PDA

View Full Version : Dwarfs Seem...Boring



InstantKarma
05-03-2014, 20:51
As a disclaimer, I have been bouncing between an army to play for Warhammer so many times that it could be a drinking game.

That being said, I picked up the Dwarf Army Book, and I got really excited. New Runes/Combos, a few new shineys, great new kits. I was thinking, 'Yeah, this time I've found my army! This time will be different!'

After only a few weeks, and I groan when I try to make an army list. I just seems so tedious to insert another variation on 'great weapon wielding short bearded man unit'.

I'm sure this is mostly me, and not something that should reflect poorly on Dwarfs. After all, it is sort of their thing that they are pretty much all infantry & warmachines.

IcedCrow
05-03-2014, 21:28
Depends on the style of play you are after really. I am a castle type player. The dwarf army excites me.

Malagor
05-03-2014, 21:49
Or you could just not add a great-weapon wielding units.
If anything the new book has made hw/s units better and worth adding.

SpanielBear
05-03-2014, 21:51
My Wood Elves, scalded and soggy after today's unexpected steam-bath, would humbly disagree with the idea of a boring play style. Three Gyro-copters and a bomber make for a terrifyingly mobile battle squadron.

Wood Elves don't surf. I'm gonna change my Noble's name to Charlie...

The bearded one
05-03-2014, 22:04
I'll show you boring! Unleash the gyrocopter circus! Make it rain!

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
05-03-2014, 22:04
The gyros added an interesting element to dwarf play. Otherwise they remain a book of "castle in front of my warmachines, and deal with the enemy when they reach me." At M6 on the march you're not able to do much of anything else. A guy in my group calls the new dwarf book "a masterpiece in missed opportunities," and I pretty much agree. There's a lot in there that's awesome, but they had an opportunity to do something interesting with dwarfs and just ended up with more of the same.

Darnok
05-03-2014, 23:21
A guy in my group calls the new dwarf book "a masterpiece in missed opportunities," and I pretty much agree. There's a lot in there that's awesome, but they had an opportunity to do something interesting with dwarfs and just ended up with more of the same.

This sums it up almost perfectly.

That said: I like the new Dwarf book. While on a macro scale they stayed pretty much the same, on the micro scale there are a lot of more subtle changes. Almost all units in the book are at least solid (with the Runelord, Anvil and boltthrower being the exceptions), and most of the available options have a point. In my opinion the internal balance is great. Wether Dwarfs fit your playstyle is another question though - but then that's not the books fault to begin with.

Montegue
05-03-2014, 23:22
Vanguard. on any unit you want. gyros. Scouting Rangers. Miners. War machines.

I'm not going to say the book has a ton of variety in terms of model types - it doesn't. but the new book has definitely expanded the possibilities of list building for the army. What will an enemy to do win if your points are packed into a series of stubborn, brutal close comabt units in the middle of the board? how are they going to over come a stubborn gunline? What are they going to do when surrounded by vanguarding dwarf elite units, miners, and rangers?

ewar
06-03-2014, 00:02
Depends on the style of play you are after really. I am a castle type player. The dwarf army excites me.

'Castle' and 'excite' should not be included in the same sentence... :shifty:

theunwantedbeing
06-03-2014, 00:08
'Castle' and 'excite' should not be included in the same sentence... :shifty:

Depends on the castle :P
(I'm talking about actual medieval type castles)

The new dwarves seem dull because they are dull.
Admittedly less so than they used to be, now they've got a bunch more options available to them (or rather, the options available are now more obvious and competitive with the boring options).

IcedCrow
06-03-2014, 00:11
'Castle' and 'excite' should not be included in the same sentence... :shifty:

Different strokes for different folks. I play a defensive roman historical army as well.

I find running my force into the middle of the table like a sumo wrestler slamming bellies not very exciting either but some people swear by it.

thesoundofmusica
06-03-2014, 00:20
I'll show you boring! Unleash the gyrocopter circus! Make it rain!

Made me think of this http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vSh7FVzm-ys
This will be my warcry from now on!

Lord Dan
06-03-2014, 01:51
Make it rain!
MAKE IT RAIN ON THEM FOES!


Vanguard. on any unit you want. gyros. Scouting Rangers. Miners. War machines.

I'm not going to say the book has a ton of variety in terms of model types - it doesn't. but the new book has definitely expanded the possibilities of list building for the army. What will an enemy to do win if your points are packed into a series of stubborn, brutal close comabt units in the middle of the board? how are they going to over come a stubborn gunline? What are they going to do when surrounded by vanguarding dwarf elite units, miners, and rangers?

This.

Seriously, I'm having a blast with Dwarfs right now.

Khorneflakes
06-03-2014, 02:14
castle and excite were not in the same sentence, you will notice the . separating them

I Am Forsaken
06-03-2014, 09:06
The more worrying part about your exciting castle is that your name is Khorneflakes, unless of course the Blood God eats your dwarfs for breakfast :P

I've only had a quick glance at the book and teamed up with the stunties in 1 game (i was brets) but it does seem to be alot of the same with the exception of the gyros (our dwarf player doesnt have any yet so i wont comment on them till he gets some).

Lord Dan
06-03-2014, 09:12
It's only the same if you want it to be the same. Even with the loss of our (admittedly OP) Anvil as a viable movement tool, between Strollaz rune, the aformentioned bump to Gyros, improved combat ability for all units (between reasonably frequent army-wide hatred, access to Stubborn everything, bonuses to S and parry when charging and charged, etc.), the option to have a ward save against incoming shooting as you trudge forward, and absolute board control between units like Rangers and Miners, people castling up in a corner are doing so because they choose to, not because they have to.

Artinam
06-03-2014, 12:34
I'm in the missed opportunities camp. Nice new models, cute new rules but little that really changed the play style for them. No big monsterlike creature or Monsterous infantry. Something big and unique. All the 'new' units seem quite redundant, Iron Drakes while a cool idea are just another shooting unit and the gyrobomber isn't that more special then the gyrocopter.
Still I love how Strollaz rune works and the inclusion of gyrocopters in special as well as rare scouting ranger makes them more mobile.

For me I feel that the biggest missed opportunity is the lacking magic phase with the anvil (or bound spell runic items), makes them still quite the same and unable to compete in this phase. Faster moving things (something between a Dwarf and a Gyrocopter) would have been great and would have made the army more flexible.

For veteran Dwarven players its a positive change that the old way the army played (with the same units) is still very viable, meaning you don't need to invest a lot of money to make your army playable again.

Alltaken
06-03-2014, 13:08
Actually not having a big kit is more unique really, they probably are the ones with out it or mounstrous I and C.
They did miss hard on magic and rune bound spelling a walk between worlds should have been a given to replace old movement rune.
I would have liked for a more marked diference in special rules between hammerers, long beards and iron breakers to really broaden the strategic options for army build. I think shield wall and gromril shield wall are pretty poor executions

From my servoskull

ewar
06-03-2014, 13:16
Different strokes for different folks. I play a defensive roman historical army as well.

I find running my force into the middle of the table like a sumo wrestler slamming bellies not very exciting either but some people swear by it.

I don't think the only ways to play the game are 'castle' or 'belly slam', but I can safely say that Dwarf castling armies are the most unfun games I've ever had.

At least back when table quarters gave VPs you could have a slim win by just not engaging them and taking the quarters. I've had to actually tell a dwarf player before that if he wants to bunker up in the corner on a hill then I will happily sit 6 turns drinking my beer and sitting in the opposite corner, before snatching 3 of 4 quarters on the final turn. Shame that doesn't work any more, but I still won't just walk forward to get shot and crushed by great weapons.


castle and excite were not in the same sentence, you will notice the . separating them

Let's all have a slow round of applause for internet pedantry :rolleyes:

IcedCrow
06-03-2014, 13:26
I don't think the only ways to play the game are 'castle' or 'belly slam',

Didn't mean to insinuate that they were the only ways to play the game. However, I was using another common style of play (the sumo belly slam) as an example of a style that I don't find particularly engaging either.

Urgat
06-03-2014, 13:40
Well, at least something happens on the table when two bellyslam armies face each other. When it's two castling ones, whoohoo! :p Anybody witnessed that? It's... epic.

Borgomos
06-03-2014, 13:43
I have yet to be disappointed by any Vetock Book i own (That about covers Skaven, Lizardmen, Dwarves, and Tau Empire).

Don't know why, but most of his design choices click so well with my tastes.

IcedCrow
06-03-2014, 13:49
I guess having grown up on historicals and having played many a scenario that involved one force castling that I don't mind it.

Spiney Norman
06-03-2014, 13:55
I guess having grown up on historicals and having played many a scenario that involved one force castling that I don't mind it.

And in fairness, now that the formerly impenetrable dwarf magic defense has been downgraded to merely ironclad you have a chance of standing out of range of the castled forces and lobbing some damage spells over the top :D

InstantKarma
06-03-2014, 15:04
I have yet to be disappointed by any Vetock Book i own (That about covers Skaven, Lizardmen, Dwarves, and Tau Empire).

Don't know why, but most of his design choices click so well with my tastes.

Oh I agree. As a Tau player I very much appreciated the Vetock touch (even if it has drawn all the hate of the 40k community).

I am sure this is more me than the Dwarfs themselves. I did say 'seem boring' deliberately. I wanted to see other opinions, but also just sorta vent my frustration on not being able to find an army/style that I can really get excited about playing. I'm glad others have found the new book to really light a match under what was stereotyped (at least on the internetz) as a very static army.

ewar
06-03-2014, 16:24
He seems like such a nice bloke and all round good hobbyist, but the internal balance of his books sucks. The costing of the LM monsters is all over the place, the rules screw ups and general balance of the skaven book is horrible, dwarfs I can't comment on and Tau might as well be renamed Codex:Riptide for all the value players get from other unit entries.

His codex writing gets 2.5/5 from me.

Phazael
06-03-2014, 17:54
Vetock writes good stuff. He is arguably the best rules writer they have left. As much as people hate on Tau, they are just solid in the one area of the game that is emphasized in 40k this edition and even in that they have gotten eclipsed by the Eldar and Daemon books. The issue is that there is not a lot that you can do with Dwarves to make them less miserable to play with/against without changing their core nature. And as much as I loath them, the metagame of fantasy needs dwarves to keep certain things in check.

Alltaken
06-03-2014, 19:29
On vetock, I dont know overly much about him, but the LM book was a step back from 7th and the Hell pit is very brutal, more than it should be

From my servoskull

HalfBlood
06-03-2014, 20:58
Dwarfs are pretty boring.

-They barely move.
-They have no magic.

Basically skipping 2 out of the 4 phases of the game.

Tato
06-03-2014, 21:34
Dwarfs are pretty boring.

-They barely move.
-They have no magic.

Basically skipping 2 out of the 4 phases of the game.

This is an old steteotype. Time to update your books to 8th ed. :)

HalfBlood
06-03-2014, 21:40
This is an old steteotype. Time to update your books to 8th ed. :)

Not really. Since I still feel they are boring for those reasons.

I'd never play an army that does not use magic. It just seems to dull

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

SpanielBear
06-03-2014, 22:08
Dwarfs are pretty boring.

-They barely move.
-They have no magic.

Basically skipping 2 out of the 4 phases of the game.

To be honest though, if they had both of those, wouldn't they be WoC with better shooting?

Dwarfs haven't changed much, but their weaknesses are ones that have defined them for several editions- even the old anvil isn't the same as a bunch of tooled up mages when it comes to a varied magic phase.

Dwarves strike me as the marmite of the Fantasy races. Either you love playing them, or you hate them. Their play style has been refined, opened out a bit, but it is fair to say it hasn't been radicalised.

To say that as a criticism, however, is in my opinion a mistake. GW likes to keep its armies operating in certain ways, in keeping with how they interpret their character. The chances of seeing speedy magical dwarves was as unlikely as there being T6 Elves or undead hand-gunners.

Just my opinion, of course.

HalfBlood
06-03-2014, 22:19
To be honest though, if they had both of those, wouldn't they be WoC with better shooting?

Dwarfs haven't changed much, but their weaknesses are ones that have defined them for several editions- even the old anvil isn't the same as a bunch of tooled up mages when it comes to a varied magic phase.

Dwarves strike me as the marmite of the Fantasy races. Either you love playing them, or you hate them. Their play style has been refined, opened out a bit, but it is fair to say it hasn't been radicalised.

To say that as a criticism, however, is in my opinion a mistake. GW likes to keep its armies operating in certain ways, in keeping with how they interpret their character. The chances of seeing speedy magical dwarves was as unlikely as there being T6 Elves or undead hand-gunners.

Just my opinion, of course.


Every army needs to stand out. No magic, strong shooting, and low movement is what the dwarf army is all about. Now for me this is a complete turn-off. This is also a huge turn off for many other players.

SpanielBear
06-03-2014, 22:29
Every army needs to stand out. No magic, strong shooting, and low movement is what the dwarf army is all about. Now for me this is a complete turn-off. This is also a huge turn off for many other players.

That's fair. Not everyone is going to like every army, or enjoy playing them even if they think the fluff is fun.

For example, I love dinosaurs, and the Aztec/alien/Crstal Skull background of the Lizardmen is excellent. But the idea of painting that much scaly skin is a real turn off for me. I can understand others feeling the same way about Dwarves, or even my beloved Wood Elves. :)

CountUlrich
06-03-2014, 23:06
What I hate about dwarves is that I love fantasy dwarves. They are my favorite race. Back in my d&d days I strongly trended towards them. I love them in books. I love the imagery of them. But I agree that for me as well, the whfb version is ... just ... so ... dull. I hate playing them and couldnt being myself to being them. Now if they do at some point bring allies I to the next edition I might well field a few in my Empire force, but as an army book ... disapointing.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
06-03-2014, 23:29
He seems like such a nice bloke and all round good hobbyist, but the internal balance of his books sucks. The costing of the LM monsters is all over the place, the rules screw ups and general balance of the skaven book is horrible, dwarfs I can't comment on and Tau might as well be renamed Codex:Riptide for all the value players get from other unit entries.

His codex writing gets 2.5/5 from me.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion I guess, I think JV has done some good work and some not-so-good, Lizardmen was one of his better books, I think the internal balance is very consistent (with the possible exception of the troglodon), and this is also the case with the greenskin and dwarf books. In 40k he did a good job of Dark angels, but Tau on the other hand are are an absolute abomination, both internally (the riptide being the standout choice) and externally, likewise the Skaven book was a complete mess in all sorts of ways, I think the FAQ actually has more pages than the army list itself.

ewar
07-03-2014, 00:14
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion I guess, I think JV has done some good work and some not-so-good, Lizardmen was one of his better books, I think the internal balance is very consistent (with the possible exception of the troglodon), and this is also the case with the greenskin and dwarf books. In 40k he did a good job of Dark angels, but Tau on the other hand are are an absolute abomination, both internally (the riptide being the standout choice) and externally, likewise the Skaven book was a complete mess in all sorts of ways, I think the FAQ actually has more pages than the army list itself.

I agree mostly, I find his work to be in the middle as generally he has a good 'feel' for an army, but also has some real 'wtf' moments like when I first read the Abom rules in 7th. The LM book is fine but it's basically unchanged from the previous book which is a bit of a turn off for me, I was hoping the new stuff would be more useable in games rather than being 150 worth of pretty plastic on my shelf. I haven't played the DA book yet, but from what I read it seems ok, the flyer being an exception.

I actually think Cruddace has the best grasp of where the power level of armies should lie (I know saying that is a recipe for a flame war :) ) but if you compare his books to his other books they're all pretty nicely balanced, even internal balance is good, though I don't get his habit of giving useless upgrades to models (purchase poison on a model with killing blow?).

Ward I can't make up my mind on - his past crimes against table top gamers means I'm reserving a space in my personal Hell for him. But then again, the HE and DE books are both solid (if bloated). There is a small, evil part of me that wishes he'd done Tomb Kings, just to see how he would have approached it. I at least think he has a good grasp of where things should lie cost wise (some obvious glaring 7th ed examples excepting).

Anyway, this is completely off topic. I can't decide about the dwarf book until I've played it but the ancestral grudge rule is bloody awful and a bit typical of Vetocks 'throw dice and remove a whole enemy unit a la Dreaded Thirteenth' hilarious mentality.

Lorm
07-03-2014, 00:16
He seems like such a nice bloke and all round good hobbyist, but the internal balance of his books sucks. The costing of the LM monsters is all over the place, the rules screw ups and general balance of the skaven book is horrible, dwarfs I can't comment on and Tau might as well be renamed Codex:Riptide for all the value players get from other unit entries.

His codex writing gets 2.5/5 from me.

Same humble opinion.
I actually hate him... all his army books, both fantasy and 40k, are just full of overpowered silliness (+1R to terminators if they're base-to-base, why? Why are they the only ones capable of doing so? ; just don't make me started with night goblins, those guys with sniping fanatics who can also throw nets reducing the strength of enemies in close combat, obviously including charging chariots and their impact hits or dragons and their thunderstomp... wtf... but the list of stupidity is much longer)
Internal balance for him just means you can play what he likes you to play most (usually attack-boosted close combat hordes)
But most of the people (not all of course), like him because if your army is powerful how can you complain? (that's childish behavior IMHO)

Anyway i was thinking the Dwarfs army book was written by the "design studio", like all the latest codexes (?) for 40k, or i'm just missing the author?
If i'm right maybe they're trying to make more consistent books by using a single mixed studio rather than groups led by single mad authors...

corps
07-03-2014, 00:42
I actually think Cruddace has the best grasp of where the power level of armies should lie (I know saying that is a recipe for a flame war

Really?

SOB: flame
Empire: flame
Tomb king: flame.
other.... FLAME
no internal balance, no external balance; lazy work (SOB who have a copy/paste line of BT)

Back to the topic i thinks the dwarf book is good but im a litlle disapointed that a pnitent enine like for killing MC/ MI/ M. like the one from mageknight. Or a heroes ridding a giant mole like the unit from the videogame Shadow Magic.

For me it s not what they better or not that matter it s more the missed opportunity to have bring something really new.

The bearded one
07-03-2014, 01:18
I just realised Vetock has now written the books for my three main armies; all three updated within the space of one year. Tau, Lizardmen and Dwarfs. I think lizardmen and dwarfs both have a couple of missed oppertunities in terms of creativity/blandness, but I am incredibly pleased with Tau, where I feel practically overwhelmed with the sheer number of effective potential builds and combo's, even in Riptide-less armies (but I do have one because I enjoy the model) and enjoy the very strong inter-supporting vibe the army has, rather than a selection of seperate units. Dwarfs and lizardmen have some units that seem wasted due to their effects of pointcost (troglodon, cold one cavalry, the anvils poor boundspells, boltthrowers) but on the whole very enjoyable.

Spiney Norman
07-03-2014, 07:44
I actually think Cruddace has the best grasp of where the power level of armies should lie (I know saying that is a recipe for a flame war :) ) but if you compare his books to his other books they're all pretty nicely balanced, even internal balance is good, though I don't get his habit of giving useless upgrades to models (purchase poison on a model with killing blow?).


I'm not really sure where to go with that, with one exception (space marines) every book he has written has been a shade of awful. Tomb kings are universally knowledged as the weakest and least balanced book of the edition, sisters of battle have had two cripplingly bad books in the last few years and he wrote both of them.

I'm hopeful that he is getting better as his last book was alright, but past experience tells me that it could just easily have been a momentary blip on his trend of useless garbage.

In fairness to JV over Lizardmen and dwarfs he was given the bear minimum of new models to work with, when you're told that the only new units you've got to add to the army lists are iron breakers with guns and a gyrocopter with bombs on the back there not much you can do with it...

Urgat
07-03-2014, 08:16
On vetock, I dont know overly much about him, but the LM book was a step back from 7th and the Hell pit is very brutal, more than it should be

From my servoskull

Who cares about that? He wrote the best OnG armybook to date, so he's the best writer to date. Everything else is inconsequential :p
(note: the OnG book is certainly not perfect, there's stuff that saddens me like the snots or hoppers, but really, on the whole, the book's wonderful).

T10
07-03-2014, 08:30
I'll show you boring! Unleash the gyrocopter circus! Make it rain!

Well duh! If you're going to use the kewl new stuff, then of course the Dwarfs are going to be fun! But that doesn't change the fact that you can't have many fun army variants if you just use the most boring units. GW should have seen this coming: They have failed this community.

I think everyone should buy the new Hammerers set, assemble and paint a unit, then pick one model and step on it (use foot-wear!). Send a picture of the mangled model (if stomping was successful) to GW to let them know!

-T10

Urgat
07-03-2014, 09:31
I pondered for a whle, and decided you were good at irony. I hope I was right :p

Lorm
07-03-2014, 11:01
Who cares about that? He wrote the best OnG armybook to date, so he's the best writer to date. Everything else is inconsequential :p
(note: the OnG book is certainly not perfect, there's stuff that saddens me like the snots or hoppers, but really, on the whole, the book's wonderful).
I saw this coming...

But most of the people (not all of course), like him because if your army is powerful how can you complain?
And i had experiences with Cruddace too, playing Empire and Warriors of Chaos in fantasy and Space Marines and Tyranids in 40k; all of his books have serious flaws, ineffective synergies, bad rules' writing, a lot of point-related issues, etc...

But anyway i keep not finding the author of Dwarfs, it was just a rumor that vetock wrote it.
Someone with the book can confirm he wrote it or not? It's usually written of the first pages and when i checked with my friend that bought the book we just found this: "written by the design studio" , but maybe we were looking in the wrong place

ewar
07-03-2014, 11:27
I'm not really sure where to go with that, with one exception (space marines) every book he has written has been a shade of awful. Tomb kings are universally knowledged as the weakest and least balanced book of the edition, sisters of battle have had two cripplingly bad books in the last few years and he wrote both of them.

I'm hopeful that he is getting better as his last book was alright, but past experience tells me that it could just easily have been a momentary blip on his trend of useless garbage.

In fairness to JV over Lizardmen and dwarfs he was given the bear minimum of new models to work with, when you're told that the only new units you've got to add to the army lists are iron breakers with guns and a gyrocopter with bombs on the back there not much you can do with it...

I said between his own books - Tomb Kings aren't as weak as everyone makes out, I do just fine with them. What I was saying was that I wish all books were at that overall level, rather than the Nurgle DP level or Wards rather erratic tendencies. I think where Cruddace falls down is external balance.

duffybear1988
07-03-2014, 12:19
'Castle' and 'excite' should not be included in the same sentence... :shifty:

Awww no fair - ever been to Harlech castle? Every time I visit I get excited. It's just so awesome.

Tato
07-03-2014, 12:22
Every army needs to stand out. No magic, strong shooting, and low movement is what the dwarf army is all about. Now for me this is a complete turn-off. This is also a huge turn off for many other players.

I do understand this viewpoint, more than you would suppose :) I have 3 fantasy armies: Dwarfs, TK and DoC, and Dwarfs sat on the shelf for two years now, because... I considered them boring. The new book changes stuff quite dramatically (however not revolutionarily). Dwarf magic is still nonexistent (one can't seriously consider the Anvil a viable choice), but in terms of movement Dwarfs are much better off than many other armies (not even close to compare with aforementioned TK). Vanguard and Scout on almost everything? Up to 8 flying machines in an army? Always march? Can smash face from turn one? Seriously, Dwarfs are one of the more manouvreable armies now.

So, of course as much as I understand that you do not want to play a non-magical army, for me, as a person finding fun in CC Dwarfs are the new source of constant excitment. Now it is time for TK to lead a shelf life (I can't come even close to mastering them like Ewar does and their no-march policy is an epitome of static army for me).

Spiney Norman
07-03-2014, 12:45
I said between his own books - Tomb Kings aren't as weak as everyone makes out, I do just fine with them. What I was saying was that I wish all books were at that overall level, rather than the Nurgle DP level or Wards rather erratic tendencies. I think where Cruddace falls down is external balance.

You might be right, my vision is highly coloured by the unbelievable train-wreck he did on sisters of battle, not once, but twice, nothing else he has done comes close to that level, in fact no other codex GW has released in the last 4 editions has been as bad as either of those two.

Tomb kings isn't too bad, but it is consistently underpowered compared to every other 8th edition army book, not enough that you will lose every game, but enough to make you realise what an uphill struggle you've got ahead of you. The TK release was somewhat rescued by the awesome job they did on the tomb guard and sphinx models.

InstantKarma
07-03-2014, 13:56
Don't forget Tyranids two books in a row. I know technically the most recent one was credited to some GW committee, but I think we're all pretty sure Cruddace ran that committee, just like the recent Dwarfs book was a Vetock led group. I don't think GW counted on it's customers having enough literary sense to pick out who was in charge of which book, even if they decided to stop crediting authorship to a single person.

I think for Dwarfs, what has got me is the lack of troop types, which is one of their 'shticks'. I thought this wouldn't be an issue, and yes, the re-tooled Copter/Bomber help to mitigate what can feel like an uneventful movement phase. I do confess I was one of those guys hoping for a more active Anvil of Doom ie, more innate bound spells (and more powerful ones at that).

Again, I don't think this is necessarily the Dwarfs fault, in the sense of 'You must be entertaining to me!', but rather their fault because this is a characteristic that defines the Dwarfs.

thrawn
07-03-2014, 14:11
As a disclaimer, I have been bouncing between an army to play for Warhammer so many times that it could be a drinking game.

That being said, I picked up the Dwarf Army Book, and I got really excited. New Runes/Combos, a few new shineys, great new kits. I was thinking, 'Yeah, this time I've found my army! This time will be different!'

After only a few weeks, and I groan when I try to make an army list. I just seems so tedious to insert another variation on 'great weapon wielding short bearded man unit'.

I'm sure this is mostly me, and not something that should reflect poorly on Dwarfs. After all, it is sort of their thing that they are pretty much all infantry & warmachines.

i agree it is boring. i play chaos dwarfs which has even more options, and even they are boring to play. i'm going to be heading back to my high elves soon.

tiger g
07-03-2014, 14:27
They play like dwarfs. Not sure why some people want them to be different. The play style is for some. Those that do not like it will find another army to play. I think they look great. Will never play them thought as I have never liked their style.

Croaker2
07-03-2014, 15:35
Vanguard. on any unit you want. gyros. Scouting Rangers. Miners. War machines.

I'm not going to say the book has a ton of variety in terms of model types - it doesn't. but the new book has definitely expanded the possibilities of list building for the army. What will an enemy to do win if your points are packed into a series of stubborn, brutal close comabt units in the middle of the board? how are they going to over come a stubborn gunline? What are they going to do when surrounded by vanguarding dwarf elite units, miners, and rangers?

I'd argue that the ambush list has become worse with the current book.

I used to have 2 hordes of rangers (with Bugman, 1 if he's not allowed) right in the enemy's face. Strollaz is weaker now (IMO). You can only get it on 3 units, 1 of which has to be Hammerers. (or 4 units if you take Ungrim)

With the old strollaz there were more - You can get a lot of units in a 24" diameter circle. Plus the 2 rangers deployed in the enemy's face - with the old Strollaz you could have them 6" from the enemy line at the start of the game. Plus they were core.

Now in my ambush army Rangers fight for points with irondrakes and gyrobombers. And I have to fill 600-625 core points with units that don't participate in the ambush (useless to me).

No more rune of brotherhood so you can't put characters in units of Rangers or Miners. Plus rangers now pay for throwing axes and crossbows. Why would I want 2 different ranged weapons on the same unit? Useless except in very specific circumstances. And expensive.

Moving Gyros to special and increasing the numbers was a help.

T10
07-03-2014, 15:50
I pondered for a whle, and decided you were good at irony. I hope I was right :p

Indeed. :)

Lord Dan
07-03-2014, 16:19
I used to have 2 hordes of rangers (with Bugman, 1 if he's not allowed) right in the enemy's face.
Weren't rangers a 0-1 choice before?



Strollaz is weaker now (IMO). You can only get it on 3 units, 1 of which has to be Hammerers.
Er...what? Instead of a mighty 6" pre-game advance with the old Strollaz, you're starting out 12" up the table. You can also get the same ability out of units which aren't bunched up within 12" (like you had to with the old Strollaz), and can take the rune on something other than a BSB.

theunwantedbeing
07-03-2014, 16:33
Weren't rangers a 0-1 choice before?
Yup, Bugmans gave the extra one.
They're 0-2 now (0-4 in grand armies), it's not a big change really.


Er...what? Instead of a mighty 6" pre-game advance with the old Strollaz, you're starting out 12" up the table. You can also get the same ability out of units which aren't bunched up within 12" (like you had to with the old Strollaz), and can take the rune on something other than a BSB.

Deploy the scouts 12" away directly in front of the enemy.
BsB toting strollaz deplolys behind them, the back of the scout unit is within 12" and the scouts then get a 6" move forwards to be 6" from the enemy.

Seems rather pointless if you ask me.
Turn 1 either you charge, or the enemy flanks you.

You can get 3 non hammerer unit's toting strollaz now to put them 12" nearer the enemy.
(example, both unit's of irondrakes you've taken so they can shoot the enemy immediately, and the bsb sit's in your core horde).
You can get Strollaz onto all 3 unit's of Hammerers that can be taken in addition to the above 3 units.

0-3 Miner units can still be taken as well and they've got a slightly improved ambush now.
So overall you can have an entire dwarf army that starts the game well in charge range of the enemy with 3 unit's ready to turn up the following turn.

Timathius
07-03-2014, 16:36
Weren't rangers a 0-1 choice before?



Er...what? Instead of a mighty 6" pre-game advance with the old Strollaz, you're starting out 12" up the table. You can also get the same ability out of units which aren't bunched up within 12" (like you had to with the old Strollaz), and can take the rune on something other than a BSB.

I dont think they were 0-1. I know that you could at least do 2 if one was bugman's unit

Lord Dan
07-03-2014, 20:21
I just checked. They were, indeed, 0-1, except that Bugman gave the army a second unit which didn't count toward the "Ranger or Longbeard" limit.

KalEf
08-03-2014, 02:44
I love the new book! It held close to what WFB dwarfs are to me... However, I wanted there to be an option for a retrofitted-gyro bomber that dropped off dudes instead of bombs. Something like "1 unit of up to 8 infantry models may embark a RF-gyro (limiting it to slayers and rangers). only engineer or slayer characters may join an embarking unit and they can not take the overall embarking models beyond 8". Maybe, have a cover-fire rule that gives the enemy strikes last if they take a wound from "cover-fire". I will be making the model anyway, but it will use the rules for a normal bomber and dropping off crippled slayers who would have no other way to get into battle... maybe forgeworld will come up big on this one! seems right up their alley.

mbh1127
08-03-2014, 02:47
I'll show you boring! Unleash the gyrocopter circus! Make it rain!

ugh

that does not feel like dwarfs


Dwarfs have the potential to be a bore to play against but that's up to the payer. The new book definitely helps the fun factor if the list is built that way.

WLBjork
08-03-2014, 07:11
In fairness to JV over Lizardmen and dwarfs he was given the bear minimum of new models to work with, when you're told that the only new units you've got to add to the army lists are iron breakers with guns and a gyrocopter with bombs on the back there not much you can do with it...

Not sure on the Lizardmen, but the Dwarf book was written in 2012 - which means that it wasn't released until the models were designed for the new units...

Lorm
08-03-2014, 10:33
Not sure on the Lizardmen, but the Dwarf book was written in 2012 - which means that it wasn't released until the models were designed for the new units...
I'm pretty sure rules are made for models and not the opposite, at least it has been so in the last few years; it was a thing of the past to include in a codex rules for some extra units, that could be done and released in a future codex (chaos warshrine, mycetic spore, etc...)

Gutpaunch
08-03-2014, 12:34
I played against a chum with his new "updated" dwarf army and I decided to try something completely different from my normal army, a pure Khorne daemon army.
I usually beat him every time (ogres, vampires, Lizardmen etc etc) but he spanked me this game.

Granted...my khorne cannon only did 1 wound on his cannon on turn 1.
Granted...my other cannon failed to kill 1 of his organ guns on turn 1.
Granted...his cannon then went on to brutalise my Bloodcrushers before I finally killed it.
Granted...my cannon went "poof" due to me getting the "affects every khorne unit on the table" thing on the winds of magic roll thingy.
Granted...my letters failed to run down his fleeing dwarf unit.

Blah blah blah, I had a very unlucky game but he won....so we both enjoyed it and Im looking forward to facing his army as he tests out the new rules etc, particularly the gyros when he gets some :)

Oh, a tooled up runed up Dwarf lord and Runesmith etc are sods to take down!

Lord Dan
08-03-2014, 16:55
A tooled up Dwarf Lord is dropping a Bloodthirster.

EDIT: I should probably back that up with something like, you know, math, right? I run my Lord with the D6 wound rune, Rune of Might, and a 5++ on shieldbearers. Nice and simple:

BT: 7 attacks, 4.66 hits, 3.11 wounds, 1.03 after saves.
DL: 4 attacks, 2 hits, 1.66 wound, 1.11 after saves, multiplied into 3.88.

Bloodthirster dies next turn, at which point my Lord is basically down to his original profile's wound value.

Vipoid
08-03-2014, 17:00
A tooled up Dwarf Lord is dropping a Bloodthirster.

What runes has that dwarf lord got?

WLBjork
08-03-2014, 20:29
I'm pretty sure rules are made for models and not the opposite, at least it has been so in the last few years; it was a thing of the past to include in a codex rules for some extra units, that could be done and released in a future codex (chaos warshrine, mycetic spore, etc...)

Which fits in with having sat on the army book for 2 years. Pretty much since a certain company released their version of a model first, throwing GW into a fit...

Lord Dan
08-03-2014, 21:48
What runes has that dwarf lord got?
I can't remember the Master Rune name, but it's the one which does D6 wounds, combined with Rune of Might and the talismanic runes granting a 5++. I've been really happy with him so far, as he tears apart monsters, characters, and monstrous infantry alike.

theunwantedbeing
08-03-2014, 23:23
I can't remember the Master Rune name, but it's the one which does D6 wounds, combined with Rune of Might and the talismanic runes granting a 5++. I've been really happy with him so far, as he tears apart monsters, characters, and monstrous infantry alike.

Master Rune of Smiting :)

I'm assuming you've given him a Rune of Stone on his armour to give him a 1+ save as well.
He's not immune to Killing blow(Blade of Blood), so a 'thirster with that can potentially take his head off without too much trouble.

Lord Dan
08-03-2014, 23:40
No, I give him a shield for 2 points less. I typically give him the Master Rune of Speed with the leftover 5 points in magic items to ensure he's striking before Monsters and Monstrous infantry and to help protect him against insta-death from certain spells.

It's true, he's susceptible to Killing Blow. That said, isn't the Blade of Blood a randomly generated weapon now?

theunwantedbeing
08-03-2014, 23:51
No, I give him a shield for 2 points less. I typically give him the Master Rune of Speed with the leftover 5 points in magic items to ensure he's striking before Monsters and Monstrous infantry and to help protect him against insta-death from certain spells.
I'de forgotten that the runic weapon wouldn't be two handed.....far too used to seeing dwarves with great weapons.
Rune of Speed and a regular shield certainly makes the most sense, in5 as well is huge for a dwarf lord.


It's true, he's susceptible to Killing Blow. That said, isn't the Blade of Blood a randomly generated weapon now?
You can automatically choose it, or pick an upto 25pt magical weapon from the rulebook as the cheapest daemonic gift.

The bearded one
09-03-2014, 00:32
A tooled up Dwarf Lord is dropping a Bloodthirster.

EDIT: I should probably back that up with something like, you know, math, right? I run my Lord with the D6 wound rune, Rune of Might, and a 5++ on shieldbearers. Nice and simple:

BT: 7 attacks, 4.66 hits, 3.11 wounds, 1.03 after saves.
DL: 4 attacks, 2 hits, 1.66 wound, 1.11 after saves, multiplied into 3.88.

Bloodthirster dies next turn, at which point my Lord is basically down to his original profile's wound value.

And as an added bonus, remember that at the very least with the 'ancestral grudge' roll your general will hate the enemy's general, so the dwarflord will hit three times.

Lord Dan
09-03-2014, 00:55
You can automatically choose it, or pick an upto 25pt magical weapon from the rulebook as the cheapest daemonic gift.
Ah, so a no-brainer choice for the BT.



And as an added bonus, remember that at the very least with the 'ancestral grudge' roll your general will hate the enemy's general, so the dwarflord will hit three times.
Oh, MAN! I keep forgetting that! So the combat is actually:


BT: 7 attacks, 4.66 hits, 3.11 wounds, 1.03 after saves.
DL: 4 attacks, 3 hits (after re-roll), 2.5 wound, 1.66 after saves, multiplied into 5.83.

So, if the BT doesn't off the Lord with killing blow, he's mathematically dead in one turn. :evilgrin:

The bearded one
09-03-2014, 01:06
Oh, MAN! I keep forgetting that!

Lol, you're not alone. I forgot it in the first game I played with the new dwarfs (against another dwarfplayer no less), and we rolled it by turn 2 or 3.

What takes the cake for me was last friday, on gaming night, when we played a 2 vs 2 to practice for the upcoming club's doubletourney. We had 3 dwarf players. 3. And on the second turn I cried out "damned, we forgot ancestral grudge!" and we all rolled for it (all 3's and 4's).

Lord Dan
09-03-2014, 03:00
I'm glad you said something. I'm going in for a game tonight and would have completely overlooked it.

Kayosiv
09-03-2014, 04:19
The issue is that there is not a lot that you can do with Dwarves to make them less miserable to play with/against without changing their core nature. And as much as I loath them, the metagame of fantasy needs dwarves to keep certain things in check.

Dwarves march at triple speed. Army fixed. Done and done.

Also the Anvil having less than 4 bound spells, let alone more than 2 spells that were any good, is really unfair. If dwarves have to pay more than a level 4 wizard in price for a runesmith + anvil of doom, it could have at least been almost as good as a level 4. This deal where you pay 300+ points for what is essentially not even a very good level 2 wizard is a disappointment to everyone. Dwarfs are mad because some of their stuff sucks and opponent should be mad because every terrible thing in an army list means less variation from game to game against that army and ultimately less fun to be had.