PDA

View Full Version : Why do Hammerers not wear Gromril armor?



Olja
01-01-2012, 03:33
Iron Breakers wear Gromril armor but the King's royal guard the Hammerers only wear heavy armor. The average warrior wears heavy armor. The Hammerers are suppose to be the elite of a Dwarf army. Can't the King spend a little coin on his household guard?

The Low King
01-01-2012, 04:00
Because......um.....

A lot of people agree with you

BattleofLund
01-01-2012, 04:18
The Hammerers are suppose to be the elite of a Dwarf army. Can't the King spend a little coin on his household guard?

What, and BREAK WITH TRADITION?! Also, a penny saved is a penny earned. Waste not. Et cetera.

IcedCrow
01-01-2012, 04:28
Balance I suppose. Though to me all dwarven elites should have access to it. Just don't bother giving them the option, make it a part of them.

Duke Ramulots
01-01-2012, 05:06
Hammerers definately need gromril armor and an extra attack and a serious price increase...



and a plastic kit.

Lord Squidar
01-01-2012, 07:54
"Pfft, Ironbreakers covering themselves in head to toe with gromril. Damn cheek of it. When I was a lad, we used to have cave ins all the time and it was nothing I tell ya. Any self respecting dwarf should be able to dig himself out of anywhere" - longbeard hammerer

Seriously though, two vastly different roles in dwarf society. Ironbreakers are probably more important to the dwarfs than hammerers. Ironbreakers guard the underway, the old broken roads that link the dwarf holds. The old army book said you could march entire armies 50 dwarfs abreast through some of the passages! Its a major disadvantage now since goblins and skaven can get into these tunnels, and they need constant guarding.

The gromril suit has two purposes. First to protect against cave ins, since its indestructable the dwarf can survive in it until someone comes. The second is that fully tanked up, a single ironbreaker can hold a small tunnel against a horde of enemies until others come to assist or outflank.

Hammerers are the king's bodyguard and gate keepers of the hold. although their job is important, they might not be active all the time, since the king will only go to war with a larger throng, and how many people march up to a dwarf hold. they are the only other professional warrior dwarf unit (with ironbreakers). they still do train all the time, but dwarf training involves heavy drinking!

Also bear in mind that heavy armour for the dwarfs is more than good enough, the majority of the dwarfs wear it. In game fluff, dwarf heavy armour is the best in the world, and hammerers probably don't see it as inferior to gromril. Its hard to represent the quality of dwarf armour on a rules scale that we currently have, but it would be lighter, stronger and more resistant to rust and damage, things you can't put into the rules.

Hicks
01-01-2012, 09:22
I think the hammerers should have gromril armor too. Also, I'd like to see an universale rule for Dwarfs, Shield Wall: Dwarf units with shields add +1 to their armor save against shooting and close combat attacks coming from the front of the unit. Characters without shields in a unit can't make the unit lose shield wall, but they only benefit from the +1 armour save against shooting.

I think with all the buffs to CC, this would give back to the resistant nature of the dwarfs.

Lord Squidar
01-01-2012, 09:47
I think the hammerers should have gromril armor too. Also, I'd like to see an universale rule for Dwarfs, Shield Wall: Dwarf units with shields add +1 to their armor save against shooting and close combat attacks coming from the front of the unit. Characters without shields in a unit can't make the unit lose shield wall, but they only benefit from the +1 armour save against shooting.

I think with all the buffs to CC, this would give back to the resistant nature of the dwarfs.

If hammerers have gromril and stubborn and immune to fear and terror when a royal blood is with them, for 1 point more than an ironbreaker and str 6, what will the point of taking ironbreakers be then. its too ubar, there needs to be hammer and anvil units (literally in this case)

Hicks
01-01-2012, 09:49
If hammerers have gromril and stubborn and immune to fear and terror when a royal blood is with them, for 1 point more than an ironbreaker and str 6, what will the point of taking ironbreakers be then. its too ubar, there needs to be hammer and anvil units (literally in this case)

Well a +2 save and a +6 ward save would make for a pretty tough anvil of a unit I think.

abdulaapocolyps
01-01-2012, 09:52
DEFO A balance thing.there is no fluff reason for it that makes any sense.
I'm betting they at least get the option in the next book.

Ratbeast
01-01-2012, 10:04
All dwarves should have it regardless, dwarves make the stuff, and chaos have more of it.......

xxRavenxx
01-01-2012, 10:12
Agreed. All dwarves should have a 1+/2++ save, to represent how amazing they are at armor. Also theyre all great with axes, so +3 str for greatweapons, and I5 to show how quick they are with them. And movement 7 (Dangerous over short distance...)


Alternatively, game balance, and it should be the tough unit with the good armor, and the fighty unit with the great weapons...

thesheriff
01-01-2012, 10:48
Agreed. All dwarves should have a 1+/2++ save, to represent how amazing they are at armor. Also theyre all great with axes, so +3 str for greatweapons, and I5 to show how quick they are with them. And movement 7 (Dangerous over short distance...)


Alternatively, game balance, and it should be the tough unit with the good armor, and the fighty unit with the great weapons...

I had to get to the Iniative part of that before I realised it was sarcasm :p

But seriously, warhammer is a game that needs some semblance of balance. Giving hammerers pretty much everything iron breakers have and then some is not going to work. Even if you did, with two attacks as someone suggested, they would be a HUGELY expensive unit that nobody could afford to take until you got into higher points levels. Which, although would make sense fluff wise (lords would only go in really big throngs), would make the unit redundant in regular size games. Something that GW, let alone any rational rules developer, would never do in one of there books.

Lord Squidar
01-01-2012, 10:51
Dont forget that gromril is exceedingly rare. AFAIK the empire only has one suit of it (armour of meteoric iron) and chaos armour is not made from gromril. Its made by chaos dwarfs out of some other kind of hooray.

I think the dwarfs have got pretty much all the gromril they will ever get, they mined it out of Karak Varn before the Skaven invaded. Even gromril chain worn by some heroes was made by the ancestor gods, they are the only ones that can. Having an elite underground warden unit wearing the stuff is pretty rare as it is, having two such units in each hold (if you include the hammerers) would just be OTT.

Dwarf heavy armour is fine for hammerers and gromril should be reserved for heroes and ironbreakers.

Glabro
01-01-2012, 10:56
In this sense I like Warhammer Ancient Battles' balance: the maximum infantry save is a 3+, and armor goes all the way from light, heavy, partial plate to full plate with a 3+ save, and shields go from +1 to +2 (Large Shield).

Basically means that the best armoured elite units (like Greatswords and Hammerers) don't actually need shields due to their armour as much.

And Ironbreakers need to be maximized in defense, so they'd basically be fine with lighter armour and shields to get the same save but also a parry save. They'd probably also have further defensive rules.

Really would like to try Warhammer with the Ancient rules sometime, but you'd need to "adapt" a bit to make use of the special rules like the aforementioned shieldwall for dwarves and phalanx for high elves and Tomb Kings, drilled to both elves and dwarves....and so on.

Liber
01-01-2012, 10:57
Dwarf heavy armour is fine for hammerers and gromril should be reserved for heroes and ironbreakers.


I would agree if "Dwarf heavy armour" meant anything more than a 5+ which more often then not will be a 6+ or non existent.

I think either Gromril or Dwarf armor in general should get some kind of special rule, ex: ignore the first rank (s4) of armor save modifiers.

The idea that they are the best craftsmen of armor and weapons is simply not reflected whatsoever in the entire army (well there is the handgun special rule, but thats it). Many armies have access to better armor than dwarfs through cavalry, and others (WoC, Empire) also have troops that have just as good armor as Dwarfs.

Either buff the weapons/armor or change the fluff to retcon the whole "master blacksmith thing" cause its painful how unrepresented it is currently.

WarmbloodedLizard
01-01-2012, 11:43
No dwarf should have A2. (except characters)

Ironbreakers should have a 2+ Armor Save with the shield Wall ability that can be used once per game, where they get an additional +1 to armor.

Hammerers should have Gromril Armor.

StygianBeach
01-01-2012, 11:46
I
Either buff the weapons/armor or change the fluff to retcon the whole "master blacksmith thing" cause its painful how unrepresented it is currently.

Dwarf Core Warriors have access to Heavy Armour... that sounds like a representation of a culture of Master Blacksmiths.

Gromil should be reserved for Characters and Iron Breakers. Reasons as stated before.
Iron Breakers guard the underground, Hammerers guard the drinking Halls.

Fluff wise, it could be justified as the Hammerers need lighter armour, otherwise drinking would become uncomfortable or stinky very quickly.

Lord Squidar
01-01-2012, 12:00
I love the fact that dwarf training = drinking excessively. The throne bearers who carry Thorgrim around train by bulking up on dwarf ale. Its liquid bread its good for you!

Crovax20
01-01-2012, 12:33
Master artisans: Dwarf armourers make the finest pieces of armor in the old world. Dwarfs equiped with light, heavy or gromgril armor reduce the armor save modifier from a strength 4 to 10 attack by 1.

(edit) and if you feel that is too strong for hammerers and greatweapon dwarfs, make it only count for models equiped with shields + armor

yabbadabba
01-01-2012, 14:49
I'd also look at something like:

Dwarf Elite: Models with this rule, when using great weapons, get the 6+ parry save .

Kalandros
01-01-2012, 15:56
Gonna make Swordmasters jealous.

theunwantedbeing
01-01-2012, 16:03
The Hammerers are suppose to be the elite of a Dwarf army.
No, Ironbreakers are. Hammerers are just the kings most loyal warriors.


Can't the King spend a little coin on his household guard?
Dwarves almost never spend gold on each other, when they do it's certainly not in the vast quantities necessary to provide even a single suit of gromril.

Ironbreakers have it because they 1. do most of the fighting and defending of the realm, so have the most easy access to the funds necessary for armour as expensive as gromril and 2. are the only dwarves other than the heroes that really require a level of protection beyond what standard dwarven heavy armour (the proclaimed best in the world) as they do most of the fighting and defending of the dwarven realm.

Also game balance.
Hammerers are still better due to being st6 and stubborn, they hardly need a boost.
Also I agree with the previous poster stating that dwarves don't need 2 attack troops anywhere, 1 attack is fine. One st6 ws5 attack isn't exactly bad.

Leogun_91
01-01-2012, 17:38
But seriously, warhammer is a game that needs some semblance of balance. Giving hammerers pretty much everything iron breakers have and then some is not going to work. Even if you did, with two attacks as someone suggested, they would be a HUGELY expensive unit that nobody could afford to take until you got into higher points levels. Which, although would make sense fluff wise (lords would only go in really big throngs), would make the unit redundant in regular size games. Something that GW, let alone any rational rules developer, would never do in one of there books.Stubborn units with high armoursave is one of those units that actually work fairly well in small units so a high cost won't be so bad.

Gonna make Swordmasters jealous.Well it should go both ways, dwarf and elf elites should be about equal (in different ways).

No, Ironbreakers are. Hammerers are just the kings most loyal warriors.Not just the most loyal, although that is important, they are very much elites. The point that dwarfs do not spend coin on other dwarfs (unless they are family) is however a most valid one, they are the handpicked, greatest and bravest warriors and are given a hammer, but nothing more, their old armor, the one their ancestors used, is what the hammerers will proudly carry.

woodster17
01-01-2012, 18:19
Passed down through the generations, the way it should be.

Although the Ironbreakers are elite, the Hammerers are equally so. There isn't a single Dwarf unit that is considered 'the elite'. Ironbreakers are responsible for safeguarding the lower level of the holds (where let's face it the greatest threats come from, nobody is breaking down the main gate), while Hammerers are the Lords personal guard. Both jobs have equal honour. Being a miner is an equally honourable job to hold. I would argue that most Dwarf units are fairly elite compared to most races.

The Low King
01-01-2012, 18:33
Hammerers, Longbeards and Ironbreakers are the holds proffessional warriors. That doesnt just involve drinking. Plus, who drinks in full gromril suits?

What about full plate? Greatswords have armour as good as gromril that is supposedly made by the dwarfs.....surely dwarfs would make it for themselves first?

thesheriff
01-01-2012, 18:37
This thread has turned rather quickly from a fluff based question to Dwarf wish-listing.

[sigh]

yabbadabba
01-01-2012, 18:39
Problem is GW does not link fluff and rules together very well, if at all. If they did, Space Marine armies would consist of 5 models and a land speeder, High Elves would kill half an army before they had time to react just with sheer magic and characters, and Chaos would be ina brown bag behind the counter in most shops.

slayer8045
01-01-2012, 18:52
I think Hammerers should have Gromril armour and Ironbreakers should have Gromril armour with a rune of stone. But that might be just me.

The bearded one
01-01-2012, 18:52
Problem is GW does not link fluff and rules together very well, if at all. If they did, Space Marine armies would consist of 5 models and a land speeder, High Elves would kill half an army before they had time to react just with sheer magic and characters, and Chaos would be ina brown bag behind the counter in most shops.

not sure I get that last one :p


longbeards, hammerers and ironbreakers are what Grudgelore (IIRC) called 'the veteran brotherhoods' and are the elite as can be deduced from their stats with varying roles. Ironbreakers wear gromril armour as their duties require it (I am unsure wether they have to buy it or get it as part of the job, and how one becomes an ironbreaker), but it is very rare and is pretty much only found around the Black Lake in the world's edge mountains and many of the largest veins are mined away already, such as in Karak Varn. Only ironbreakers and important (and rich) individuals such as thanes and runesmiths manage to acquire gromril, so there simply might not be enough to go around to equip all the hammerers too. If there was enough but they did not equip the hammerers with it, wouldn't there be a bunch of spare gromril suits lying around? What a waste would that be. In addition it is very expensive and not everyone can afford it.

Furthermore there are reasons of gamebalance. Also keep in mind that, at least in 7th edition, one could switch between shields and 'special weapons' such as great weapons between combats. If hammerers had the option for gromril armour, you could buy some shields for them and then in combat have hammerers who could use great weapons in combat if they wished and have a 4+ save, or who could use their shields and become stubborn ironbreakers. Hammerers do not have gromril armour to differentiate them from ironbreakers.

I do like the suggestion (I've heard it often) to put runes of stone on the armour of ironbreakers, to actually make them the tankiest infantry of the game which they're pretty much supposed to be fluffwise, as they're significantly outclassed by chaos warriors gamingwise. Back in the olden days they wore heavy armour with runes of stone.

Duke Ramulots
01-01-2012, 18:57
Dwarfs are supposed to be as well protected as you can get, make gromril armor a 3+ save and give hammerers "dwarven heavy armor" with a 4+ save. This way the dwarf ellite soldiers with a shield would have a heavy cav level save and there would be a reason to use a shield wall once again.

snottlebocket
01-01-2012, 18:59
Iron Breakers wear Gromril armor but the King's royal guard the Hammerers only wear heavy armor. The average warrior wears heavy armor. The Hammerers are suppose to be the elite of a Dwarf army. Can't the King spend a little coin on his household guard?

It's rare stuff and the dwarfs are a troubled people so they spend their resources where they matter most.

Where do you think they matter most? The royal bodyguard who mostly sit around chugging beer all day until the king needs them. Or the guys that spend most of their time fighting all comers in the nastiest, deepest, least safe tunnels underneath the hold.

Iron breakers wearing the best armor the hold can provide is in everyone's best interest. And basic heavy armor isn't bad, by all means it's some of the best armor available. Gromril armor with the rune of stone is pretty much the suped up shiny armor made out of the rarest metals and individually stamped with magic runes intended to let an ironbreaker survive a cave in should the need arise. It says more about the job of the iron breakers than the quality of armor available for dwarves in general.

Drongol
01-01-2012, 19:53
So, Dwarfs mine enough Gromril to give every Empire Knight a suit, but not enough to equip their own elites? I don't quite get that. ;)

The bearded one
01-01-2012, 19:56
So, Dwarfs mine enough Gromril to give every Empire Knight a suit, but not enough to equip their own elites? I don't quite get that. ;)

I do.

Fullplate armour is not made of gromril (it's not mentioned to made of gromril anyway, and you'd think that would be an important detail worth mentioning..)

yabbadabba
01-01-2012, 20:04
So, Dwarfs mine enough Gromril to give every Empire Knight a suit, but not enough to equip their own elites? I don't quite get that. ;) Empire wear plate armour, not gromril.

As I said, it makes no difference really. I can come up with possibly a half dozen or more reasons for and against this whole situation, but in the end its what GW wants it's background to reflect; the game balance by necessity reflects something else.

snottlebocket
01-01-2012, 20:12
So, Dwarfs mine enough Gromril to give every Empire Knight a suit, but not enough to equip their own elites? I don't quite get that. ;)

For what it's worth elite is relative in the context of dwarves anyway. The stubbornness of hammerers is legendary and surely it's a great honor to be one. But for the most part the longbeards are older and more experienced while the ironbreakers fight daily. Between the three elite units dwarves field at the moment I'd put hammerers at the bottom when it comes to field experience.

Just look at what the British royal guard is wearing. That's quite a difference with the kit and gear of frontline SAS despite the fact that they're not the ones guarding the queen. (and if you got a laugh out of that, check out what the swiss halberdiers guarding the pope are wearing)

Mike3791
01-01-2012, 20:13
What if gromril granted a 3+ sv to differentiate it from plate and chaos armor? Hmmm

Lord Zarkov
01-01-2012, 20:19
Just look at what the British royal guard is wearing. That's quite a difference with the kit and gear of frontline SAS despite the fact that they're not the ones guarding the queen. (and if you got a laugh out of that, check out what the swiss halberdiers guarding the pope are wearing)

That's just their No 1's though, when on any other duty (especially out in a warzone) they just get the same kit and uniform as everybody else.

And if any other unit is on palace guarding duty (which does happen pretty frequently) they'll wear their own No 1's, what ever that happens to be, which will be somewhat less ostentatious.

Crovax20
01-01-2012, 20:24
I'm not sure what GW should do to make Ironbreakers more desirable in the game. Right now all competitive dwarfs are fielding greatweapons out of the wazzoo. They offer far more killingpower and since dwarfs tend to strike last anyhow the always strike last rule isn't so bad. Currently the ironbreakers don't really have a role in a dwarf army as other units are better just more cost effective. Ironbreakers and dwarf warriors with handweapon and shield just lacking the killingpower to compete with greatweapons and their pointcosts are too similar to be using them as tarpits.

The bearded one
01-01-2012, 20:26
(and if you got a laugh out of that, check out what the swiss halberdiers guarding the pope are wearing)

While they usually wear the coloured 16th century looking fabrics and halberds, the guys with earpieces in black suits carrying guns are in fact also swiss guard.

thesheriff
01-01-2012, 20:49
I'm not sure what GW should do to make Ironbreakers more desirable in the game. Right now all competitive dwarfs are fielding greatweapons out of the wazzoo. They offer far more killingpower and since dwarfs tend to strike last anyhow the always strike last rule isn't so bad. Currently the ironbreakers don't really have a role in a dwarf army as other units are better just more cost effective. Ironbreakers and dwarf warriors with handweapon and shield just lacking the killingpower to compete with greatweapons and their pointcosts are too similar to be using them as tarpits.

Make them cheaper. Its that simple. Or make GW's alot more expensive. In Tarkamukhan, i belive Infernal Guard GW's are far more expensive than warrior ones. To a point, if you make Gw's even more expensive, it will become more cost effective to take HW/s warriors

sulla
01-01-2012, 21:00
I think the problem here is that we tend to lose sight of 'reality' because we, as gamers, focus too much on gameplay.

Perhaps waddling around on foot armoured head to toe in full plate as the ironbreaker does is simply not practical, even for a dwarf. In other words, perhaps it's not the cost or rarity of gromril that limits it's availability, but rather that it doesn't suit the needs of the unit? Perhaps the level of craftsmanship neccessary to allow a dwarf to swing a great weapon in gromril for an extended time is simply not practical for mass production?

Regardless, we can't just dole out the best stuff to elite units all the time otherwise you'd have no-brainer units like gromril hammerers vs cold one knights with halberds and sea dragon cloaks vs chaos knights on juggernauts vs units of handgunners entirely outfitted with hochland longrifles and so on.

The bearded one
01-01-2012, 21:50
Make them cheaper. Its that simple. Or make GW's alot more expensive. In Tarkamukhan, i belive Infernal Guard GW's are far more expensive than warrior ones. To a point, if you make Gw's even more expensive, it will become more cost effective to take HW/s warriors

Dwarf troops are already quite pricey (9pts for a shieldwarrior, 10 for one with gw), so I think units with shields should become cheaper instead to make them a more attractive option.

ghost of scubasteve
01-01-2012, 22:03
I think a cool rule for dwarf armor would be:

Str does not start to modify AC until 5, witch will give -1 AC, 6 str gives-2, etc.

It's fluffy and it's a good ability but not supergood

Crovax20
01-01-2012, 22:09
I already jotted something similar down on page 2 in this thread. However you might want to consider doing this for handweapon + shield dwarfs only, because else you are still stuck with Greatweapons still having an edge overall. Having warriors/ironbreakers with hand weapon and shield reduce any armoursave modifiers against them by 1 would be a nice buff. Question is, will it cause them to perform equally compared to greatweapon wielding dwarfs and hammerers? My gutfeeling is saying yes, as they will also be more resiliant to strength 4 attacks from range and thus will arrive more intact... but the math for combats might show otherwise

It will be interesting to see how GW solves the problem of handweapon + shield being the lesser option on most units.

The bearded one
01-01-2012, 22:17
I think by a pointsreduction * points to rumoured VC changes *

yabbadabba
01-01-2012, 22:23
I think a cool rule for dwarf armor would be:

Str does not start to modify AC until 5, witch will give -1 AC, 6 str gives-2, etc.

It's fluffy and it's a good ability but not supergood I think it could be seen as too complicated for GW. I'd still go for Dwarven Elite getting the 6+ parry save when using a GW, or all Dwarven Elite having access to rune of stone upgrade, or even units charging Dwarves to the front suffer a -1 to hit on the first turn, which does not stack with other similar bonuses.

thesheriff
01-01-2012, 22:38
I think by a pointsreduction * points to rumoured VC changes *

Rumours imply doubt

But, your right. Units getting cheaper, so you have more hordes, so you buy more models, so GW profits is going to be standard tack for 8th ed. books. Deterring from the question EVER so briefly, warriors becoming cheaper would not surprise me.

Then again, there not too bad for pts now IMO. There drop I don't think will be as rapid.....

Grimstonefire
01-01-2012, 22:56
Fluffwise I don't think there is a reason they should have Gromril.

As others have said, they don't wear it because they don't need to wear it. Swinging a great weapon is hard enough without all the added weight.

Rules wise... There is a lot of work that needs to be done both to boost hammerers and ironbreakers and also to make them better at their respective roles. Giving both gromril confuses their roles a bit.

Personally I'd rather both of them were boosted in ways other than 'armour save'.

If for instance they made all Dwarfs have a 5+ parry save that would represent the dwarf armour skill better without confusing the roles of the 2 units. Consider it a shieldwall or something.

Secondly I'd make Ironbreakers Immune to panic. Nowhere to run in a tunnel is there...? Possibly also give them blast charges or throwing axes.

I'd give Hammerers 2A. Not sure what else.

Warrior of Chaos
01-01-2012, 23:05
I think that Hammers and Ironbreakers should be differentiated a bit more.

Maybe:

Ironbreakers; gromril armor 4+, and gromril shield 5+ (2+ armor save w/ parry)
Additionally add hatred Skaven and Trolls, besides the normal "Greenskins".

Hammerers; heavy armor 5+, option for shield per normal.
Stubborn, (immune to fear and terror w/ royal blood char), and something like resounding blows (re-roll to wound rolls if a unit of Hammerers charges - you wouldn't get it if you were the one charged).

Warrior of Chaos
01-01-2012, 23:15
Secondly I'd make Ironbreakers Immune to panic. Nowhere to run in a tunnel is there...?

Actually, the immune to panic thing isn't a bad idea. I agree with you fluff wise that there certainly not likely to be places to run in cramped tunnels. I really hope that fluff-wise GW goes all out to make each type of dwarf infantry more flavorful based off of their roles. Miners could use some tweaking as well.

The bearded one
01-01-2012, 23:37
As others have said, they don't wear it because they don't need to wear it. Swinging a great weapon is hard enough without all the added weight.

Characters wear gromril too.

Furthermore dwarfs have excellent stamina and are heavily muscled. They can continue labours regardless of the weight of their gear and can march for days with heavy bagage without loss of speed (they even used to have a rule representing this. Heavy armour used to give -1 movement, except for dwarfs). Dwarfs ought to be able to make armour functional enough to allow one to swing a great hammer. If anything they can just make the armour with exactly the same design as heavy armour, only using gromril instead of iron or steel.


Concerning the immunity to panic; that's the trait for longbeards. Giving it to ironbreakers too dilutes the flavourfulness of the rule. Fluff regularly mentions the use of large shields like the LotR vault wardens. It might be cool implementing. Maybe you can buy several of those teams to put in the front rank or something, also allowing for a cool shieldbearer/team model to be created, or a stubborn, tough (but small and expensive) unit consisting entirely of them.

Lord Zarkov
02-01-2012, 00:07
With regards to weight - in Mordheim, like in 4th/5th, heavy armour gives a movement penalty whereas gromril armour does not - so it appears it is less heavy.

The bearded one
02-01-2012, 00:29
do dwarfs in mordheim suffer a movement penalty from heavy armour too?
Also, is gromril accesable to non-dwarfs in mordheim?

if both answers are no, it may simply be a representation of the dwarf stamina and ability to carry heavy loads like heavy armour and gromril.

Lord Zarkov
02-01-2012, 00:34
do dwarfs in mordheim suffer a movement penalty from heavy armour too?
Also, is gromril accesable to non-dwarfs in mordheim?

if both answers are no, it may simply be a representation of the dwarf stamina and ability to carry heavy loads like heavy armour and gromril.

No and Yes - everyone can take gromril armour, it's just very rare (you have to roll an 11-12 on 2D6 to get it) and very expensive (3x HA) - although if dwarfs buy it as starting equipment it's no longer rare and half the price.

Drongol
02-01-2012, 00:53
Fullplate armour is not made of gromril (it's not mentioned to made of gromril anyway, and you'd think that would be an important detail worth mentioning..)

Sorry, I was misremembering the "forged by Dwarven smiths" bit. Nonetheless, it is strange that the plate armor (non-Gromril, apparently) traded to the Empire is as effective as the plate armor (Gromril) worn by Ironbreakers, is it not?

Lord Zarkov
02-01-2012, 00:57
Sorry, I was misremembering the "forged by Dwarven smiths" bit. Nonetheless, it is strange that the plate armor (non-Gromril, apparently) traded to the Empire is as effective as the plate armor (Gromril) worn by Ironbreakers, is it not?

It's probably something like FPA is 4.5+ and Gromril is 3.5+, an identical stat can have quite a large range in warhammer - e.g. S3 goes all the way from weedy goblins to hulking Orcs

The bearded one
02-01-2012, 01:39
It's probably something like FPA is 4.5+ and Gromril is 3.5+, an identical stat can have quite a large range in warhammer - e.g. S3 goes all the way from weedy goblins to hulking Orcs

being stabbed in the groin by a goblin hurts as much as being punched in the face by an orc :p

Liber
02-01-2012, 02:23
Dwarf Core Warriors have access to Heavy Armour... that sounds like a representation of a culture of Master Blacksmiths.




WOW. You are right, we have 1 core unit that wears heavy armor, thats totally fluffy and awesome!


Anyways, many people have made suggestions like making gromril a 3+, and/or making "dwarf heavy armor" a 4+ and i would agrree with all this.

I'm not too particular on what exactly gets done with the Dwarf armor/Gromril situation as long as something does get done.

BEARO
02-01-2012, 02:26
Hammerers will probably get Gromil next book.

Duke Ramulots
02-01-2012, 02:28
So if gromril armor is for keeping a dwarf safe in a cave in, then why not have miners wear it...lol

Tarian
02-01-2012, 02:43
Let's see... how many armies have access to Heavy Armor or better and T4+ on their core...

Dwarves... Chaos... Lizards with Scaly Skin. Yep, Dwarves got nothing in the tough core department.

The bearded one
02-01-2012, 03:59
Let's see... how many armies have access to Heavy Armor or better and T4+ on their core...

Dwarves... Chaos... Lizards with Scaly Skin. Yep, Dwarves got nothing in the tough core department.

And ogres (ironguts)

and wood elves and daemons if 'heavy armor or better' includes 5+ wards.

Tarian
02-01-2012, 04:58
Ah, Ogres, haven't been able to get in any games with them with the new AB, sadly. Still, that's less than half, even including WE and Daemons!

((Then again, I play HE and Skaven, so I have T4 envy.))

Urgat
02-01-2012, 06:51
being stabbed in the groin by a goblin hurts as much as being punched in the face by an orc :p

I'd argue the goblin hurts more.

Liber
02-01-2012, 07:53
Let's see... how many armies have access to Heavy Armor or better and T4+ on their core...



This is about armor, no need to bring toughness into the picture, no matter how envious you may be :angel:

I keep hearing rumors of dwarfs getting stuff sooner than expected...whatever it is, i look forward to it.

StygianBeach
02-01-2012, 08:54
WOW. You are right, we have 1 core unit that wears heavy armor, thats totally fluffy and awesome!


Anyways, many people have made suggestions like making gromril a 3+, and/or making "dwarf heavy armor" a 4+ and i would agrree with all this.

I'm not too particular on what exactly gets done with the Dwarf armor/Gromril situation as long as something does get done.

Yeah, it is fluffy... and I think it is sensible (so awesome from gaming perspective).

The thing is that Armour in Warhammer is a 6 point scale. Which means there is a huge difference between 1 and 2. Its like the difference between 17 and 34 on a 100 point scale. So you could bump it up a point, but then the difference is like 17 and 51. Whoa...

Also, as has been previously mentioned, many thing that go into what makes Dwarf Armour so good (fluffwise), is not represented by this number.

So a good representation of the Dwarves superior ability to make armour is to give core Heavy Armour... (and to make them cheap).

Lord Squidar
02-01-2012, 09:20
So if gromril armor is for keeping a dwarf safe in a cave in, then why not have miners wear it...lol

Miners go into stable shafts and mine out the goodies there. They use blasting charges and goblins in cages to detect for gas. Mining is considered really safe and regular for dwarfs, since all dwarfs, kings and plebs alike, must spend some time in the mines.

Ironbreakers go into the underway, the dwarf highway, which cracked partially before the goblin wars. Its unstable, filled with nasties who have undermined it or dug their own tunnels into it.

Big difference.

Liber
02-01-2012, 15:20
So a good representation of the Dwarves superior ability to make armour is to give core Heavy Armour... (and to make them cheap).

If you really feel that giving 1 (just one, thunderers/quarrelers have light armor) single core choice heavy armor is a fair representation of the worlds most skilled and most prolific armor makers is "a good representation" thats fine (not to mention the Dwarfs legendary stamina as far as wearing the stuff)

But I strongly disagree, I don't think its even worth mentioning.

The typical Dwarf army will look something like this as far as armor saves go:

gw equipped wars - 5+ save

thunderers - 6+ save

various war machine crews - 6+ save

Hammerers - 5+ save

Slayers - no save


I'm sorry but I don't see how the fact that the gw equipped wars having a 5+ instead of 6+ is even close to adequate representation of the fluff, or remotely something that could claim to make the dwarf army 'unique' in any way. My 2 most regular opponents are HE and WoC. Both of their armies are just as well armored as mine. If not more so.

Hopefully we get either an army wide armor buff, a buff to gromril, or (and i like this idea because all our core use the same model, so its strange for them to have different armor values) make thunderer/quarrelers also get heavy armor.

Duke Ramulots
02-01-2012, 15:27
A buff to gromril would have Dwarf players actually taking profesional soldiers to battle in their dwarf armies. That would be cool.

Leogun_91
02-01-2012, 16:13
A buff to gromril would have Dwarf players actually taking profesional soldiers to battle in their dwarf armies. That would be cool.But not too fluffy actually, a dwarf throng would be about 90% made of the normal clansdwarfs (longbeards are included in that number as they are just older clansdwarfs). Their elites are really rare.
That is however irrelevant in a rules perspective, each unit should be viable in an armybook and although it is extremely hard to reach that point it should always be aimed for.

The bearded one
02-01-2012, 16:18
well, all dwarf warriors, thunderers, quarrelers etc. might be militia forces, but they train as often and as hard (if not more) as any other of the civilised races. In truth virtually the entire throng of a hold is militia, apart from the professional core which are the longbeards (who are given time off their duties to train and instruct others), hammerers (more or less continuesly on duty) and ironbreakers (also continuesly on duty). However not even a minor clan sends dwarfs to war that are not properly equipped and harnassed (p.27 dwarf armybook) and in artwork all the dwarfs are heavily armoured and definately not all dwarfs featured in the art are longbeards, hammerers and ironbreakers.

innerwolf
02-01-2012, 16:23
My 2 most regular opponents are HE and WoC. Both of their armies are just as well armored as mine. If not more so.

I think part of the problem was handing chaos armour like it was candy across the 7th edition WoC armybook. Previously, it was considered rare fluff-wise, and only seen in the elite (Chosen, Chosen Knights and characters). The "chaos dwarfs do it for them" doesn't cut it for me. Arming every chaos warrior with such armour would mean a constant trade with chaos dwarfs, something that wasn't previously hinted.
Then Ironbreakers stopped looking like a special unit when compared to the better, similarily costed core Chaos Warriors.

Haravikk
02-01-2012, 16:40
I think that Hammerers in general are in a weird place rules wise, as they're supposed to be elite bodyguards, yet everyone is fielding them in huge blocks of unstoppable great weapon attacks.

They could probably do with being split, so that we have the elite-level, heavy armoured, offensive great weapon units, with more elite (Rare or 0-1?) Stubborn bodyguards in Gromril.

What I would actually love would be a unit of multi-wound hammerers; expensive but with 2 Wounds and Toughness 5 it'd be like fielding a unit of Thanes but with standard elite stats for everything else.

StygianBeach
02-01-2012, 16:56
Hopefully we get either an army wide armor buff, a buff to gromril, or (and i like this idea because all our core use the same model, so its strange for them to have different armor values) make thunderer/quarrelers also get heavy armor.

Yeah.. Heavy Armour as standard Dwarf dress sounds fine (except for Slayers though).

Although this is impossible for GW (or anyone) to do. The way I would like to see Dwarves buffed in combat is for Elves/Humans to be put on 25mm bases and the 20mm bases reserved for Dwarves, Goblins, skinks and other small stuff...

yabbadabba
02-01-2012, 17:02
If a new rules edition was due, I'd say bring back the old -1M encumberance penalty, but that would fly in the face of GWs "Fast-Fun-Furious" design philosophy.

StygianBeach
02-01-2012, 17:14
If a new rules edition was due, I'd say bring back the old -1M encumberance penalty, but that would fly in the face of GWs "Fast-Fun-Furious" design philosophy.

I like this idea. Just buff all units movement by 1 inch. Then the 1 inch penalty to Heavy Armour will not slow the game down.

So Dwarf base move 4. 4 with Heavy.
Humans base move 5, dropped to 4 for Heavy.

Elves base move 6 (okay, that doesnt look right). 5 with Heavy... etc...

Move 6 Elves, seems a little silly... but with the new random charges, its not as big of a deal as it used to be. Not sure what to do about Cavalry though.

Dwarves being able to March 8 Inches can only be good right?

...... movement 4 Hammerers with Gromil would be broken!!!! Thant is why they could not have it.... :)

yabbadabba
02-01-2012, 17:21
That's why you don't change the current M stats

Crovax20
02-01-2012, 17:34
With this edition being so focused on killyness, greatweapons are very good and even more so for low iniative armies which would be striking last on most occasions already. Losing the +1 AS from having a shield and always attacking have swung the game in favor of fielding as high a strength weapons as you can find. At the moment there is pretty much no reason to field handweapon + shield dwarfs, as the greatweapon wielding ones will always outperform their shield brethren in combats.

Perhaps GW went a step too far with losing the +1 AS in combat and replacing it with a 6+ parry save. In general its always better to have a higher strength attack in this edition, as it bypasses both toughness and armoursaves. Perhaps if the +1AS had stayed in addition to a 6+ parry save, having handweapon and shields would have made sense.

Lets take a horde of 40 greatweapon wielding dwarfs against 40 handweapon and shield dwarfs with +1 AS in close combat and a parry save. The 30 handweapon dwarfs hit 5 attacks and wound with 1.66, after saves 0.55 wounds remain. The horde hits with 21 attacks, 10.5 hits, 7 wounds. In the old situation you would save 2.33 + 0.77 = 3 wounds. Combat result would turn into -3/-4 for the hw/shield dwarfs. With +1 AS, while keeping the parrysave it would turn into 3.5 + 0.58 saves. This would result in losing combat with -2/-3.

Even with an extra +1 AS from handweapon and shield those dwarfs still lose significantly to GW wielding counterparts. The only units that really got better with the parrysave were those who already had no armor, like night goblins.

Haravikk
02-01-2012, 17:45
Lets take a horde of 40 greatweapon wielding dwarfs against 40 handweapon and shield dwarfs with +1 AS in close combat and a parry save.
While I do agree that returning the additional +1 armour alongside Parry would be great (2+ save Ironbreakers, yay!), I think it's worth mentioning that comparing great weapons vs shields isn't a good example. The purpose of a hand-weapon and shield unit isn't to cause damage, or even to outlast a single enemy unit, it's to get stuck in and hold as many enemy units up for as long as possible while you move other units in to counter-charge. I use a 40 model hand-weapon and shield horde and/or my 25 Ironbreakers regularly in battles, and they can perform very well alongside smaller Great Weapon units; their job is to take the enemy's attacks for a turn or two, and (depending how they do) add some combat res and/or eliminate Steadfast when my other units get stuck in and tip the scales.

Hordes of Great Weapons are dead simple and effective to use, but if they're held in place and counter-charged then they can be overwhelmed quickly, so I prefer to have the tactical mix, and use them to good effect. For good measure, take the 40 model hand-weapon and shield horde, and slap a Standard Bearer with defensive runes and an Oath Stone in there, and you're going to give your opponent one heck of a headache!

So ehm… yeah, while hand weapon and shield definitely isn't such a good choice anymore (same with spear and shield), they can still be very useful! It'd be interesting to see Dwarfs gain a shield wall mechanic, as every book I've read that contains Dwarfs practically has the phrase "shield wall" every line during battle-scenes!

Crovax20
02-01-2012, 17:52
Oh yeah they can be useful, but in mathhammer the greatweapon dwarfs will pretty much always be better due to inflicting more casualties on the opponent, even in bus formation.

+1 as in close combat for handweapon/shield would balance out the effect of greatweapons marginally for units with heavy armor, while retaining the parry save make it still usefull for stuff with light armor. Greatweapons would still win combats but also cost more points and might not be fielded en masse anymore.

The other option would be increasing the cost of the greatweapons upgrade to +3 points... as that would give you 120 point advantage which would seem fair.

thesheriff
02-01-2012, 18:44
must.....resist....urge......to......WISHLIST!!

*brain explodes*

Crovax20
02-01-2012, 19:39
well this is general discussion, although we are kinda off topic :p

thesheriff
02-01-2012, 20:10
well this is general discussion, although we are kinda off topic :p

Kinda off topic?!?! We missed the juncion for "Kinda off topic" about 2hrs ago. We now in the middle of nowhere, on the country road of obscurity, in the Little Chef of randomness, eating the bacon sandwich of wishlisting. Mmmmm......bacon :p

Leogun_91
02-01-2012, 20:49
Oh yeah they can be useful, but in mathhammer the greatweapon dwarfs will pretty much always be better due to inflicting more casualties on the opponent, even in bus formation.Same pts vs Same pts.
(Will try three different units in one armybook each with mathhammer and won't write down the calculation on the side but will give it if doubted, I write it on the side so it won't take up unnecessary space here, I list only one round of combat to save time)
GW warriors with command (30) vs Halberdiers with command (31) with Halberdiers (15) and Halberdiers (15) detatchment: 9W vs 6W, After flank bonus GW warriors win by one.
Shield warriors with command (30) vs Halberdiers with command (29) with Halberdiers (13) and Halberdiers (13) detatchment: Halberdiers deal 4 wounds, shield warriors 6, fight ends a draw.
Analysis: While the GW warriors get off for a strong start I feel the shield warriors will have a better chance to keep up their fighting power as the GW warriors have already lost attacks for following rounds while the shield warriors keeps a high number of retaliation attacks longer.

GW warriors with command (30) vs Swordsmasters (19) with command and a bladelord with the talisman of Loec: 5 or 6 vs 10, warriors lose with 4 or 5 and most likely flees.
Shield Warriors with command (30) vs Swordsmasters (17) with command and a bladelord with the talisman of Loec: 3 vs 6, warriors lose with 3 and probably flees.
Analysis: The dwarfs will lose, it's more a question of when and the shield warriors are more likely to hold another round, sure the gws kill two or three more but swordsmasters aren't supposed to be killed in closequarters and the dwarfs should know that.

GW warriors with command (31) vs Tomb King chariots (6): 5 vs 9 in kills, 5 vs 10 after counting charge, 8 vs 10 after counting ranks and banner, fair chance for dwarfs holding
Shield warriors with comman (33) vs Tomb King Chariots (6): 1 vs 5 in kills, 1 vs 6 after counting charge, 5 vs 7 after counting ranks and banner, fair chance of dwarfs holding.
Analysis: Both works well and are likely to win if the fight lasts more than one round, the gw warriors will finish the chariots of quicker.

This seems far less like an obvious choice than you make it out to be and considering that the shield warriors could probably do just as well without those extra warriors you can if you use it consequently through your army get something fun that might make more of a difference than that (two boltthrowers and 3 units of shield warriors is probably better than three units of gweap warriors in most cases).

The bearded one
02-01-2012, 21:23
note that hordes of gw warriors are generally taken in units from 35 to 40, in order to absorb casualties sustained due to always strike last. It's only sensible.


vs the halbediers... am I miscalculating or... the halbediers have a total of 51 attacks, of which 25.5 hit, 12.75 wound and 10.625 get through the save. The remaining 19 warriors have 20 attacks, of which 11.11111 wound and kill. I am unsure how you got 9 kills for the dwarfd and 6 for the halbediers.

Are you calculating the units 5 wide or 10 wide?

With the chariots after the chariots deal 9 kills the remaining 22 attacks cause 14.33 hits and ~9.5 wounds. When calculating the dwarfs 5-wide I do get ~5 wounds for the dwarfs, so I'm guessing you did the math assuming the unit was 5-wide each time.

Leogun_91
02-01-2012, 21:50
note that hordes of gw warriors are generally taken in units from 35 to 40, in order to absorb casualties sustained due to always strike last. It's only sensible.


vs the halbediers... am I miscalculating or... the halbediers have a total of 51 attacks, of which 25.5 hit, 12.75 wound and 10.625 get through the save. The remaining 19 warriors have 20 attacks, of which 11.11111 wound and kill. I am unsure how you got 9 kills for the dwarfd and 6 for the halbediers.

Are you calculating the units 5 wide or 10 wide?

With the chariots after the chariots deal 9 kills the remaining 22 attacks cause 14.33 hits and ~9.5 wounds. When calculating the dwarfs 5-wide I do get ~5 wounds for the dwarfs, so I'm guessing you did the math assuming the unit was 5-wide each time.All the dwarfs don't get to strike, neither do all the halberdiers, I assume they don't play on an open field without interfering terrain and units and therefore are unable to stand in a long unwieldy line of which I can rarely fit too many in my battle fields (as the current terrain rules, while somewhat wacky fluffwise, tend to make a suitably crowded battlefield), therefore I played all units 5 wides (the exception being the chariots which I played 3 wide, I guess 6 wide would be more sensible in many cases but still).

The Low King
02-01-2012, 22:07
you can usually fit 10 wide units in.......and i assume the detatchments are in the flank or something

Crovax20
02-01-2012, 22:20
The idea behind the greatweapons on dwarfs is to horde them, against a 5 wide unit that means they will get 21 or more depending on base size and unit compisition attacks at strenght 5. (as is the idea behind most of the ZOMG kill units)

If I ever start a dwarf army, it would include at least one unit of handweapon+shield dwarfs though as I like it for the aesthetics and couldn't care less about optimizing my army to the max.

I don't think I have even fielded the same (night) goblin army list twice since 8th edition launched.

The bearded one
02-01-2012, 23:12
If your battlefield have no room for an 8" wide unit, yours must be exceptionally crowded with terrain. We generally have 3 forests, several buildings and the temple of skulls as a piece of impassable terrain.
Note I do always find it funky to maneouvre in the portions of the battlefield where there are a few buildings, it makes it more fun, especially with my skinks :p

*tournament tables are generally pretty barren though, and often have enough space to put 3-4 hordes next to eachother with room to spare.
Redoing to math for the halbediers with hordes of 40: 40 halbediers with 2 detachments of 20.

shields; (champions factored in) 51 attacks from the halbediers kill ~7, the 33 attacks of the shieldwarriors (31 to the front, and 2 models from rank 4 hit at a detachment on either flank) kill ~9. 7 vs 9.
--- Due to the detachments the halbediers have a banner, 3 ranks and a flankbonus, while the dwarfs are disrupted. The halbediers have 12 points of cr. The dwarfs have 9 kills and a banner, so 10. The dwarfs lose by 2 (3 if the halbediers charged, 2 if they charged the halbediers and the detachments countercharged)

great weapons; (champions factored in) 51 attacks from the halbediers kill ~10.6 (let's say 11), the 30 remaining attacks of the great weapon warriors kill 16.666 (let's say 17). 11 vs 17.
--- Due to the detachments the halbediers have a banner, 3 ranks and a flankbonus, while the dwarfs are disrupted. The halbediers have 16 points of cr. The dwarfs have 17 kills and a banner, so 18. The dwarfs win by 2 (1 if the halbediers charged, 2 if they charged the halbediers and the detachments countercharged).

Duke Ramulots
02-01-2012, 23:20
I like to play with the D6+4 peices of terrain that the BRB recomends. It seems to eliminate the use of massive units.

Luigi
03-01-2012, 00:18
If I ever start a dwarf army, it would include at least one unit of handweapon+shield dwarfs though as I like it for the aesthetics and couldn't care less about optimizing my army to the max.


Yes! Despite GW wielding dwarfs being cool dwarfs just aren't dwarfs if there are no shields...


I like to play with the D6+4 peices of terrain that the BRB recommends. It seems to eliminate the use of massive units.

Oh I have only to agree on this.

Now going back to the OP.
Hammerers should have Gromril IMO. The problem on our AB is that we have 3 'elite' infantry choices that just are not enough differentiated (long beads, hammerers and Ironbreakers are way to similar in stats equipment and cost to really reflect any fluff)
Someone said that that hammerers are supposed to be the hammer unit (really?) and iron breaker the anvil one. I'd agree were it not for the fact that often hammerers are a better anvil due to their stubborn rule and for immunity to fear /terror if a lord is with them (this is not even such a big deal with the current edition)

Leogun_91
03-01-2012, 06:56
you can usually fit 10 wide units in.......and i assume the detatchments are in the flank or somethingNot many, one or two, yes. Three or four if you can be certain enough to not yourself be forced to advance but I've been crippled by too wide units a few times too many to make sure I plan a wee bit ahead and take a maximum of three cheap hordes (the cheap part is crucial as it means not getting them to do what I want is less likely to ruin the game for me, a horde deathstar getting struck between terrain can be fixed by good planning from your foe and is really, really bad).

*tournament tables are generally pretty barren though, and often have enough space to put 3-4 hordes next to eachother with room to spare.
Redoing to math for the halbediers with hordes of 40: 40 halbediers with 2 detachments of 20.

shields; (champions factored in) 51 attacks from the halbediers kill ~7, the 33 attacks of the shieldwarriors (31 to the front, and 2 models from rank 4 hit at a detachment on either flank) kill ~9. 7 vs 9.
--- Due to the detachments the halbediers have a banner, 3 ranks and a flankbonus, while the dwarfs are disrupted. The halbediers have 12 points of cr. The dwarfs have 9 kills and a banner, so 10. The dwarfs lose by 2 (3 if the halbediers charged, 2 if they charged the halbediers and the detachments countercharged)

great weapons; (champions factored in) 51 attacks from the halbediers kill ~10.6 (let's say 11), the 30 remaining attacks of the great weapon warriors kill 16.666 (let's say 17). 11 vs 17.
--- Due to the detachments the halbediers have a banner, 3 ranks and a flankbonus, while the dwarfs are disrupted. The halbediers have 16 points of cr. The dwarfs have 17 kills and a banner, so 18. The dwarfs win by 2 (1 if the halbediers charged, 2 if they charged the halbediers and the detachments countercharged).In the shield warriors scenario the empire player cheated, he spent a full 420pts vs 385pts, it would be 7 halberdiers less, it's not very important for the first round but could possibly mean a rank is removed from the halberdiers in the shield warriors scenario.

But fair enough, I'll redo the combats spending the extra points I acquire due to an added ten warriors as I see fit and considering the dwarfs to be in horde formation.

40 Gw warriors with command vs 32 Halberdiers with two 15 detachments and a warrior priest with greatweapon, halberdiers 11 wide, detachments 5 wide
Empire: Main horde deals 10 wounds after saves (10,3) and detachments 2 wounds each (could be more if wider but it is more important that they keep disrupting further rounds), the warrior priest (striking simultaneously with the warriors) deals 1 (1,25) wounds.
Dwarfs: The remaining 26 warriors deals 15 wounds.
Combat resolution: 15 kills vs 15 kills, empire flanking, means they win by 2, warriors are disrupted.

40 Shield warriors with command vs 30 Halberdiers with two 15 detatchments and a warrior priest with greatweapon, halberdiers 11 wide, detachments 5 wide
Empire: The main horde deals 6 wounds (6,25) and the detachments 3 together (1,3 each).
Dwarfs: All dwarfs get to strike, they cause 14 wounds.
Empire again: Warriorpriest causes one wound
Combat resolution: Empire deals 10 wounds while the valiant Khazukan deals 14 wounds, with flanking the empire loses with 2.

40 GW warriors with command vs 24 Swordsmasters with command, a warbanner and potion of strength for the bladelord, 12 wide.
Elfs: Swordsmasters deal 20 wounds, bladelord deals 2 wounds.
Dwarfs, the remaining 18 strikes back and kills 5.
Combat resolution: 20 vs 5 in kills, both have one rank, elfs have warbanner, dwarfs lose by 16 and are not steadfast.

40 Shield warriors with command vs 24 Swordsmasters with banner and champion, 12 wide
Elfs: Swordsmasters deal 15 wounds
Dwarfs: 25 dwarfs strike back, 4 swordsmasters die
Combat resolution, dwarfs lose by 11 but are currently steadfast

40 GW warriors with command vs 7 tomb kings chariots with command, 4 wide
Tombkings: 9 wounds from impact, charioteers deal 6 wounds, horses deals 1,5 lets say 1.
Dwarfs: 24 warriors strike back to avenge their new grudge, 11 wounds.
Combat resolution: 16 wounds vs 11, dwarfs have two ranks and lose by 4 but are steadfast.

40 Handweapon shield warriors vs 7 tomb kings chariots
Impact: 6,5 wounds, let's say 6 and round down as we did with the horses in the previous example
Dwarfs and Skeletons strike simultaneously. Dwarfs deal 5 wounds Charioteers deal 4 wounds, horses deal 1 (0,9)
Combat resolution: 11 vs 5 kills, dwarfs have two ranks and a banner taking their CR up to 8 vs 12, a loss by 4 but the dwarfs are steadfast.

EDIT: Noticed that I made a miss, there should be fewer halberdiers vs the shield warriors, the halberdiers are still about 30pts too expensive.

Crovax20
03-01-2012, 08:52
I like to play with the D6+4 peices of terrain that the BRB recomends. It seems to eliminate the use of massive units.

I think this is probably the best counter to lots of massive wide hordes, as it will impede their manouvrability on the table by a decent amount.

theunwantedbeing
03-01-2012, 09:20
I think this is probably the best counter to lots of massive wide hordes, as it will impede their manouvrability on the table by a decent amount.

The best counter to lots of hordes is to play tiny games :D

I'de go with lots of small impassable bits of terrain as the best means to deal with hordes and movement around the board, a cleverly placed wall/small building will screw with the movement of a large unit across a large section of the board, preventing wheeling or simply making a gap too small to fit through.

In the next dwarf book we'll likely see all Dwarven elites wearing (or able to wear) Gromril armour.
Longbeards, Hammerers and Ironbreakers are statwise identical anyway only differing in special rules and equiptment, where the hammerers by virtue of being stubborn are generally the best because stubborn is such a fantastically good rule to have.
That and strength 6 :p

Hellebore
03-01-2012, 09:29
Ok there are several points to be made here.

One is that gromril is rare as has been said. On the other hand there are fewer hammerers than there are ironbreakers - the hammerers guard the thane/king, the ironbreakers guard the entire hold from below ground.

So if they have enough to equip all the ironbreakers then there should be enough to equip the relatively rarer hammerers.

Second is that the rules obfuscate gromril armour. Both the empire and chaos possess 4+ armour, which functions the same as gromril. Yet it's not gromril. So that makes the dwarf army look less armoured than two other armies despite thematically being the tough armoured army. Backgroundwise they are also the suppliers for said armies (normal and chaos dwarfs) and yet they end up with less armour.

So in my opinion from the evidence, there is no fluff reason for hammerers not to wear gromril. On the other hand there really is no rules reason dwarfs have less armour than other armies either.

The ironbreakers are given their gromril armour, they don't just magically have super rare armour that only thanes normally have. So if they can be given armour, there's no reason the hammerers can't be given armour either.

Otherwise we are left with the image of whole regiments of ironbreakers all with enough money to buy gromril, something only the thanes normally have, but somehow the rarer thane's guard (who probably get paid more) somehow can't afford it.

The whole tradition thing is also taken way too far. SOMEONE had to buy/make a set of armour SOMETIME for it to be a family heirloom in the first place. If the dwarfs were all about tradition to the degree they'd never buy any armour or accept someone giving it to them, then they'd never wear armour at all. Their great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great granddady ran around in a bearskin and it was good enough for him! So obviously if you only wear what has been in your family then all those decedents would have diligently worn a bearskin and carried their flintheaded axe because they are family heirlooms.

Dwarfs wouldn't need armourers because they'd all be wearing family heirlooms. Once every family had armour the armour smiths would be out of a job, except to patch up armour and put some more rivets in...

EDIT: IMO gromril needs to be more special than it currently is, otherwise plate armour just looks like cheaper gromril, making gromril look silly. Perhaps not as simple as increased armour, maybe wardsave? Maybe gromril is 4+/6++ that stacks with parry? Thus ironbreakers would have a 4+/5++ save and so on. Or something else. Maybe 3+ for gromril is fine and dwarf units need 4+ plate armour. Maybe all dwarf elite units (hammerers, longbeards, ironbreakers) have 4+ armour but you can upgrade ironbreakers to gromril (whatever those rules might be).

While GW keep gromril and plate identical in rules the disjunction will always be there. The problem is partly gamewise (dwarf elites should be able to get better armour) so dwarfs should have more 4+ armour available; and partly background - if gromril is 4+ then you can't just hand out more 4+ armour because it looks like the dwarf army is getting tonnes of gromril armour which doesn't make sense. So to be able to make sense of the two they should ideally separate plate armour and gromril armour from each other with actual rules.

People don't necessarily want gromril on their hammerers so much as 4+ armour on them. But because 4+ conflates with gromril it means that's basically what you want.

Hellebore

Liber
03-01-2012, 10:40
Awesome post Hellebore - very thorough.

As I stated earlier, I'm not so much particular about what exactly is done with the Dwarf armor situation, just as long as something is actually done :)

Whether that be make "dwarf armor" a 4+ and Gromril a 3+ or give Gromril to Hammerers and make the Gromril save a 4+ that is immune to negative modifiers from strength...or any of number of other ideas that have been proposed.

innerwolf
03-01-2012, 11:22
Ironbreakers need something to make them special. If Hammerers got gromril Ironbreakers would only have hw+shield to make them different. They would need new special rules to make them an interesting option.

As a side note, people doesn't take into account the difference between full plate and gromril. Empire full plate is just that, full plate armor masterfully crafted by dwarves. Gromril armour is heavy armour made of gromril. If you look carefully even Ironbreakers' gromril armour is composed of a few plates and quite a lot of mail. So Gromril armour is a lot tougher and harder, but doesn't cover as much of the wearer's body in plate. Hence the similar armour value.

yabbadabba
03-01-2012, 11:25
While Hellbore's post is well thought out it does miss the mark a little for me. In gaming terms what has really compromised the effectiveness of dwarf armour isn't the other 4+ armour out there (that's always been present around the place) but the changes in the rules and overall community which has moved away from the more traditional approach to playing WFB or more recent trends which people have become comfortable with. For instance removing the +1AS bonus for shields, removal of the encumbrance penalty etc, over emphasis on bang-for-buck over thematic playing etc.

In terms of background the dwarf army fits almost perfectly what has been written about them, that background is not necessarily however ideal for some of the current approaches to playing leading to a perception that there is only one build for dwarves (there isn't), but this is not limited to just dwarves. In addition, the fluff has been fairly consistent over the years that while dwarf metal work has always been superior to non-dwarf makes, in terms of ironbreakers vs Hammerers its never claimed that Hammerers somehow got a massive improvement in armour, whereas Ironbreakers have; in terms of rules its been the runes that mark dwarves out as something special with the occasional special rule thrown in not a wholescale upgrading of equipment. Dwarves are always been portrayed as ultra-conservative and we can see this reflected in the choices in the army lists.

The final aspect is that the game is not subtle enough to allow for the variations which could make Dwarf armour better than non-dwarf armour. I feel that standardising increases in armour is just going to lead to an arms race of sorts, and that's not going to help anyone. A simple solution that is, I think, no longer available would be to make Gromril Armour magical - allowing saves when "no armour saves allowed" attacks happen.

That Dwarf elites need a tweak is right, but upgrading Ironbreakers to the WFB equivalent of Terminators is excessive for me.

Spiney Norman
03-01-2012, 11:42
The final aspect is that the game is not subtle enough to allow for the variations which could make Dwarf armour better than non-dwarf armour. I feel that standardising increases in armour is just going to lead to an arms race of sorts, and that's not going to help anyone. A simple solution that is, I think, no longer available would be to make Gromril Armour magical - allowing saves when "no armour saves allowed" attacks happen.

That Dwarf elites need a tweak is right, but upgrading Ironbreakers to the WFB equivalent of Terminators is excessive for me.

I think the problem is we're all thinking of comparing gromril by increasing or decreasing its base save. Surely there are other ways to make armours better, perhaps making gromril immune to AS modifiers (but not to allows-no-AS) would be a little too far, but how about gromril armour only modified my 2 str pts above 3 rather for every 1, so str 5 would make GA -1, str 7 would be required for -2 etc.

Hellebore
03-01-2012, 11:44
My problem with ironbreakers is that a human knight was better armoured because of the interaction with mounts and barding.

IMO ironbreakers should be the warhammer equivalent of terminators, they perform almost the same role - close assault in confined spaces ala Space Hulk. They need to survive against horrendous odds with little support in claustrophobic spaces.

But a guy on a horse out tanks one. That's not to say a knight shouldn't be tough given the way riders and mounts interact, just that IMO an ironbreaker should be like the dwarfen equaivalent of heavy cavalry, given that dwarfs don't actually have any cavalry.

You could get whole regiments of 16" charging 1+ save units, but ironbreakers could only get a 2+ save with a 6" charge.

Dwarfs as an army suffer in some ways from all their units being extremely similar. There is very little variation between them. Pretty much every other army in the game has more variation than the dwarfs do, even if it's just cavalry (a section of the army dwarfs will never see).

So creating some more differentiation between dwarfen units would IMO go a long way to making the army more interesting, hopefully less of a gunline.

Making ironbreakers and hammerers more than just sword and board/two hander versions of each other (with longbeards effectively being able to fill both roles). I don't think runic standards really cut it in differentiating between units IMO.

The miners are pretty much the only unique unit in the army, even trollslayers function like all the other units except having to take break tests. Miners have different deployment and charges that give them a different way of playing. I'd like to see at least the elite units have more interesting ways of being used than just absorbing damage and/or dishing it out.

I've thought for a while now that it would be good to see a dwarfen rare infantry unit rather than leaving it all to war machines. A unit like Bretonnian Grail Knights wearing runic armour and carrying runic weapons. This Rune Warriors unit would be small and expensive but create a unit that plays differently to normal dwarf units. Perhaps a regimental version of the anvil guard.

Giving hammerers the same armour as ironbreakers isn't exactly following the concept of differentiating units, although I do think they should have better armour.

Hellebore

Duke Ramulots
03-01-2012, 11:53
Of corse they need better armor, if the Dwarfs can make 4+ save heavy armor for humans then they sure as hell can make it for their own army. Then you have to make Gromril even better(and it should be better) than that 4+ super heavy armor.

I think what it comes down to is that Dwarfs need a new book.

yabbadabba
03-01-2012, 11:55
I think the problem is we're all thinking of comparing gromril by increasing or decreasing its base save. Surely there are other ways to make armours better, perhaps making gromril immune to AS modifiers (but not to allows-no-AS) would be a little too far, but how about gromril armour only modified my 2 str pts above 3 rather for every 1, so str 5 would make GA -1, str 7 would be required for -2 etc. I think that might be overly complicated. Personally I prefer things like Dwarf elites getting the 6+ parry save, going to 5+ when armed with a shield, and shieldwall enforcing a -1 to hit penalty on chargers of dwarf elite units.

Another option is the return of battlefield fortifications for the Dwarves.

A 2+AS Ironbreaker with a 6+ ward save just seems too much.

Lord Zarkov
03-01-2012, 12:10
I think that might be overly complicated. Personally I prefer things like Dwarf elites getting the 6+ parry save, going to 5+ when armed with a shield, and shieldwall enforcing a -1 to hit penalty on chargers of dwarf elite units.

Another option is the return of battlefield fortifications for the Dwarves.

A 2+AS Ironbreaker with a 6+ ward save just seems too much.

I think a general rule of 5+ parry for dwarfs might be a good idea (call it shieldwall or something) - or even +1 Ward a la MoT

Makes Dwarf sword n board infantry a little better, and makes Ironbreakers distinct from Hammers (even if the latter were give GA) - you trade in +2S for +1 Sv and 5+ ward, which might be worth it.

Demoulius
03-01-2012, 12:19
Hmmm why do the more elite and better paid hammerers not wear the best armour they can buy?

Theyre awesome dwarves who shrug off wounds with their awesomeness! They dont NEED the armour to be bad ass! :cool:

My guess is that it will be amended with the new book...

thesheriff
03-01-2012, 12:34
IMO gromril needs to be more special than it currently is, otherwise plate armour just looks like cheaper gromril, making gromril look silly. Perhaps not as simple as increased armour, maybe wardsave? Maybe gromril is 4+/6++ that stacks with parry? Thus ironbreakers would have a 4+/5++ save and so on. Or something else. Maybe 3+ for gromril is fine and dwarf units need 4+ plate armour. Maybe all dwarf elite units (hammerers, longbeards, ironbreakers) have 4+ armour but you can upgrade ironbreakers to gromril (whatever those rules might be).

This would be similar to what the Chaos dwarves get in Tamrukhan. They get 4+/5++ vs fire. So, there all wearing heavy armour and mini Dragonhelms.

I could say that dwarves could get imunity to something similar, but there isnt really anything that scales up to Flaming attacks (ie; theres no dedicated "Ice" attacks)

I think an overall problem with the armour system is two-fold. First, Fluff. As someone said earlier, Chaos Warriors having Chaos armour to the same standard is silly. Warriors are rare, and so is chaos armour. Having the ability to have a same-pts level army with more 4+ sv models is ridiculous. Limiting of likewise armour types I think is probably key. However, on the other hand, 1+ sv empire knights is pretty realistic, and just giving Heavy armour to Greatswords would make them a bit naff.

Anouther route then. I think it comes back to warhammer being too simple a game. Its the argument of stats many have had. How is a goblin the same strength as a Human? Using a more-numeral die would help this. say, a D8 or a D10. I think we can agree that (or at leats, i think) that out of the 3 armour types in question (Gromril, Plate, Chaos) that it ranks;
1) Gromril
2) Chaos
3) Plate

Hence, you would need to make the saves appropriatly (assume D8);

3+ For Gromril
4+ for Chaos
5+ for Plate

Heavy armour then becomes 6+, Light armour a 7+. Or prehaps a new armour type, Medium armour, becomes 7+ and Light then becomes 8+? However, doing this would cause a complete re-shuffle of the fantasy rules system, for almost every otehr stat. which i doubt Gw will do, as we all know that an exceedingly complicated game is off-putting to many :cries: (the old joke, You need a PHD in Maths for 2nd Ed. 40k, a Degree for 3rd, an A-level for 4th, and the ability to count to 10 on your hands in 5th :p)

Aside from that, perhaps anouther way to balance the way that ironbreakers would to asign runes to the unit. Give both hammerers and Ironbreakers Gromril. But then, make it compulsory to choose, on top of the cost of the Ironbreaker unit, a runic "Mark" a bit like chaos mark (either done per model or per unit :confused:);
*+1 T = Xpts
*+1 As = Xpts
*+1 to Parry = Xpts
*Re-roll on a higher value (ie; 3+ to start, any fails become 5+, then parry if applicable, a bit like super-high BS values in 40k)

This could reflect the foes they face, the kind of conditions underground they fight in or even what hold they are from.....

The bearded one
03-01-2012, 14:19
The runic idea is quite nice. In older editions ironbreakers had heavy armour with a rune of stone. Perhaps it is worth returning to that and putting a rune of stone on gromril instead. This also fits fluffwise as runesmiths/lords dislike doing a same combination of runes on an item twice except for armour with only the rune of stone. In the dwarf runicsystem gamewise you cannot create a runic item with the same combination of runes as another item someone in the army has, with the only exception being the rune of stone, as you may create runic armour with nothing but a rune of stone repeatedly. The rune of stone is the first rune that apprentice runesmiths learn to create and a relatively simple one. Hence you can also explain how entire regiments of ironbreakers are bearing the rune of stone; we're letting apprentice runesmiths practice on gromril suits :p


40 Shield warriors with command vs 30 Halberdiers with two 15 detatchments and a warrior priest with greatweapon, halberdiers 11 wide, detachments 5 wide
Empire: The main horde deals 6 wounds (6,25) and the detachments 3 together (1,3 each).
Dwarfs: All dwarfs get to strike, they cause 14 wounds.
Empire again: Warriorpriest causes one wound
Combat resolution: Empire deals 10 wounds while the valiant Khazukan deals 14 wounds, with flanking the empire loses with 2.

how do the shieldwarriors with 32 attacks deal 14 wounds? 32 attacks is ~22 hits, 11 wounds and about 9 through the light armour (8.888 is the exact number), causing the dwarfs to lose by 3.


40 GW warriors with command vs 24 Swordsmasters with command, a warbanner and potion of strength for the bladelord, 12 wide.
Elfs: Swordsmasters deal 20 wounds, bladelord deals 2 wounds.
Dwarfs, the remaining 18 strikes back and kills 5.
Combat resolution: 20 vs 5 in kills, both have one rank, elfs have warbanner, dwarfs lose by 16 and are not steadfast.

in this case the dwarfs have 19 attacks and do ~8 kills. This also means they will narrowly be steadfast as the second rank of swordmasters is down to 4.

Haravikk
03-01-2012, 15:45
An alternative for Hammerers is to have an extra armour upgrade, along the lines of sea dragon or white lion cloaks. For example, Dwarfs could have "Ancestor Masks", the stylised helmets with a sculpted face-plate, giving them +1 armour for a total 4+ armour save.

This would actually make a lot of sense for Ironbreakers, who would have Gromril Armour and Ancestor Masks, for 2+ armour save after shields, nothing to scoff at!

It's also possible to have Gromril Armour be slightly better, in the list I was playing around with Gromril Armour was 4+ save, but also ignored the Armour Piercing special rule, such that it's only ever modified by Strength or more unusual effects.


I'm also confused by the shield-warrior examples; the best formation for them is 5-wide for maximum ranks, so that they're nearly always Steadfast (I field 40, and an 8-deep formation of Toughness, 4+ armour and 6+ Parry is not trivial to shift, especially with a Battle Standard nearby, or on Oath Stone in the unit!). I'd like to stress again that the point of the warriors isn't to do damage, or even to outlast through fewer casualties. It's to endure a few rounds of combat with minimal damage, so that other units can move in for the kill, while the warriors lend their Steadfast breaking ranks and combat res; since they're also blocking the bulk of the enemy attacks by holding the front rank, then they also should be reducing the enemy's effectiveness.

End result is that; if all goes well, the shield warriors suffer relatively few losses, while the enemy unit is held and then crushed. Pure anvil + hammer tactics, works great in big games, bit trickier to squeeze into smaller games (though Ironbreakers can still do this quite well with smaller unit-sizes). It's worth remembering this as all the Mathammer scenarios so far seem to be direct comparisons of two equal forces in combat at the same time; shield warriors should spend a round or two on their own, before being joined by a supporting unit, either that or their goal is purely to tar-pit as long as possible, in which case the only damage that matters is if they flee too soon.

Leogun_91
03-01-2012, 16:01
how do the shieldwarriors with 32 attacks deal 14 wounds? 32 attacks is ~22 hits, 11 wounds and about 9 through the light armour (8.888 is the exact number), causing the dwarfs to lose by 3. Reworking I get it to 11, 33 attacks (champion), no light armor was invested in, that would severely decrease the number of halberdiers facing the dwarfs in both scenarios. That makes it an even game with each side getting the same CR and whichever charging getting the win. Good catch, you'r bound to make a few misses when doing this many mathhammer combats in such a short time.




in this case the dwarfs have 19 attacks and do ~8 kills. This also means they will narrowly be steadfast as the second rank of swordmasters is down to 4. That is true...I must have been more tired than I thought.

The bearded one
03-01-2012, 16:16
Reworking I get it to 11, 33 attacks (champion), no light armor was invested in, that would severely decrease the number of halberdiers facing the dwarfs in both scenarios. That makes it an even game with each side getting the same CR and whichever charging getting the win. Good catch, you'r bound to make a few misses when doing this many mathhammer combats in such a short time.

halbediers come with light armour standard :) they do have the option to buy shields but can't use them in combat.
Also I already included the champion in those 32 attacks (the halbediers killed 9 before they struck).

innerwolf
03-01-2012, 21:13
Rune of stone for Ironbreakers and regular gromril for Hammerers sounds like a nice solution.
5+parry for ironbreakers (or even for all dwarves) also does.

popisdead
05-01-2012, 22:31
they hammered it into chainmail