PDA

View Full Version : Making Dwarfs with Shields Viable



@allmyownbattles
23-06-2013, 23:18
Hi folks,

I appreciate this is one which has been discussed to death so I apologise if this has been suggested but, as I'm sure many of us want to run shields but can't justify it in 8th, I thought I'd put this one to you all as I've had a bit of brainwave.

The rule to make dwarfs everywhere dig out their long-forgotten shields and blow off the dust is called:

Shield Wall: if a unit of dwarfs, which is equipped with shields, has at least two complete ranks, they may add an additional +1 to their armour saving throw.

Simple and balanced? A unit would need the same number in the second rank as it has in front in order to effectively support (a unit five wide would need another five, a horde would need ten models etc) so it certainly wouldn't overpower shield users. However, it would just give that little boost to tempt me enough to drop the great weapons (to be honest I run shields anyway. For me, they're more 'dwarfy'). It would also return the Ironbreakers to 2+ saves (which I think they were) as they should always have been.

What do you think? Any obvious flaws? Dwarfs are supposed to be the greatest armoursmiths in the Warhammer world, and yet there's little in the rules to confirm that fact.

Glimfeather
24-06-2013, 00:22
Dwarfs with Shields are still Str 3. I think that there will need to be more than a single adjustment made to make HW + S Warriors a viable unit.

bigbiggles
24-06-2013, 01:01
If only everyone could be long beards...and cheaper

outbreak
24-06-2013, 02:10
what about lower the cost of regular sword and board dwarfs but raise the cost of the great weapon upgrade? If you could get 20 greatweapon dwarfs or 40 shield dwarfs people may start using them more

Ramius4
24-06-2013, 03:51
They are viable as a unit, it's the price difference between the two options that make the great weapons so much of a no brainer (for non-tailored lists anyways, as generally speaking, great weapons are useful more often than not).

Even a 1 point increase on the great weapons would be enough to make it a choice I think. Or give them shields as part of their equipment and charge 3 points for the great weapon. Adding unecessary special rules is not the way to go IMO. ANY unit can be viable, regardless of rules, if it is priced appropriately, and each of its options are also priced appropriately in relation to one another.

That being said, my friends and I are a closed gaming group, and tailor our lists for each game we play. HW+S Dwarfs get used by me plenty, simply because against some armies they fill the tarpit role just fine. We're also playing 3500 point games as standard, so units of 35 to 50 Core Troops are fairly average units. The 70 to 100 point difference in cost for the great weapons is not insignificant.

The Low King
24-06-2013, 09:00
Shield warriors are very much viable, they are just slightly less cost efficient compared to GW warriors, particularly in hordes.
A one point drop or a slight buff of some kind would make them competitive.

GrandmasterWang
24-06-2013, 11:11
Given dwarfs are the defensive masters how about a 5+ parry save?

That said I still use shield dwarfs

@allmyownbattles
24-06-2013, 12:08
Cheers for all the replies folks.

Grandmaster Wang: I'm not sure about a 5+ parry. I think it would be too powerful, giving half an army (including most of the core) a 5+ ward.

Ramius4 and The Low King: Unfortunately, changing the points difference between the two won't work as it'll make one option over priced in relation to the other army books. We can't pay an extra point for GW for example if no one else does. Maybe if they'd started it with the release of 8th.

Dwarfs definitely need a special rule. Simply changing the points wouldn't reflect the fluff which tells us Dwarf armour is 'better'. I'll run shields regardless, it'd just be nice to be able to rely on them. I read on a thread the other day (don't remember who said it) that Dwarfs should have the best anvil units in the game. I'm not sure about that but we certainly should be one of the best, and our armour should be the reason for it. Dropping points just serves to create bigger units with the same effectiveness as before.

Alebelly_Cragfist
24-06-2013, 13:03
There's been lots of discussions over at Bugman's regarding shields, impact hits on foe when recieving a charge, additional armour values, additional attacks (shield counts as wepaon), etc. Personally, I'd combine all 3 ;)

N1AK
24-06-2013, 15:37
The biggest issue with shield Dwarves is that in the current armour-heavy meta everyone loads up on high str attacks so HA+Shield isn't enough to be worth sacrificing +2 strength for.

If they gave Dwarf axes armour piercing and made Dwarf shields ignore the first point of armour modification (or decrease attack strength by one; maybe a bit much?) then I'd consider not upgrading to GWs.

N1AK
24-06-2013, 15:39
Grandmaster Wang: I'm not sure about a 5+ parry. I think it would be too powerful, giving half an army (including most of the core) a 5+ ward.


Ignoring all other changes they could make I don't think you'd see many people take shields over GWs even if shields gave a 5+ ward. A 5+ ward is only going to save 1/6 of my losses compared to now, but using a HW instead of a GW makes my attacks virtually worthless against anything with decent toughness and/or good armour.

Kurnous the Hunter
24-06-2013, 15:58
I'd have a Shield wall special rule. +1 to armour save AND increase parry to 5+. Dwarves are supposed to be the best (Defensive) heavy infantry in the game and are supposed to grind enemy with attrition and pin them whilst missile fire does it's work. The draw back I would make is no pursuit. I'd also consider a special rule for dwarf hand weapons. Something simple like armour piercing OR a special rule such as ignores armour saves on a 6 to wound, or +1 strength on a 6 to hit. Anyone of them will help them survive and also threaten hard enemy units without making them killing machines.

=X=
24-06-2013, 16:01
I'm not missing the shields much myself. Fluff wise I've always associated dwarves with two handded weapons. But the old rules forced dwarves to carry shields.
The new rules now favor the dwarf fighting style.

My take is if you want an anvil unit take iron breakers and if you want a hammer unit take hammers.

As far as fluff much of gw armies don't align with them because game developers have to balance the armies... And also make it so games workshop makes more money

shelfunit.
24-06-2013, 16:26
Should this not be in the rules development forum?

boli
24-06-2013, 16:26
I thought dwarves with shields are extremely viable *points at ironbreakers* those things just don't die!

Dwarves are one of the few armies which can take great weapons in core; I say that is a pretty good trade-off ;)

The Low King
24-06-2013, 18:05
Cheers for all the replies folks.

Grandmaster Wang: I'm not sure about a 5+ parry. I think it would be too powerful, giving half an army (including most of the core) a 5+ ward.

Its not just a 5+ Ward though, its a 5+ parry. That means they don't get it against impact hits, thunderstomp, shooting, magic etc. Also, WoC can already get a 5+ parry (and a strait 6+ ward) easily.


Ramius4 and The Low King: Unfortunately, changing the points difference between the two won't work as it'll make one option over priced in relation to the other army books. We can't pay an extra point for GW for example if no one else does. Maybe if they'd started it with the release of 8th.


Make shields come as standard, then shield warriors get one point cheaper whilst GW warriors are the same price.


Ignoring all other changes they could make I don't think you'd see many people take shields over GWs even if shields gave a 5+ ward. A 5+ ward is only going to save 1/6 of my losses compared to now, but using a HW instead of a GW makes my attacks virtually worthless against anything with decent toughness and/or good armour.

Shields would make much more of a difference than that.
4+/5++ save as opposed to a 5+ save.
For every 12 S3 wounds (given that they are still hit and wounded on the same score) the warriors take, GW warriors would take 8 after saves and Shield warriors would take 4.
For S4 wounds the GW warriors take 10 wounds, the Shield warriors take 5.3
For S5 wounds the GW warriors take 12 wounds, the shield warriors take 6.7

With this rule taking shields would mean losing half (just under for higher strength attacks) the models.

On the other hand, the damage the warriors do back:
Both hit on the same score, the GW warriors at S5, shield warriors at S3.
For every 12 hits against T3 opponents the Shield warriors do 6 wounds, the GW warriors do 10.
For every 12 hits against T4 opponents the shield warriors do 4 wounds, the GW warriors do 8.
Armour obviously modifies this by a bit.

So GW warriors (currently costing one point more btw) do twice the damage but take twice the casualties vs normal opponents. Against High armour/toughness opponents the GW warriors start doing better, against low armour/toughness/strength opponents the Shield warriors do better.

sulla
25-06-2013, 00:36
Hi folks,

I appreciate this is one which has been discussed to death so I apologise if this has been suggested but, as I'm sure many of us want to run shields but can't justify it in 8th, I thought I'd put this one to you all as I've had a bit of brainwave.

The rule to make dwarfs everywhere dig out their long-forgotten shields and blow off the dust is called:

Shield Wall: if a unit of dwarfs, which is equipped with shields, has at least two complete ranks, they may add an additional +1 to their armour saving throw.

Simple and balanced? A unit would need the same number in the second rank as it has in front in order to effectively support (a unit five wide would need another five, a horde would need ten models etc) so it certainly wouldn't overpower shield users. However, it would just give that little boost to tempt me enough to drop the great weapons (to be honest I run shields anyway. For me, they're more 'dwarfy'). It would also return the Ironbreakers to 2+ saves (which I think they were) as they should always have been.

What do you think? Any obvious flaws? Dwarfs are supposed to be the greatest armoursmiths in the Warhammer world, and yet there's little in the rules to confirm that fact.If you compare them to other s3 infantry, are they all that bad?

Say, HE spearmen, or ghouls, or skeletons or orcs?

I think the real issue is that an extra rank of models get to fight in combat. That just doubles the effectiveness of high strength models while doing very little for low strength models. Reduce the number of incoming attacks and you bring high strength models back to the pack, which makes low strength infantry more viable. The question is, with all the super hard hitters out there like red fury VC lords, core WoC chariots and super heavy MC, is it too late? Do we just have to accept that there is no place for medium cost s3 troops in 8th edition?

m1acca1551
25-06-2013, 04:03
The issue with dwarf units is there movement and the fact that the core range is to weak to be able to hold the line.

How many dwarf generals have had there GW warriors or shield warriors flanked and run down by a foe that can simply out manoeuvre them? This then opens a massive gap in the line which the enemy can pore there troops in and even our elites can hold up under the line.

A few ideas for not only core but as a whole.
- dwarfen armour counts as +1 above normal rating HA is now 4+, gromril 3+ etc
- shield wall for warriors/elites shields +1as on the first turn of receiving a charge

- square now this is a tricky one a dwarfen unit can form a square during the movement phase and counts as not having flanks or rear CR purposes, it is a very iconic gives the dwarf army a solid line.
The down side though...
- the unit cannot move the turn after nor can the unit pursue the enemy should it break.
- a square can be broken should the unit receive 25% casualties from either combat, magic or shooting

This should give dwarf units some form of survivability to flank charges and can be very thematic, wish listing I know but there my ideas.

Lorcryst
25-06-2013, 10:38
Can't say that I agree ...

It depends on your local meta, but in my gaming group with have either WoC Warriors with Halberds (S5), Dark Elves (S3) or my Nurgle Daemons (S4)/ Night Goblins (S3) playing against the Dwarves ...

Against the Warriors of Chaos, having a shield gives them a 6+/6++ save versus no save at all.

Against the Dark Elves, 4+/6++, nothing to be sniffed at combined with T4.

Against my Daemons, 5+/6++ instead of 6+ ... much better too ... to say nothing of my Night Gobs that won't hit much, won't wound much, and half those paltry wounds will be saved ...

Frankly, for 4.5 Skaven Slaves you get 4+/6++, WS 4, T4, Ld 9 ... the only downsides are S3 and I2 ... okay, with I2 you'll mostly strike last anyway, so the Great Weapons in that context make sense, but HW+Sh Dwarves are very viable, tough, hard to hit, almost unmovable ...

I think that the Flame Cannon and Anvil of Doom are in need of a revamp, much more so than the Dwarf Warriors.

You don't see Warriors often because Longbeards are soooo much better ... a point increase for the Longbeards would make more Warriors seen on the tables.

theunwantedbeing
25-06-2013, 10:51
I thought they were viable?
Dwarf warriors with Sheilds aren't hugely killy, but they are noticeably tougher than similar troops.

Ironbreakers do lose out to Hammerers though.
Simply because for 1pt more than similarly equipped Longbeards, you get +1 armour save.
Whereas Hammerers are 1pt less than similarly equipped Longbeards and they get Stubborn on top of it all.

Clearly Hammerers are underpriced by at least 2pts/model if we assume Longbeards to be correctly priced.

Ramius4
25-06-2013, 17:36
Ramius4 and The Low King: Unfortunately, changing the points difference between the two won't work as it'll make one option over priced in relation to the other army books. We can't pay an extra point for GW for example if no one else does. Maybe if they'd started it with the release of 8th.

The Chaos Warrior book disagrees with your assumption here bud. I'd be willing to bed that 3 points for great weapons becomes the norm for infantry having WS4, T4.


Dwarfs definitely need a special rule. Simply changing the points wouldn't reflect the fluff which tells us Dwarf armour is 'better'. I'll run shields regardless, it'd just be nice to be able to rely on them. I read on a thread the other day (don't remember who said it) that Dwarfs should have the best anvil units in the game. I'm not sure about that but we certainly should be one of the best, and our armour should be the reason for it.

I'd say the reality disagrees with your interpretation that Dwarfs are not the most well-armored infantry force. There are 15 army books. Only 3 (Dwarfs being one) even have a Core Infantry capable of getting a 4+ save. And besides Ironbreakers, only Chaos Warriors are capable of getting a 3+/6+ save. You still don't think Dwarfs have the overall best armored infantry?


Dropping points just serves to create bigger units with the same effectiveness as before.

By its very nature, being cost-effective is exactly what makes a unit good, and/or better... If that's your grounds for adding a special rule, I think you need to re-examine your logic.

Tupinamba
25-06-2013, 17:54
Curious that Iīve been reflecting about shields when this thread came up.

I think the problem is not specif to dwarfs, but rather that the current rules favour GWs over shields, specially for low initiative units. Iīve been thinking that shields should give +2 save, like Heavy Armour, but staying the same price. IMO, that represents more how historical ancient/middle age armies worked (many shielded units, while only better troops had real armour) and at the same time would make the options hand weapon/shield and spear/shield more appealing.

Probably that would also mean that BS shooting would need some adjustment, but I think it needs it anyway...

grumbaki
25-06-2013, 18:00
Personally I'd like this:

Shieldwall
As long as a unit of dwarfs with shields has at least one full rank, and receives parry saves, they are steadfast.


It represents the dwarfs locking shields together, and standing shoulder-to-shoulder with their kinsmen, refusing to budge. More psychological than anything else. Plus the enemy can always flank the unit to get rid of that, so it wouldn't be OP.

Ramius4
25-06-2013, 18:16
In my own vision of "perfect warhammer", this is what a Dwarf Warrior unit would be...

DWARF WARRIORS Points/ model: 8

STATS AS NORMAL

Unit Type: Infantry

Unit Size: 10+

Weapons and Armor: Hand weapon, Heavy Armor and Shield.

Options:
• Any unit of Warriors may carry one of the following: great weapons (+3 pts/ model), spears (+1 pts/ model), or additional hand weapons (free).
• Any unit of Warriors may carry throwing axes (+1 pts/ model).
• May upgrade one Warrior to a Musician for +10 pts.
• May upgrade one Warrior to a Standard Bearer for +10 pts.
• May upgrade one Warrior to a Veteran for +10 pts.
• One unit of Warriors may carry a runic standard worth up to 25 pts.

Horus38
25-06-2013, 18:32
I'd say the reality disagrees with your interpretation that Dwarfs are not the most well-armored infantry force. There are 15 army books. Only 3 (Dwarfs being one) even have a Core Infantry capable of getting a 4+ save.

You've got me curious now: dwarf warriors, chaos warriors, and lizardmen saurus?

Ramius4
25-06-2013, 18:44
You've got me curious now: dwarf warriors, chaos warriors, and lizardmen saurus?

Yup, that's it. And really, even if you extend it to look at the available Special choices for Infantry, you don't find all that many more possible 4+ armor saves. Greatswords, Chosen, Temple Guard, Grave Guard and Black Orcs. So again, if you include Dwarfs, only 6 out of 15 armies can even achieve a 4+ armor save on Infantry.

And of course, only Dwarfs and Chaos Warriors can even hope to achieve a 3+/6+.

One can argue the merits between HW+Shield vs. GW, but that is really a separate issue, and comes down to the cost in points of each in relation to the other.

Lorcryst
25-06-2013, 19:38
In my own vision of "perfect warhammer", this is what a Dwarf Warrior unit would be...

DWARF WARRIORS Points/ model: 8

STATS AS NORMAL

Unit Type: Infantry

Unit Size: 10+

Weapons and Armor: Hand weapon, Heavy Armor and Shield.

Options:
• Any unit of Warriors may carry one of the following: great weapons (+3 pts/ model), spears (+1 pts/ model), or additional hand weapons (free).
• Any unit of Warriors may carry throwing axes (+1 pts/ model).
• May upgrade one Warrior to a Musician for +10 pts.
• May upgrade one Warrior to a Standard Bearer for +10 pts.
• May upgrade one Warrior to a Veteran for +10 pts.
• One unit of Warriors may carry a runic standard worth up to 25 pts.

Multitool Swiss army knife Dwarves ...

I can get behind the shield and heavy armour in the basic Dwarf ...
I also agree on the Great Weapons for +3 points ...

But Throwing Axes ? No point in taking Warrior/Longbeard Rangers anymore ...

And Spears ? Why, Sweet Basement Cat, why ? To mimic the Night Goblins they hate ? That would mean they lose the Parry Save too, can't be used with Spears ...

And additional hand weapons for free ? Dwarf Warriors with Slayer tendencies ? Also meaning they lose the Parry Save too ...

I thought this thread was about HW+Shield Dwarves, your three options negate the advantages of the (free) shields in your proposition ...

Ramius4
25-06-2013, 19:42
First off, spears used to be an option for them. I still have my models.

Additional hand weapons, why not? They serve the same game mechanic as spears, although you can utilize them without the additional ranks. The tradeoff is not being able to use your shield at all, rather than just losing the parry save with spears.

@allmyownbattles
25-06-2013, 20:04
The Chaos Warrior book disagrees with your assumption here bud. I'd be willing to bed that 3 points for great weapons becomes the norm for infantry having WS4, T4.
Chaos Warriors have WS 5, and surely their GWs cost 3 points due to them having two attacks, thus them benefiting double? Dwarfs shouldn't pay more than other troop who have WS4 A1.



I'd say the reality disagrees with your interpretation that Dwarfs are not the most well-armored infantry force. There are 15 army books. Only 3 (Dwarfs being one) even have a Core Infantry capable of getting a 4+ save. And besides Ironbreakers, only Chaos Warriors are capable of getting a 3+/6+ save. You still don't think Dwarfs have the overall best armored infantry?
Temple Guard have a 3+/6+ no? And Chaos Warriors have core troops which can get chaos armour which gives them 4+ without a shield. The Dwarfs equivalent, Gromril armour, is reserved for special choices and characters only. On this basis, I don't think their the best, only one of, and there's certainly nothing to encourage them to take shields over GWs. The fluff says dwarfs win due to their stubbornness, through the war of attrition and their ability to grind their enemies down over time. Their options should encourage them to lean toward taking shields, not being choppy. In an edition where everything wins by cutting, it'd be nice (and particularly dwarfy) if they bucked the trend and were bolstered to be able to take GW infantry on the chin.



By its very nature, being cost-effective is exactly what makes a unit good, and/or better... If that's your grounds for adding a special rule, I think you need to re-examine your logic.
I didn't mention being 'cost-effective'. I was trying to say that dropping prices on troops doesn't make them more effective man-for-man, it just allows for bigger units. Dwarfs should never been a horde army, or anything near it. If the classic dwarf-with-shield struggles in the meta, then they need to be tweaked to be a solid choice again not put to one side until the edition changes and the meta with it. We shouldn't have to increase our numbers to cope with the same number of enemy troops.

I do like the idea of giving them shields as standard though. In that case, they should have to switch their shields for GWs not have both. Can't see spears returning, sadly. Additional hand weapons and throwing axes should be reserved for other choices to give that variation (giving them all that would make them like Swiss Army Dwarfs and negate the need for the rest for the list! I know your'e just wish-listing though). I really like the idea of the magic standard. Maybe the book could have some new, cheap defensive standards? Maybe a +1 armour save banner and keep us all happy.


Tupinamba: I think shields +2 for shields may be an workable option. The image of the armies of the middle ages all ranked together with shields really appeals to me and it's lacking in Warhammer in general at the moment. The BS shooting could maybe be tweaked too but that is another story . . .

Grumbaki: I like that one too. Not thought of it before but it would have the fluffy effect of the dwarfs fighting on regardless of their numbers dwindling. Might be OP, as it could be used to make the entire army steadfast.

@allmyownbattles
25-06-2013, 20:08
I didn't steal the phrase 'Swiss Army Dwarfs' Lorcryst, honest guv. I hadn't read down to the bottom before posting. Shame on me.

@allmyownbattles
25-06-2013, 20:13
First off, spears used to be an option for them. I still have my models.

So did Gnomes. Some times things change for the better.

Captain Collius
25-06-2013, 20:15
1. Temple guard have halbreds so 3+ against shooting 4+/6++ in combat.
2. Dwarves can't field 1+ core (only empire can.)
3. Chaos warrior should be compared to long beards not warriors

4. just give em all gromril.

Lastavenger
25-06-2013, 20:51
4. just give em all gromril.
Or increase armor save as racial trait. In this way HA would give 4+ and gromril 3+. Add shields and you could have 2+ ironbreakers.

Commodus Leitdorf
25-06-2013, 20:54
I don't know....It just seems the issue isn't so much that Shields are terrible, but more the fact that Holding the line and being able to soak up damage and still hold doesn't really matter with the current game design.

Okay Shield Dwarfs take less damage the GW wielding Dwarfs and are able to hold in combat...so? They aren't gong to win because of that they will just lose a turn or two down the road instead. Shield Dwarfs will be viable again when Dwarfs have an effective Flanking unit. Right now GW wielding Dwarfs are taking because they have to try and break the opponent on their own. They don't have anything that moves fast and hits hard to give a hand.

Honestly? Besides making Great Weapons a point more expensive Dwarfs in general need an overhaul and a new unit or two to fill the much needed "Hard hitting flanker" role. DO that and you'll see more Shield dwarfs on the field then you do now as they will have the support needed to get the job done.

Quarrel
25-06-2013, 20:57
Chaos Warriors are a bad comparison to Dwarf Warriors.

Marauders though, are a fairly apt comparison.

Marauders pay 3 points for Great Weapons.

Ramius4
25-06-2013, 21:02
Chaos Warriors are a bad comparison to Dwarf Warriors.

Marauders though, are a fairly apt comparison.

Marauders pay 3 points for Great Weapons.

Which was the unit I meant, when I said the Chaos Warriors book.


I didn't mention being 'cost-effective'. I was trying to say that dropping prices on troops doesn't make them more effective man-for-man, it just allows for bigger units. Dwarfs should never been a horde army, or anything near it. If the classic dwarf-with-shield struggles in the meta, then they need to be tweaked to be a solid choice again not put to one side until the edition changes and the meta with it. We shouldn't have to increase our numbers to cope with the same number of enemy troops.

I do like the idea of giving them shields as standard though. In that case, they should have to switch their shields for GWs not have both. Can't see spears returning, sadly. Additional hand weapons and throwing axes should be reserved for other choices to give that variation (giving them all that would make them like Swiss Army Dwarfs and negate the need for the rest for the list! I know your'e just wish-listing though). I really like the idea of the magic standard. Maybe the book could have some new, cheap defensive standards? Maybe a +1 armour save banner and keep us all happy.

Well, I wouldn't consider 8-9 point base cost troops a 'horde army'. Yeah, I really don't see spears returning, or the option for additional hand weapons to be honest. But even if they did, that would hardly eliminate the need for the rest of the army... After all, they have the option for GW now. Does that eliminate Longbeards or Hammerers from being solid choices?

What's people's biggest complaint about the Dwarf army? It's stale and boring. Some more basic weapon options would do wonders for that.

PS. I think I would literally eat my Dwarf army book if the Dwarfs got the old 5th ed Standard of Shielding (+1 armor save for a unit).

Quarrel
25-06-2013, 21:09
Which was the unit I meant, when I said the Chaos Warriors book.

Yeah, you'd been misinterpreted. I thought I'd make things as clear as I could.

On another note, an option to make Shield Dwarves for appealing might be to give them something more impressive than a hand weapon. None of the current options fit, but perhaps something appropriate could be introduced.

Dwarven Warhammers - One Handed, +1S, ASL

Probably a little over the top, but it was a thought I had. Even just giving them Armour Piercing would help their damage output.

Lorcryst
25-06-2013, 21:16
To @allmyownbattles : don't worry, the term "Swiss Army knife" is not my copyright :p

Talking about hard-hitting flankers, I've been beaten by a big unit of shield-dwarves with Lord on Oath Stone in it, that stopped my horde of Plaguebearers in its tracks, and then I was flanked by Slayers ...

Probably my fault for taking a big unit of Plaguebearers with Herald BSB, a GUO, an unit of 3 Beasts of Nurgle and 6 bases of Nurglings at 2000 points, but I was outmaneuvered by the Dwarves (!!!) ... he simply set up a "bait" that I took, ground me to a halt, and flanked with killy Slayers while his artillery dealt with my GUO (Curses ! Why only 6 wounds ? Losing 480 points of General to a single cannon shot is a royal pain in the nether regions) and Beasts ...

Only saving grace for me in that game were my Nurglings that finally (after failing two charges) reached the artillery lines and started rolling up through those cannons and bolt throwers ... too bad I had already lost everything else on the table !

Glimfeather
25-06-2013, 21:21
So, let me see if I can sum this up by saying - I am a Dwarf player and probably spoiled by WS 4 / AS 5+ troops at 8 points a model.

Perhaps my complaint is that I have the following choices in my army - Warriors w/ HW + Sh, Warriors w/ GW, Longbeards w/ HW + Sh, Longbeards w/ GW, Miners w/ GW, Hammererererers w/ GW, Ironbreakers w/ HW + Sh...

All infantry... With core plastic models that look good when built with HW + Sh or GW, metal Longbeards - beautiful models but in only 4 poses, metal Ironbreakers and metal hammerers. Of course you have the plastic miners as well, but they also look a lot like warriors.

You add in Slayers and it is still more infantry (in metal).

While the argument that we have solid core is valid, the differential in the GW choice (factoring low initiative) is too great. So the depth in the army is low. I like your ideas Ramius4 because it would give more options for dwarfs but I am concerned that even with those options Great weapons would still be preferred.

Regarding special rules - I think anything that makes sense fluff wise should be open for discussion.

I can't speak for others but I want some variety and I want some rules to drive the options so I can break the mold of "castle, shoot and win".

@allmyownbattles
25-06-2013, 23:54
While the argument that we have solid core is valid, the differential in the GW choice (factoring low initiative) is too great. So the depth in the army is low. I like your ideas Ramius4 because it would give more options for dwarfs but I am concerned that even with those options Great weapons would still be preferred.

I think you've summed the issue up perfectly. The gulf between the effectiveness of GW troops vs shield troops is too great. It doesn't matter if it's 2 points more or 3 points more. GW are the obvious sensible choice, and the usual choice in 8th. The proliferation of GWs is especially apparent with an army like Dwarfs which is traditionally 'shield heavy'. The solution has to be, not a points change, as this doesn't cure the relative effectiveness of GWs and shields, but a boost for the trusty dwarven shield unit. +1 armour save? Always steadfast with shields? Either of these only on the turn they are charged? Shields as offensive weapons? (though I think the impact hits suggestion is silly. They don't move quickly enough.)

boli
26-06-2013, 00:10
How about dwarves with shields force "automatic combat hits" to roll to hit e.g stomp thunderstomp impact, HPA, plaguefurnace etc..

A small bonus true, but significant against monsters/troops with a low WS

GrandmasterWang
26-06-2013, 05:48
I like the idea of dwarfs all getting +1 to their armor save as a racial trait. Very fluffy.

Then just increase the great weapon cost to 3 points like chaos dwarfs and we`'re good.

I did also like the shield wall suggestion where they can't pursue but it makes them more resilient

WLBjork
26-06-2013, 08:16
I feel that Dwarves should be focussed on the core infantry, and consider it a travesty that one of the most balanced armies (as in what units are available) in the game got the Detachments rule, whilst the army that would have benefitted the most got nothing.

Yowzo
26-06-2013, 08:50
Its not just a 5+ Ward though, its a 5+ parry. That means they don't get it against impact hits, thunderstomp, shooting, magic etc. Also, WoC can already get a 5+ parry (and a strait 6+ ward) easily

Nor they would get parry against CC attacks to their flanks and rear.

N1AK
26-06-2013, 09:32
So GW warriors (currently costing one point more btw) do twice the damage but take twice the casualties vs normal opponents. Against High armour/toughness opponents the GW warriors start doing better, against low armour/toughness/strength opponents the Shield warriors do better.


You biased, possibly not by intention, your numbers to suit HW+S (no armour when attacking, but counting armour when defending): Chance of killing HE spear elf with HW = 2/12 with GW 5/12 (2.5 times better). The improved parry still wouldn't protect from stomps, impact hits, flank or rear attacks. Besides which who cares about killing T3 infantry with Dwarves, we can do that easily enough. How do your non-GW Dwarves deal with HW+S Chaos Warriors (4% of attacks wound with HW, 18% GW Warrior) let alone 1+ save cavalry/monstrous cav.

I'd like to see them improve Dwarves and keep the cost the same (possibly slightly higher with GW) than make them cheaper. It is going to take quite a bit to make a warrior without a GW viable/competitive at the current price point.

N1AK
26-06-2013, 09:38
I like the idea of dwarfs all getting +1 to their armor save as a racial trait. Very fluffy.

Then just increase the great weapon cost to 3 points like chaos dwarfs and we`'re good.

I did also like the shield wall suggestion where they can't pursue but it makes them more resilient

The issue with +1 to saves is it provides no benefit to HW+S warriors that it doesn't also give GW warriors. 11pts for GW Warriors with 4+ saves vs 9pts for HW+S: I still doubt you'd see many HW+S Warriors about. Give HW+S Warriors AP as well (or some other way to do a little damage to 1+/2+ saves) and I'd field some.

theunwantedbeing
26-06-2013, 09:55
Nor they would get parry against CC attacks to their flanks and rear.

You could always give them a rule that lets them get the Parry bonus to the flanks & rear.
Failing that, you could give them a rule that prevents them from being disrupted if armed with hand weapons & sheilds.

It won't boost great weapon armed troops them.

@allmyownbattles
26-06-2013, 10:20
I'd like to see them improve Dwarves and keep the cost the same (possibly slightly higher with GW) than make them cheaper. It is going to take quite a bit to make a warrior without a GW viable/competitive at the current price point.

The issue with +1 to saves is it provides no benefit to HW+S warriors that it doesn't also give GW warriors. 11pts for GW Warriors with 4+ saves vs 9pts for HW+S: I still doubt you'd see many HW+S Warriors about. Give HW+S Warriors AP as well (or some other way to do a little damage to 1+/2+ saves) and I'd field some.

I agree, almost completely. The Dwarfs don't need to be cheaper as the numbers on the battlefield look about right as it is. A racial trait benefits all Dwarfs, rather than just the HW+S. I'm not sure they should cause more damage though.

There's a few people saying that S3 is a waste of time in 8th. All the more reason for warriors ability as a pure anvil unit to be upgraded. If the rumours are right, and we're getting deathrollers and/or units of gyrocopters, we're finally going to have the faster flankers to make anvils a goer.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

gonzosbignose
26-06-2013, 10:29
I think everyone is missing the bigger picture here!!!

Who the hell uses warriors?

Guns... more guns... bigger guns...

MWAHAHAHAHAHA

regards

My name is Daniel and I am a wargamer

Yowzo
26-06-2013, 11:00
The issue with +1 to saves is it provides no benefit to HW+S warriors that it doesn't also give GW warriors. 11pts for GW Warriors with 4+ saves vs 9pts for HW+S: I still doubt you'd see many HW+S Warriors about. Give HW+S Warriors AP as well (or some other way to do a little damage to 1+/2+ saves) and I'd field some.

"Dwarven shields" rule.

Add 5+ to your armour save, just like an enchanted shield.

the beardless dwarf
26-06-2013, 13:39
The fact is 8th ed. is all abaut active combat resolution, so great weapons work great because they KILL stuff.

If you remember 7th ed. Every dwarf had a shield (even hammerers) and if you took great weapons you were a noob. If you take shields now you are a noob.

The ture sollution would be to find the middle road between 7th and 8th edittion for dwarfs

The Low King
26-06-2013, 16:25
The fact is 8th ed. is all abaut active combat resolution, so great weapons work great because they KILL stuff.

If you remember 7th ed. Every dwarf had a shield (even hammerers) and if you took great weapons you were a noob. If you take shields now you are a noob.

The ture sollution would be to find the middle road between 7th and 8th edittion for dwarfs

Shields work because the prevent dwarfs from being killed, which reduces the CR your opponent gets (Whilst GWs Increase the CR you get)
They just don't do it well enough.


You biased, possibly not by intention, your numbers to suit HW+S (no armour when attacking, but counting armour when defending): Chance of killing HE spear elf with HW = 2/12 with GW 5/12 (2.5 times better). The improved parry still wouldn't protect from stomps, impact hits, flank or rear attacks. Besides which who cares about killing T3 infantry with Dwarves, we can do that easily enough. How do your non-GW Dwarves deal with HW+S Chaos Warriors (4% of attacks wound with HW, 18% GW Warrior) let alone 1+ save cavalry/monstrous cav.

I'd like to see them improve Dwarves and keep the cost the same (possibly slightly higher with GW) than make them cheaper. It is going to take quite a bit to make a warrior without a GW viable/competitive at the current price point.

Those same Spear Elves would deal 4/24 wounds back to the GW warriors and only 2/24 wounds to the shield warriors.
Also, the idea of shield warriors is not to go in horde formation and kill lots of stuff. It is to survive.

=X=
26-06-2013, 20:28
This thread is making me cringe, for years I've been waiting to take great weapons but shields where just to viable. Great weapons were next to useless unless you where players or hammers.

Now GW are viable and people want to go back to shield.

For once dwarf infantry cab hit hard, we no longer have to be defensive and castle up. We can charge and take a charge.

What I've seen over the years is there is balance is virtually non existent in games workshop armys usually one option is more viable than the other.

Cobra
27-06-2013, 00:08
Well by the looks of alot of these posts maybe shield warriors should have a +2 ward save or be unbreakable with them?

@allmyownbattles
27-06-2013, 08:26
Well by the looks of alot of these posts maybe shield warriors should have a +2 ward save or be unbreakable with them?

I'm not sure about the +2 parry (maybe) but +2 AS seems like a popular option. Unbreakable would be OP as it'd lead to whole armies of unbreakable dwarfs. Steadfast with shields might work though. Maybe steadfast so long as they have at least one complete supporting rank, regardless of the opposition's numbers?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Haravikk
27-06-2013, 08:56
I think both warriors with shields and Ironbreakers are definitely viable; I would like to see a shield wall rule (my personal preference is for +1 armour save versus enemies to the front) to add that extra value, as they're not unreasonably priced otherwise. I think any cheaper and they'd be too cheap for Dwarfs.

But yeah, I like using big blocks with hand weapons and shields, in combination with smaller units with Great Weapons; the big blocks can soak up the damage and hold, and a 40 strong (5 wide) hand weapon & shield unit with Standard Bearer on Oath Stone is not easily moved! Swap in a unit of 25-30 Iron Breakers and they're even harder to get rid of! I also find it a much more interesting way to play than just having two or three hordes of Great Weapon warriors, though it does highlight a possible need in the army for some kind of chariot equivalent; e.g - some tough war machine with a good number of impact hits and decent speed, as even smaller Great Weapon units of about 20 can be tricky to manoeuvre onto a flank even once an enemy is pinned by a huge tar-pit unit.


But yeah, I think a shield wall rule that gives a modest, but useful, boost could make all the difference; hand weapon and shield dwarfs shouldn't be killing enemies in large numbers, as that's not what dwarfs have ever really been about, they just hold and do enough damage to grind an enemy down over time. It's then up to the player to give them a bit of extra help with a supporting charge; Great Weapons on an enemy flank can't really be beat thanks to disruption.

N1AK
27-06-2013, 13:41
Those same Spear Elves would deal 4/24 wounds back to the GW warriors and only 2/24 wounds to the shield warriors.
Also, the idea of shield warriors is not to go in horde formation and kill lots of stuff. It is to survive.

Beardless had already pointed out that HW+S take half the damage and I hadn't contested it. I don't know why you decided to make exactly the same point, again.

Obviously the point of shield warriors is to survive. The reason you don't see many in competitive builds is because the improvement in survivability isn't worth the lost damage potential. We've got poor initiative, low movement etc it's far easier, and more reliable, to just wear your opponent down with GWs than it is to hold them with HW+S then have to find a way to get something that can actually kill them into combat, especially when so many of the threatening units in the game currently may as well be immune to S3 attacks.

Tupinamba
27-06-2013, 18:03
Obviously the point of shield warriors is to survive. The reason you don't see many in competitive builds is because the improvement in survivability isn't worth the lost damage potential.

Exactly. Thatīs why I think shields in general should be better, to compensate the fact you are loosing one hand to get the better save, while LA does the same without any handicap.

"Loosing" one hand is big. Having both hands free means being able to use long range weapons, GW or additional handweapons. Thatīs why outside dwarfs, people prefer taking DE warriors without the shields, Big Uns with extra handweapon etc. etc. always foregoing the shield option.

Odin
27-06-2013, 18:07
I think this is going to be pretty simple. Dwarf great weapons will cost 3 points per model, shields will cost 1 point per model. Does it need any more change than that? Shields still the best option for a bus, GW's for a horde, but the points values will be more appropriate (and in line with Chaos Marauders).

@allmyownbattles
27-06-2013, 19:18
I think this is going to be pretty simple. Dwarf great weapons will cost 3 points per model, shields will cost 1 point per model. Does it need any more change than that? Shields still the best option for a bus, GW's for a horde, but the points values will be more appropriate (and in line with Chaos Marauders).

But that's where the other army lists seem to be heading. It doesn't account for dwarfs supposedly having superior armoursmiths, or compensate for GWs being much more effective than shields. Just 2 or 3 points difference between the two almost guarantees most people will run GWs. Dwarfs should survive long, protracted battles not hack and slash in minutes. If the meta doesn't allow for that, then they need some boost / special ability that lets them do so.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Maoriboy007
27-06-2013, 20:08
Are dwarf warriors with shields so bad that they need to be buffed to make them viable though? Looking at their stats they seem fine to me, are GWs just too cheap?

Commodus Leitdorf
27-06-2013, 20:32
Shield warriors don't need to change, they need a unit to support them. GW Warrior win through active CR they can generate, SHield Warriros can't do that. But they can hold the line well.

Put a quick, Cheap, hard hitting flanking unit in the Army list and you can use Shield Warriors again easy.

theunwantedbeing
27-06-2013, 20:34
Put a quick, Cheap, hard hitting flanking unit in the Army list and you can use Shield Warriors again easy.

Ahahahaha, dwarves don't have those :P

Commodus Leitdorf
27-06-2013, 20:39
Ahahahaha, dwarves don't have those :P

Which is why they need a new book. I mean this thread is already full of wish listing and special rules anyway when its pretty clear why Shield warriors arent used as much. They can't kill stuff. Sure they can hold! But holding doesn't matter if you don't have the tools to roll up a flank and finish the job.

@allmyownbattles
27-06-2013, 20:56
Shield warriors don't need to change, they need a unit to support them. GW Warrior win through active CR they can generate, SHield Warriros can't do that. But they can hold the line well.

Put a quick, Cheap, hard hitting flanking unit in the Army list and you can use Shield Warriors again easy.

Yes they need a flanker to work in tandem with, I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but they still aren't good enough when GWs kill more than shields save. Why would you pick shields to hold the line while flankers get in position, when you could pick GWs and potentially have wiped out the enemy and have moved up before the flankers even get involved?

The balance needs addressing across the whole game in 9th edition and, more pressingly, in the upcoming army book for the world's biggest shield lovers: Dwarfs.


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

theunwantedbeing
27-06-2013, 22:08
Which is why they need a new book. I mean this thread is already full of wish listing and special rules anyway when its pretty clear why Shield warriors arent used as much. They can't kill stuff. Sure they can hold! But holding doesn't matter if you don't have the tools to roll up a flank and finish the job.

Yeah, they need a new unit!
It's not like they can use dwarves with great weapons as a flanking unit afterall....that would be absurd.

Commodus Leitdorf
27-06-2013, 22:11
The balance needs addressing across the whole game in 9th edition and, more pressingly, in the upcoming army book for the world's biggest shield lovers: Dwarfs.


Pretty much this I agree. Make GW Dwarfs more expensive...I don't really see making SHield dwarfs Cheaper as an option. I mean Dwarfs are perfectly priced as they are. Making them cheaper doesn't seem like the best option for me considering their basic Leadership, Toughness, Weapon Skill and Basic gear (Heavy Armour) are all faaaaar better then a lot of core out there.

Commodus Leitdorf
27-06-2013, 22:13
Yeah, they need a new unit!
It's not like they can use dwarves with great weapons as a flanking unit afterall....that would be absurd.

yes it would. Dwarfs are too slow, everyone would see the flank coming from a mile away and not fall for a trap like that. A faster moving, and cheaper unit, would be able to get the drop on an opponent faaar better then and easy to see coming GW Dwarf flanking unit.

That is not to say that is impossible, just not as easy as you are making it out to be.

theunwantedbeing
27-06-2013, 23:05
That is not to say that is impossible, just not as easy as you are making it out to be.

It's easier than you'd think when you've got them pinned in place with a deep block of dwarf warriors with shields.

@allmyownbattles
27-06-2013, 23:17
Pretty much this I agree. Make GW Dwarfs more expensive...I don't really see making SHield dwarfs Cheaper as an option. I mean Dwarfs are perfectly priced as they are. Making them cheaper doesn't seem like the best option for me considering their basic Leadership, Toughness, Weapon Skill and Basic gear (Heavy Armour) are all faaaaar better then a lot of core out there.

I'm not sure they can change the price of either GWs or shields for dwarfs at this point though with so many other army books out, and similar troops paying x amount for either. Why would dwarfs pay more?

The real issue seems to be making dwarfs with shields/armoured dwarfs stand out in Warhammer again. It was once the dwarfs forte; now any bugger with a forge and free hour can manage it.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Maoriboy007
28-06-2013, 00:48
Which is why they need a new book. I mean this thread is already full of wish listing and special rules anyway when its pretty clear why Shield warriors arent used as much. They can't kill stuff....Well TBH the're not much worse at it that a lot of core out there, they're not quite Chaos warrior level , but they're not Goblins or Zombies either.

m1acca1551
28-06-2013, 01:51
Well TBH the're not much worse at it that a lot of core out there, they're not quite Chaos warrior level , but they're not Goblins or Zombies either.

Completely agree but all the other races that are infantry based do have core units that can bring the pain, where as dwarfs being entirely infantry based have no real core unit that can go toe to toe with enemy elite apart from long beards who are damn expensive for I2.

Perhaps dwarfs need a weapon smith rule along side the armourer rule, dwarfen forged weapons count at being +1 strength, the. Dwarf warriors with shield are now tanky units that can bring the pain, reflects that dwarfs are in fact physically stronger than humans and elves, GW units are now monster killers and armoured units have to be weary.

I'd like to see dwarfs become small units of elite rock hard infantry that the fluff describes them as opposed to large blobs of some time soldiers backed up by a few professional soldiers like HE are currently.

GrandmasterWang
28-06-2013, 01:59
I'm not sure about the +2 parry (maybe) but +2 AS seems like a popular option. Unbreakable would be OP as it'd lead to whole armies of unbreakable dwarfs. Steadfast with shields might work though. Maybe steadfast so long as they have at least one complete supporting rank, regardless of the opposition's numbers?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I think that last idea does a great job of capturing dwarf fluff

@allmyownbattles
29-06-2013, 10:40
How about these new rules then:

Dwarf Shields: dwarf shields provide an additional +1 armour save. In other words, then add +2 to the total armour save (possibly also and additional +1 to the parry save if armed with HWs).

The Dwarven Will: a Dwarf unit is automatically steadfast if it has at least one complete supporting rank (if this seems OP, it could be only true for units armed with shields. Thus would also further differentiate between GWs and shields).

Those two rules combined would make an anvil unit of shields an extremely useful thing. You'd no longer need to be worried about the low damage output, as you'd be fairly certain of them holding fast.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Tau_player001
29-06-2013, 12:49
The problem with the current meta is how helpless S3/4 is in close combat, due mostly to support attacks being able to dish out double the damage than before and increasing the killing rate exponentially and 1+ saves being achieved quite often. Making them more durable/harder to remove won't help you, since like you said, you will still better off including more HW. To find a spot for them you need a unit to synergize with as an anvil, and dwarfs have a hard time outmaneuvering opponents for this to happen.

What you are asking here has nothing to do with sword&shield dwarf warriors, but the current metagame cutting down any S3/4, and this is true for almost every single army out there.

And i will honest, free steadfast and 3+ on a 9 point T4 core sounds quite unreasonable.

Lorcryst
29-06-2013, 14:36
Ahem, your local meta must be dreadfully heavy with Warriors of Chaos Knights and Empire Knights ... those are the only two armies that can field 1+ saves in units, as far as I know ...

As for S3/S4 being helpless, I play armies with T3/T4 for the majority of the army, even S3 BS shooting from High Elves (universally considered a waste here on WarSeer) can make big dents in my armies ...

Tau_player001
29-06-2013, 14:46
Shooting has nothing to do with combat. You can't just compare them with close combat and combat resolution coming into factor, which is where GW almost always outshine shield&sword regiments. And no matter how your own "meta" is, if you still plan to do take all comers you will take them into consideration.

About the waste comment, i love archers. Not only because shooting, but because small units flanking can do stuff happen, specially with ockhams, but they serve a different purpose than just shield&sword regiments and more importantly, and synergize with our army. Dwarf sword&shield have their own purpose, but it wouldn't say it's something really required for gunlines to function properly.

=X=
29-06-2013, 14:58
Honestly I'd like to see the need of shield for the elite warriors go by the waist side. Give all d dwarfs grimol armor and great weapons. Iron breakers, thunders, and quarrelers can still have the shields

Lorcryst
29-06-2013, 15:46
Shooting has nothing to do with combat. You can't just compare them with close combat and combat resolution coming into factor, which is where GW almost always outshine shield&sword regiments. And no matter how your own "meta" is, if you still plan to do take all comers you will take them into consideration.

About the waste comment, i love archers. Not only because shooting, but because small units flanking can do stuff happen, specially with ockhams, but they serve a different purpose than just shield&sword regiments and more importantly, and synergize with our army. Dwarf sword&shield have their own purpose, but it wouldn't say it's something really required for gunlines to function properly.

You missed my point by a mile ...

When the word "meta" is written on WarSeer, it usually refers to the US tournament scene ... a wretched hive of WAACery if there ever was.

In my local gaming group, I play Nurgle Daemons against halberd-toting Warriors of Chaos, Mindrazored Dark Elves, or GW-wielding Dwarves ... and the easiest match up amongst those for me are the Dwarves !

My Plaguebearers will be wounded on 2s or 3s anyway. Those high S attacks won't negate my Ward/Regeneration saves. I use a Herald BSB with Razor Standard.

The Warriors of Chaos still have their saves, and I wound them on 4s, but they're few in numbers, so I can sorta win the war of attrition.

I wound the Dark Elves on 3s, but those Spearmen at 6 points are horrendously numerous, takes a while to grind them down.

But the Dwarves ... I negate their saves, I wound them on 4s, and they're much less numerous.

Frankly, it's the rare unit of Shield Dwarves that poses me some problems, those have a 6+/6++ save against me, good toughness, good leadership.

Tau_player001
29-06-2013, 16:11
What point exactly did i missed ? I find you are being disperse enough so for me it's hard to tell. I don't care what warseer bias is from, you were the first one speaking about meta, and i tried to drive the debate out of that direction, since i prefer tailoring my army as a take all comers, than tailoring to suit my own metagame and i am voicing my opinion on the game with how it is designed, and i already spoke about why HW outperform in most situations than shield&sword, and this is not something unique of dwarfs, but the game rules.

I don't know, if you are just trying to debate for debate's sake or you will make some counterarguments to the following points i had made:

- Combat S3/4 units add little numbers to combat resolution for the most part.
- HW outperform S/S units because of extra ranks being able to attack, exponentially increasing the combat resolution in favor of the HW unit.
- Anvil units require units with the mobility to place themselves to flank opponents being "anvil'ed'.

So now that you already have the points properly showed off, i hope you don't start another reply with the "missed point by a mile" withouth making any sense, talking about meta bias, or your own personal meta like if that somewhat proves a point (into whatever you are argueing, because at that point, i am already lost).

Lorcryst
29-06-2013, 17:18
Just to be clear, *you* brought the "current meta" in the equation :p


The problem with the current meta is how helpless S3/4 is in close combat, due mostly to support attacks being able to dish out double the damage than before and increasing the killing rate exponentially and 1+ saves being achieved quite often. Making them more durable/harder to remove won't help you, since like you said, you will still better off including more HW. To find a spot for them you need a unit to synergize with as an anvil, and dwarfs have a hard time outmaneuvering opponents for this to happen.

What you are asking here has nothing to do with sword&shield dwarf warriors, but the current metagame cutting down any S3/4, and this is true for almost every single army out there.

And i will honest, free steadfast and 3+ on a 9 point T4 core sounds quite unreasonable.


- Combat S3/4 units add little numbers to combat resolution for the most part.Can't say that I agree there, at least where I play, most of the combat resolution is done with S3/S4 attacks, those being the most common S of all armies.

- HW outperform S/S units because of extra ranks being able to attack, exponentially increasing the combat resolution in favor of the HW unit.Yes, to a point : wounding more = more combat resolution, but if there are Ward Saves on the wounded part, having a high S won't negate the saves, thus a mixed bag, IMHO.

- Anvil units require units with the mobility to place themselves to flank opponents being "anvil'ed'.Again, to a point : once the enemy is locked in place by the anvil, carefull planning and positioning should allow a "hammer" to get there next turn ... of course, that also means having lots of units close together, potentially being a huge target for vortex spells.

Sorry if I was muddled, my brain is reaching the melting point today :p

Tau_player001
29-06-2013, 18:13
- That's the oppossite to my experience. There are units that may use S3/S4 in close combat but it's because they have special rules to back them up (or they are really cost efficient, such as empire halberds). For example, out of my three infantry combat units (HE), Phoenix Guard is the anvil, while the other two are HW weilders. The reason why phoenix guard can be used as an anvil for a noncheap unit, it's because it has rerolls against most enemies, S4 paired with razor banner (-2 armor) and a 4+ ward save.
This is not correct to spearman, that will have to rely on their ranks for steadfast against basically any opponent with HW and some armor. I was answering to the proposal the last poster was doing, about free steadfast plus +1 armor save. If you have a core anvil, you need more numbers not rules. For 9 point, i would dare to say than outside LM and WoC dwarfs got the most resilient core in game already, and its point cost is quite competitive.

- You can either buff S&S units, or you can nerf HW, but my point that dwarf S&S suffer equally than other S&S units. The game doesn't need to buff one unit, just to fix the problem one option on the dwarf book has right now, but i find it an overall game design flaw with this edition (it doesn't break the game tho).

- I don't know, i play a lot against dwarves, and since i have the mobility, most part of the time, i will decide what gets "anviled" so i just move on into the support units. I expect other more one dimensional armies, flanking is more possible, but i wouldn't say it's a given.