Warhammer Armies Dwarfs (Player Edition)

[Haravikk]

Okay, well, some of you may have read my previous thread on Dwarf Army List Development. Well, I got tons of great feedback, and had a blast play-testing various rules idea, but ultimately it got a bit bogged down as I went and got too hung up on new things rather than refining what I already had.

Just before 8th edition came out I released a new "shaken up" list that aimed to better define the differences between various Dwarf units to try and make them a bit more interesting, as currently we have five elite units that aren't readily distinguishable. With 8th edition a lot changed, so I've also had to adjust for this.

Since I've also played with the formatting some I seem to have made the file size much bigger despite it having fewer pages, which is odd as it isn't that much fancier, that said you might want to view it as two pages side-by-side as I've set it up to work properly in sections (I hope). Till I figure out how to reduce the size a bit more, I'll have to resort to external downloads, anyway, enjoy!

Each version contains a summary of changes so that you don't have to re-read the whole thing to know what's different, though I can't guarantee that I've remembered to list everything!

Download links:

• 8th Edition Versions:
  
  • Version 2.4.1 [DropBox | Deposit Files]
  • Version 2.4.0 [DropBox | Deposit Files]
  • Version 2.3.0 [DropBox | Deposit Files]
  • Version 2.2.8 [DropBox | Deposit Files]
  • Version 2.2.7 [DropBox | Deposit Files]
  • Version 2.2.6 [DropBox | Deposit Files]
  • Version 2.2.5 [DropBox | Deposit Files]
  • Version 2.2.4 [DropBox | Deposit Files]
  • Version 2.2.3 [DropBox | Deposit Files]
  • Version 2.2.2 [DropBox | Deposit Files]
  • Version 2.2.1 [DropBox | Deposit Files]
  • Version 2.2.0 [DropBox | Deposit Files]
• 7th Edition Versions:
  
  • Version 2.1.0 [DropBox | Deposit Files]

[theunwantedbeing]

Why do your thunderer and quarreller champions not get +1 BS but instead gain an additional attack?

You may want to alter the wording in the army selection page.
As it stands it appears to read that the equiptment options listed for the parragon is ignored by the lord/thane upgrades making them meaningless, clearly not intended but it seems to read that way.

Also, you should state that ranged weapons are seperate from combat ones...as it stands you only seem to be allowed a single ranged or combat weapon, again this doesnt seem at all intended.

Very good layout and well written otherwise
Bit of a shame 8th is right around the corner really.

[Haravikk]

Very good layout and well written otherwise
Bit of a shame 8th is right around the corner really.

Yeah some of it's going to read as a bit rushed, I wanted to get this copy out before it's all completely invalidated
I'm hoping the basic ideas like hammer & anvil, and some of the adjustments to how units play will still work well under 8th though, lots of play-testing ahead methinks!

Why do your thunderer and quarreller champions not get +1 BS but instead gain an additional attack?

In the current book they get +1 Attack instead of +1 Ballistic Skill, it's always been that way I think?

As it stands it appears to read that the equiptment options listed for the parragon is ignored by the lord/thane upgrades making them meaningless, clearly not intended but it seems to read that way.

I'll definitely need to keep working on those two pages; I really like the format of having them be a specialisation, it just turned out a lot harder than I'd hoped as some of the characters actually have very little in common

[Haravikk]

Okay, so I got my Collector's Edition rulebook on Tuesday (should have been the Thursday before but I was out when the post van came, bah!), and I've been hard at work on an 8th edition list of my own.

It isn't ready yet (so please continue to ignore the list in the first post except to see some of the basic ideas I'm looking at). Anyway, I wanted to get some people's thoughts on a few things. Obviously I've barely had a chance to see how the current Dwarf list plays under the new rules, so I'll be play testing that a lot before I put in the real work on my own list, though there are some obvious changes (to runes mostly as some are now really over-priced or useless). But ehm... yeah, I was hoping to get some feedback on the following points early:

Ancestral Grudge
Currently I've just dropped this as I personally despise hate rules that apply to an entire army. Under 8th edition GW seem to have ditched the side effect of hate (must always pursue an enemy that flees combat) meaning army-wide hatreds are even more potent. This is a bit of an issue though as Skaven hate both elves and dwarves, while dwarves hate greenskins, greenskins dislike (but don't hate) everybody, empire doesn't hate anyone and so-on, it's a huge mess really.

But it places a difficult question; do I drop ancestral grudge because it's stupid to have army-wide hatreds no matter how characterful, or do I keep it and maybe have it apply to Skaven as well so there's a bit more of an even footing? I mean, it's not like Skaven need hatred to beat Dwarfs, especially with the new horde rules (which seem to penalise elite armies more than ever after the models required for a rank increased in 7th). I was thinking to possibly have it only apply to Skaven purely for balance, even though Dwarfs arguably hate greenskins more.

Killing Blow
I've never been a particularly big fan of the Slayer rule in the current Dwarfs army book, and it seems that Killing Blow is more in character for what they do, anyone agree/disagree and why?
If agree, does it make sense for Dragon and Daemon Slayers to have heroic killing blow? I mean fluff-wise they're the first thing I thought of while reading the new rule, but it seems quite powerful. I was thinking I'd give them it but bump their points a little accordingly, and they of course lose the ability if they take a runic weapon of any kind.
I was also thinking that the (heroic) killing blow would only apply if the slayer(s) fight with a single hand weapon or great weapon, to avoid them having too many killing blow attacks for balance.

[Hellebore]

Well backgroundwise slayers go after big creatures like trolls etc. The Killing Blow special rule only works against Infantry sized creatures, like orcs, humans, skaven etc.

It doen't work against ogres, trolls and so on, which is supposed to be what they hunt. Thus it wouldn't make much sense because it would hardly come into effect.

Hellebore

[Haravikk]

True, but I figure that if they can kill trolls etc. then they must have a knack for finding and exploiting weak spots. They can fight with great weapons anyway if they need the strength bonus to improve chances to wound other things.

The way I figure it is that Troll slayers are so named as that's the type of monster they seek for their honourable death, but if they get too good at killing them then they become a giant slayer and so-on. Thus, only higher level slayers are actually skilled enough to take down the bigger nasties, while lower level slayers are just oath-bound to find something big to fight, whether they stand a chance of doing so or not is largely irrelevant.

[darkstar]

You should ensure that you drop the "resistant to magic", as they already have rulebook rules that function differently and well enough.

Considering the description of the Blunderbuss, would it be worth considering the "quick to fire" rule?
You might also consider changing the wording of Superior Protection to "A model equipped with Gromril..." to avoid the question of whether shields are still negated.
Also, I think that the division of rangers to various types doesn't help them out at all. I think keeping them as a single option with the Strider rules for wooded and mountainous terrain is a good idea.
Again, Blasting charges should be considered quick to fire.
I think that considering the loss of Unbreakable from the slayers, and how expensive they now are, you should look at not relinquishing victory points for the unit when destroyed, and the unit counting as destroyed if it is still standing for the dwarf player at the end of the game. Also, possibly consider giving them frenzy, as the depth of their psychological despair should reflect this.
When looking at the steam gun, remove the "like a grapeshot" clause, as grapeshot nolonger works like this.
To replace unyeilding, consider extending inspiring presence to 18".
The note of resolve should probably be "an additional rank"
Should a Thane not be allowed to take ranged weapons?
Do you really have to buy both a unit of warriors and grudgebearers before you can purchase longbeards?
You might want to think about removing the 0-1 on the rangers. They're not really used as it is, and it prevents themed armies. I'd also think about swapping rangers for miners. I imagine Dwarf miners are far more common than rangers.
Considering that cannons are now as good as great cannons, but with gunners' pride and tougher crew, I'd consider ramping them up to 110 points.
With the current FAQ considering the flame cannon a fire thrower, I'd look to knock it down to around 60 points.

Good effort, I like the idea, hope these suggestions help.

[Haravikk]

You should ensure that you drop the "resistant to magic", as they already have rulebook rules that function differently and well enough.

Well I've never liked having it in the rulebook as an army book should really contain all army specific stuff, I have updated it, the version of the list currently hosted is still for 7th edition rather than 8th, that one will be done shortly I hope.

Do you really have to buy both a unit of warriors and grudgebearers before you can purchase longbeards?

That's a fault of my vague wording, it should really have been warriors or grudge bearers.

Good effort, I like the idea, hope these suggestions help.

Thanks, and your comments are very helpful! I'm still trundling away on an 8th edition version with all the necessary changes, is taking a little while but it should hopefully be a bit less rough than the current list

[shelfunit.]

Just downloaded the current PDF (sorry for being so slow ) - first off looks very professional.
Love the "buy the character, then add the specialization" character design template.

Dwarf handguns only 16"? especially now this seems rather short for a gun, especially considering the empire's 24" range. If they are going to be this short ranged, drop the points to the same as a quarreler - or just make the dwarf ranged troops a set price and have them select which armament the unit is armed with.

The slayers ward save - I was thinking if it works for daemons... so what about normal troll/giant slayers get a 6+, if a dragon slayer is in the unit 5+ and a aemon slayer 4+? Why should Pink horrors have all the fun?

Otherwise I think a lot has to be re-thought because of 8th edition, but keep up the good work!

[Haravikk]

Dwarf handguns only 16"? especially now this seems rather short for a gun, especially considering the empire's 24" range. If they are going to be this short ranged, drop the points to the same as a quarreler - or just make the dwarf ranged troops a set price and have them select which armament the unit is armed with.

Well the trade off is in the ability to move and shoot, I was thinking of making them quick to fire as well but it starts to be a few too many rules. Shooting is certainly an area that I'll do a lot of play-testing for as even Quarrellers are pretty punishing under 8th; I played my usual Wood Elf opponent just using the current official list and a block of 20 Quarrellers made spiky minced meat out of a same sized block of Glade Guard in one round of shooting, I found it rather amusing but my opponent did not.
My main thought with the thunderers is just to try and mix them up a bit more so that Quarrellers and Thunderers fulfil more clearly different roles, as currently they're both just stay where you are and shoot type units, except that thunderers hit a little more easily and are worth the extra points if you play Chaos, otherwise they're largely indistinguishable as I find 24" range is plenty in most of my games, so the range difference never seems to matter.
Either way, it's certainly one that's up for debate as I have no idea where to go with it so far!

The slayers ward save - I was thinking if it works for daemons... so what about normal troll/giant slayers get a 6+, if a dragon slayer is in the unit 5+ and a aemon slayer 4+? Why should Pink horrors have all the fun?

Interesting idea; with the new shooting slayers could certainly use something to keep them alive, as volley fire from my opponent's second unit of Glade Guard wiped out my slayers on turn one which was fitting revenge I suppose; toughness or no, enough Strength 3 shots (which there are now a lot of!) will fell them quite easily. Your ward save idea does make sense as a kind of innate dodge similar to...night runners I think in the Skaven army?
In my current 8th edition list I've dropped wards of grimnir again till I can decide what to do with them, as now they're a 6+ ward and a 5+ ward vs magic, which is kind of interesting but I don't know where to go with it for the moment. That said, they are skirmishers in my list which does give them beefier defence against shooting already, and makes them a lot more manoeuvrable than you'd think for such a seemingly small change, even with the "nerfed" rules for skirmishers (which I personally prefer, I could never remember the old rules and these new ones don't seem as overly powerful).


Anyway, I'm hoping to have my 8th edition version ready for tomorrow at least in a rough form, I haven't been very good with my change list so I've lost track of what I've done and am still to do, heh! So watch this space!

[Haravikk]

Considering that cannons are now as good as great cannons, but with gunners' pride and tougher crew, I'd consider ramping them up to 110 points.

Just wanted to revisit this point, but how much does an Empire Great Cannon cost in points? Having Stubborn and tougher crew is certainly useful, though it's not something that I've found to come into play that much as my war machines tend to be shot to pieces a lot more than they're ever charged, and 8th edition shooting is resolved against the war machine's profile now so tougher crew doesn't matter much. The large cannons still have a range bonus, though I agree that the D6 wounds has always been the real main difference, as I rarely play Warhammer on a lengthways table so the small cannon's range has always been plenty.

It's certainly a difficult one to price as there isn't really much in the way of a guide line for it, and D6 multiple wounds can certainly make all the difference if monsters are involved, but when they're not I find my cannon behaves as little more than an overpriced, slightly more powerful bolt thrower, so it's a tough one to consider! Though now it's an improved bolt-thrower that's also a 12" range organ gun...ack, confusion!

I think that considering the loss of Unbreakable from the slayers, and how expensive they now are, you should look at not relinquishing victory points for the unit when destroyed, and the unit counting as destroyed if it is still standing for the dwarf player at the end of the game. Also, possibly consider giving them frenzy, as the depth of their psychological despair should reflect this.

Well, the loss of Unbreakable is slightly offset by the addition of skirmishers which is of huge benefit to Slayers in all my play-testing, and because I rarely see slayers used all that offensively since they're pretty much the perfect unit to halt anything your enemy can throw at you because of their unbreakable rule. Their points may be a little much for the trade off, though with a dodge ability as shelfunit proposes it may not be such a big deal. But then they are already a bit more resilient versus shooting as skirmishers, and I bumped their Weapon Skill which makes them that bit harder to hit in combat as well, so it's another tricky one to balance!
Your idea for their victory points is very interesting, but it would encourage your enemy to either sacrifice really inexpensive units to slow them down (so it's unlikely they'll be killed at all), or avoid them entirely to nab some easy victory points. While it would be funny to see your opponent doing everything in their power to keep your slayers alive it seems a bit weird
I did consider frenzy, but the problem with that is that they could end up charging anything, rather than particularly vicious opponents to be slain by. Nothing's worse than a slayer seeking a glorious death only to find it at the hands of some skaven slaves or something! I could maybe do a modified rule, frenzy is a bit strange in 8th edition with the ability for leadership to reign it in, as a frenzied dwarf unit would gain a free attack and rarely be forced to charge, which throws off my upgrade for the grudge bearers.

One possibility I toyed with from the old slayer army list was that each slayer model slain by an enemy character (except unit champions) or monstrous infantry or larger creature would give you a bonus of 10 victory points.


Oh, I also wanted to note regarding your comments on Miner/Ranger limitations that that's part of the purpose of the Pathfinder hero upgrade as he allows you to take more. Instead of requiring all units to have a pathfinder before you can start fielding more, I've simply modified it to +1, so if you put a pathfinder in a unit of miners then you can have another unit for "free" (it doesn't count as a special choice, you still have to pay the points though!), same with rangers. Beyond that I think this is more the job of themed lists at the back of any army book to give you some alternative unit mixes as appropriate, I might do that once I'm happier with my list.

[Haravikk]

Okay, I've now posted v2.2 (here)! Various updates for 8th edition, and a handful of other changes here and there. I'm afraid it's still pretty rough, as I'm going cross-eyed staring at it so proof reading is unlikely to have made any difference, so expect mistakes! I've also only done a tiny bit of playing in 8th with the current official list so this latest incarnation of my own list hasn't seen much in the way of play testing yet, and likely won't till I'm happy with playing the official list under 8th edition so I can start testing mine properly!

One mistake I've noticed right away that I won't bother changing just now (takes too damned long to upload files!), is that Hammerers have Devastating charge listed in their special rules. I gave hammerers killing blow originally but decided it makes more sense on the slayers, but I still think hammerers could do with some kind of offensive buff to reinforce their role as a hammer unit (and distance them from just being longbeards with great weapons), but I haven't thought of anything characterful yet, so devastating charge is what I put in as a placeholder, intending to think about it a bit.

You may notice I have a placeholder for themed armies at the back. Whenever I'm happy with the core list I may start putting together sample themed lists building upon it. A themed Chaos Dwarfs list would reuse various dwarf units in different combinations, then add onto that chaos dwarf sorcerers (using normal warhammer lores), and some monsters, as it should be a good "lite" way of implementing them as an army for those with the older models, or who have put in the effort to make conversions.
The other three would of course be a lot easier as it's mostly just unit mix with Slayers getting some slight variant units. The slayer army should be "Slayer Army of Karak Kadrin" in contents, but for some reason it didn't auto-update.

[Haravikk]

I just realised that with my change to have runesmiths/runelords count as "dispel only" wizards, I may have accidentally made it possible for the Dwarfs to get +7 to dispel by taking a Runelord, Master Rune of Valaya, and Master Rune of Spellbinding. I was thinking I might tweak this as follows:
- Master Rune of Valaya gives +1 to channeling to all Runesmiths/Runelords within 12", probably a drop to cost as appropriate.
- Master Rune of Spellbinding gives a single Runesmith or Runelord +1 to channeling.

This way the worst you can do is have a Runesmith or Runelord channeling a single dice on a 4+.

I'm unsure what to do with spelleater and spellbreaker runes, as dispel scrolls seem to be one per army now if I'm not mistaken, whereas Dwarfs can have three per Runesmith/Runelord. Anyone have any thoughts?

[shelfunit.]

Having read over the rules for the Anvil, it does seem like an awful lot of point to pay for the potential to gain a very slight benefit, but also die horribly yourself. For 175pts I would expect something that has the potential power of a hydra, as it stands for 175pts I would expect no chance of failing to strike the anvil, or reduce the cost to 100pts at most.

[Haravikk]

You're probably right; part of the issue I've been having is that I've been trying to have the war horn and anvil of doom have distinctly different roles, with the anvil of doom giving various defensive buffs and working toward anti-magic, and the horn as a largely offensive item bolstering units nearby.

The two main things that the anvil does at the moment in the official list is allow dwarf armies to move more rapidly, and give a fairly nasty magical damage attack (though it's not so bad compared to the new lores anymore), but both of these are essentially a complete u-turn on the whole character of the Dwarf army as a slow but relentless fighting force without magic of their own. It's a fiddly area though as I want interesting effects, reinforcing things that the army already does well (rather than plugging weaknesses), but at that same time that needs to be done without creating silly powerful effects...

Will certainly continue thinking about what to do with it

[Haravikk]

I've had a bit of a rethink on the Anvil of Doom, and come up with something that I feel is quite interesting, I'm posting just the new anvil of doom section for now:

[shelfunit.]

Not a bad looking solution to the anvil there Haravikk .
Gives the dwarves access to a new phase in the game, forces our opponents to risk bringing anti-magic against us, despite us never needing to bring the anvil.

A couple of (very) minor points - the rune of wrath and ruin - for a 15+ spell I'd reduce the scatter to 1d6 max - the pit of shades only costs 1pt less to cast and has the potential for a similar effect - but without saves allowed - on the smaller template. For the booster spell I'd give it something like 18+ to cast and place the large template no scatter.
The second thing is, now, with the vast potential to IF - along with a many ways to increase the chances of IF, a single IF has the potential to destroy a vast investment - true of other armies I know, but just to get the anvil requires a 325pt investment minimum. My suggestion is similar to other armies - have a rune that allows the first miscast to be ignored, or build this rune into the anvils cost - 175pts is still a lot for what it can do.

[Haravikk]

Well I was thinking I may drop the cost slightly, but it's a balancing act on the army-scale as the Dwarfs can of course dispel enemy magic quite capably, so having even a level 2 (essentially) wizard of their own should be a bigger investment than for other armies; that and as far as level 2 wizards go he should be pretty competitive since he has two more spells to throw around, with no range limitations on any of them (at the moment) due to the anvil's inability to move.

Good ideas on Wrath & Ruin, I should note though that pit of shades does insta-kill models (no saves of any kind) whereas this is S3 with no armour saves (ward saves and magic resistance would still work), which is why I justify the large template. Plus wrath and ruin is targeted anywhere on the battlefield, which is why I thought the 2D6" scatter was appropriate.
I was thinking I might have it improve first to remain in play, then improve further to increase the strength to 4, with suitable casting values, and the added risk that a miscast during the highest level attempt centres the effect on the anvil (if it succeeded as it usually will with irresistible force).
I'll definitely have a think on it, but I'm glad you like the direction of it so far

[Haravikk]

One other conundrum that I'm currently looking at is the damned purple sun of xereus, as it's pretty stupid just how damaging it can be to the Dwarf army with our majority initiative of 2, which is silly as it means that Dwarfs are more susceptible to a magic attack than humans or elves, and can't really field anything as damaging for the same points cost as a cheap lore of death wizard or two (to ensure the sun gets rolled).

Now, currently it's not a huge deal, as it's very easy to shut down the magic phase by just slapping a Runelord or two into a small game, removing the possibility of such a spell really every firing off except at irresistible force (which can often turn into free consolation victory points as the wizard fizzles out of existence). However, in my list I've been wanting to tone it down so that the Dwarfs aren't churning out completely ridiculous levels of dispel, so that armies with magic can actually have a bit of fun. Besides which, fielding large numbers of Runesmiths or Runelords just isn't fun for enemies that would like to use magic now and then, or for the Dwarf player who might prefer to have a better combat character.

But this ends up double-sided, as a change to make things fun for people playing against Dwarfs also lets through overpowered, initiative test based, instant kill magic. One thing I was considering was giving Dwarfs a +1 bonus for magic related characteristic tests or even just initiative tests from magic, so they're at least on par with humans at resisting such things. Anyone have any thoughts about this? An alternative would an innate bonus to magic resistance (so they would have a basic MR of 6+ boostable to 3+ with suitable runes), but that seems a bit much, and I don't believe it actually helps against purple sun.

You may like to note that I've already included such changes to tone down Dwarfs dispel capabilities by having Runesmiths and Runelords treated as level 1 and level 2, dispel only wizards (so they can channel dice rather than generate them automatically), and to make the rune of spellbinding and rune of valaya a bonus to channeling attempts for a maximum of a 4+ channel attempt for one runesmith/runelord. In any event, it means that Dwarfs generate more typical amounts of dispel dice, but always have a minimum of +2 to dispel, and inexpensive dispel-only "wizards" to boost that if desired.

[Haravikk]

Just uploaded a v0.2.1 (links in my first post). Lots of minor tweaks, main changes are the inclusion of the anvil rules with various adjustments (it's still very much in flux though so feedback is welcome), and after play-testing the errata'd Flame Cannon I've decided to try something a bit different.

Essentially the Flame Cannon now has a range of twice an Artillery Dice, and is resolved like a bouncing cannon ball that loses Strength as it penetrates ranks (or files as ranks), and inflicts multiple hits per rank it goes through. This makes it a very damaging weapon, considerably more so than an organ gun, but it's also a lot less predictable. It's pulled around by a pit pony for speed, and can stand and shoot if it didn't fire in its last shooting phase. Of course as soon as I upload the file I think I might do something a little different with the range; perhaps 2 Artillery Dice + 4"? Giving it a better minimum range, and potentially even matching the range of an Organ Gun, but making it more likely to Misfire as an offset to the sheer damage it can do. It's more of a proposal for now till I can play-test a bit.

Oh, I also forgot to include that I'd re-added the Slayers' ability to choose if they want to fight with two hand weapons or a great weapon at the start of a combat, but they still have to pay for the upgrade.