PDA

View Full Version : are dwarves fun?



Tenken
06-04-2010, 04:41
I like dwarves. I like the models and the fluff. I have some stuff, friend got a BfSP and gave me the dwarves and I got a box of quarrelers/thunderers for free.

My question is, are dwarves any fun to play with/against? I've never fancied being the 'stand back and shoot guy' but I'm not having much fun being the 'run headlong at things and get whomped' guy. I also like how warmachines work, and dwarves definately have that going on for them.

Can they win combats? They seem to have decidedly average melee troops and will almost always strike last (except against undead orcs and lizardmen I think), so they have to weather a hail of attacks before they can strike back. Seems like a recipe for disaster in combat.

Just looking for general info of dwarves I guess.

ChaosVC
06-04-2010, 04:59
Any army can be fun if you chose to play it differently in every game to try out stuff, do things from the most competative to the most crapy ones and you will get the fun you want.

outbreak
06-04-2010, 05:19
I have a dwarf army amongst others. At times i get abit bored but if you take more foot troop blocks it can be fun. An opponent may find it boring if they play denial and avoid letting you get into combat but that's their own fault. They are less versatile then my other armies but i find i have alot of fun with a list similar to a lord, 2 blocks of warriors, 1 block of longbeards, 1 line of thunderers, 1 block of hammerers, 1 block of ironbreakers/slayers, 2 bolt throwers, 1 canon and an organ gun. The idea is to have some shooting but also have enough foot troop blocks to be able to force your opponent to have to fight one and open up their flank to another. This list seems to be competetive for me too around here.

Ultimate Life Form
06-04-2010, 06:50
No .

Condottiere
06-04-2010, 08:19
That's because, unlike Goblins, you can't throw them.

Ultimate Life Form
06-04-2010, 08:20
Never heard of the Grudge Thrower? :shifty:

jesusjohn
06-04-2010, 08:28
Once you get a couple of beers in them they can be a laugh :)

Condottiere
06-04-2010, 08:32
Never heard of the Grudge Thrower? :shifty:Even Slayers don't get into that bucket seat.

Gromdal
06-04-2010, 09:52
Dwarfs have awesome fluff, great models and terrible gameplay.

Unless you want a defensive boring gunline that is weak in close combat dont go dwarfs.

Go for one of the more fun offensive armies like warriors of chaos, bretonnia...

moose
06-04-2010, 09:55
Depends on how you play them entirely.

Want a gunline? Thats dull, since you're just rolling dice.

Offensive minded dwarves? Thats more interesting. Not sure about fun as not many people play it.


Moose.

yabbadabba
06-04-2010, 10:04
The fun is in the players, not the armies.

If you mean tournament competitive the general opinion is that there are very few competitive builds for dwarves.

But fun? don't look at dwarves, look in the mirror and who is across the table.

ftayl5
06-04-2010, 10:09
that is weak in close combat

:mad: What did you just say? :mad:

Did you just say that an 8pt core choice with LD 9,Toughness and WS of 4 and heavy armour is weak in close combat?

Did you imply that a 11pt core choice, made for shooting that also has those stats is weak in combat?

Are you also implying that a 13pt special choice with a possible 2+ save, WS 5, strength and toughness of 4 and LD 9 is weak in combat??

Are you also saying that a 12pt special choice with 5+ save, the ability to become immune to fear and terror, a unit that is stubborn with LD 9, WS 5, S and T 4 and a great weapon, is weak in close combat??????

Are you saying that an army with 4 special choices dedictaed to close combat and only 3 to shooting, is weak in close combat?????????????

Is it also your intention to say that a 65pt hero with options for up to 75pts of 'magic items', a 4+ base save, LD 9, 3 attacks, toughness of 5 and WS 6, is bad at close combat???????????????????

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??

EDIT: Dwarves are the best army in the game for going super-cheese, shoot-entire-enemy-army-to-death-by-turn-three style, however they can very fun if you actually do a combaty army and not just sit back and shoot stuff.

And like I said, they are NOT weak in close combat!


they have to weather a hail of attacks

This is why every unit in the whole army has atleast a 5+ save (except Quarrellers and Thunderers) the basic warrior starts witha 5+, which becomes a 3+ in combat if you buy (for 1pt) shield.

Even the Quarrellers and Thunderers can buy shields so they have a 4+ save in combat. Ironbreakers have a 2+ save, Hammerers have a5+ but can get shields, so if youd on't need teh strength bonus, they too can have a 3+ save.

There are also runic standards which can increase their survivability

Looks like I wrote alot :D

logan054
06-04-2010, 10:26
I have had some great games against dwarfs that are loads of fun, thekey to this is to not just build a gunline and stand at the back of the board waiting for somehing to happen. Dwarf have some great infantry units, yes they are M3 however if you play against someone who actually moves towards you can see combat within a few turns. Last time i played against a Dwarf infantry amy we had combat with infantry on infantry on turn two, fun isnt just about the army your using its also about the people you are playing with.

Gromdal
06-04-2010, 11:20
:mad: What did you just say? :mad:

Did you just say that an 8pt core choice with LD 9,Toughness and WS of 4 and heavy armour is weak in close combat?

Did you imply that a 11pt core choice, made for shooting that also has those stats is weak in combat?

Are you also implying that a 13pt special choice with a possible 2+ save, WS 5, strength and toughness of 4 and LD 9 is weak in combat??

Are you also saying that a 12pt special choice with 5+ save, the ability to become immune to fear and terror, a unit that is stubborn with LD 9, WS 5, S and T 4 and a great weapon, is weak in close combat??????

Are you saying that an army with 4 special choices dedictaed to close combat and only 3 to shooting, is weak in close combat?????????????

Is it also your intention to say that a 65pt hero with options for up to 75pts of 'magic items', a 4+ base save, LD 9, 3 attacks, toughness of 5 and WS 6, is bad at close combat???????????????????

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??

EDIT: Dwarves are the best army in the game for going super-cheese, shoot-entire-enemy-army-to-death-by-turn-three style, however they can very fun if you actually do a combaty army and not just sit back and shoot stuff.

And like I said, they are NOT weak in close combat!



This is why every unit in the whole army has atleast a 5+ save (except Quarrellers and Thunderers) the basic warrior starts witha 5+, which becomes a 3+ in combat if you buy (for 1pt) shield.

Even the Quarrellers and Thunderers can buy shields so they have a 4+ save in combat. Ironbreakers have a 2+ save, Hammerers have a5+ but can get shields, so if youd on't need teh strength bonus, they too can have a 3+ save.

There are also runic standards which can increase their survivability

Looks like I wrote alot :D

Compared to my brets they suck in close combat, as they do vs WOC, DOC, DE, HE errrr i just ranked half of the armies.

Dwarfs are possibly the most boring army gameplaywise.

Hence i abandoned it early 6th edition for the brets and I have never looked back. Got a 3k dwarf army collecting dust, that only sees the light of day in multiplayer games.

Hands down i despise the gameplay of the dwarf army more than any other. And I love its fluff the most...

Glad you like em though, I am just trying to help the topic creator so that he does not face what i did.

My advice and opinion stands.

I warmly recommend brets or WOC instead of dwarfs if you like close combat and being true to its fluff.

If you love defensive gunline armies then dwarfs might be right up your alley.

Dont worry that your enemy will get bored with your m3 gunlines, he will face many other armies so for him it wont be so boring. But for you its the same thing over and over. You wont be stealing no charges with m3, you wont mow down ranks with a1 on all troopers and so on. Pretty much all other armies have more fun stuff gameplay wise.

Havock
06-04-2010, 12:37
"offensive dwarves".

Say, what happened to that slayer list? :p

dwarfhold13
06-04-2010, 12:42
eh, dwarfs can be tactically sound, you just have to know how to use them..
they are one of the armies that really does benefit from having a BSB around and you almost have to have a super unit with others to back it up... say like a hammerer unit with dwarf lord on shield.
actually i don't like too much shooting, because it gets unreliable the more you bring... really, one unit of thunderers, 2 bolt throwers, and an organ gun is great. you can throw in the grudge thrower, but it's almost too expensive once you tack on the runes to keep it firing. 4 bolt throwers would also be great... especially since you can make them str. 7
i have 5 different armies and two of which are varieties of dwarfs, if i go to a tourney, they don't come with me, unless i just feel like clowning, but most of the time when i play friendly games, i love em.

Dai-Mongar
06-04-2010, 12:43
If you want to play offensive Dwarfs, then I'd say an anvil is a must. Between slowing the enemy and speeding up your own troops, you can easily get charges.

Dungeon_Lawyer
06-04-2010, 12:55
dwarfs are fun to play against I know that much! Their infantry , especially ironbreakers, are legit. I dont like facing them w/my lizardmen.

I am very much looking forward to facing the rumoured "big gribbly monster type" war machine/tank thing GW is supposed to release for dwarfs over the summer for some sort of new campaign.

Arkturas
06-04-2010, 13:14
On the whole I think Dwarfs play like you would expect. Solid dependable infantry backed up by solid shooting and warmachines. Nothing really exceptional and combat amounts generally to attrition by taking very few casualties or buying Heroes to do the damage to win outright. They can be mixed up a bit with the Anvil, Miners and Gyrocopters for a more mobile offensive force. The stronger armoured units can withstand a fair proportion of frontal cavalry charges and the missile units and warmachines can hold off the usual units that kill the equivalents in other forces.

The fun depends on whether you like a well disciplined hard to beat force with nothing really exceptional.

Von Wibble
06-04-2010, 13:15
Compared to my brets they suck in close combat, as they do vs WOC, DOC, DE, HE errrr i just ranked half of the armies.

Dwarfs are possibly the most boring army gameplaywise.

Hence i abandoned it early 6th edition for the brets and I have never looked back. Got a 3k dwarf army collecting dust, that only sees the light of day in multiplayer games.

Hands down i despise the gameplay of the dwarf army more than any other. And I love its fluff the most...

Glad you like em though, I am just trying to help the topic creator so that he does not face what i did.

My advice and opinion stands.

I warmly recommend brets or WOC instead of dwarfs if you like close combat and being true to its fluff.

If you love defensive gunline armies then dwarfs might be right up your alley.

Dont worry that your enemy will get bored with your m3 gunlines, he will face many other armies so for him it wont be so boring. But for you its the same thing over and over. You wont be stealing no charges with m3, you wont mow down ranks with a1 on all troopers and so on. Pretty much all other armies have more fun stuff gameplay wise.

You can remove high elves from that list of armies dwarfs are weak in combat against. Spearmen come out more or less even than dwarf warriors but cost more, and will also be lower in numbers because of their advance across the table. Swordmasters get shot before seeing combat. Phoenix guard are too expensive and not killy enough. High elves don't really have any weapons against dwarfs except to take lots of their own shooting, nullify the major dwarf threats (hoping for first turn oc - skeinsliver to help) and thenhide and claim a minor victory.

Same for dark elves, but at least they have a bit of shooting protection and their magic is nastier.

Dwarfs are a very badly made army premise imo. They are an army that choose to ignore the most tactical phase in the game, the movement phase.

They then ignore the 2nd most tactical phase, the magic phase.

Leaving the only strategy in game as what targets to choose, and hoping for some good dice rolls.

Not fun to play aganst at all.

Baboon
06-04-2010, 14:24
You can remove high elves from that list of armies dwarfs are weak in combat against. Spearmen come out more or less even than dwarf warriors but cost more, and will also be lower in numbers because of their advance across the table. Swordmasters get shot before seeing combat. Phoenix guard are too expensive and not killy enough. High elves don't really have any weapons against dwarfs except to take lots of their own shooting, nullify the major dwarf threats (hoping for first turn oc - skeinsliver to help) and thenhide and claim a minor victory.

Same for dark elves, but at least they have a bit of shooting protection and their magic is nastier.

Dwarfs are a very badly made army premise imo. They are an army that choose to ignore the most tactical phase in the game, the movement phase.

They then ignore the 2nd most tactical phase, the magic phase.

Leaving the only strategy in game as what targets to choose, and hoping for some good dice rolls.

Not fun to play aganst at all.


Dwarfs are a very tactical army to play. You need to pick the tools that you want and use them well yes gunlines work but they are dull to use.

Every one bangs on ah with M3 you wont be stealing charges, or how willyou get in to combat at M3. Easy use your runes and think about units and how best to use them.

Anvil.. with that i can get a charge off on any unit. its lets me slow the unit the turn b4 my charge making your great cav go from M8 to M4 and then next turn let my Dwarfs have a charge range of 12"

Strollinaz rune and a rune of challange. gets you 1/2 across the table in turn one and forceing an opponants cav unit to charge you in your opponants 1st turn. (hell if you break them and over run then you should be set up to charge in your 2nd turn) No one wants to charge a unit of iron breakers head on.

Gyrocopters... M20 whats not to like... hell take 2 i do.

Miners and anvil the classic turn 2 charge combo right in to the back lines.

units of 10 warriors used as bait units and can use LD 10 to rallie after a flee.

With dwarfs never worrie about taking the nasty charge if you are equipped right you should hold. Ahhh lost combat by 5 million.... ah well im stubbon and this test i will take on 1 dice. :)

dwarfs ignore the movement phase... only if you are playing them wrong.

And magic for dwarfs is a non game and any one playing againts a dwarf army are going to have to dump alot of points to get to cast anything realy and this will make them worse in combat.

Malorian
06-04-2010, 16:13
I find my dwarfs a lot of fun.

After playing armies which force you to be aggressive it's nice to be able to sit back and see if your castle holds against the opponent.


Not that I run a mixed dwarf army and not a gunline, so if I'm against an opponent who wants to stand back and shoot/magic me to death then the game is much less fun.


I've also found that in larger games (3k+) where you can now have the lord and an anvil plus all the fancy toys that they become even more. I have a fully ranked unit of miners with full command and I love nothing more than using the anvil to crush a flank :D

JayC707
06-04-2010, 16:33
Most boring army in the game...all you do is sit and shoot.

H33D
06-04-2010, 16:37
I used to run heavy shooting Dwarf lists but after a game vs VC where my 2 cannons with the rune of forging EACH exploded turn one I tend to invest my points more toward the rock hard infantry. Still, after some games I tell myself... "I should've brought more infantry!"

Now I tend to bring some thunderers/quarrellers (depending on my opponents army), big blocks of warriors longbeards and hammerers, and up to 3 war machines including gyro.

Also, when you play Dwarves ignoring the movement phase is plain DUMB. Most of the time my opponents units do not line up with the units I want to face him with so I spend a few turns moving a few units forward and some left or right trying to set up receiving charges just right.

This means I will be moving forward and combat will be turn 2/3 at earliest. Shooting is only for a little support and to act as a threat for me. My key strategy is to break my opponents units and run them down with the gyro.

All in all, Dwarves can be a stressful army to play as due to having to maneuver things just right, target priorities just right, and hope to god your war machines DO NOT A-SPLODE.

But they have been fun for me in every game. I played fun lists only until I played a lizardman player who brought x2 stegs. After he creamed me we played again except this time I brought Thorek, x2 cannons w master engys, 1 GT, 2 BT, 2 OG, and multiple thunderer units. His stegs were both dead turn 2 and I spend 4 turns doing nothing but anviling his pathetic skink units who could not escape the wrath of Thorek.

The fun thing about Dwarves is they are fun, tactical, and balanced. If you absolutely have to move you units across the board to feel good about yourself then dont play them. Or play them and bring Rangers, Miners, and Gyrocopters. But if you play cheesey armies you have some pepperjack of your own.

TMATK
06-04-2010, 17:34
Great minis, great fluff, boring game play.

I would only play dwarfs as a second army, change of pace on occasion.

Malorian
06-04-2010, 17:44
Also keep in mind that a lot of things can be termed as boring and it really depends on what that player likes and doesn't like.

For example:

-wood elves are boring, all you do is run around is shoot
-vampire counts are boring, all you do is raise undead
-brets are boring, all you do is charge
-lizardmen are boring, all you do is blast them with magic and crush them with stegadons
-orcs are boring, all you do is swarm
-so on and so on

You do anything long enough and it becomes boring. In fact I think all gamers would be best off having more than one army (I have eight! :D).

KalEf
06-04-2010, 18:05
I like dwarves. I like the models and the fluff. I have some stuff, friend got a BfSP and gave me the dwarves and I got a box of quarrelers/thunderers for free.

My question is, are dwarves any fun to play with/against? I've never fancied being the 'stand back and shoot guy' but I'm not having much fun being the 'run headlong at things and get whomped' guy. I also like how warmachines work, and dwarves definately have that going on for them.

Can they win combats? They seem to have decidedly average melee troops and will almost always strike last (except against undead orcs and lizardmen I think), so they have to weather a hail of attacks before they can strike back. Seems like a recipe for disaster in combat.

Just looking for general info of dwarves I guess.

Fun? well that depends on your play style.

Win combats? Yes! sadly not through casualties :(

Iron Breakers are amazing. Any one who plays them right can deliver a serious combat rez beat down on almost anything. though sadly, it does not look as cool as the chaos knight beat down.

They have the tools to beat all the big nastiest out there!

Obviously
if you like using magic---- don't play the dwarves------
if you like fast and mobile ---- don't play dwarves----

If you like bricks of solid steel blocks and awesome shooting---- this is the army for you----

Also if your grandpa is a grizzled WWII vet it doesn't hurt either.

Voss
06-04-2010, 18:41
That's because, unlike Goblins, you can't throw them.

Please. 'Dwarf Skittles' is a longstanding game in the warhammer world. Drunk giants from all over converge on dwarf holds to find the perfect 'ball'

Harwammer
06-04-2010, 19:39
Playing dwarfs in a boring fashion is an easy trap to fall into.

Their lack of truely sacrificial units is frustrating. Gyrochopters, anvils and miners all add a lot to the list. On the rare occasion I take my dwarfs out of the dust pile I'll always use a gyrochopter, its my favorite unit.

zak
06-04-2010, 20:02
No army is boring. The play style can make for a frustrating game, but I have always found them to be an entertaining army that can be used in both offensive and defensive modes.

Leogun_91
06-04-2010, 20:05
[Dwarves are the best army in the game for going super-cheese, shoot-entire-enemy-army-to-death-by-turn-three style, however they can very fun if you actually do a combaty army and not just sit back and shoot stuff. If you go for only shooting then the empire is a better choice, the dwarfs pay much for being able to stand their ground at closequarters and they can never get as much shooting as the imperial troops, where they excel in shooting is in their ability to defend their ranged troops with castle formations and simmilar.

Dont worry that your enemy will get bored with your m3 gunlines, he will face many other armies so for him it wont be so boring. But for you its the same thing over and over. You wont be stealing no charges with m3, you wont mow down ranks with a1 on all troopers and so on. Pretty much all other armies have more fun stuff gameplay wise.Rune of Slowness is good for charges, only one unit can have it (technically two may but then one is the BSB) but it is often enough. Moving down ranks is hard for dwarfs but a thane can throw out 6A and a lord 9A (two which are from his shieldbearers), after your opponent has killed their slayers you happily reveal that the first rank is made up of champions and thus throw out 14A with Greatweapons or 21A with two-handweapons (provided you play with a 7wide frontage).
You can play at offense with Strollaz Rune and MR of Grungni or simply a gunline with almost naught but ranged troops but truth be told a balanced army is the best way to go to win battles, I have tried all three.

Also I suggest you to go to the forum Bugmans Brewery, it is a great place to discuss your plans for a dwarf army.

enygma7
06-04-2010, 21:14
Dwarves do suffer from the fact they are built for a dull play style (gunline). If you do really like them it is possible to build a decent (if not a tourni winning) offensive army, but dwarves really suffer here because their low movement and lack of any flack units means they can't dominate the movement phase. Your best bet is to take plenty of shooting to get rid of the enemies flack and try to turn the game into a head to head contest where your infantry's resilience and character's killing power should hopefully win you a war of attrition. I'd also recommend using some of the units with different movement rules like rangers and miners to spice things up.

Alltaken
06-04-2010, 21:24
The good side of boring and fun is that it's up to the player who plays them to choose that.

I find they're a little bit hurt being as of certain later edition. However they seam very viable. And yet competitive. And yes their units are a little bit high costed, even though their stats they don't seem to perform as well

Condottiere
06-04-2010, 21:28
Fundamentally, Dwarves are alright; the problem is the game mechanics that can't allow a representation of Dwarves marching to battle, but forces the player to try and accomplish everything within six turns.

CrystalSphere
06-04-2010, 21:52
I donīt know about boring, but they are definitely repetitive. What i mean is that playing dwarfs you will be doing the same thing most of the games. If you really like the dwarves (their background is awesome imho) then you wonīt have problems, but if you are in more for the style of the army, then you should be aware that they have very limited gameplay options, and most of them involve waiting the enemy come while you shoot at him. If you donīt like defensive tactics then donīt pick dwarves or at least wait until the new book to see if they have more options.

theunwantedbeing
06-04-2010, 22:09
The problem with dwarves is a simple one.
Not enough people take fun to face lists, so there's no incentive for the dwarf player to bother even trying to take his own fun to face list.

Dwarves can be fun to face. You need less guns and more troops for that, as well as a bit of tactical wizardry to get the whole list working properly.

Plus you need to be able to make dwarves look actually interesting on the tabletop....which is tricky as they're the least interesting looking army in the game by a mile and a half.

Condottiere
06-04-2010, 22:41
How can an army that has flashers rushing to battle not be interesting?

wizbix
06-04-2010, 22:42
The only problem with Dwarf's is that there are too many prejudiced people that would have you believe that the only way you can play them is by Gunline.

To hell with these people. I've added every single one of them in to my big book of Grudges!

ftayl5
06-04-2010, 22:51
To hell with these people. I've added every single one of them in to my big book of Grudges!

Me too.

If you think they can ONLY go gunline, you need to vs the manager of my local store, he'll shut you up! He takes 1 unit of Quarellers and a cannon in most armies, the rest is slayers, warriors, hammerers, ironbreakers and gyrocopters

Tokugawa100
06-04-2010, 23:25
Not as much as some but if you try different things definately. You could try the generic line of unbreakable infantry with the huge amount of artillery at the back but it gets a bit old.

Try lots of Slayers, I find these especially fun if your enemy has a giant, or a dragon, or a troll to make an objective where your respective slayers must slay their respective beasties.

Or if you theme it with alot of rangers and warriors out hunting for a rouge goblin chief who long ago killed their loved ones.

I find themed armies are much more fun then power armies.

Witchblade
06-04-2010, 23:39
Great minis, great fluff, boring game play.

I would only play dwarfs as a second army, change of pace on occasion.
What he said, although I find the minis 'good', not great.

As for them being only boring if the player decides to make them boring: eh, no, sorry. Sure there's a scale of army boringness that players can field, but the army's internal dynamics simply do not lend themselves to an offensive play style. M3 all-round (practically) means you are forced to bring more ranged fire power than the opponent. Seeing as the army has no magic, you are forced to invest heavily in shooting (or lose games) and you are forced to go anti-magic. That's a significant part of your army set right there. Now you need blocks to defend your warmachines and then you have a very large portion of your points invested before any real decisions have been made. Furthermore, the army has almost no fast movers or redirectors/baits/throw-away units, so you're very much limited there as well.

In conclusion, dwarfs are just a very limited army, tactically. VC and Bretonnia suffer from this to a certain degree as well, although I'd rate them as vastly more fun than dwarfs still.

Condottiere
07-04-2010, 00:57
The real problem is that the designers haven't figured out to give Dwarven armies a degree of mobility that would encourage players to sally forth, while retaining their archetypal movement rate.

Ibid
07-04-2010, 01:45
Dwarves aren't for everyone. If you don't like war machines, infantry, or "limited" movement you won't have fun with Dwarves.

As for those points they can be fun in their aspect.

We have very unique war machines. You can go crazy organ gun death, bring in mr. flame cannon for some template sexiness, or scare people with the gyrocopter. Your cannons and bolt throwers can be runed up to be better and more reliable then other armies that have those. Monday night I got the pleasure of my two runed up bolt throwers insta-killing some DE chariots. Fun stuff.

Our Infantry is rock hard. My ironbreakers have taken charges from Bret knights and not ran. My thunders and crossbow dwarves have survived turns upon turns of enemy missile fire with minimal casualties and passed panic tests. Just about every dwarf can be charged by anything short of a chaos warrior and not sweat it.

To make limited movement fun you have to maximize the effect of your movement. This starts with deployment and choosing terrain to block your flanks or cover your "advance" across the field if you choose to do so. Reform, shuffle, and segway all over the place so that your opponent doesnt' get to define where the battle happens. Rangers can give you a mid field crossbow unit. Ditto miners, gyros, and anvils they can keep everyone guessing.

If you constantly compare us to chaos warriors you're just inviting disappointment. Ditto VC where it's all about outnumber+fear+win combat by 1= goodbye.

If you play dwarves for what we are and don't try to make us something we aren't while still trying different things you'll have tons of fun.

Baboon
07-04-2010, 08:05
The real problem is that the designers haven't figured out to give Dwarven armies a degree of mobility that would encourage players to sally forth, while retaining their archetypal movement rate.

so the ability to get a charge in to the opponants deployment turn 2 is not fast enough ?

units that can fly not fast?

12" charge not fast?

The ability to reform and still charge ?

not mobile my ****.

People need to stop seeing

X army must play this way
y army must play that way.

your army book is a tool that you can use to create your force. Its not a set way of playing.

also "you are forced to invest heavily in shooting (or lose games)"
No. in my last 10 games i have spent at most 110pts on a unit of quarrelers for my only shooting in my 2000pt force and i have lost 1 game. ( I do take 2 gyrocopters and an anvil but i see them as utility and not a shooting unit.)

static grass
07-04-2010, 08:18
your army book is a tool that you can use to create your force. Its not a set way of playing.

I see your point but I disagree. The anvil allows more mobility this is true however for most players it is an extremely gimicky means to get abit more movement out of your army. No one like to be railroaded on their army selection. If you take the anvil then you cant have a combat lord.

People who take the anvil tend to go for thorek because he is more reliable and less likely to miscast. Once you are down that road however you are stuck with an extremely expensive immobile unit that will die under the hooves of any decent cav unit. This being the case why move away from it? Better to stick close and protect it.

Thus the point of the anvil is removed by its own existence and the gunline is born.

yabbadabba
07-04-2010, 08:20
One of the issues with Dwarf Mobility is the lack of creativity in the victory conditions in the scenarios people play.

Gromdal
07-04-2010, 08:45
I see your point but I disagree. The anvil allows more mobility this is true however for most players it is an extremely gimicky means to get abit more movement out of your army. No one like to be railroaded on their army selection. If you take the anvil then you cant have a combat lord.

People who take the anvil tend to go for thorek because he is more reliable and less likely to miscast. Once you are down that road however you are stuck with an extremely expensive immobile unit that will die under the hooves of any decent cav unit. This being the case why move away from it? Better to stick close and protect it.

Thus the point of the anvil is removed by its own existence and the gunline is born.

Yup this is so true.

ftayl5
07-04-2010, 09:26
I still think Dwarves are more than capable of playing an offensive roll in a game. Although it is true to say that, in almost all their fluff, they are defending against an orc horde or defending against a chaos incursion or protecting a mine, etc.

So yeah, I'd say they are meant to be played defensively but who cares, its a game do whatever the h**l you want :D

I'm starting an all gobbo army, I play an all Ghoul (+ wolves and vargies) army and I have a (very small) mono khorne daemon army. Do people like that I do this? no. Do I win games all the time? no. Do I care? no. :D

Baboon
07-04-2010, 10:43
I see your point but I disagree. The anvil allows more mobility this is true however for most players it is an extremely gimicky means to get abit more movement out of your army. No one like to be railroaded on their army selection. If you take the anvil then you cant have a combat lord.

People who take the anvil tend to go for thorek because he is more reliable and less likely to miscast. Once you are down that road however you are stuck with an extremely expensive immobile unit that will die under the hooves of any decent cav unit. This being the case why move away from it? Better to stick close and protect it.

Thus the point of the anvil is removed by its own existence and the gunline is born.


or with an anvil you can know you are going to get charged and go for a 1+ arm save with a reroll and a 2+ attacks great weapon. So does the anvil need protection fomr the cav or does the cav need protecting from the unbreakable rune lord?
you are getting fixed by your preconceptions of how each unit must be used and then you fail to see other ways.

Arkturas
07-04-2010, 11:11
There is also the fact that Dwarfs can't be march blocked so when you're opponent is close and stuck moving at M4 or M5 the Dwarfs have that little edge at M6.

Hulkster
07-04-2010, 11:50
Not fun to play against

Not fun to play with

I hate them, boring boring army to play. Which is a shame because the fluff is awesome

wizbix
07-04-2010, 12:36
Not fun to play against

Not fun to play with

I hate them, boring boring army to play. Which is a shame because the fluff is awesome

Another name added to the Wizbix big book of Dwarf grudges! :shifty:

Gromdal
07-04-2010, 12:38
Another name added to the Wizbix big book of Dwarf grudges! :shifty:


I am hoping they fix the issues with the dwarf army in 8th edition atleast.

Stuffburger
07-04-2010, 13:45
Gunline dwarves are boring, most people will agree with that. I've had plenty of good games playing against dwarves because my opponent was kind enough always to play balanced or infantry heavy. With a bunch of miners, an anvil, gyrocopters and rangers you can have a surprisingly mobile force.

That said, like a lot of other people I love the fluff and models but just can't play them as my primary army, maybe a small force someday...

explorator
07-04-2010, 13:48
No.

Yes .

Zilverug
07-04-2010, 14:18
Dwarfs are already fun. If at least half the rumours about improved infantry in 8th edition are true, the Dwarfs will get a boost in effectiveness.

Garion
07-04-2010, 14:26
No, just because they are soooooo slow

Baboon
07-04-2010, 15:12
No, just because they are soooooo slow

please explain how they are slow?

My 2nd turn i can have 4 units chargeing in your deployment zone how is that slow?

yes they have a stock M3 but they also have loads of ways to get round this.

Coragus
07-04-2010, 15:22
Having played them for years, I can say that Dwarfs are a lot of fun, as long as you don't mind almost entirely missing the movement phase, skipping the magic phase altogether, and conceding two or three table quarters per game. Oh yeah, that -1 to your pursue rolls are awesome too.

Phelix
07-04-2010, 17:14
Any army can be fun.

Honestly dwarves have a little trouble since they are so incredibly focused on defense (its what they do best!) but perhaps you just need to lighten em up.

If you only play straight 1v1 tournament style battles then Dwarves are boring as sin.

However try a few interesting scenarios out and dwarves become a lot more fun.

~Examples~
Last Stand/Siege, Dwarves defending against vastly superior numbers of skaven, orcs, goblins etc.

Dwarven Assault, Dwarves must take an appropriate objective, or defend something such as a tower that doesn't start in their deployment zone. (otherwise it just becomes another defend scenario)

Dwarves are also particularly fun in skirmish battles. Such as "close the gate", naval battles & baggage train.

Also just mix up your army, don't run a gunline. A generic dwarf force thats a decent mix of both ranged and close combat wont break the enemy before they reach you and give you more interesting gameplay.

~Units to consider~
Miners
Gyrocopter
Slayers

~Army Types~
"Steamroller" (nothing but melee, haha noone expects this from dwarves)
"War of Vengeance" (no blackpowder/advanced tech)

morbidrayne
07-04-2010, 17:26
Some people will find them fun, others won't find them fun. It's all just a matter of perspective, surely?

Malorian
07-04-2010, 17:27
Some people will find them fun, others won't find them fun. It's all just a matter of perspective, surely?

For a first post you sure are making a lot of sense...

Are you sure you're in the right place? :p

BigbyWolf
07-04-2010, 18:09
Easiest way to have fun with a dwarf? Dress him green, dye him ginger and pay him to run around shouting "They're after me lucky charms".

Second best way...mixed army, by all means have a few shooty options in there, but also include some decent combat units. You can makes some pretty hard characters, so it'd be a shame not to stick them in a unit of hammerers or ironbreakers and trry to get stuck in.

That, and the Lord with Shieldbearers model is ace!

Condottiere
07-04-2010, 18:19
Forget the Nordic colour scheme and naming conventions; go for Gallic colours and name your Chief and thanes, Vitalstatistix, Asterix and Obelix, and the runesmith Getafix.

Tarliyn
07-04-2010, 18:37
Forget the Nordic colour scheme and naming conventions; go for Gallic colours and name your Chief and thanes, Vitalstatistix, Asterix and Obelix, and the runesmith Getafix.

Do it! Do it now!

all joking aside. As been said in this thread already. All armies can be fun. It depends on what you put into it, how you build your lists, and what your opponent brings and how he feels about the game.

BigbyWolf
07-04-2010, 18:41
Do it! Do it now!

all joking aside. As been said in this thread already. All armies can be fun. It depends on what you put into it, how you build your lists, and what your opponent brings and how he feels about the game.

They'd be quire easy to fit into the army as well...Shield-Lord as the Chief, Getafix as a Runepriest, Asterix as a thane and Obelix as a Grudgethrower...now to just create a greenstuff Dogmatix, and everything is sorted!

Ozorik
07-04-2010, 18:46
He takes 1 unit of Quarellers and a cannon in most armies, the rest is slayers, warriors, hammerers, ironbreakers and gyrocopters

Much like my army. I have 2 bolthrowers and a grudge thrower, the rest is ranked infantry (and the ever useful gyro).

Dwarves are not a boring army to play, not if you actually know how the army works. There is some strange internet wisdom that Dwarves have to be a gunline to 'compete' when in actuality the gunline is actually a pretty weak build.

Alltaken
07-04-2010, 20:30
hey, why leave panoramix behind!!!

now that could be an excelent conversion, runpriest as panoramyx: instead of the anvil a huge cauldron with the magic potion.
-A Slayer hero as Asterix with some minor changes
-An Ogre with a dwarf head dressed as Obelix fixed with a menhir instead of the grudge thrower, and a small pup (can't recall the dogs name) as the crew men
-The lord on palaquin was the gauls boss (other name I can't recall)

Leogun_91
07-04-2010, 21:37
They'd be quire easy to fit into the army as well...Shield-Lord as the Chief, Getafix as a Runepriest, Asterix as a thane and Obelix as a Grudgethrower...now to just create a greenstuff Dogmatix, and everything is sorted!Dogmatrix is surely the "engineer" for Obelix.

Condottiere
07-04-2010, 23:01
May not intentionally target plant based organisms, eg Treemen, dryads, etcetera; Orcs excepted.

VonUber
07-04-2010, 23:09
I played dwarfs for a while (figured it would be a change of pace for dark elves when the dwarfs got there current book).
After 4 months of playing 2k games... I decided never to use them again. I won most of the games but they were really not fun for me. I think i took 2 units of thunderers, an organ gun, a flame cannon, a unit of ironbreakers (loved the fluff and models) and hammerers and a unit of crossbowmen. I think i took a cannon too. I also took a rune smith with the rune of balance and a dwarf lord. Cant rember what I gave him. But all in all.... I really didnt enjoy the experince.

Grymlok
07-04-2010, 23:52
They should give the Dwarves a 4" movement. The 3" sounds way too restrictive. They are one of the only armies that I have never given any thought to collecting, which is a shame as they are one of the stock fantasy races that I should want to collect. I'd far rather do up an Orc army... if I had anything like the time to paint that many minis.

J.P. Biff
08-04-2010, 06:59
No .

second!!!!

Baboon
08-04-2010, 07:48
I played dwarfs for a while (figured it would be a change of pace for dark elves when the dwarfs got there current book).
After 4 months of playing 2k games... I decided never to use them again. I won most of the games but they were really not fun for me. I think i took 2 units of thunderers, an organ gun, a flame cannon, a unit of ironbreakers (loved the fluff and models) and hammerers and a unit of crossbowmen. I think i took a cannon too. I also took a rune smith with the rune of balance and a dwarf lord. Cant rember what I gave him. But all in all.... I really didnt enjoy the experince.

I played with a empire army i took 4 cannons 2 helblasters and the rest in hand gunners and mages ... i won most of my games but it was not fun so empire army is a dull army.

I then took a dark elf army i took bolt throwers and repeating bolt throwers and mages.. It was a slow army and i found it dull. dark elves are dull

i then went on to a high elf army i took bolt throwers and sea guard it was a dull army to play with......... high elves are dull


Gun lines are dull armys to play with. Many books can do gun lines all of them are dull to play with it does not make the faction as a whole dull just the list that you play with.

Im not saying that every one must like every army but trying to say that a faction is dull when you have picked a dull list is not a fair review.

wizbix
08-04-2010, 08:35
I propose that it is not the army that is dull but the person that creates a dull list from that army book - what ever the army. So on the basis of that hypothesis I suggest that those that claim they played their Dwarf army and found it dull are dull themselves. What say you in your defence you dull'ards? ;)

Drongol
08-04-2010, 11:23
No. Dwarfs are not fun. Either to play, or to play against.

I love Dwarfs, especially in the Warhammer setting, so it was natural to start playing them when I decided to build a WHFB army. Here's what I noticed immediately:

1. Dwarfs really only act in one phase of the game: Shooting. Movement 3 effectively takes them out of that phase barring some Anvil tricks. Dwarfs have no magic. In close combat, they tend to win through not dying, rather than winning through killing. And then they don't pursue very well. Really, the only time I ever felt like I was putting a dent in my opponents' army was when I was using my artillery.

2. Most Dwarf "advantages" really aren't. Those nifty runes you can put on gear to make them awesome? Way too expensive--give your guy a Great Weapon, Shield, and Rune of Stone and you're pretty much onto the most efficient build. Those Oathstones that you think will make your unit pretty much unbreakable? That unit just gets walked around while your opponent laughs.

Badass artillery? It's not really any better than Empire's, although it can have expensive runes put on to make it more reliable. Plus, let's be honest, the more artillery you use, the more likely your army is to spontaneously metamorph into a gunline. I swear, it's like feeding Mogwais after midnight.

3. So you've just built this awesome Dwarf lord on a shield (which is a ridiculous mode of combat transportation, but that's another kettle of fish). You've said "to hell with it" and given him a big badass rune axe and the Armor of You Will Not Pass. And he's in a fairly big unit of his best bodyguards with a nifty runic standard.

Good luck ever having him see combat! He's movement 3 and, since you took a Dwarf Lord, you're not getting an Anvil to help him get that little boost. And do you think your opponent is going to be dumb enough to charge that unit?

4. Okay, he's dumb enough to charge that unit. With a Dragon-mounted Lord that promptly eats yours and spends a turn or two inflicting horrific damage on your Hammerers. Sucks when you spend that many points and don't even get that good of a guy, y'know?

5. You've found the answer now. Your lord can take the Master Rune of Challenge and force something to get into combat with him, or flee. It's just a shame that there's so many armies out there that are completely immune to psychology these days.

6. In fact, you're better off not taking any characters beyond the semi-obligatory BSB and RP. And that is truly sad--I want to take Thanes (Without banners, and with Oathstones) and Dragon Slayers (With runic weapons! Two Runic Weapons!), but it actually weakens my army to do so.

7. Special slots. Who in the heck was thinking that everything relatively interesting should be in the Special category for Dwarfs? Miners and Slayers as Special is a silly choice, for starters, and having Ironbreakers compete with Hammerers and War Machines just isn't right.

8. Let's take a look at the Dwarf aesthetics. Now, I love Dwarfs, but you have Dwarfs, Dwarfs with crossbows, Dwarfs with guns, Dwarfs with big hammers, dwarfs with stupid helmets, and so on. Excepting Slayers and the war machines, the visual variety in a Dwarf list in extremely poor. The models themselves range from the acceptable to the sublime, but it's very hard for the untrained eye to distinguish between Warriors, Longbeards, Hammerers, and Slayers. And, of course, there's Rangers vs. Quarrelers/Warriors/Longbeards and so on. They. All. Look. The. Same.

So at the moment, I'm playing Ogres. ;)

Zoidia
08-04-2010, 11:25
dwarves are a great army to play but i have seen some dwarf armys dominate in the first 2 turns so you're better sitting back and firing lots of shots than just moving around with dwarves.

Baboon
08-04-2010, 12:10
1. Dwarfs really only act in one phase of the game: Shooting. Movement 3 effectively takes them out of that phase barring some Anvil tricks. Dwarfs have no magic. In close combat, they tend to win through not dying, rather than winning through killing. And then they don't pursue very well. Really, the only time I ever felt like I was putting a dent in my opponents' army was when I was using my artillery. only if you pick a dwaf army to only work in the shooting phase. Hell take and army and have no shooting learn to use the movement to better affect.

2. Most Dwarf "advantages" really aren't. Those nifty runes you can put on gear to make them awesome? Way too expensive--give your guy a Great Weapon, Shield, and Rune of Stone and you're pretty much onto the most efficient build. Those Oathstones that you think will make your unit pretty much unbreakable? That unit just gets walked around while your opponent laughs.
if you pick runes well you can get great utility. main reason for an othstone is for your normal units to hold for long enough after takeing a flank charge so that you can counter charge the flanking unit in the flank or rear. If after you have won that combat your unit cant move its ok realy as with out hte Othstone you would have lost that unit in hte first place and you would not have been able to trap 2 of your oponants units in combat.

Badass artillery? It's not really any better than Empire's, although it can have expensive runes put on to make it more reliable. Plus, let's be honest, the more artillery you use, the more likely your army is to spontaneously metamorph into a gunline. I swear, it's like feeding Mogwais after midnight.

3. So you've just built this awesome Dwarf lord on a shield (which is a ridiculous mode of combat transportation, but that's another kettle of fish). You've said "to hell with it" and given him a big badass rune axe and the Armor of You Will Not Pass. And he's in a fairly big unit of his best bodyguards with a nifty runic standard.

Good luck ever having him see combat! He's movement 3 and, since you took a Dwarf Lord, you're not getting an Anvil to help him get that little boost. And do you think your opponent is going to be dumb enough to charge that unit? why dump loads of points in to a lord and not know how to get him in to combat. think FIRST how you want to use something and then pick hte runes for that job.

4. Okay, he's dumb enough to charge that unit. With a Dragon-mounted Lord that promptly eats yours and spends a turn or two inflicting horrific damage on your Hammerers. Sucks when you spend that many points and don't even get that good of a guy, y'know?
dwarf lords are hard ....... how many points is your dwarf lord and how many points is the dragon lord ?

5. You've found the answer now. Your lord can take the Master Rune of Challenge and force something to get into combat with him, or flee. It's just a shame that there's so many armies out there that are completely immune to psychology these days. your right there are alot but shock horror there are more than 1 way of getting in to combat than one rune.

6. In fact, you're better off not taking any characters beyond the semi-obligatory BSB and RP. And that is truly sad--I want to take Thanes (Without banners, and with Oathstones) and Dragon Slayers (With runic weapons! Two Runic Weapons!), but it actually weakens my army to do so.
again what do you want them to do then take hte right tool for the job I had a spare 130 points floating around i stick it on a slayer. now i wanted him to hold up a skelly unit and have a hope of hacking though it if it was small enough.. so i took +2 attacks and cragg the grim. 4 round of combat later and that was a unit of 15 skellies dead. see i pick a job and get a tool for that job.... welll i have a screwdriver and a nail to hammer in..... screwdrivers suck.

7. Special slots. Who in the heck was thinking that everything relatively interesting should be in the Special category for Dwarfs? Miners and Slayers as Special is a silly choice, for starters, and having Ironbreakers compete with Hammerers and War Machines just isn't right.
dam we have great special units... now i can pick the best tool of the job... how lucky are the dwarfs.

8. Let's take a look at the Dwarf aesthetics. Now, I love Dwarfs, but you have Dwarfs, Dwarfs with crossbows, Dwarfs with guns, Dwarfs with big hammers, dwarfs with stupid helmets, and so on. Excepting Slayers and the war machines, the visual variety in a Dwarf list in extremely poor. The models themselves range from the acceptable to the sublime, but it's very hard for the untrained eye to distinguish between Warriors, Longbeards, Hammerers, and Slayers. And, of course, there's Rangers vs. Quarrelers/Warriors/Longbeards and so on. They. All. Look. The. Same. if its not what you like to look at then fair doos

So at the moment, I'm playing Ogres. ;)[/QUOTE]

alot of your issues are with how you think about the dwarf army and not with the dwarf army you also only look at the -tv and not hte +tv how many armys wish they could have custom banners and armour for the jobs they want the unit to do. How many armys wish that they had a worst ld of 9. Each army has to have a weeknes ( apart from DOC). The dwarf is M3 i dont see it as that big a problem.

Desert Rain
08-04-2010, 19:09
I've played alot of games against the Dwarfs and I've come to the conclusion that they CAN be fun to play against. A mixed army with infantry blocks and a sensible amount of shooting is fun to play against, other armies might be funnier to face but that's aonother topic. If the Dwarf player takes to much shooting and just skips the movement phase they are the most boring army in the game.

wizbix
08-04-2010, 19:38
I've played alot of games against the Dwarfs and I've come to the conclusion that they CAN be fun to play against. A mixed army with infantry blocks and a sensible amount of shooting is fun to play against, other armies might be funnier to face but that's aonother topic. If the Dwarf player takes to much shooting and just skips the movement phase they are the most boring army in the game.


You sir are not a dull'ard. How do yoiu say that in Swedish?

Desert Rain
08-04-2010, 20:06
You sir are not a dull'ard. How do yoiu say that in Swedish?
Say what, dullard?

Warhammer Madman
08-04-2010, 20:12
I think that you need to remember four things:

1. one trick ponies are almost always boreing

2. power gameing with older books becomes a one trick ponie that is boreing (Brets chargeline, Dwarf gunline, Wood elf skirmish denial)

3. Mixing up your lists is fun for everybody and keeps the army fresh im starting dwarfs and am planning on haveing 12 artilary pieces! am I ever going to use more than 5 in a game? probably not at 2000pts but it means I can juggle it (Giroes included). also remember to be at least a bit fluffy its no fun playing a compleate mulch of different era's (WoC with more than one Special character ect).

4. I have had fun against gunlines and castles and bunkers and all the rest of it. Its the people you play with that make any list fun. this is illestraited perfectly by me and my mate sam. I play skaven he plays nurgle deamons with tally. I have no armour and so the tally gets blown through the roof and I am yet to win Versus his list. However its a highly enjoyable game and so I have played that particular list of his 6 or 7 times.

Its not the dwarfs that are boreing its the mentality of the people playing with or against them... I know some people who wouldnt play my preposed dwarf castle list with no black powder or shooty infantry because "Castles are dull" so I'm mixing it up.

It just Pee's me of that threads like this need to be made:shifty:.

Alltaken
08-04-2010, 20:14
This is whitout real expirience, but I guess playing against a gunline can be fun to lpay against. Lots of tactics on your side, for instance you have to know which unit to expose to screen, how to make a target look jucier than another. How to properly take the artillery off, and which shots are required to take down first.

I guess gunlines tend to frustrate people easier than other builds.

Drongol
08-04-2010, 23:05
Only if you pick a dwaf army to only work in the shooting phase. Hell take and army and have no shooting learn to use the movement to better affect.

I wish this was the case. However, if you take no shooting in a Dwarf army, you are effectively playing a solely reactive army that relies on not dying rather than killing anything. And there's far too many things in the game right now that make a mockery of Dwarf's survivability.


if you pick runes well you can get great utility. main reason for an othstone is for your normal units to hold for long enough after takeing a flank charge so that you can counter charge the flanking unit in the flank or rear. If after you have won that combat your unit cant move its ok realy as with out hte Othstone you would have lost that unit in hte first place and you would not have been able to trap 2 of your oponants units in combat.

No, no, no. A runic weapon is at virtually all times inferior to a simple Great Weapon, and costs many times more points. Likewise, an Oathstone has advantages, but the advantages don't come anywhere near the drawbacks.


why dump loads of points in to a lord and not know how to get him in to combat. think FIRST how you want to use something and then pick hte runes for that job.

This is the problem--there is no way to ensure that your Lord will ever, ever get into combat. In fact, if you want to play "offensive," you're better off taking a Runelord on an Anvil, but you'd also be better off using that Runelord to slow down your opponent and hit him with artillery.


dwarf lords are hard ....... how many points is your dwarf lord and how many points is the dragon lord ?

High Elf Prince on a Star Dragon is going to be about 650 points fully kitted, just going by a rough estimate.

Dwarf Lord on Shieldbearers fully runed up and in a decent-sized unit of Hammerers, with a runic banner? Somewhere between 550 and 650, depending on the size of the unit. And after the Dragon is done eating the Lord and the Hammerers, he's still more than capable of killing off the rest of your infantry blocks.


your right there are alot but shock horror there are more than 1 way of getting in to combat than one rune.

Yes, you can take the Strollaz's Rune and forego any sort of offensive/defensive potential on your BSB. Or you can take a Runelord with an anvil if you're playing 3000 points, I suppose.


again what do you want them to do then take hte right tool for the job I had a spare 130 points floating around i stick it on a slayer. now i wanted him to hold up a skelly unit and have a hope of hacking though it if it was small enough.. so i took +2 attacks and cragg the grim. 4 round of combat later and that was a unit of 15 skellies dead. see i pick a job and get a tool for that job.... welll i have a screwdriver and a nail to hammer in..... screwdrivers suck.

Congratulations, you found one situation where a runed-up Dragonslayer can potentially be useful. Of course, he'd only be slightly less effective at killing Skeletons naked at 50 points, and a unit that isn't getting buffed up by a Vampire/TK player is a unit that doesn't matter anyways.

Now explain to me this: under what circumstances is a fully-kitted up Thane a great deal compared to one with a great weapon, shield, and Rune of Stone? I'll give you a hint: the answer is "never."


dam we have great special units... now i can pick the best tool of the job... how lucky are the dwarfs.

No, you can't pick the best tool for the job, because everything is competing for attention. That unit of Ironbreakers or a sacrificial unit of Slayers/Miners means that you can't take more artillery. I'll even go so far as to say that all the Dwarf Special Infantry pales in comparison to 120 points of Bolt Throwers.


if its not what you like to look at then fair doos

It's not that I dislike looking at them. It's that the differences between the units are minimal at best and often rather silly. And hell, in the instances of Hammerers, the "special equipment" is rarely used instead of the good-ol'-sword-and-board combo.


alot of your issues are with how you think about the dwarf army and not with the dwarf army you also only look at the -tv and not hte +tv how many armys wish they could have custom banners and armour for the jobs they want the unit to do. How many armys wish that they had a worst ld of 9. Each army has to have a weeknes ( apart from DOC). The dwarf is M3 i dont see it as that big a problem.

Runic equipment sounds great in theory but falls flat in reality, especially since it is all-too-often used to protect the units from fear-caused autobreak. And Ld 9 sounds great, too, but it means that most of the Dwarf heroes are less useful, comparatively, than corresponding heroes in other armies.

Dwarfs are my favorite fantasy race. I would love to play them and have quite a large collection sitting in a box gathering dust at the moment. Perhaps in 8th Edition, they'll be more fun to play, but at the moment, they certainly are not.

What Dwarfs need, in my opinion, is a combination of the following:
-Some sort of increased mobility. Don't really care how it comes.
-Immunity to fear-caused autobreaks.
-Cheaper runic equipment
-Bring most of the Special Infantry into Core

Really, with those four, I'd be fired up to play them, but right now, they aren't fun. There's a lot of fun Dwarf players out there, but their army is certainly amongst the least fun to play, with or against.

yabbadabba
08-04-2010, 23:18
I wish this was the case. However, if you take no shooting in a Dwarf army, you are effectively playing a solely reactive army that relies on not dying rather than killing anything. Play some different scenarios that allow you to pick a proactive Dwarf army then. Also vary the type of terrain you play with.


What Dwarfs need, in my opinion, is a combination of the following:
-Some sort of increased mobility. Don't really care how it comes. And play some different scenarios. This can make a huge difference. Some units could be changed (Slayers, Miners, Rangers) but keeping to M3 is necessary.

-Immunity to fear-caused autobreaks. too much of that as it is. Fear, while fulfilling GW's requirements, is too effective in the game. Reducing its affects would be better.

-Cheaper runic equipment everyone wants cheaper toys. What you lose in points you gain in flexibility - that flexibility has to be paid for.

-Bring most of the Special Infantry into Core I think rather than do this you could have some characters unlock units to be core choices. Another would be to have Hammerers not take up a slot if the army is lead by a Lord, providing that Lord leads the unit.

Condottiere
09-04-2010, 02:53
I agree on the flexibility needing to be paid for, since you get to customize your items; compare this to a set of magic item that have aspects that you might not need but still is part of the overall cost.

Drongol
09-04-2010, 10:19
I agree on the flexibility needing to be paid for, since you get to customize your items; compare this to a set of magic item that have aspects that you might not need but still is part of the overall cost.

This is one of those things that sounds pretty on paper but winds up biting you in the rear. There's no real flexibility in runic equipment--sure, it all sounds good on paper, but there are very few permutations that are worth taking, and even then, most of those are fairly analogous to magic items in another book.

If Dwarfs are expected to pay a premium for the privilege of making their own magic items, it's going to continue to make them less competitive. As mentioned, a Great Weapon tends to perform better than all but the most expensive runic weapons as it is.

Armor gets off a little better, but only because of the Rune of Stone. Talismanic runes are just plain overpriced, and Runic Standards wind up trying to get around the glaring weakness of fear. How exciting.

Also, I'd like to point out that "play some different scenarios" is hardly a valid rebuttal, seeing as how they are rather conspicuously absent from any official material. Heck, I've never even heard of a local tournament trying to impose scenarios on someone.

"Aha! You're a tournament player, that's the problem!" Yep, pretty much. I expect all the armies to be relatively balanced against one another (although I do enjoy playing one of the weaker ones and don't really think OK needs to be made upper-tier at all). I don't get out to the store often enough to be able to make up my own house rules to balance the game--I'd rather have the guys in charge do that, y'know?

yabbadabba
09-04-2010, 10:48
This is one of those things that sounds pretty on paper but winds up biting you in the rear. There's no real flexibility in runic equipment--sure, it all sounds good on paper, but there are very few permutations that are worth taking, and even then, most of those are fairly analogous to magic items in another book.

If Dwarfs are expected to pay a premium for the privilege of making their own magic items, it's going to continue to make them less competitive. As mentioned, a Great Weapon tends to perform better than all but the most expensive runic weapons as it is.

Armor gets off a little better, but only because of the Rune of Stone. Talismanic runes are just plain overpriced, and Runic Standards wind up trying to get around the glaring weakness of fear. How exciting. So the problem is not in the pricing - why should you pay less points and have greater flexibility? - but on the effectivness of choices.


Also, I'd like to point out that "play some different scenarios" is hardly a valid rebuttal, seeing as how they are rather conspicuously absent from any official material. Heck, I've never even heard of a local tournament trying to impose scenarios on someone. It is a very valid rebuttal as we are talking about an army as a whole here, and not solely as a tournament p.o.v.. Get a book by Charles S Grant on wargames scenarios if you are serious about getting to know your army, enjoying the challenges of playing in different circumstances and playing outside of the box. It will open new doors for you. One final thing - GW "official" material should only ever be seen as the minimum or beginning, not the be all and end all.


"Aha! You're a tournament player, that's the problem!" Yep, pretty much. I expect all the armies to be relatively balanced against one another (although I do enjoy playing one of the weaker ones and don't really think OK needs to be made upper-tier at all). I don't get out to the store often enough to be able to make up my own house rules to balance the game--I'd rather have the guys in charge do that, y'know? I do know, and that is why I no longer care to wait for GW to do stuff, as I get more fun with my fellow gamers playing outside of GW's suggested templates. If your whole raison d'etre for playing is tournaments and the "official" world of GW productions, then you are fully accepting everything that goes with that including dancing to GW's tune. Oh and play with your mates at a club or at a home - not at the store. Playing under your own means is the single greatest investment in this hobby you can make.

Drongol
09-04-2010, 11:10
So the problem is not in the pricing - why should you pay less points and have greater flexibility? - but on the effectivness of choices.

Why is flexibility anything you should pay for? The only flexibility you get is if you change up your items between games in an attempt to custom-tailor your army against your opponent.

There are clear "best" combinations and straying from them really isn't the greatest idea. However, since you make these combinations yourself, you should pay more for them?


It is a very valid rebuttal as we are talking about an army as a whole here, and not solely as a tournament p.o.v.. Get a book by Charles S Grant on wargames scenarios if you are serious about getting to know your army, enjoying the challenges of playing in different circumstances and playing outside of the box. It will open new doors for you. One final thing - GW "official" material should only ever be seen as the minimum or beginning, not the be all and end all.

No. What you are, effectively, espousing is something akin to "The rules don't work, so change them until they do." House rules and custom scenarios are fine things for people who choose to cultivate them and convince their opponents to let them change the rules to give them an advantage. For those of us who prefer to play by the rules, it's not an option.

And under GW's rules, Dwarfs are not fun. Plain and simple.

Tenken
09-04-2010, 11:10
Oh and play with your mates at a club or at a home - not at the store. Playing under your own means is the single greatest investment in this hobby you can make.

I'm always perplexed when people say this. You're deliberately taking a social hobby and making it private, it just seems counter-productive. I play the game with my friends, sure, but I also play the game to make new friends who likely have similar interests in me (we already have a big hobby we share if we both play the same wargame). I like tourneys, not for the competition, but to meet new people and play games with people that I don't regularly play with.

I can understand wanting your own private gaming table so you can game whenever you want. But I don't see the point in just avoiding gaming at stores (whether brick and mortar LGS or GW), unless your area is just populated by awful people.

Condottiere
09-04-2010, 11:20
Why is flexibility anything you should pay for? The only flexibility you get is if you change up your items between games in an attempt to custom-tailor your army against your opponent.

There are clear "best" combinations and straying from them really isn't the greatest idea. However, since you make these combinations yourself, you should pay more for them?



No. What you are, effectively, espousing is something akin to "The rules don't work, so change them until they do." House rules and custom scenarios are fine things for people who choose to cultivate them and convince their opponents to let them change the rules to give them an advantage. For those of us who prefer to play by the rules, it's not an option.

And under GW's rules, Dwarfs are not fun. Plain and simple.Flexibility is also known as cherry picking, which if extended across the board wouldn't need to have associated extra costs. But since there parts of the list that are fixed, there is a valid reason to charge a premium for it.

If there is a feeling that it is not competitive, then it's time to make a general overview, but the end result should still make having that degree of flexibility cost more.

theunwantedbeing
09-04-2010, 11:29
This is one of those things that sounds pretty on paper but winds up biting you in the rear. There's no real flexibility in runic equipment--sure, it all sounds good on paper, but there are very few permutations that are worth taking, and even then, most of those are fairly analogous to magic items in another book.

If Dwarfs are expected to pay a premium for the privilege of making their own magic items, it's going to continue to make them less competitive. As mentioned, a Great Weapon tends to perform better than all but the most expensive runic weapons as it is.

Great weapons are better than magic weapons in all armies, not just dwarves.



Armor gets off a little better, but only because of the Rune of Stone. Talismanic runes are just plain overpriced, and Runic Standards wind up trying to get around the glaring weakness of fear. How exciting.

Fear isnt that big an issue really.
Most fear causing units large enough to outnumber you just dont have the combat ability if your weediest warriors, and they certainly dont have anything like the survivability. Dwarf warriors beat skeletons in a fight afterall, same for zombies and ghouls....so it shouldnt matter if they outnumber you.

Part of the issue is dwarf guns though.
24" range thunderers and organ guns that a lot of dwarf players are adamant on always taking, usually multiples of them as well.
Not really surprising that the enemy sits in his deployment zone and makes you walk across the board to him is it?

Cant really make the game fun for both people if one guy turns up and makes a 24" "no mans land" for you and then doesnt feel like moving towards you, only to then complain about how boring you were to play against.

yabbadabba
09-04-2010, 11:45
No. What you are, effectively, espousing is something akin to "The rules don't work, so change them until they do." House rules and custom scenarios are fine things for people who choose to cultivate them and convince their opponents to let them change the rules to give them an advantage. What utter tripe. As well as accusing anyone who enjoys any kind of creativity with their hobby (incluing myself) as cheats, nowhere has GW ever claimed that what they produce is the only way people should enjoy their products - they actively encourage conversions of all aspects of their hobby. Your p.o.v. while valid for yourself, is close to dogmatic narrow mindedness.


For those of us who prefer to play by the rules, it's not an option. Of course its an option - in fact pg 242 of the 40K rulebook actively encourages thinking outside of the book and if I had the WFB rulebook I would point out the same page there.


And under GW's rules, Dwarfs are not fun. Plain and simple. As I have proved you have a far too narrow view on the whole of the hobby, this must call into question your judgement outside of the narrow and small environment in which you play - which sounds like a tournament style one.

yabbadabba
09-04-2010, 12:00
I'm always perplexed when people say this. You're deliberately taking a social hobby and making it private, it just seems counter-productive. I play the game with my friends, sure, but I also play the game to make new friends who likely have similar interests in me (we already have a big hobby we share if we both play the same wargame). I like tourneys, not for the competition, but to meet new people and play games with people that I don't regularly play with.
I can understand wanting your own private gaming table so you can game whenever you want. But I don't see the point in just avoiding gaming at stores (whether brick and mortar LGS or GW), unless your area is just populated by awful people. I am not taking a social hobby and making it private - I am taking a social hobby and keeping it social otherwise you would be playing on your own. Maybe you are confusing social and private with public and private.

I have also back stores to be great places to find friends to play with, just not as ideal gaming environments - particularly ones which are open to the public while you game - for vets who really want to relax, or explore situations outside of the rulebook.

For me, issues arise when people do not leave the store environment and/or restrict themselves to one type of play e.g. tournaments. GW games on the whole aren't designed for tournaments (aside Warmaster and E:A), and they are not designed for an instore environment. Just take Apocalypse - unless you have a huge store and plenty of time, its not even a product you would want to consider playing in a store as it requires so much resource. Old Vet wargamers call GW game "beer and pretzel" games for a reason.

Finally playing with your own table and scenery really helps you understand how scenarios and scenery work; helps you develop skills in a vital part of the game scenery makign and painting; and by starting to explore your own scenarios you can choose to move away from however prescriptive your stores' scenery resources are.

I have known plenty of GW stores and FLGS's that are great places, hugely sociable and lots of fun. Yet even Warhammer World doesn't allow you the sheer scope to do what you want to do.

edit: Sorry for the double post.

Gromdal
09-04-2010, 12:42
I wish this was the case. However, if you take no shooting in a Dwarf army, you are effectively playing a solely reactive army that relies on not dying rather than killing anything. And there's far too many things in the game right now that make a mockery of Dwarf's survivability.



No, no, no. A runic weapon is at virtually all times inferior to a simple Great Weapon, and costs many times more points. Likewise, an Oathstone has advantages, but the advantages don't come anywhere near the drawbacks.



This is the problem--there is no way to ensure that your Lord will ever, ever get into combat. In fact, if you want to play "offensive," you're better off taking a Runelord on an Anvil, but you'd also be better off using that Runelord to slow down your opponent and hit him with artillery.



High Elf Prince on a Star Dragon is going to be about 650 points fully kitted, just going by a rough estimate.

Dwarf Lord on Shieldbearers fully runed up and in a decent-sized unit of Hammerers, with a runic banner? Somewhere between 550 and 650, depending on the size of the unit. And after the Dragon is done eating the Lord and the Hammerers, he's still more than capable of killing off the rest of your infantry blocks.



Yes, you can take the Strollaz's Rune and forego any sort of offensive/defensive potential on your BSB. Or you can take a Runelord with an anvil if you're playing 3000 points, I suppose.



Congratulations, you found one situation where a runed-up Dragonslayer can potentially be useful. Of course, he'd only be slightly less effective at killing Skeletons naked at 50 points, and a unit that isn't getting buffed up by a Vampire/TK player is a unit that doesn't matter anyways.

Now explain to me this: under what circumstances is a fully-kitted up Thane a great deal compared to one with a great weapon, shield, and Rune of Stone? I'll give you a hint: the answer is "never."



No, you can't pick the best tool for the job, because everything is competing for attention. That unit of Ironbreakers or a sacrificial unit of Slayers/Miners means that you can't take more artillery. I'll even go so far as to say that all the Dwarf Special Infantry pales in comparison to 120 points of Bolt Throwers.



It's not that I dislike looking at them. It's that the differences between the units are minimal at best and often rather silly. And hell, in the instances of Hammerers, the "special equipment" is rarely used instead of the good-ol'-sword-and-board combo.



Runic equipment sounds great in theory but falls flat in reality, especially since it is all-too-often used to protect the units from fear-caused autobreak. And Ld 9 sounds great, too, but it means that most of the Dwarf heroes are less useful, comparatively, than corresponding heroes in other armies.

Dwarfs are my favorite fantasy race. I would love to play them and have quite a large collection sitting in a box gathering dust at the moment. Perhaps in 8th Edition, they'll be more fun to play, but at the moment, they certainly are not.

What Dwarfs need, in my opinion, is a combination of the following:
-Some sort of increased mobility. Don't really care how it comes.
-Immunity to fear-caused autobreaks.
-Cheaper runic equipment
-Bring most of the Special Infantry into Core

Really, with those four, I'd be fired up to play them, but right now, they aren't fun. There's a lot of fun Dwarf players out there, but their army is certainly amongst the least fun to play, with or against.


This pretty much sums it up.

Drongol
09-04-2010, 15:18
Great weapons are better than magic weapons in all armies, not just dwarves.

You're largely correct here, but other armies have a few standouts. Heck, some magic weapons (Tenderizer, Star Lance, maybe a few more?) are virtually mandatory, whereas I don't see many Lord-level fighters running around with just a great weapon outside of Dwarfs.




Fear isnt that big an issue really.
Most fear causing units large enough to outnumber you just dont have the combat ability if your weediest warriors, and they certainly dont have anything like the survivability. Dwarf warriors beat skeletons in a fight afterall, same for zombies and ghouls....so it shouldnt matter if they outnumber you.

Fear isn't a big issue. It's a jhuge issue. Allow me to explain why.

You mentioned Vampire Counts. Assuming equal numbers of Dwarf Warriors vs. Skeletons (assuming no light armor--I forget if they come with it in this book) and assuming no charges, the Dwarfs will cause 1.33 wounds. The Skeletons will cause 0.5 wounds. This is a pretty clear-cut case of Dwarfs winning.

EXCEPT, we now have a Dwarf unit that is pinned down against a never-dying Skeleton block while the VC player summons a unit of Zombies and slams them into the sides of the unit, causing them, next turn, to lose combat and auto-break, where they are likely to be ran down.

Or if there's a Vampire in the unit, in which case the unit of Dwarfs will be wiped out without being able to do much of anything in return. And, of course, Dwarf lists tend to either be character-light or to invest in characters that do very little to help with combat. You don't see many Thanes running around these days.


Cant really make the game fun for both people if one guy turns up and makes a 24" "no mans land" for you and then doesnt feel like moving towards you, only to then complain about how boring you were to play against.

That's part of why my Dwarf list features Bolt Throwers and Grudge Throwers so predominantly--to try to force the opponent to get to grips rather than be skewered or squished to death. However, it's far too easy for a good player to make one decisive move against a Dwarf army, kill a small unit, and then claim a marginal victory.


What utter tripe. As well as accusing anyone who enjoys any kind of creativity with their hobby (incluing myself) as cheats, nowhere has GW ever claimed that what they produce is the only way people should enjoy their products - they actively encourage conversions of all aspects of their hobby. Your p.o.v. while valid for yourself, is close to dogmatic narrow mindedness.

My POV is that, when discussing rules, throwing up non-legal "solutions" is about as useful as telling me the magical unicorn will deliver my rainbow-flavored ice cream tomorrow.

The reason why I continue to play GW games (aside from the fact that I still enjoy them) is for their portability. If I find myself in a different city, chances are there's a group somewhere that plays Warhammer and would love to have a new player. However, if I show up with my houseruled army and wanted to play a bunch of houseruled scenarios, I sacrifice all that portability. That's just not groovy to me.

What you can do in your own home/store/club is one thing. What can be done on a national, if not worldwide level, is another bag of chips altogether. I'm not interested in a local fix.

yabbadabba
09-04-2010, 15:33
My POV is that, when discussing rules, throwing up non-legal "solutions" is about as useful as telling me the magical unicorn will deliver my rainbow-flavored ice cream tomorrow.
The reason why I continue to play GW games (aside from the fact that I still enjoy them) is for their portability. If I find myself in a different city, chances are there's a group somewhere that plays Warhammer and would love to have a new player. However, if I show up with my houseruled army and wanted to play a bunch of houseruled scenarios, I sacrifice all that portability. That's just not groovy to me.
What you can do in your own home/store/club is one thing. What can be done on a national, if not worldwide level, is another bag of chips altogether. I'm not interested in a local fix. Show me where it is not legal to design your own scenario - where does it say that in the book? It doesn't; and as I showed the 40K actively encourages it and I will bet on the WFB book doing the same.
Scenarios are what create the game - no wonder why you are having a hard time with some armies if there is no variety in your gaming diet. What you are doing is instantly assuming everyone you play is incapable of reasoning, judgement and understanding. You lose portability when you lose flexibility in your approach.
Playing a game using the scenario from the book as an introduction to your opponents is great. It establishes so many common points of reference that you can almost put the rulebooks away for the next game. But to do it again and again ... .... its like having McDonalds for you dinner. Every night.

For me this is evidence that the single greatest issue with the current edition is just having 1 scenario. It has sucked the life out of the game. I hope the next edition has 6/8/12+ scenarios. I hope it has none, but just talks about writing your own because not only will it help you to understand the game so much more, it will enhance you playing pallette so much to play something different.

There is nothing wrong with only wanting to play one way, but to claim it is the only "legal" way to play is just plain wrong.

Baboon
09-04-2010, 16:13
No. Dwarfs are not fun. Either to play, or to play against.

I love Dwarfs, especially in the Warhammer setting, so it was natural to start playing them when I decided to build a WHFB army. Here's what I noticed immediately:

1. Dwarfs really only act in one phase of the game: Shooting. Movement 3 effectively takes them out of that phase barring some Anvil tricks. Dwarfs have no magic. In close combat, they tend to win through not dying, rather than winning through killing. And then they don't pursue very well. Really, the only time I ever felt like I was putting a dent in my opponents' army was when I was using my artillery.

2. Most Dwarf "advantages" really aren't. Those nifty runes you can put on gear to make them awesome? Way too expensive--give your guy a Great Weapon, Shield, and Rune of Stone and you're pretty much onto the most efficient build. Those Oathstones that you think will make your unit pretty much unbreakable? That unit just gets walked around while your opponent laughs.

Badass artillery? It's not really any better than Empire's, although it can have expensive runes put on to make it more reliable. Plus, let's be honest, the more artillery you use, the more likely your army is to spontaneously metamorph into a gunline. I swear, it's like feeding Mogwais after midnight.

3. So you've just built this awesome Dwarf lord on a shield (which is a ridiculous mode of combat transportation, but that's another kettle of fish). You've said "to hell with it" and given him a big badass rune axe and the Armor of You Will Not Pass. And he's in a fairly big unit of his best bodyguards with a nifty runic standard.

Good luck ever having him see combat! He's movement 3 and, since you took a Dwarf Lord, you're not getting an Anvil to help him get that little boost. And do you think your opponent is going to be dumb enough to charge that unit?

4. Okay, he's dumb enough to charge that unit. With a Dragon-mounted Lord that promptly eats yours and spends a turn or two inflicting horrific damage on your Hammerers. Sucks when you spend that many points and don't even get that good of a guy, y'know?

5. You've found the answer now. Your lord can take the Master Rune of Challenge and force something to get into combat with him, or flee. It's just a shame that there's so many armies out there that are completely immune to psychology these days.

6. In fact, you're better off not taking any characters beyond the semi-obligatory BSB and RP. And that is truly sad--I want to take Thanes (Without banners, and with Oathstones) and Dragon Slayers (With runic weapons! Two Runic Weapons!), but it actually weakens my army to do so.

7. Special slots. Who in the heck was thinking that everything relatively interesting should be in the Special category for Dwarfs? Miners and Slayers as Special is a silly choice, for starters, and having Ironbreakers compete with Hammerers and War Machines just isn't right.

8. Let's take a look at the Dwarf aesthetics. Now, I love Dwarfs, but you have Dwarfs, Dwarfs with crossbows, Dwarfs with guns, Dwarfs with big hammers, dwarfs with stupid helmets, and so on. Excepting Slayers and the war machines, the visual variety in a Dwarf list in extremely poor. The models themselves range from the acceptable to the sublime, but it's very hard for the untrained eye to distinguish between Warriors, Longbeards, Hammerers, and Slayers. And, of course, there's Rangers vs. Quarrelers/Warriors/Longbeards and so on. They. All. Look. The. Same.

So at the moment, I'm playing Ogres. ;)


I wish this was the case. However, if you take no shooting in a Dwarf army, you are effectively playing a solely reactive army that relies on not dying rather than killing anything. And there's far too many things in the game right now that make a mockery of Dwarf's survivability.



No, no, no. A runic weapon is at virtually all times inferior to a simple Great Weapon, and costs many times more points. Likewise, an Oathstone has advantages, but the advantages don't come anywhere near the drawbacks.



This is the problem--there is no way to ensure that your Lord will ever, ever get into combat. In fact, if you want to play "offensive," you're better off taking a Runelord on an Anvil, but you'd also be better off using that Runelord to slow down your opponent and hit him with artillery.



High Elf Prince on a Star Dragon is going to be about 650 points fully kitted, just going by a rough estimate.

Dwarf Lord on Shieldbearers fully runed up and in a decent-sized unit of Hammerers, with a runic banner? Somewhere between 550 and 650, depending on the size of the unit. And after the Dragon is done eating the Lord and the Hammerers, he's still more than capable of killing off the rest of your infantry blocks.



Yes, you can take the Strollaz's Rune and forego any sort of offensive/defensive potential on your BSB. Or you can take a Runelord with an anvil if you're playing 3000 points, I suppose.



Congratulations, you found one situation where a runed-up Dragonslayer can potentially be useful. Of course, he'd only be slightly less effective at killing Skeletons naked at 50 points, and a unit that isn't getting buffed up by a Vampire/TK player is a unit that doesn't matter anyways.

Now explain to me this: under what circumstances is a fully-kitted up Thane a great deal compared to one with a great weapon, shield, and Rune of Stone? I'll give you a hint: the answer is "never."



No, you can't pick the best tool for the job, because everything is competing for attention. That unit of Ironbreakers or a sacrificial unit of Slayers/Miners means that you can't take more artillery. I'll even go so far as to say that all the Dwarf Special Infantry pales in comparison to 120 points of Bolt Throwers.



It's not that I dislike looking at them. It's that the differences between the units are minimal at best and often rather silly. And hell, in the instances of Hammerers, the "special equipment" is rarely used instead of the good-ol'-sword-and-board combo.



Runic equipment sounds great in theory but falls flat in reality, especially since it is all-too-often used to protect the units from fear-caused autobreak. And Ld 9 sounds great, too, but it means that most of the Dwarf heroes are less useful, comparatively, than corresponding heroes in other armies.

Dwarfs are my favorite fantasy race. I would love to play them and have quite a large collection sitting in a box gathering dust at the moment. Perhaps in 8th Edition, they'll be more fun to play, but at the moment, they certainly are not.

What Dwarfs need, in my opinion, is a combination of the following:
-Some sort of increased mobility. Don't really care how it comes.
-Immunity to fear-caused autobreaks.
-Cheaper runic equipment
-Bring most of the Special Infantry into Core

Really, with those four, I'd be fired up to play them, but right now, they aren't fun. There's a lot of fun Dwarf players out there, but their army is certainly amongst the least fun to play, with or against.

every thing is soo negative..... take the bolt thrower comment... if you want a unit to shoot... take a bolt thrower... want a unit to cover a flank and never run.... take a bolt... no take slayers want a 2+ armour save take a bolt... nope iron breakers. want to move behind the opponants army turn 2 and kill anything that runs take a bolt... nope take miners. Tools for jobs.

are long beards not good enough in core... 3+ save ws5 t4 s4 core is not good enough for you and shock you can take units of 10 normal warriors to act as diverters and bait. So every main combat block can be longbeards..

Lord vs lord on a dragon. you are takeing a 650 point lord and then cherry picking what you fight. working from 3 ranks standard with +1 combat res bsb also with +1 combat res im on +8.... thats alot of wounds to cause to make me run... and a heck of a chance to fluf it.

Im not saying dwarfs are the all killing army of doom but you can play with an effective and fun list you dont have to play gun line.

wizbix
09-04-2010, 16:28
I expect all the armies to be relatively balanced against one another


As having been a historical war-gamer for some time in the past I do struggle with this concept. Of course some races will have evolved to be good vs. their traditional enemies and will hence not fair as well against ones that they don’t often battle. I also went to tournaments and yes I fought armies that my medieval Swizz were not really geared up to fighting but I tried to think of novel ways to hinder my enemy and have fun. I personally think that some people want too much from this game.

Ozorik
09-04-2010, 17:24
No. Dwarfs are not fun. Either to play, or to play against.

Suffice it to say that I disagree with pretty much all that you have said Drongol.

The dwarf book needs updating certainly but a lot of your points are overstated and some are simply wrong.

nurglelord
09-04-2010, 18:25
i play with dwarfs, but i recently lost my book on them.

can anyone tell me the point value for my army

A dwarf thane, (bfsp)
cannon , 3 crew
2x 20 dwarf warriors with hand weapons and sheilds, full command
10 thunderers
10 thunderers with full command
12 slayers with full command, daemon slayer
10 hammerers with standard bearer

Necromancer2
09-04-2010, 19:26
lol..... 3000 pts!

Leogun_91
09-04-2010, 19:47
And under GW's rules, Dwarfs are not fun. Plain and simple.Then Dwarfs are not allowed to be played. The most important rule can't really be misunderstood. If it aint fun it's not allowed. Dwarfs can however be fun.

Lord vs lord on a dragon. you are takeing a 650 point lord and then cherry picking what you fight. working from 3 ranks standard with +1 combat res bsb also with +1 combat res im on +8.... thats alot of wounds to cause to make me run... and a heck of a chance to fluf it.That's not alot of wounds to cause, it's an impossible ammount, one challenge from a champion and the dragonlord is capped at 6 in combat resolution and loses the battle by at least 2.

i play with dwarfs, but i recently lost my book on them.

can anyone tell me the point value for my army

A dwarf thane, (bfsp)
cannon , 3 crew
2x 20 dwarf warriors with hand weapons and sheilds, full command
10 thunderers
10 thunderers with full command
12 slayers with full command, daemon slayer
10 hammerers with standard bearer
You should be able to make a 1500pts army out of it. I suggest you to increase the size of your CC units and get a runesmith.

Ozorik
09-04-2010, 19:50
i play with dwarfs, but i recently lost my book on them.

can anyone tell me the point value for my army

A dwarf thane, (bfsp)
cannon , 3 crew
2x 20 dwarf warriors with hand weapons and sheilds, full command
10 thunderers
10 thunderers with full command
12 slayers with full command, daemon slayer
10 hammerers with standard bearer

1300 or so.

pkain762
09-04-2010, 19:59
you want a fun list, use an anvil (i already hear the boo and the his) get some miners, get some more blocks of troops, a couple of warmachines, and call it a fun game

yabbadabba
09-04-2010, 20:02
you want a fun list, use an anvil (i already hear the boo and the his) get some miners, get some more blocks of troops, a couple of warmachines, and call it a fun game You missed a couple of beers and a dodgy story about a bloke and a woman from down the pub

dman971
12-04-2010, 04:31
if I didn't already have my heart set on Skaven, I would totally play Dwarves!

Max_Killfactor
12-04-2010, 15:15
Dwarfs are fun as long as you have a good mind set and your opponent plays aggressive. Playing Dwarfs vs Wood Elves is probably my least favorite game. However, playing Dwarfs against Chaos, Orcs, or VC has always been fun for me.

If I had to play as only one army, it would not be Dwarfs though.