 1PD/2DD (1DD less than now), in 2000-2999 points 2PD/4DD (same as now) and for every 1000 points on top of that +1PD/+2DD (+1DD compared to now). It will make Dwarfs slightly less good in small battles (where they already easily shut down magic with a Smith with MR of Balance), doesn't change a thing in 2000 point battles and gives them a little boost in battles of 3000 points and more. In regard to this rule relating to Runesmiths; Keep in mind that for every 1000 points above 2000 you get an extra Lord. A Wizard Lord gives 4PD, a Runelord even with the above change only 2PD...and the MR of Balance can only be taken once!


I'm not convinced on this - I can see where you are coming from, but I'm not completely happy with the justification.
It's the best i could come up with that works with the current system. Perhaps it would be better if it works exactly like Quick March in WAB? Quick Marching WAB requires a unit to form up in ranks of 3 models (no rank bonus), but they always get tripled movement. (Also, in WAB, it only works for units with the Drilled rule, which usually applies to WS4 LD8 troops.)


I'd like to see the Slayers get all the kit from the Slayer list - after all what happens to it when it's not in a Slayer army? I don't see it getting hung on a wall to rot somehow!
The Slayer abilities wouldn't help the units, and they're far too powerful combined with missile fire. gyrocopters, miners, rangers and such.


Looks like this would make them worth their points more. Is the +1 on misfire charts supposed to be the same as the one Burlock Damminson gets?
I didn't know his rules, but i guess so.


Whilst I see where you are coming from I feel that this is overpowering. I think re-writing the Fear rules so that Fear results in a doubing of the LD modifier after combat resolution is calculated would be better.
That'd require rewriting the rulebook, and also wouldn't help Dwarfs otherwise. They're usually outnumbered because they're so terribly slow too.


Needs something. How do these 2AD work though? Roll like a HBVG?
Nah, you roll them at the same time. Or perhaps you'd roll one AD and double the result to represent it being a reliable Dwarf machine. Oh, and keep in mind it still has it's own Misfire Table, not the "1/6 chance of 30 hits" table the Hellblaster has.

Lady Bastet
16-06-2005, 01:22
I hate "Look Snorri" and the BT rule wouldn't work because, well, what would they get free movement to? All of the enemy army?

What about the enemy General? They are afterall the main reason the Dwarfs are fighting- they could have done some misdeed to the Dwarf people.


You could name the rule "break the bastard's legs" or "Grudge" if your feeling boring.

I could personally imagine Dwarfs shouting the earlier comment though.

anarchistica
16-06-2005, 06:42
You know, that's an interesting idea. What if you could choose to be fighting a "grudge-settling" battle. All Dwarfs would get some bonus (movement, hatred, whatever) but they'd have to kill the general/certai % of the enemy or suffer from some other penalty. Kind of like Wood Elves.

flain
16-06-2005, 09:46
I don't like hatred. It is already terrible when fighting a good O&G opponent. 5 wolf riders in the flank, unit goes after them, then your complete formation is broken. Hatred sounds very good, but is actually terrible when fighting a good opponent (just like frenzy is)

anarchistica
16-06-2005, 20:04
It's supposed to be a drawback to counter for the extra movement...

Lord Lucifer
20-06-2005, 14:14
As any Dwarf player knows, no normal Engineer would even consider fiddling with that newfangled nonsense! "Oi, we're not gonna put Runes on those things, let alone stand anywhere near it!"
Engineers build, runesmiths inscribe.
Runesmiths are considerably more conservative than engineers, and engineers are pretty conservative already
However, Engineers work on Organ Guns... how else are they going to be built?
I doubt an apprentice has the requisite expertise

It's the runesmiths' discrimination, not the engineers', that precludes Runing-up an Organ Gun


My complaint is about the Engineer 'fix'
A cannon that never explodes... doesn't that just rain on the Bolt Throwers parade?
A '1' should ALWAYS be the death of a gunpowder war machine, no matter what
The Dwarfs already have the Rune of Forging to minimise this, giving them immunity to explosions is not something to balance them.

anarchistica
20-06-2005, 15:57
Engineers build, runesmiths inscribe.
Runesmiths are considerably more conservative than engineers, and engineers are pretty conservative already

It's the runesmiths' discrimination, not the engineers', that precludes Runing-up an Organ Gun
Most Engineers and Runesmiths share the same thoughts about Gyrocopters, Organ Guns, etc.


However, Engineers work on Organ Guns... how else are they going to be built?
I doubt an apprentice has the requisite expertise
Radical Engineers. Types like Malakai Gurnisson.


My complaint is about the Engineer 'fix'
A cannon that never explodes... doesn't that just rain on the Bolt Throwers parade?
A '1' should ALWAYS be the death of a gunpowder war machine, no matter what
The Dwarfs already have the Rune of Forging to minimise this, giving them immunity to explosions is not something to balance them.
Erm, i even doubt my changes will make Engineers a viable option. A Bolt Thrower costs 45 points and takes up half a Special choice. A naked Engineer costs 65 points and a Hero choice, a Cannon 100 points and a Special choice. Even if you add 45 points spent on runes (Penetrating, Penetrating, Flame), it's still 30 points cheaper to take 2 Bolt Throwers, you don't spend a Hero choice and you get 2 shots.

fubukii
21-06-2005, 03:00
dam whiney dwarf players they are fine they really dont need any help, either did dark elves.

Freak Ona Leash
21-06-2005, 12:55
:eyebrows: I suggest coming out from under the rock you live under...

anarchistica
21-06-2005, 14:31
dam whiney dwarf players they are fine they really dont need any help, either did dark elves.
I don't play Dwarfs. ;) :p

Lady Bastet
22-06-2005, 01:01
For the army grudge why not make the player pick a task from something like-

-kill enemy general
- steal battle standard
- destroy 25% of the enemy army

enemy gains VP upon the Dwarf player failing in their task?


dam whiney dwarf players they are fine they really dont need any help, either did dark elves.
Better than High Elf players *insert whining about I@C* *add comment about how Archers should shoot in two ranks*

I like Dwarfs- a good revision= more Dwarf players :D

anarchistica
22-06-2005, 14:03
Another option perhaps would to only grant them VP for entirely whiped out units, captured standards and slaying the enemy general (possibly double VP for this).

WLBjork
02-07-2005, 15:09
Forgotten about my previous post.

Burlock Damminson (on the GW Website) gives a +1 to misfire result. On a 7 then the misfire is treated as a 0 instead :evilgrin:

Nazguire
03-07-2005, 08:27
dam whiney dwarf players they are fine they really dont need any help, either did dark elves.

So says you Mr. I don't play Dwarfs so I must play something else that I think needs a revision so I must play High Elves person! :o

Dark Elves did need a coupla touch-ups but this topic isn't said topic for that said topic...?


Anyhoodilies, I quite like the Grudge tasks that Mr. Lady Bastet...Ms. Lady Bastet...Lady Bastet <----- proposed, very in character and not so easy to gain virtually free VP's but not so hard as to make it impossible to get them. Very cool to be able to say na da na da na da na da I killiyed your General-poo, more VP's to me tee hee :D

What about extending the Ancestral Hatred thingy they have going with Greenskins to go with Skaven and Chaos Dwarfs...or is that too much? Or perhaps they can choose to use new runes that increase the potency of their hatred?

Tormentor of Slaanesh
03-07-2005, 12:50
rangers should have the option to skirmish, eg. +1 point upgrade. nobody takes organ guns. i agree with the outnumbering rule but small, elite units would still suffer, eg. hammerers. also hammerers should be immune to fear as part of the bodyguard rule. they can take a chosen knight charge and hold but then are run down by their recently passed away zombie cousin bob. its stupid

Stickboy
29-08-2005, 06:47
I think dwarfs should get mountain goat riding iron breakers or warriors. :p

Anvilbrow
02-09-2005, 05:15
I got into this late, but a suggestion or two from a long time Dwarf player (15+ years):

Dwarfs, who by their very nature are resistant to magic are MR1. ALL Dwarfs. Runesmiths, rather than add didpel dice simply add MR1 to existing units they join, thus making them MR2. Now some might say this is far too powerful, but bear in mind, this has NO effect on spells not cast directly at Dwarfs. Make your own army more powerful? Go ahead. Blast my Dwarfs? Good luck.

All Dwarf units, save rangers and slayers get heavy armour as normal. Rangers (who should skirmish) get light. Slayers get nothing and like it, maybe a 6+ save against shooting as mentioned.

Organ Gun range 24", price reduced to 100.

Gyrocopters go back to old steam cannon rules. I haven't used one this edition since the changes.

Miners get "it came from below" like rule. As they are, everyone can readily avoid them or turn a war machine around and munch them.

Engineers are problematic. I'm not sure what to do with those although as a unit upgrade they would be cost effective, but they'd have to be quite pricey in order to not be too powerful.

Dwarfs simply ignore outnumber? Too powerful. Good luck EVER beating a dwarf unit with zombies or skellies. A sliding scale would be useful here. Perhaps retain rank bonus no matter what. Ever had your Dwarf warriors beaten by five fast cav in the flank? Seems rather unlikely to me...

Relentless is fine. My Dwarfs are actually more maneuverable than many armies once things get up close and personal.

There are others but it's late and I'm actually quite happy with Dwarfs asa they are. It is a very balanced book with a lot of theme. I'd rather not make them more like other armies, rather accentuate their strengths: anti-magic, armour, steadfastness. Try running Dwarfs in 5th edition GT's. I did three times and it was physically impossible to win the messenger scenario if your messengers were march blocked even once (remember characters within 8" of enemy could not march in 5th ed as they can now)!!!

LeonidasL
03-09-2005, 13:26
I think the opinion of someone who IS NOT palying dwarfs might be a bit appreciated. Making the dwarfs very resistant to fear, simply cripples the other armies' advantage. Undead generally have very bad troops, but if you lose to them then u r most of the time doomed. Dwarfs are good fighters and making them over-rule the advantage of undead, making the later simply garbage, that can't win (or win very rarely) against dwarfs. Also, Cold one knights. They rely on the charge and fear to break the enemy. Dwarfs have high WS, high T and good saves. They are difficult to break as it is.
I haven't heard anything about iron breakers. In my opinion they are 1) a no brainer choice since they are dirt cheap and very good (ws5, st4, ld9, save 2+ in cc, for 14p each?!) 2) they are not 0-1 choice. what beacame of them guarding the labyrinths of the dwarf realms? Greatswords are 0-1, swordmasters, dragon princes... u get the point.
making dwarfs BETTER and CHEAPER in every domain, plus keeping the TOO good to be true units unchanged, doesn't sound a very convincing BALANCING attempt.
Of course there are lots of tweaks to make to see some units in the game, but on the whole, I think the dwarfs are very solid and very powerful as they are.
The whole idea of fast moving dwarfs smacks me as silly. Better have runesmiths with flaming hammers and crosbows rather than fast marching dwrafs. Defence is their trait; keep that in mind

anarchistica
03-09-2005, 15:44
Dwarfs, who by their very nature are resistant to magic are MR1. ALL Dwarfs. Runesmiths, rather than add didpel dice simply add MR1 to existing units they join, thus making them MR2. Now some might say this is far too powerful, but bear in mind, this has NO effect on spells not cast directly at Dwarfs. Make your own army more powerful? Go ahead. Blast my Dwarfs? Good luck.
Keep in mind Magic Resistance is very different from 5th. In 5+, Magic Resistance (1) gave you a 4+ save against the effects of the spell. Now you just get +1DD for spells targetting you. It helps, but only a tiny bit and that's not enough.


Organ Gun range 24", price reduced to 100.
It'd still be too unreliable. Nobody pays a hundred points for something that might just cause 2 S5 AP hits.


Gyrocopters go back to old steam cannon rules. I haven't used one this edition since the changes.
All Steam Guns tend to follow the same rules in 6th...


Dwarfs simply ignore outnumber? Too powerful. Good luck EVER beating a dwarf unit with zombies or skellies. A sliding scale would be useful here. Perhaps retain rank bonus no matter what. Ever had your Dwarf warriors beaten by five fast cav in the flank? Seems rather unlikely to me...
Er, no. You just need to outnumber them 2:1 to count as outnumbering.

Always retaining rank bonuses would make them far too powerful as that basically allows them to ignore flank attacks.


Relentless is fine. My Dwarfs are actually more maneuverable than many armies once things get up close and personal.
Point is that they never get up close and personal but just get charged by cavalry from 14" away.

boogle
08-09-2005, 13:46
I would like Miners to get an 'Undermine' rule which deducts -1 from their turn up roll, but causes 3D6 S2 hits on a single unit at the beginning of the game and also halves their 1st lot of movement (to represent them falling into a hole and having to pick themselves out)