PDA

View Full Version : Dan's Weekly Poll #1: Response to the new Dwarf book



Lord Dan
27-02-2014, 03:36
It's been a while since I ran a poll. I'd like to make it a regular thing, so I'm going to make this the first in a series of weekly polls I'll be putting out. Maybe every Wednesday?

In any case, please take a moment to answer the poll, above.

tezdal
27-02-2014, 04:46
Seems fairly balanced to me, then again I really just enjoy voting in polls.

dwarf_zepplin
27-02-2014, 06:59
I think they struck a nice balance, nerfing the things that made my opponents rage and boosting the things that I always wanted to use more (slayers!).

bigbiggles
27-02-2014, 07:33
The book seems solid. Still need to play with it though. I wish my nicely painted anvil still worked. But now I can field all those AoW slayers I got on the cheap...so there's that

Snake1311
27-02-2014, 11:23
I bet the people who voted for it being 'somewhat overpowered' are the same people who think WoC are the top warhammer army :D

Vipoid
27-02-2014, 12:26
I haven't yet played enough games against them to make an informed decision. The only thing I can say is that their magic defence seems a little more reasonable now (though I've yet to face 2 spell-eater runes, so we'll see :shifty:).

One thing I am interested in - what are people's thoughts on the 'Hatred' roll? To me, it seems like an awful lot is riding on that one d6.

Borgomos
27-02-2014, 12:31
I don't mind the Hatred roll, because, unlike the Reign of Comedy table, rolling bad on it won't blow my army up.

EmperorNorton
27-02-2014, 12:51
I haven't played under the new rules yet, and I am not even sure I want to.
After waiting for the book for so long and painting Dwarfs in preparation over the last six months or so, I am underwhelmed. The book is just so ... samey. No exciting new concepts that I had been hoping for.
Some things are better, some things are worse. Of course the latter irk me more. The magic defence seems much less reliable, the altar is all but useless, Slayers IMO are still worthless. The new units seem extremely powerful, but I don't like the models at all. And the Hatred roll simply flies in the face of the concept of balance.
I don't know who wrote this, but he has earned a place of dishonour in my personal book of grudges.

underscore
27-02-2014, 12:51
One thing I am interested in - what are people's thoughts on the 'Hatred' roll? To me, it seems like an awful lot is riding on that one d6.
Pretty much - I think it's a terrible piece of game design: worse that either the Daemon Table or Warlord Traits in 40k.

The rest of the book seems fine (not that I can vote in mobile view, of course).

Ealdwulf
27-02-2014, 13:29
I haven't played under the new rules yet, and I am not even sure I want to.
After waiting for the book for so long and painting Dwarfs in preparation over the last six months or so, I am underwhelmed. The book is just so ... samey. No exciting new concepts that I had been hoping for.
Some things are better, some things are worse. Of course the latter irk me more. The magic defence seems much less reliable, the altar is all but useless, Slayers IMO are still worthless. The new units seem extremely powerful, but I don't like the models at all. And the Hatred roll simply flies in the face of the concept of balance.
I don't know who wrote this, but he has earned a place of dishonour in my personal book of grudges.

^ THIS. I cannot agree more.

Dwarfs were my first army ever and hold a special place in my heart. I found the release to be overall lack luster from a game-play standpoint. The few models we got were nice but nothing really that made me go WOW - that's different/interesting that will be fun to play/paint.

It just seems the dwarf are visually the same across the board (and not in a cool rank and file roman legion way). I was hoping for a few units that would stand out a bit more - and definitely something that opened at least one other viable tactical option. The gyro's kind of do I guess. I don't know just not really pumped about it. Like I said it's not bad but not great - seems kind of like a half-assed release if I'm being honest.

Vipoid
27-02-2014, 13:37
The magic defence seems much less reliable

Thank God.


And the Hatred roll simply flies in the face of the concept of balance.
I don't know who wrote this, but he has earned a place of dishonour in my personal book of grudges.


Pretty much - I think it's a terrible piece of game design: worse that either the Daemon Table or Warlord Traits in 40k.

Well, good to know I'm not the only one who thinks that.

Malagor
27-02-2014, 13:49
I had been interested in dwarfs in the past but felt their old book to be dull and with a lot of their models in metal(and to be honest ugly) I gave up on them.
But the new models fixes my problems I had with their model range and I feel that their book has more life to it then the previous one and offer more options.
And the matches I have seen so far with them has been more even affairs which is good too hence I voted for balanced.
Also I like the hatred roll. It make sense fluff-wise and I like that.

EmperorNorton
27-02-2014, 14:23
Also I like the hatred roll. It make sense fluff-wise and I like that.

How does it make sense fluff-wise?
Sure, dwarfs hate most everybody for some reason or other. But how does that translate into a single dice roll determining to what degree they hate the foe they are currentl facing?
It doesn't.
You want Dwarfs to have hatred, sure, go right ahead. But why make it a gambling game that makes a mockery of the points-based system of unit costs. If balance is of any concern at all, a figure that reroll failed attack rolls should not cost the same amount of points as a figure that is exactly the same other than that it cannot reroll failed attacks.

Romark
27-02-2014, 14:37
How does it make sense fluff-wise?
Sure, dwarfs hate most everybody for some reason or other. But how does that translate into a single dice roll determining to what degree they hate the foe they are currentl facing?
It doesn't.
You want Dwarfs to have hatred, sure, go right ahead. But why make it a gambling game that makes a mockery of the points-based system of unit costs. If balance is of any concern at all, a figure that reroll failed attack rolls should not cost the same amount of points as a figure that is exactly the same other than that it cannot reroll failed attacks.

Have to agree with this. The Hatred roll is a shocker.

I went balanced though. Only part way through my first game against them, and so far it is neck and neck. But they got hatred (I'm Dark Elves, so at least it's fitting), which may sway my feelings on this matter...

Malagor
27-02-2014, 14:41
Because the book(both old and new) do make a big deal that they are easily offended.
Guess they could have just given them hatred for everyone but that would be silly and I'm sure you will agree with that.
I play with fluff in mind, I make my list with fluff in mind so I enjoy the grudge chart since it will make fluff a bit more interesting then the opponent always having to insult the dwarfs so badly that they hate them.
Now they might have just insulted the lord's beard rather then remarked that all dwarven weapons are man-made.

Ramius4
27-02-2014, 15:34
Yeah Dan, unfortunately I can't in good conscience vote for any of your poll choices. If there were an option for "mostly balanced, but not 1/3 of the time" then I would have voted for it.

The Ancestral Grudge rule is ridiculous. No single die roll should ever have that much effect on the performance of an entire army. That may be one of the worst thought out rules for an army that I can remember, ever.

I am a Dwarf player of 21 years. I REFUSE to ever use that rule (and my first two games with the book, I just ignored it) outside of the Orc and Skaven Hatred.

Jind_Singh
27-02-2014, 15:36
I went for mostly balanced but can be over powered - if your opponent wants to run a close combat army and run at you - good times.

They have the tools now to engage and take you on

But most likely I'm going to see a lot of lists with auto-include..


1) double Organ gun, +1 to hit rune, +1 to hit and flaming attacks
2) engineer
3) 2-4 Gyros (but these are the fools good option, I think that in practice they won't be as devastating as one imagines
4) iron drakes
5) miners
6) 2 flame cannons (these are excellent for the mid-game stage)

With the usual suspects for rune upgrades

The organ gun baffled me with its increased range on the Organ guns - those are just nasty!

A dwarf player who liked going gunline is going in even harder!

Lemonbrick
27-02-2014, 15:42
Having read mine this morning and compared notes with other peopls reviews I am going with Balanced, but I would not rule out someone making a uber-build at some stage

Lord Inquisitor
27-02-2014, 15:45
Well I think there are two questions here: is it a balanced army and is it overpowered/underpowered/just right. Chaos Dwarfs are very unbalanced but not particularly powerful overall.

The hatred roll is just horrible. How are you supposed to balance an army that may or may not have hatred? Particularly when festooned with great weapons, it's a big deal one way or the other. How did they decide on points cost? Assuming they do have the re-rolls (in which case dwarfs will be underpowered if you don't roll it), or some kind of average performance (in which case the army is always over/underpowered depending on what you roll).

Dwarfs have easy access to ld10. Why not give them Stubborn all over the place? Plus tanking characters just as bad if not worse than before. Everyone knows the dwarf conga line formation is "fluffy" (they're used to fighting in tunnels, duh).

I'm disappointed in the dwarfs. They took everything that was wrong with the old book and made it worse if anything. The dwarf gunline will now have crossbows and great weapons and stubborn everywhere. No runic magic equivalent, still have the runic system, yawn. The only glimmer of interest is the new gyrocopters as they will actually move but even they're going to be pretty frustrating to play against. Now dwarfs have redirectors and they can have 8 of them and they shoot flame templates.

So I think it's a deeply unbalanced book. Whether or not it'll be overpowered is another question. I've a feeling that it will be on the stronger side just because it's so hard to get points off them (and here too many gyros may be a liability) but it'll remain such an undynamic army it won't be popular after the initial rush.

Djekar
27-02-2014, 16:27
As usual, I find myself in complete agreement with LI.

For my part, I voted for "balanced" but I find it rather difficult to qualify because I think some things got a bit too much of a bump (I'm looking at the gyrocopters) and some things got too much of a knock on the head (I'm looking at the anvil). Overall it balances out to a decent book, but I always feel sad when the internal balance is not there and some choices are just flat out better than the other choices *cough* Hammerers *coughs*

That being said, if there was a "balanced, but disappointed" option, I would have picked that one.

biccat
27-02-2014, 17:02
Movement: slightly better with the addition of Gyrocopters.

Magic: Huge nerf. Went from amazing to mediocre.

Shooting: Slightly better.

Combat: Slightly better.

The big change in Magic means that opponents will be casting buff/debuff spells on the dwarfs, which they will have no way to effectively counter. They did get slightly better in other aspects of the game, but the huge change to Magic means that they will be at a serious disadvantage against most enemies.

Overall: Slightly underpowered.

dwarfhold13
27-02-2014, 17:56
I think the book offers enough to counter magic in a different way, but I, like many of you feel like they didn't put any excitement into the book. I mean dwarfs are dwarfs and they is what they is, but c'mon, you can't tell me they wouldn't have more cool machines than they currently do? At least one?
I feel like the book got the same treatment that the Lizardmen book got. The major difference for me: Strollaz. That single rune opens a lot of doors for different builds, especially since they made slayers better. I like what they did with the organ gun, and I'm ok with how they tailored the runes, but I'll miss my old faithful (grudge thrower with 2x pen and 1x accuracy).
The hatred rule, I just don't build a list with that in mind. It's a strange thing, but I say whatever and shrug it off.
The one thing I can't stand is that I really liked using the anvil. I know a lot of people didn't, but there was a way you could build a list with the last book that I just liked and it was my centerpiece in the army. I usually don't harp on things too bad, but they turned it into complete garbage and an absolute waste of points. Why? Seriously, why? I wouldn't even field it in a fluffy list because it's that bad! Taking the anvil now is just like saying that you are going to concede almost 500 points to your opponent. I didn't even think it was overpowered in the last book. I mean, if it blew up, you just handed over 400+ points and that was that, but when it worked, you could do a little damage, or slow your opponent down a bit, or even make miners move on the back edge of the table.. nothing terrible.. Why the nerf G-dub?
It took them long enough to release the book, and it came with a mixed bag of emotion for me, but it's still a balanced book that you have to treat differently, and that's just that.

Phazael
27-02-2014, 19:29
Lord Inquisitor pretty much summed up all I have to say about the book, especially after playing some games against it.

The overriding issue I have with this book is that it did nothing to take the boredom and/or frustration out of playing with or against dwarves. In fact, with the removal of the Snorri BSB and anvil nerfs hobbling the one combat build that existed, it arguably made things worse. This is going to end up as an army that pisses everyone off, but ultimately does not win many games anyhow, much like their chaos counterparts.

Phazael
27-02-2014, 19:32
Stupid Anvil is the biggest dropped ball in this book. They should have basically added three more bounds to the thing, Walk Between Worlds, Arcane Unforging, and Drain Magic equivalents, and made any burnout result cause the rune to be lost for the rest of the battle and maybe the runemaster take a wound. It would give the dwarves more tactical options, a secondary way around magic defense, and kept some of the flavor of banging high risk runes on the thing for greater effect. Its just a glorified magic missile bound item in cannon bait form, right now.

Cassius105
27-02-2014, 19:33
Im enjoying it so far.

Iv had 2 games so far which where both wins and have found the army to be far more interesting to play. I now actually do quite a lot in the movement phase using the gyros to steer units around and moving my units so they hit my anvil units and get flank charged by my hammerers etc. My opponents have also enjoyed it more as my best option is no longer to just sit at the back (though it will still be against some armies like WoC)

This is using a combined arms sort of list with a cannon, flame cannon 3 big combat blocks backed up with gyros

However I do agree on the hated role. I can see the fluff in it but it is silly for 1 roll to have such a huge impact on the game. I actually think the unit costs ignore it but whilst iv not managed to roll 5/6 yet I can see it swinging the entire combat phase out of balance and leaving opponents feeling they lost on 1 dice roll

CommanderCax
27-02-2014, 19:48
The Ancestral Grudge rule is ridiculous. No single die roll should ever have that much effect on the performance of an entire army. That may be one of the worst thought out rules for an army that I can remember, ever.

I absulutely concur with what you said. There was a single rule I remember though, that was even worse. The 6th edition Intrigue at Court (or however it was called) rule for High Elves. That is the only rule I remember being more silly, ridiculous and able to swing the balance by a single dice roll than the Ancestral Grudge rule. Which says a lot...

Ramius4
27-02-2014, 19:57
Im enjoying it so far.

Iv had 2 games so far which where both wins and have found the army to be far more interesting to play. I now actually do quite a lot in the movement phase using the gyros to steer units around and moving my units so they hit my anvil units and get flank charged by my hammerers etc. My opponents have also enjoyed it more as my best option is no longer to just sit at the back (though it will still be against some armies like WoC)

Except for the Hatred pre-game roll (as I mentioned above) I agree with this too. Even before the new book, most of my Dwarf lists were designed to be aggressive (Strollaz to get a few units up there, Miners, Rangers, occassionally an anvil). The new book (specifically the new Strollaz rune) just made it easier for me to play my preferred style of game. My favorite rule has to be Shieldwall.

I find gunline armies boring to play, and boring to play against (since it usually involves just rolling dice with little to no strategy involved). Shooting for me is a support tool, and the new book hasn't really changed their shooting phase much.


I absulutely concur with what you said. There was a single rule I remember though, that was even worse. The 6th edition Intrigue at Court (or however it was called) rule for High Elves. That is the only rule I remember being more silly, ridiculous and able to swing the balance by a single dice roll than the Ancestral Grudge rule. Which says a lot...

While I don't think Intrigue at Court was worse than an entire army arbitrarily gaining hatred 1/3 of the time, yes... It too was a very poorly thought out rule.

Lord Dan
27-02-2014, 20:38
Guys, this debate has been far too civil and intellectual for my comfort level... :p

Ramius4
27-02-2014, 20:43
Guys, this debate has been far too civil and intellectual for my comfort level... :p

Would it make you feel better if I call you a jerk? :p

thormon
27-02-2014, 20:58
I think external balance is ok. Not overpowered compared to other armies, and not really underpowered as well. Movement sucks ass now, albeit the cheaper gyrofishes. Combat improved a lot, as did some shooting.
Now internal balance still isn't where I want it to be. Runelords, Anvil, Bolt Throwers are no-gos, why are they even in the book? Hammerers, gyrofishes and organ guns are auto-includes. Then there is some stuff that just isn't worth it to take, like the bombfishes. The gyrofish is cheaper and probably will do more. Bombfish with a higher damage potential is still okay, but meh. More of a gimmick.
Same with the weapon runes, they feel like more of a gimmick now that +1S isn't that easily accessible. Who needs the extra AP? Same thing with the slayers, it doesn't seem like they increase strength, but just wound on a 4+ or better. Not affecting armour saves is a big thing.

Treadhead_1st
27-02-2014, 21:49
Seems balanced to me, but I have not had the opportunity to play against them yet so my opinion might change after that.

The gunline could still be the most powerful build, but with lots of Vanguard everywhere, Slayer speed-bumps, Gyrocopters, Gyrobombers and the army generally being improved in combat I think that most Dwarf players will probably tone down the shooting into a support role given that they can now actually use the movement phase and their combat infantry aggressively much more easily than before. The magical resistance has been reduced to a more sensible level, and a lot of the good options compete for the Special slot thus even though some of the units seem a little...strong, I think that opportunity (and points!) costs will limit most abuse that can be made.

Nubl0
27-02-2014, 22:22
To be honest dwarves are dwarves, there is no escaping the fact they will be slow, frustrating and not particularly fun to play. Really though there isn't much you could do to change that, because if you did it wouldn't really feel dwarfy anymore.

Wesser
27-02-2014, 23:12
I find the Hatred extremely fluffy to represent the Whole Grudge system in a fairly simple way.

Sure it is a huge deal what D6 you roll, but at least the result is never bad you you can reliably kit your General for some serious slapping.


Personally I see it as a rule where the good list will be one that's able to take good advantage of the Good Roll, but doesn't depend on it.

Kinda like Empire. Those Warrior Priests are always in danger of having their faces smashed in before the troops get to strike. Hatred is something only darkies can depend on. The rest gotta have contingency plans... but I suppose it's not proper to tell Dwarf players to "man up"?

Vipoid
27-02-2014, 23:27
Guys, this debate has been far too civil and intellectual for my comfort level... :p

Well, if it would make you feel better, I could invoke Godwin's Law and call Dwarf Players 'Stunted Nazis'.

Would that lower the tone sufficiently? :D

Timathius
28-02-2014, 02:08
I find the Hatred extremely fluffy to represent the Whole Grudge system in a fairly simple way.

Sure it is a huge deal what D6 you roll, but at least the result is never bad you you can reliably kit your General for some serious slapping.


Personally I see it as a rule where the good list will be one that's able to take good advantage of the Good Roll, but doesn't depend on it.

Kinda like Empire. Those Warrior Priests are always in danger of having their faces smashed in before the troops get to strike. Hatred is something only darkies can depend on. The rest gotta have contingency plans... but I suppose it's not proper to tell Dwarf players to "man up"?

I agree. I like the hatred roll, and find it the easiest way to represent them being ornery dwarfs.

Overall I really like the book, and the internal balance is for the most part good. I think another couple months will truly tell.

Not to mention the new models look great and are the most fun I have had painting in years. Like this puppy

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/02/28/zusatapu.jpg

Warhammerrox
28-02-2014, 04:14
I'm not too impressed so far and I've preempted the cheese builds that are too come and chose Overpowered.

I'm not well impressed by the Space Marine Tactical Squad they just got, with it it's Bolters, Flamer and Missile Launcher. And the new hatred rule is a woeful overcompensation for a problem that isn't there...

The changes to the Organ Gun make it more reliable, not OP, but more reliable, the new offense/defense rules made it more inviting to go out and seek close combat, these rules were good additions that help the Dwarf army. The Hatred rule is pure bolted on nonsense BS. The only real Hatred the Dwarfs have is for the Skaven and the Greenies, the 2 races that make a point of rampaging around old Dwarf halls smashing everything up and crapping everywhere.... Dwarfs HAAAAAAAAAAAAATE these guys!

Everybody else, meh, yeah Dwarfs might have had a few disagreements here and there, they might have had a few run-ins with Bretonnia, maybe been ripped off by some aristocratic Graff from the Empire who thought he could pull a fast one on a deal for some artisan work.... Maybe a bit of a trade dispute off the coast of Tillea.... BUT these things are all local issues, between the Dwarfs that live largely in the Empire, these things don't concern Thorgrim who's counting how many minutes Skarsnik is ******** all over Karak Eight Peeks!! Bloody pathetic...

So when an Empire player plays a game and he deploys Karl Franz on the table and some low ranking no name Dwarf lord rolls up Hatred all enemy characters, what's the justification? How exactly is he going to explain himself to the Dwarfen ruling Lords that he killed off the leader of the Dwarfen races most valued allied civilisation and trading partners? You know, the guy that carries that Hammer that was forged for them centuries ago to cement a pact of friendship and brotherhood...

Obviously he can just say "well some numpties put it in the new book!"... No, the new Hatred is a pile of Banther Poo Doo. Dwarfs only truly hate Skaven and Greenskins!

I think the amount of 'Copters that can be played are going to be a problem too.

Oh, and the Anvil has been rendered a door stop now.... Hey I believe GW are melting all their metal down to sell to the Rag-and-Bone-Man? Maybe that's the plan, you will all send in your Anvils and they will "recycle" them for you..........

While you "recycle" your money with WarmaHordes or X-Wing or Malifeux! As that scientist said at the beginning of C&C Red Alert....Only time will tell!

Lord Dan
28-02-2014, 04:50
I think the grudge/hatred system was a missed opportunity. It should have been something which evolved in-game, representing the Dwarves getting angrier with their foe as the battle wore on. Something simple:

"From Turn 4 on, all Dwarfs have the 'Hatred' special rule."

Or:

"Whenever a friendly Dwarf character is killed, all friendly Dwarf units within 12" gain the 'Hatred' special rule."

Or:

"Whenever a Dwarf unit fails combat but passes its break test, it gains the 'Hatred' special rule."

Or, if they brought back the old banner capturing system, you could have Dwarf units hate any enemy with a friendly banner. Or perhaps not dealing with Hatred at all, but still making them harder to deal with the more you **** them off:

"Whenever the Dwarf army general dies, all friendly Dwarf models gain the 'Stubborn' special rule."

Or:

"Whenever a Dwarf unit is reduced to 50% casualties, rounding up, it gains the "Stubborn" special rule."

Or they could have come up with a cool Grudge point system based on armywide casualties, characters dying, banners lost, etc., in order to come up with some kind of neat Black Coach-esque escalation system for the concept. It could have been amazing.

As it stands, it feels tacked on.

dwarfhold13
28-02-2014, 05:28
Now Lord Dan, that would have required too much thought. Something GW seems to avoid whenever they can... I do like those ideas though

EmperorNorton
28-02-2014, 09:01
"Whenever a friendly Dwarf character is killed, all friendly Dwarf units within 12" gain the 'Hatred' special rule."
Now that I would have liked.

T10
28-02-2014, 09:09
One thing I am interested in - what are people's thoughts on the 'Hatred' roll? To me, it seems like an awful lot is riding on that one d6.

I look at that table and it tells me that I should strive for a balance between close combat and shooting.

Sure, it would be sweet to have an all-out close combat army and roll 5-6 for army-wide Hatred, it's not reliable. Got to have some shooting to for when you need to play it safe. And while shooting is certainly playing it safe, on a 4-6 suddenly you got Hatred for your characters/whole army! Even a unit or two of Dwarf Warriors lets you benefit from that!

-T10

GrudgeBringer
28-02-2014, 09:38
1) double Organ gun, +1 to hit rune, +1 to hit and flaming attacks
2) engineer
3) 2-4 Gyros (but these are the fools good option, I think that in practice they won't be as devastating as one imagines
4) iron drakes
5) miners
6) 2 flame cannons (these are excellent for the mid-game stage)

All of the above are powerful and the new gyros devastate elves, skaven and low armour T4 troops. They are not that difficult to shoot down but if you fail your horde of witch elves, swordmasters, executioners is going to get destroyed long before it reaches combat.

Organ guns and flame cannons got a good boost but i would never take either without the rune of forging and units of 30 irondrakes are just brutal since they can swift reform with no penalties. The problem is that they are all rare all quite expensive, the runed up organ gun you want is 170 points and the flame cannon 165. Rare slots have just become a major premium and the gyrobomber which is good and wipes out hordes even better than the normal gyro is unlikely to be fielded very often because the other options are even better.

Urgat
28-02-2014, 10:04
Guys, this debate has been far too civil and intellectual for my comfort level... :p


All the grief was spent on the magic phase topic I believe :p

Vipoid
28-02-2014, 10:14
I think the grudge/hatred system was a missed opportunity. It should have been something which evolved in-game, representing the Dwarves getting angrier with their foe as the battle wore on. Something simple:

"From Turn 4 on, all Dwarfs have the 'Hatred' special rule."

Or:

"Whenever a friendly Dwarf character is killed, all friendly Dwarf units within 12" gain the 'Hatred' special rule."

Or:

"Whenever a Dwarf unit fails combat but passes its break test, it gains the 'Hatred' special rule."

Or, if they brought back the old banner capturing system, you could have Dwarf units hate any enemy with a friendly banner. Or perhaps not dealing with Hatred at all, but still making them harder to deal with the more you **** them off:

"Whenever the Dwarf army general dies, all friendly Dwarf models gain the 'Stubborn' special rule."

Or:

"Whenever a Dwarf unit is reduced to 50% casualties, rounding up, it gains the "Stubborn" special rule."

Or they could have come up with a cool Grudge point system based on armywide casualties, characters dying, banners lost, etc., in order to come up with some kind of neat Black Coach-esque escalation system for the concept. It could have been amazing.

As it stands, it feels tacked on.

Those are some great ideas.

Kingly
28-02-2014, 10:52
Wow I love the progressive anger rule, that would be amazing!

CommanderCax
28-02-2014, 11:59
While I don't think Intrigue at Court was worse than an entire army arbitrarily gaining hatred 1/3 of the time, yes... It too was a very poorly thought out rule. It was similar random and unbalanced. It decided between having a Ld 10 Lord or a Ld 8 Mage as General. And that at a time where you had to make a lot more panic checks and fear had stronger ramifications than nowadays and the BSB had no influence on these checks...

Alltaken
28-02-2014, 12:58
Well hatred could have been done way better, or say simpler. Add a magic hierloom. Book of grudges, it gives hatred on X radius, or to x unit the character is in, or hate X enemy unit with a marker. Lets go even further, make it stackable, 1 entry = hatred, 2 adds swiftstride, 3 adds ASF.
That idea is auto hammerers right, but it's just for the sake of examples. I too disagree with overly random rolls. Lords or all character hatred on a D2 roll would have been better if we keep in line with the original concept adjusting points down across the board.

Personally I dont like hammerers, after watching some battle reports they look squishy (which isnt auto bad, iirc only chaos warriors have 2hw units with 4+ as).
With this in mind they do need to be the most evidently the flanking unit to reduce incoming attacks.
With that in mind I much rather play them in small blocks (never more than 20, say 15).
Small units with big banner alotment doesnt seem right, I much rather have big block or anvil units get the big banners (Iron brakers).
Fluff wise it makes sense that the kings guard takes the big banner to battle, but I dont feel it working in game.
I would rather have them get an extra point in armor save, as they deserve or have them figth in 3 ranks for free and then I might like then really and feel they are elite.
I would love also for longbeards with 2hw to cost less than hammerers and be a real poor mans option for them.

From my servoskull

Alltaken
28-02-2014, 12:59
Please delete

Lord Inquisitor
28-02-2014, 17:59
I look at that table and it tells me that I should strive for a balance between close combat and shooting.

Sure, it would be sweet to have an all-out close combat army and roll 5-6 for army-wide Hatred, it's not reliable. Got to have some shooting to for when you need to play it safe. And while shooting is certainly playing it safe, on a 4-6 suddenly you got Hatred for your characters/whole army! Even a unit or two of Dwarf Warriors lets you benefit from that!

-T10
Or put great weapons on your quarrellers. That strikes me as the default core choice. Only if I wanted stubborn might I look to longbeards.

Archon of Death
01-03-2014, 02:28
I can't vote. The Hatred rolling makes Dwarfs somewhere between the two mostly balanced. Either overpowered when you roll a 5 or 6, balanced for 3 and 4, and underpowered if you roll a 1 or 2.