PDA

View Full Version : what do you like about the new dwarfs/what do you dislike?



Lance Tankmen
14-02-2014, 04:23
As the title says.

personally i dislike that they have much weaker anti magic AND no magic phase. i cringe already playing with my armies when my enemies magic phase shows up.

i dislike how they lost nearly every cool rune and the ones that stayed were nerfed. i enjoyed my tanky dwarf lords able to go toe to toe with just about anything, no more :(.

i dislike that the anvil is bad, i enjoyed wrath and ruin.


i like the new models and the art work on the dwarfs book.

Montegue
14-02-2014, 04:39
I dislike what they did to the Anvil and the Magic defense. They should have made a Rune Lore, enhanced by the Anvil, and then the nerf to defense would be justified.

I dislike the Mark-like tax to make our infantry units more burly. The banners are awesome, but man do they add up.

I like the Gyros and what they will do for the army. I wish I had a third model.

I like the Irondrakes, but won't be buying any for some time.

I love hammerers. I hate that they didn't make a three tier armor system for the army (5, 4, 3) so that Ironbreakers would be a true, viable choice.

I hate the Heirlooms, for the most part. Dear GW - we need more than S4 to do wounds to really anything these days.

WHo knows. Maybe in 9th they will take away S decreasing armor, and Ironbreakers will be amazing. But that's not now. There's more to love and hate about the book.

Kakapo42
14-02-2014, 04:43
i dislike how they lost nearly every cool rune and the ones that stayed were nerfed. i enjoyed my tanky dwarf lords able to go toe to toe with just about anything, no more :(.

Odd, from what I've heard a great many runes have stayed, and Strollaz at least has arguably been improved if anything. What runes did you enjoy that have been removed or weakened?

As for me,

LIKES:

- The new infantry are Okish I guess.

DISLIKES:

- The new Gyrocopter.

- The disappearance of a great many of the generic Dwarf character models.

- The new Gyrocopter.

- It means one less release between now and the inevitable Wood Elf re-release (I think I am the only Wood Elf player in the universe that DOESN'T want it, not yet at any rate).

- The new Gyrocopter.

- I think it's just me, but the beards on the new Longbeards actually seem shorter than the ones on the old models.

- Did I mention the new Gyrocopter?

snottlebocket
14-02-2014, 07:30
Love new gyro. Loathe that not only did they completely neglect to even try and make the army more dynamic, they actually put even more emphasis on gun lines and castling being their most viable tactic.

Definitely voting with my wallet on this one. I was planning on doing a whole new dwarf army but having read the rules, I'll stick to just a gyro.

Spiney Norman
14-02-2014, 07:35
I dislike what they did to the Anvil and the Magic defense. They should have made a Rune Lore, enhanced by the Anvil, and then the nerf to defense would be justified.


No they really shouldn't, if you want to play a dwarf army with wizards then forgeworld do a really nice chaos dwarf army. The whole character of the dwarf army is predicated on not having wizards or using magic spells, if you can't deal with the weakness of your army there are 14 others to choose from. I really think that giving the dwarf army wizards and tearing up the last 4 editions of background for the army would have provoked an even more angry backlash from the army's fan base.

What do I like about the new dwarf release: all the gorgeous models
What do I dislike: all the premature lamentation that inevitably accompanies every new army book release

Jind_Singh
14-02-2014, 07:48
All the models = like
Artwork = like

Don't like = not sure until I read the book
Don't like = I want to start Dwarfs with new models only!
Don't like = no plastic Slayers

underscore
14-02-2014, 07:49
I like the fact that they stuck with doing what seems to be a pretty decent update to 8th rather than making wholesale changes for the sake of it.

I think they could've done with another new unit though, even if I do like pretty much all the new models.

Bran Dawri
14-02-2014, 09:01
I like the new hammerers (both model- and ruleswise) and the other new models, and the new armywide special rules.
I dislike pretty much everything else about it. Hitty dwarfs are now dead, outside of hammerers, and since one unit of hammerers can a) be avoided and b) still be killed by superhitty characters in deathstars (who ours can no longer match) it sucks.
I could've written a better dwarf update in my sleep.

Karak Norn Clansman
14-02-2014, 09:05
Haven't seen the rules in person yet, but I like all new releases for WHFB Dwarfs except the Gyrocopter and Tech-Priest, which instead are excellent for Squats in 40k. The cover art of the new book look great as well.

SteveW
14-02-2014, 16:02
Having not seen the rules in person yet I wont comment on that side of it. As for the models, I like the new infantry models and despise the steampunk stuff. How hard would it have been to go a runic magic route instead of making them have 1960's tech?

Kahadras
14-02-2014, 16:18
I like the look of the rumoured new rules especialy the stuff that improves the close combat potential of the army. The new models look pretty good (though not sure about the Gyrocopter though). Happy to hear that the Dwarf magic defence is being reduced. Not sure about runes but I like the rumour that stacking the same rune unlocks additional abilities (if it's true).

The main dislike is the usual GW high prices for everything.

Spider-pope
14-02-2014, 16:43
I've not read the armybook yet or played any games with the new list, so i can't comment on the rules. But models wise i love everything released so far. I've already grabbed a couple of boxes of Hammerer/Longbeards to form the core of a new army, and i intend to grab a few Gyrocopters and the Ironbreaker/Irondrake kits in the near future.

In terms of prices, 3 for a miniature the quality of the new plastic Hammerers is worth it. Sure you can get cheaper, but the majority look like ****.

And lastly on the subject of the Dwarfs getting a magic lore, i guarantee that had that occurred we'd see the exact same people complaining that they'd ruined the dwarfs by abandoning the lack of magic that has been a distinguishing part of their character for decades.

Urgat
14-02-2014, 17:37
For now, I like almost everything.
I'm still not sure about the gyrocopter, but I don't mind it, so it's fine.
I'm not happy they stole the chaos dwarfs blunderbusses.

There.

Montegue
14-02-2014, 18:59
Wow, Spiney, way to strawman so hard.

Rune smiths with access to the Rune Lore ( their special ability for the last ten years) would have been fine and in no way a violation of the fluff. What is a violation is how badly anti magic has been nerfed *without giving us anything useful to play with in our own magic phase*. Please retread the last bit there before responding.

underscore
14-02-2014, 19:19
Not all armies have to have the same amount to do in each phase of the game. It's not like Vampires get to do much in the shooting phase, for example.

moonlapse
14-02-2014, 20:38
Not all armies have to have the same amount to do in each phase of the game. It's not like Vampires get to do much in the shooting phase, for example.

No, they only have one of the most powerful ranged attacks in the game, which is used in the shooting phase. In fact it may even be the most powerful one.

underscore
14-02-2014, 21:09
No, they only have one of the most powerful ranged attacks in the game, which is used in the shooting phase. In fact it may even be the most powerful one.
Right, which is why I was talking about quantity not quality.

SSquirrel
15-02-2014, 01:17
I actually really like the new gyrocopters/Bombers. The Irondrakes look badass, altho the guns do look like mini-Leadbelcher cannons. Which, weren't the Leadbelcher cannons stripped from Dwarven battlements?

Lord Dan
15-02-2014, 01:35
Actually, I think the Irondrakes are probably the weakest models of the release so far. They're so one-dimensional and blocky that they remind me more of Mantic models than GW's, which is odd considering they're based on the same foundation as the far-superior Ironbreakers.

Voss
15-02-2014, 02:21
Wow, Spiney, way to strawman so hard.

Rune smiths with access to the Rune Lore ( their special ability for the last ten years) would have been fine and in no way a violation of the fluff.
Since a 'rune lore' doesn't exist and never has, throwing it in would have definitely violated the fluff. Sideways. With barbs and hooks.
Giving dwarfs 'something to do in the magic phase' is just a bizarre concept. Like snotling close combat monsters, or sane and reasonable chaos spawn, sipping tea in a posh Bretonnian salon.

tezdal
15-02-2014, 02:38
Rules wise can't say know nothing about the new dwarfs, but the new models are okay... The older Ironbreakers and hammerers looked 10x better.

The bearded one
15-02-2014, 03:19
Since a 'rune lore' doesn't exist and never has, throwing it in would have definitely violated the fluff. Sideways. With barbs and hooks.
Giving dwarfs 'something to do in the magic phase' is just a bizarre concept. Like snotling close combat monsters, or sane and reasonable chaos spawn, sipping tea in a posh Bretonnian salon.

I think the general line of the argument is such:
"If you're going to nerf magic defence heavily, at least gives us something in return. But truthfully we'd rather have kept a magic defence that is at least a bit better* than the new one, rather than any magic offence."

* I dunno. Channeling on a 5+ or somesuch. Doesn't have to be mental.

Lord Dan
15-02-2014, 03:20
I also dislike how sparse the cover of the new Dwarf Battleline appears:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod2380129a

FAN OUT!

Dorack
15-02-2014, 04:27
I like that we have more combat oriented options, and less need to rely on warmachines. I like that we have good sinergies to take advantage from, pushing us to find new tactics. On the other hand, I was really expecting something more original in terms of unit concepts (like runic golem MI for example). Overall, I would say I'm satisfied with the new book in general terms, we will see how it fares on the table.

I gave it a go at army building. You can check it here: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?389817-First-Attempt-At-Dwarf-Army-With-New-Book-2500-Vs-All-Comers&p=7072049

IcedCrow
15-02-2014, 04:34
Love this book. Like its my favorite 8th ed book. Synergy, all kinds of builds, customizeable mGic items,...

SteveW
15-02-2014, 05:07
Made a list as soon as I got the book. I pretty much took everything I used to but it was all better and had room left over for iron drakes that will kill everything in their path...lol

Schmapdi
15-02-2014, 05:27
I like:
The new infantry models for the most part.
The Gyrobomber.
The New Runesmith/Belegar kit

I dislike:
The new engineer (too 40k-ish, and when I say for the most part on the new infantry, this is the small bit I'm disliking about them - they look a bit Space Marineish to me)
The new Gyro - looks like a silly little Jetsons space car.
The new Slayer mini - it's a little too dynamic. I think if he had a different pose he'd look ace though.
The prices on the new infantry
That Dwarves need another 4 kits turned into plastic still.

Maoriboy007
15-02-2014, 05:56
No, they only have one of the most powerful ranged attacks in the game, which is used in the shooting phase. In fact it may even be the most powerful one.What? Really. There is no way a Terrorgheist scream compares to a simple cannon due to a long list of caveats on its use, I can never get my head around how overrated that damned thing is, a dwarf army should have no problem dealing with it.

Brother Haephestus
15-02-2014, 06:50
I pretty much like everything! New book is nice, most units got buffs, new synergies ...

I would have liked to have seen some nice new plastic slayers, and I really don't care for the Underground Advance rule. I think the miners would have been better served with a mechanic similar to Tomb Kings. Stunty little legs and board edges really sells them short ... (Pun not intended).

shelfunit.
15-02-2014, 07:41
I also dislike how sparse the cover of the new Dwarf Battleline appears:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod2380129a

FAN OUT!

Kind of like watching a Dwarf cricket match.

The magic defence nerf seems a bit harsh, any wizard getting any spells through a dwarf dispell phase (which really wasn't as uncommon as some of the comments on here suggest) is coming out ahead considering the relatively equal points paid for wizards vs our rune smiths/lords.
Hammerers - replacing a monopose metal model with a monopose plastic one. No. At least the longbeards look nice, but at that price it's AoW all the way.

Garion
15-02-2014, 08:47
I love - How easy it is going to be to make all the new models in to squats. YAY!!!!

The rest I'm not fussed either way. This game has never been balanced and never will be. The models look good, I think playing with them will be fun. So just have fun and stop taking this silly game so seriously would be my best advice. After all we are mostly grown men playing with little soldiers :P

moonlapse
15-02-2014, 09:25
What? Really. There is no way a Terrorgheist scream compares to a simple cannon due to a long list of caveats on its use, I can never get my head around how overrated that damned thing is, a dwarf army should have no problem dealing with it.

I think it can compare. Of course it's different in application - you have to get close to use it, it's somewhat reliant on luck, and it diminishes in effectiveness if the TG is wounded. But unless you get a flank shot with a cannon you can't delete whole units of Monstrous Cavalry, whereas a TG can. Cannons may be safer and easier to use but I think a lucky TG scream has more destructive potential overall.
Yeah, against a shooty army the TG wouldn't fare so well, I admit!

stortotta
15-02-2014, 09:35
Like: That most models are really pretty, and that the Gyrocopter looks both funny and awsome at the same time.
Dislike: The Iron Dragons. Awful minis. And that the link to the eBook on "whats new today" only leads to the iBook one. Have anyone found the actual eBook?

Decadence
15-02-2014, 10:40
That Dwarves need another 4 kits turned into plastic still.

For me the disappointment isn't the lack slayers, cavalry or a centerpiece model (I don't particularly care about those), it's that we didn't see a new, bigger flame cannon kit. The possibilities were huge for a dual or even triple kit with a mortar/bombard cannon (using grudgebusters?) and maybe some kind of anti-air artillery piece which would target dragons and other fliers. It would have been so easy for them.

Clockwork
15-02-2014, 11:06
From what I've read, I quite like the changes that have been introduced. I do agree that Dwarves should have more to do in the magic phase, though I'm not sure what shape that should take - a Rune Lore would be the easiest option, but something a little more varied and specific to Dwarves would be preferable (interestingly, the Dark Elf book seemed to herald this by talking about the particular style of 'magic' that is practiced by Dwarves). Equally, I don't think enough has been done to get them moving, either. Some attempts in this direction have been made through Gyros, Rangers, Miners and Vanguard banners, and that's all welcome, but it feels like they could have done more (any sort of 'Forced March' rule would have worked: x3 March in first turn, double M when charging, March bonus when no enemies are nearby, or x3 M when marching in a straight line + some sort of penalty, etc).

In both cases, this is because I firmly believe that the most enjoyable armies to play with and to play against are ones which participate in each phase of the game. The rumours indicate that the book is moving (heh) in the right direction, but the response seems to be that it has fallen short (heheh) of the level of change that was anticipated by Dwarf players and opponents alike. Interestingly, this is similar to the critcism that was leveled at the Lizardmen book, too (particularly by yours truly). It was suggested that this was written by Vetock and, if so, I guess that makes him GW's steady hand that won't rock the boat?

I also didn't see anywhere that Dwarves still get the -1 penalty to pursue/flee. Can anyone confirm if this still exists?

Ultimately, one big source of disappointment is the lack of unit diversity. They've taken an army which had Grycopters and infantry and delivered... more infantry and Gyrcopters. To be sure, Cavalry and Monsters were never going to happen. But I thought that Iron/Rune Golems were a sure thing.

Spiney Norman
15-02-2014, 12:29
Agree with the above, Vetock seems to be GWs steady-eddy that basically keeps everything the same, gives a bit more of the same and rebalances things a bit (and to be fair does a pretty good job at that).

Contrast to Matt Ward who seems to be something of a mad creative genius, doesn't understand the meaning of balance at all and can't write decent quality fluff to save his life, but always comes out with tons of crazy, inspired ideas to make the army a blast to play.

Of course it could be commented on that JV has had his hands tied somewhat by being lumbered with a brace of minor releases and the models he had to work with were quite limiting while Ward was given the greater scope of the huge dark elf project, but I still get the impression that JV is still quite a 'conservative' designer.

adicto
15-02-2014, 13:48
And of course there is also Cruddace. His work is so bloody awful that I can only describe it using sounds from my ****.

Urgat
15-02-2014, 13:59
Contrast to Matt Ward who seems to be something of a mad creative genius, doesn't understand the meaning of balance at all and can't write decent quality fluff to save his life, but always comes out with tons of crazy, inspired ideas to make the army a blast to play.

You're lucky I'm not sitting next to you right now, because I'd slap you left and right with the crazy inspired 7th ed OnG armybook. While craddling Vetock's fantastic 8th ed book, by the way.

The bearded one
15-02-2014, 14:53
You're lucky I'm not sitting next to you right now, because I'd slap you left and right with the crazy inspired 7th ed OnG armybook. While craddling Vetock's fantastic 8th ed book, by the way.

It's probably that 7th O&G and 7th daemons were more or less his first books. As far as I can tell he does seem to be getting better. I had no real major issues with high elves and dark elves, but both shook up those armies organisation quite a bit.

It's odd.. All my major armies -the ones I've had the longest and played the most- have been rereleased and rewritten by Vetock in the space of a year. Tau, Lizardmen, Dwarfs.

DeathlessDraich
15-02-2014, 15:12
For now, I like almost everything.
I'm still not sure about the gyrocopter, but I don't mind it, so it's fine.
I'm not happy they stole the chaos dwarfs blunderbusses.

There.

Similar sentiments to mine generally. :)

Focusing on the rules:

Like:

1) Resolute
2) Shieldwall
3) Shieldbearer
(Nice Rules - created with Dwarf background in mind)

4) 2 attacks for Hammerers
5) Ward save for Ironbreakers

6) Gyrobombers and Irondrakes will both be 'must haves' - although in general I would have preferred a greater shift towards a combat emphasis for the army (as opposed to too much shooting).

Dislikes:

None really - just disappointed with
1) Slayer neglect.
2) Some Talismanic Runes - Master Rune of Balance, Master Rune of Challenge (gone now - debatable whether it was too strong)


On the subject of the magic phase -

I think this has been correctly adjusted, considering that Spell Breaker and Spell Destroyer were removed from Daemons .

Dwarfs are still the only army to have the option of more than 1 'Dispel Scroll' - plus an enhancement to destroy an enemy spell (e.g. the 6th spell).:)

For 95 points or 115 points Dwarfs have a very good chance of negating the enemy magic phase but in the interests of balance this has been correctly toned down.

Overall - a good army book ... considering

Fle
15-02-2014, 15:18
No they really shouldn't, if you want to play a dwarf army with wizards then forgeworld do a really nice chaos dwarf army. The whole character of the dwarf army is predicated on not having wizards or using magic spells, if you can't deal with the weakness of your army there are 14 others to choose from. I really think that giving the dwarf army wizards and tearing up the last 4 editions of background for the army would have provoked an even more angry backlash from the army's fan base.

I don't think its so unreasonable for players to be slightly annoyed about not receiving some form of magic phase. The anvil of doom has allowed Dwarfs to 'cast' pseudo spells for a long time, then we had Storm of Magic (even Warhammer Online included Dwarf spells) so it's not as out of character for dwarfs to be able to 'cast' some form of magic as you keep implying. I'm not advocating full on wizards but some more non-anvil bound spells would have been nice and in keeping with the dwarf character.

Pros :
Gyro bomber
Longbeards and ironbreakers
Organ gun with runes

Cons :
Was hoping for a big centrepiece model :(
My favourite rune (resistance) has disappeared
No Master Rune of Kragg the Grim

Overall I think the new book is an improvement and I'm looking forward to playing some games with it.