Dwarf Army Book - Suggestions for 8th edition

[sulla]

Weighing in with an idea I've had for Slayers for a while. I think its a good one, but I would like to see what other players think.

Heroic Killing Blow for the whole unit!

I would make no other changes: Unbreakable, Heroic Killing Blow. Suddenly they have gone from tarpit to tarpit with horrible teeth, and they will actually be good at killing monsters!

My concern is that an entire unit with Heroic Killing Blow would be too powerful against certain army builds. Against a one-off Arachnarok, Dragon, or Terrorgheist, it's not so bad, as a canny player will just avoid them with his much more mobile monsters. However, against armies that rely heavily on Monstrous Infantry (Ogres), an entire unit with HKB would be disastrous.

To keep them balanced, I'd say that a 20 model cap on the unit and a small price hike would make them just fine. 13 points? Seems a good price in comparison to, say, Flagellants.

At the very least, Slayer Heroes should absolutely gain Heroic Killing Blow as a special rule. But I will be very surprised if that does not happen.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts, especially non-dwarf players!

Lets see; with 2 attacks each, 4 dwarves in base with a monster to it's front and another 4 support attacks gives 12 attacks, which is 6 hits and a 50% chance of HKB any chreature in the game! To me, that means those 8 dwarvs should cost about 200pts, but let's be generous and make them 20pts each... would you still want you guaranteed monster killers then?

I think a possibly better solution would be to give Slayers an 'axes of fury' rule, where every wound by a model generates another attack. The reason I say this is that it is universally useful vs monsters, MI and hordes and provides a benefit even when 'slayer axes' don't benefit them, like low toughness units. This makes slayers good, not only vs monsters but also gives dwarves a unit that works well against hordes. (In my picture of 8th edition dwarves, they would lose the s+ runes on grudge throwers so would need another way to deal with massed infantry). I would not increase the price and would possibly allow a slayer unit for every slayer character as a core choice to try to get away from the great weapons and guns that Dorvz are locked into right now.

Better runic standards would also definately be needed for the army in general and these could help slayers too.

[knightime98]

The Slayer champions, heroes, or lords could and perhaps should have the HKB. As for the common slayers, it may be a bit much. Although, the Grave Guard has regular KB. Grave Guard are an absolute steal for their points they have armor and can be brought back.

[m1acca1551]

Slayers with the red fury style of attacks would be horrendously good againts enemy hordes... would mean that they achieve something other be an expensive pin cushion.

Hatred should be a part of the basic dwarfen army rules, it can be broken down into 2 themes.
- Ancestral Grudge; Eternal hatred against all greenskins and skaven.
- Grudge Bearers; Hatred for the first round of combat against all other races.

[Flash Felix]

Hatred should be a part of the basic dwarfen army rules, it can be broken down into 2 themes.
- Ancestral Grudge; Eternal hatred against all greenskins and skaven.
- Grudge Bearers; Hatred for the first round of combat against all other races.

Great minds think alike..... I've been thinking exactly the same thing, as a means of making Dwarves as good in combat as they should be; we've all had rubber hammer syndrome and at the moment, Dwarves just don't hit that hard (which is why GW hordes are needed, to generate the volume of attacks). To do that you need one of two things; lots of attacks or rerolls to hit. Lots of attacks implies speed, which is something Dwarves shouldn't have for fluff reasons. But rerolls due to grudges? That makes a lot of sense. Dwarves would have grudges against everyone, and deep and abiding ones against greenskins and skaven, so hatred makes perfect sense as a game mechanic.

Dark Elf players might complain that this is 'their thing'. I don't see why some special rules can't be expanded across armies if it fills a need and has some justification in background. Eternal Hatred/Grudgebearers/Whatever it's called makes sense to me, and should be seriously considered.

[m1acca1551]

I think another rule, The book of grudges would be fun.

If the General of the army is killed, the hero with the next highest LD be it thane, engineer or runesmith and the unit they are in/attached too when fighting the unit that has killed the General are Immune to psychology and re-roll to hit against the unit and or character as they try and settle the grudge.

It is nice and fluffy without being broken or OP.

[The bearded one]

I always thought the idea of a thane (or a characteroption specifically created for the task like tomb king used to have icon bearers) who carried the hold's or his clan's book of grudges was a nice idea, providing hatred to his unit, but bringing shame and lost VPs on himself if they lost the book.

[theunwantedbeing]

I always thought the idea of a thane (or a characteroption specifically created for the task like tomb king used to have icon bearers) who carried the hold's or his clan's book of grudges was a nice idea, providing hatred to his unit, but bringing shame and lost VPs on himself if they lost the book.

Yeah that's a good idea, a bonus with a drawback...you don't see a lot of those in warhammer these days.

On the hatred idea, having it for slayers seems reasonable.
Perhaps just hatred vs Monstrous Infantry/Cavalry & Monsters, seeing as it's a combat boost for what they are supposedly supposed to be fighting.
Failing that, grant the to-wound bonuses they currently have only against those sorts of creatures.

I like m1acca1551s sugguestion of having the general keep switching as and when the previous general is slain.
This keeps the dwarf idea of being a resolute and steadfast army in the face of defeat such as that unlike other armies.

[The bearded one]

Although to be honest the general is barely important for the dwarfs as the entire army is leadership 9 by default. A random warmachine crewmember could be the general and there would be no difference between it and a runelord as general.

Regarding that issue, I think it wouldn't be silly to have runelords with leadership 10. It's what you get after searching out lost runic secrets for centuries in fallen holds and leading expeditions. Yes, centuries. Runelords often reach ages of 300-400 years and IIRC Kragg the Grimm is far older than that, I believe in the vicinity of a millenium.

[theunwantedbeing]

Regarding that issue, I think it wouldn't be silly to have runelords with leadership 10. It's what you get after searching out lost runic secrets for centuries in fallen holds and leading expeditions. Yes, centuries. Runelords often reach ages of 300-400 years and IIRC Kragg the Grimm is far older than that, I believe in the vicinity of a millenium.

Exactly, in an army where the basic trooper is Leadership 9 it would be perfectly reasonable to have multiple Leadership 10 characters(even heroes).

[Balerion]

One question... once all Dwarfs have a +1 save bonus, cost less, and come supported by Ld10 lords and BSBs who can take shields and runes, how does a Dwarf unit ever lose a combat?

[The Low King]

By fighting most of the elite units around? who tend to have advantages such as Marks, magic, more weapon options, numbers and better support.

[The bearded one]

One question... once all Dwarfs have a +1 save bonus, cost less, and come supported by Ld10 lords and BSBs who can take shields and runes, how does a Dwarf unit ever lose a combat?

Allowing BSBs acces to shields and gws is fair, as everybody else since the high elf armybook can do it.

And if I would expect any army to have leadership10 from their generals, it'd be dwarfs, not skaven.

But beyond that the only thing I would reasonably expect to change is perhaps a point drop of 1 point for warriors, but little else. Certainly not such wishlisty things like higher armoursaves (not without costing a lot of points extra, anyway) and unitrunes. However in a vein similar to what.. well.. everybody else since (again) high elves got, I think it is fairly likely to see unit champions of elite units (hammerers, ironbreakers, longbeards) being able to take a limited amount of points in runes.

[Petey]

Exactly, in an army where the basic trooper is Leadership 9 it would be perfectly reasonable to have multiple Leadership 10 characters(even heroes).

While I do agree with this sentiment, I have to say that the idea of giving Thanes and Lords Stubborn instead of a Leadership boost appeals to me more. I feel this is what s going to happen anyway (if the chaos dwarf martial hero is any indication), and it makes good sense

[The bearded one]

While I do agree with this sentiment, I have to say that the idea of giving Thanes and Lords Stubborn instead of a Leadership boost appeals to me more. I feel this is what s going to happen anyway (if the chaos dwarf martial hero is any indication), and it makes good sense

It'd make sense (as being stubborn and resolute in the face of overwhelming odds is kinda their shtick), though the problematic sideeffect of it would be that they'll be handing out stubborn to everybody else in their units, effectively making any thane-led unit comparable to hammerers (who are supposed to be special by virtue of having the stubborn rule.

[m1acca1551]

One question... once all Dwarfs have a +1 save bonus, cost less, and come supported by Ld10 lords and BSBs who can take shields and runes, how does a Dwarf unit ever lose a combat?

Well same can be said about skaven. All the changes that COULD come about wouldn't be free and should be costed accordingly. Dwarf Warriors if left at there current point levels should have access to some gucci armour in the form of an upgrade to gromril armour. As for the rune armour i'd like to see that partcular rule tied in with an anvil of doom as an activation force perhaps.

Blessing of the Ancestors
All units withing X" with runic armour or weapons gain +1 armour save or +1 strength if certain runes are used.

[Flash Felix]

One question... once all Dwarfs have a +1 save bonus, cost less, and come supported by Ld10 lords and BSBs who can take shields and runes, how does a Dwarf unit ever lose a combat?

Good point, but my take at least is that Dwarf Warriors should be awesome, but at a steep point cost. My maths goes something like this;

Dwarf Warrior, as is in his chainmail undies/Heavy Armour with HW: 7 pts (I think he's currently a pt overcosted)
Add 1 pt for Eternal Hatred/Grudgebearer
Add 1/2 pt for Dwarf Armour (reverse Armour Piercing, take 1 pt off Strength/AP armour modifier)
Add 1/2 pt for losing Resolute (take away the -1 flee/pursue rule, it's crippling)
Add 1/2 pt for compulsory shield. Normally 1 pt, but Dwarves will take GW anyway, so limits utility.
Add 1/2 pt for Movement boost, to allow Dwarves to better compete in this phase. I'm thinking auto-swift reform, with a Ld check allowing full 6" march move. Based on superior Dwarf discipline, which is critical to battlefield maneouvres. Leave at M3 though, it's part of the 'Dwarf Thing'.
Allow 2 pt upgrade for GW.

This gives you a Dwarf Warrior at 10 pts basic, with Hvy Armour, Shield and HW, who ignores the first pt of armour modification, gets rerolls to hit in the first round (always vs Greenskins/Skaven), can reform and move. You could cost him at 11 pts without too many issues, though 12 is too high I feel. The extra cost for GW is probably worth it, but then he's in the 12-13 pt bracket, and starts to be come expensive fast.

This Dwarf Warrior is now quite capable, but is also expensive, as he should be. Footing it vs Chaos Warriors/Black Guard/White Lions will be difficult, but he'll be superior vs most other core troops.

A final rule I'd like to see might be 'Shieldwall', whereby the Dwarf player can choose to use HW/Shield in the front rank with GW striking from behind. Again, this enhances the resilience of Dwarf infantry, though it will lower their lethality (front rank no longer with GW attacks in that combat). If taken, this would raise the base cost above to 11 pts per model, 13 with GW.

[Petey]

Good point, but my take at least is that Dwarf Warriors should be awesome, but at a steep point cost. My maths goes something like this;

Dwarf Warrior, as is in his chainmail undies/Heavy Armour with HW: 7 pts (I think he's currently a pt overcosted)
Add 1 pt for Eternal Hatred/Grudgebearer
Add 1/2 pt for Dwarf Armour (reverse Armour Piercing, take 1 pt off Strength/AP armour modifier)
Add 1/2 pt for losing Resolute (take away the -1 flee/pursue rule, it's crippling)
Add 1/2 pt for compulsory shield. Normally 1 pt, but Dwarves will take GW anyway, so limits utility.
Add 1/2 pt for Movement boost, to allow Dwarves to better compete in this phase. I'm thinking auto-swift reform, with a Ld check allowing full 6" march move. Based on superior Dwarf discipline, which is critical to battlefield maneouvres. Leave at M3 though, it's part of the 'Dwarf Thing'.
Allow 2 pt upgrade for GW.

This gives you a Dwarf Warrior at 10 pts basic, with Hvy Armour, Shield and HW, who ignores the first pt of armour modification, gets rerolls to hit in the first round (always vs Greenskins/Skaven), can reform and move. You could cost him at 11 pts without too many issues, though 12 is too high I feel. The extra cost for GW is probably worth it, but then he's in the 12-13 pt bracket, and starts to be come expensive fast.

This Dwarf Warrior is now quite capable, but is also expensive, as he should be. Footing it vs Chaos Warriors/Black Guard/White Lions will be difficult, but he'll be superior vs most other core troops.

A final rule I'd like to see might be 'Shieldwall', whereby the Dwarf player can choose to use HW/Shield in the front rank with GW striking from behind. Again, this enhances the resilience of Dwarf infantry, though it will lower their lethality (front rank no longer with GW attacks in that combat). If taken, this would raise the base cost above to 11 pts per model, 13 with GW.

They aren't going to lose resolute, also, it's not crippling.
They can basically already auto reform with their lead 9 or 10, though I can see your point on letting htem march after a swift reform, that would be a good thing for them.
An easier idea for dwarven armor might be that it is just a point better than what other armies get. Ie, their cannon crews might get heavy armor, their warriors might get plate. Elites might get one better than that, or a power that lets them ignore Armor Piercing. Your proposed rule is less streamlined than they like things at GW.
Stubborn on thanes and lords would make the Dwarf warrior units much more valuable

As to your shield wall rule... that s not how or why shieldwalls would work. They are a tactic to endure missle fire until they can get into range for a charge, or to defend a position. While yes, viking shieldwalls worked the way you are suggesting (with support from archers in the far rear) it is again against the way they have streamlined everything. You are more likely to get a shieldwall rule that gives the dwarves +1 armor save against missles if they don't march or quick reform.
I do like the concept though, great idea

[knightime98]

The stagnation of some 6th edition rules/points is so built in with the ideas presented specific to great weapons.

Simply put, great weapons on grave guard (from 7th and now 8th edition) cost one point - not two.

So, why would Great Weapons on Dwarves miraculously cost double that of other units from other armies ??? I would expect a point drop for the Great Weapons.
For the 'handicap' of losing a shield (-1 AS and no parry) but gaining the +2 S for striking last - all offsets itself. It would be interesting to see if Dwarves somehow will have any option(s) to gain ASF with Great Weapons. I would expect this to come from the Anvil (reinvented of course).

This again is my opinion and I'm glad that ideas are being presented that are fresh and somewhat new. Such as the shield wall and the taking away of armor piercing by one vs Dwarves. These are unique ideas that are fluffy and would fit well within the Dwarven Book.

[Flash Felix]

Thanks for your reply Petey, my responses below.

They aren't going to lose resolute, also, it's not crippling.

Hmm, I might have exaggerated a bit, but not by much. The best way to get bulk VPs is to catch a fleeing enemy in combat. That -1 to flee/pursue means that there is a greater chance of losing one of your units, and of letting the enemy escape with their VPs intact. Resolute would not be missed, trust me....

I also don't see the justification for it. Dwarves are meant to be slow, but slower than zombies and skeletons?

They can basically already auto reform with their lead 9 or 10, though I can see your point on letting htem march after a swift reform, that would be a good thing for them.

It's entirely possible to fail Ld 9 tests, even with a reroll. My aim here is to try and boost the Dwarf movement phase, which is extremely weak, without simply putting Dwarves at M4 or giving us hosts of cav/skirmishers/flyers etc.

An easier idea for dwarven armor might be that it is just a point better than what other armies get. Ie, their cannon crews might get heavy armor, their warriors might get plate. Elites might get one better than that, or a power that lets them ignore Armor Piercing. Your proposed rule is less streamlined than they like things at GW.
Stubborn on thanes and lords would make the Dwarf warrior units much more valuable

I think you're right in that it's relatively complex, but the way I stated doesn't penalise the poor S3 units out there, who are already on a hiding to nothing. Still, I wouldn't complain about an extra point for Armour Save.....

As to your shield wall rule... that s not how or why shieldwalls would work. They are a tactic to endure missle fire until they can get into range for a charge, or to defend a position. While yes, viking shieldwalls worked the way you are suggesting (with support from archers in the far rear) it is again against the way they have streamlined everything. You are more likely to get a shieldwall rule that gives the dwarves +1 armor save against missles if they don't march or quick reform.
I do like the concept though, great idea

Shieldwall might be the wrong name for it, but I'm glad you like the concept. It might seem too complex, but it'll give shields on Warriors a place and help make Dwarves more durable against killy foes (at the cost of reducing their lethality.)

[Gromdal]

Good point, but my take at least is that Dwarf Warriors should be awesome, but at a steep point cost. My maths goes something like this;

Dwarf Warrior, as is in his chainmail undies/Heavy Armour with HW: 7 pts (I think he's currently a pt overcosted)
Add 1 pt for Eternal Hatred/Grudgebearer
Add 1/2 pt for Dwarf Armour (reverse Armour Piercing, take 1 pt off Strength/AP armour modifier)
Add 1/2 pt for losing Resolute (take away the -1 flee/pursue rule, it's crippling)
Add 1/2 pt for compulsory shield. Normally 1 pt, but Dwarves will take GW anyway, so limits utility.
Add 1/2 pt for Movement boost, to allow Dwarves to better compete in this phase. I'm thinking auto-swift reform, with a Ld check allowing full 6" march move. Based on superior Dwarf discipline, which is critical to battlefield maneouvres. Leave at M3 though, it's part of the 'Dwarf Thing'.
Allow 2 pt upgrade for GW.

This gives you a Dwarf Warrior at 10 pts basic, with Hvy Armour, Shield and HW, who ignores the first pt of armour modification, gets rerolls to hit in the first round (always vs Greenskins/Skaven), can reform and move. You could cost him at 11 pts without too many issues, though 12 is too high I feel. The extra cost for GW is probably worth it, but then he's in the 12-13 pt bracket, and starts to be come expensive fast.

This Dwarf Warrior is now quite capable, but is also expensive, as he should be. Footing it vs Chaos Warriors/Black Guard/White Lions will be difficult, but he'll be superior vs most other core troops.

A final rule I'd like to see might be 'Shieldwall', whereby the Dwarf player can choose to use HW/Shield in the front rank with GW striking from behind. Again, this enhances the resilience of Dwarf infantry, though it will lower their lethality (front rank no longer with GW attacks in that combat). If taken, this would raise the base cost above to 11 pts per model, 13 with GW.

Some great ideas, not to fond of the shield wall thing though. But other than that i love it for the dwarf warrior.