PDA

View Full Version : Dwarf Army Suggestions



ledex07
20-03-2015, 03:33
So I am relatively new to warhammer fantasy. I have been playing more 40k, but have really wanted to start playing fantasy. I just started a new Dwarf army, the two units that I have so far is a dwarf lord and some long beards. The main thing I am debating is what to field; these are some of the unit choices I am debating on:



Thunderers vs Quarrelers
Hammerers vs Longbeards/Warriors w/ great weapons
Iron Breakers vs Longbeards/Warriors w/ Hand Weapon & Shield


I understand this is a pretty generic question but its one that I am sincerely curious about what people normally take between these units.

Micalovits
20-03-2015, 08:25
Quarrelers are generally regarded as slightly better than thunderers, as that 6' range often allows them to get a extra turn of shooting, but it can come down to personal preference.
As for the hammerers/ironbreakers vs longbeards/warriors, you will usually always take a unit of warriors/longbeards to fill out your core first. If you are going with shields, go longbeards as str 4 is pretty nice(especially with armour piercing from a runesmith), but gw you can go with either.
For going hammerers vs iron breakers in special is really a massive preference question - Hammerers kill stuff and are still somewhat resilent being dwarves while ironbreakers that are stubborn(banner rune) will hold up anything. For ever. And grind it down possibly.

JPThunda
20-03-2015, 09:02
A lot of that comes down to personal preference or their battlefield role.

Thunderers w/ Shields vs. Quarrelers w/ Great Weapons, for example. There's the two most common ways to run them. The Quarrelers are generally more offensive, considering they have higher strength close combat attacks and out range the Thunderers while the Thunderers are more defensive, especially when you equip the unit leader with a brace of pistols, allowing the entire squad to fire Stand & Shoot at short range. People generally underestimate Thunderers as well, and can get easily bogged down, while they've seen more of Quarrelers with Great Weapons because they were the go-to in the last book. I've found that Thunderers are better for holding up a flank and protecting warmachines while Quarrelers are better at supporting an army on the march with their extended range and high strength attacks.

Hammerers vs. Greatbeards/GW Warriors. The Hammerers are undeniably more destructive and generally better in every way, HOWEVER, they come out of Special. Greatbeards are second best on the list of the three, and they come out of Core, so you can spend your 'core tax' on these guys and end up with a nasty unit that is easily the equivalent of other army's special choices. Warriors are solid, and the cheapest of the bunch. In the choice of Warriors vs. Greatbeareds, it's simply an argument of quality vs. quantity, but comparing them to Hammerers brings up the battlefield role. As a bodyguard for your general or a primary attacking unit, Hammerers win hands down. Not to mention that their larger runic banner allotment can provide army wide buffs.

Ironbreakers vs. Shieldbeards/Shield Warriors. Much the same as above when comparing Shieldbeards to Shield Warriors, quality vs. quantity, though in this case the difference between S3 and S4 is much more enormous than the difference between S5 and S6. Quite frankly, you want to be charged to gain the benefit of your shieldwall rule. When you take that into account, the constant S4 of the Shieldbeards is a huge benefit. Easier to wound, and harder to save against. I would handily put it into the hands of the Shieldbeards for that reason alone. I've found that in any instance where I wanted to take Shield Warriors, I would always prefer a smaller number of Thunderers with Shields but the same cannot be said of Great Weapon Warriors and Great Weapon Quarrelers because those units somewhat lack resiliency and need the numbers to absorb damage in a combat. However, when you compare them to Ironbreakers, it come back to the core tax issue again. I've found the Ironbreakers to be objectively better, due to the constant Gromril Shieldwall allowing them to charge without losing their resilience, ability to take Cinderblast Bombs, S4 and higher base armor save, and they benefit from a lot of our character buffs in a big way. Ironbreakers love Runesmiths. MR1 and Armor Piercing only add to their resiliency and potency, and AP S4/5 means a lot more than AP S6/7. Ironbreakers love Oathstones. No flanks allow them to get the most out of their Gromril Shieldwall and can make the unit insurmountable. Ironbreakers love the Master Rune of Grungni from a BSB, a 5+ ward against ranged (+1 for MR against magic if you have a Runesmith) is a tremendous addition to their survivability. This certainly takes things out of a vaccum, and they can become a points sink, but if we're being honest you WILL have at least 1 Runesmith in any army, and you will very likely have a BSB. In the end, though, Ironbreakers are a fantastic center unit, and I've had more than a few opponents charge into them (Chaos Warrior Hordes, Bloodletter Horde + Bloodcrusher Combined Charge, Grave Guard Hordes + 2 Blenderlord Vampires), believing that I overextended myself, and bounce off, leaving the rest of my army in a position to flank at their leisure.

Hope this helps, and welcome to the army. One thing you will find is that the internal balance of our army is quite good, and a lot of choices are viable if you have a specific and well defined battlefield role for them.