Dwarf Army Book - Suggestions for 8th edition

[Balerion]

Don't Brets have to surrender the first turn to get their ward save, or something along those lines?

Both of you forgot a huge one for the Undead: severe marching limitations. Fear, too.

Let's just agree that it's not at all uncommon for a helpful special rule to include a drawback or offsetting harmful rule.

But that sprinters rule seems ludicrous to me. Dwarfs seem like the last race who would ever launch a mad, ally-trampling scramble to get into combat.

[Erikjust]

The only unit in a dwarf army that might require faster movement would be the Slayers. The Slayers are monster hunters problem is as it is now they aren´t very fast and any monster who doesn´t want to face them can just run around them and be on its way, so Slayers would be good if they where faster then the rest of the dwarf units.

Oh and Flame cannon really needs to have its range upgraded it basically useless as it is now.

[Da_White_Orc]

as someone who takes ld 5 core infantry, i'm constantly taking dangerous terrain tests on units of 30+ when they flee back through my lines. i never find the losses that harsh. a handful of guys. of course bulit into my rule was basically a limit on enormous units of dwarfs. as if you took units of 20, a dangerous terrain test would only net you 3-4 casualties. it only gets nasty on big hordes of elite dwarfs and you shouldn`t be taking those anyway

so how about this, 'natural sprinters' dwarfs can make a swifstriding charge with a -1 modifier or can march 8" with no modifier. Either of these maneuvers is considered a sprint.

At the end of a sprinting charge they have to pass a single strength test on the strength of the unit before modifiers, if they pass they fight normally, if they fail they are winded and reduce their weapon skill, strength and initiative by 1 for the first combat round. after the first combat round, they have recovered and fight normally.

after a sprinting march, they have to take a toughness test on the toughness of the unit before modifiers, if they pass they move normally next turn, but if they fail they get a stitch and can neither charge nor march (sprint or otherwise) nor shoot missile weapons the next turn.

this way you're not actually killing them, but you're giving them some tough choices (less tough for elites, who will pass that strength test more readily than the core guys) especially sprinting into enemy elites and monsters. Charging into weak enemies or archers is no big deal. and of course if you pass that strength test, your dwarfs just made a heroic sprint into combat displaying their natural affinity for sprinting

Meanwhile the sprinting march can be used to get into a better position, but if your enemy then fails a charge, you will not be able to capitalize if you fail that toughness test. your handgunners will be able to move up more effectively but there's a 1 in 3 chance they will lose their shooting the next turn.

with dwarf toughness naturally higher than their strength, the march will be used more casually than the charge.

[theunwantedbeing]

so how about this, 'natural sprinters' dwarfs can make a swifstriding charge with a -1 modifier or can march 8" with no modifier. Either of these maneuvers is considered a sprint.

I love it! but call it something more appropriate like "long legs".

[Balerion]

Is this whole sprinting fixation based on the single, regrettable, throwaway line from the LotR movie, or is there some whole tangent of Warhammer Dwarf fluff that I've overlooked...

[DareX2]

Is this whole sprinting fixation based on the single, regrettable, throwaway line from the LotR movie, or is there some whole tangent of Warhammer Dwarf fluff that I've overlooked...

It's a creative attempt at overcoming a poor Movement stat and having access to no cavalry. While the idea is interesting, it only really makes sense to me on Slayers. Even then, I think The Bearded One's "Look Snorri, Trolls!" idea from several pages back - Slayers get Vanguard - makes more sense than a sprinting rule.

[The Odor]

I dont see why a sprinter rule makes sense. Dwarves arent sprinters. They have great endurance not bursts of speed. But endurance is not really possible to note into the game unless they give everyone else something like:
Tired!: take a toughness test every turn after the first. If failed drop all stats by one.

And make dwarves ignore it or something but that dosent really work.

[yabbadabba]

Bring back encumberance penalties - that'll sort the Dwarves' movement out!

[zak]

As Yabba' said bring back encumbrance tests, allow Slayers to have vanguard and a ward and you offset a lot of the issues Dwarves currently suffer from in the movement phase.

[The bearded one]

as someone who takes ld 5 core infantry, i'm constantly taking dangerous terrain tests on units of 30+ when they flee back through my lines. i never find the losses that harsh. a handful of guys.

Why are you even taking dangerous terrain tests when fleeing through your own units? That only happens when you're allied with another army into a "desperate alliance" and fleeing through one of their units.

Furthermore, your ld5 core infantry costs 3 points, not 10 like dwarven infantry.

of course bulit into my rule was basically a limit on enormous units of dwarfs. as if you took units of 20, a dangerous terrain test would only net you 3-4 casualties. it only gets nasty on big hordes of elite dwarfs and you shouldn`t be taking those anyway

Dwarf core costs 9-10 points and their elites 12-13 (usually 10 and 12 respectively), and both generally use great weapons as those are simply several times more effective, but as dwarfs all only have 1 attack each and no way to boost their number of attacks or chances of hitting, they require the horde formation to have a respectable number of attacks. The difference in pointcost between core and elite is rather minor anyway so both are used in comparable quantities.


This is simply out of curiosity, but what does your local dwarfplayer generally use in his army? And also how large are units usually in your local meta, because the suggestion to get dwarf elite units down to 20'ish makes me wonder.

[stashman]

Some stuff that can be done with dwarfs.

Dwarf Overall Rules:
Fight in extra ranks (... perhaps because they have been trained to do so...) Can help dwarfs keep smaller units and still pack out some decent amount of attacks.


Slayers
Going for big trophies: +1 to wound monsters, mounstrous infantry and monstrous cavalry.
Thats not a worthy way to die: -1 to be wounded by missile fire, warmachine or magic missile/direct damage.
Look Snorri, trolls!!!: Vanguard (really nice rule, from someone else here)


Ironbreakers
Hold the line: Counts as being behind "Wall" obstacle rule, when getting charged or shot at.
Gromril Axes: Armourpiercing rule

Gyrocopters
Let it be a mount for engineers and also work like a squadron of 1-3 in a unit. Let them have bombs to drop


Engineers
Add a scope to the handgun for Sniper rule

[The Odor]

Stash: I agree with everything but the fight in Extra Ranks rule. Makes little sense, the rest I fancy. Dwarves have quite short arms, I doubt they can reach around their chubby brothers in arms. The Anti Armour percing rule metioned earlier makes more sense.

[The bearded one]

Concerning new dwarf rules armywide stubborn often pops up. That would be way too powerful, but I once thought of some form of armywide weaker stubborn to represent their determined nature. In all stories, even where they're punchingbags (which is in a lot of them) they have heroic last stands, fighting to the bitter end, instead of a rout (or even retreat), whereas other races such as the empire and even high and dark elves rout plenty of times in their fluff.

Thus I thought it might be a good representation to give them a weak version of stubborn: Whenever the dwarf unit(s) is not steadfast, the negative modifier on their breaktest is limited to -4.

(In other words a ld9 dwarf unit that loses a combat counts as though it is stubborn on leadership 5. I just worded it the way I did to prevent confusion ruleswise so that one wouldn't think that whenever a non-steadfast dwarf loses combat his leadership is downgraged to 5 and he gains stubborn. If he only loses by 2 he still tests on 7. If he loses by 20, he tests on 5. )


This "maximum modifier" could of course be increased to a maximum of -5 or -6, because with a lord (ld10) and a BSB dwarfs would be testing on ld6 at the most and with a reroll the odds of passing that might be a bit too high.

[Balerion]

-4 seems like a bit of an awkward mechanic (arbitrary number pulled out of nowhere, requires minor additional math to assess the benefit, etc.) but what about something simpler like "All Dwarf units take break tests on 3D6, keeping the two lowest results".

[theunwantedbeing]

-4 seems like a bit of an awkward mechanic (arbitrary number pulled out of nowhere, requires minor additional math to assess the benefit, etc.) but what about something simpler like "All Dwarf units take break tests on 3D6, keeping the two lowest results".

That's cold blooded which is a Lizardmen thing.
They may well get an ability to take break tests on 1D6 rather than 2 though, provided they fulfill some criteria which could be having a champion still alive or something like that.

[yabbadabba]

How about Dwarves reroll failed LD tests, except break tests. That only happens with the BSB? This could be an army wide rule.

[Athlan na Dyr]

Ehh... Stubborn, whether its conditional or not generally makes things more wonky, as opposed to solving them. The whole notion of dwarves being brave and not running is reflected in their leadership - the only problem being Inspiring Presence kinda makes this redundant.

Rather than messing about with core mechanics, such as break tests, lets focus on combat and was to reduce negative CR.
My solution is a special rule for units using shields in combat, called shield bash

Shield Bash:
Many Dwarf units are trained to use shields in both an offensive and defensive nature. Whilst the later is always evident, the former only comes to the fore in combat. Here a shield-armed dwarf will rush at his opponent and trap his weapon using the shield, protecting both himself and his unit.
A Dwarf unit using shields in combat may elect to use shield bash. If they do so, the front rank of the dwarf unit and the front rank of an opposing infantry unit (excluding characters) are unable to attack for as long as shield bash is being used. Note that this cannot be used is the unit is engaged in the rear or flanks.

So, gives some purpose for shield units as opposed to GW units and counters multi-attack infantry. This will bring total casualties suffered in combat down, meaning CR is likely to be more even and the dwarf's higher LD will make it highly likely that they will hold. That said, it can be countered by Cavalry, Monsters or flanking so needs some degree of thought to use or counter.

[vinny t]

I think the best ideas for improving the speed of the army is this.

Slayers - Vanguard
Rangers - Movement 4
Armywide special rule - Disciplined - all dwarf units can make a swift reform move even if they don't have a musician
Gyrocopter Units - Fly and Swiftstride
Miners - tunneling rule, similar to the tomb king's
Ironbreakers - ambush

So they have one unit that is legitimately fast, 4 units that are faster than the rest of the army, and a special rule that accurately represents their nature as well as having movement-based value

[DareX2]

Concerning new dwarf rules armywide stubborn often pops up. That would be way too powerful, but I once thought of some form of armywide weaker stubborn to represent their determined nature. In all stories, even where they're punchingbags (which is in a lot of them) they have heroic last stands, fighting to the bitter end, instead of a rout (or even retreat), whereas other races such as the empire and even high and dark elves rout plenty of times in their fluff.

At first, I thought it was too powerful as well. After thinking about it, I'm coming around to it. After all, if someone had proposed ASF or Hatred as an army wide special rule, I would have thought they were out of their mind. Yet they work surprisingly well for their relevant armies. In that light, army-wide stubborn does two things for Dwarfs. First, it reaffirms a central theme for Dwarf infantry, which is the notion that the enemy must be prepared to fight a Dwarf unit to the man. Dwarf combat is all about a war of attrition; Dwarfs win partially from great skill with axe and hammer, but they largely win by being so damn tough and resolute that they will simply grind down their opponents or die trying. It's in keeping with both the fluff and the design philosophy of the army. Second - and this is just supposition on my part - it would turn the Dwarf melee army from a horde-based army to an MSU-based army, which is more in keeping with idea of Dwarfs being the few against the many. It not only emphasizes that they are elite, but it does so in a way that makes sense based on our understand of what a Warhammer Dwarf represents. To a degree, it also gives Dwarfs maneuverability without actually giving them greater movement.

If army-wide Stubborn were to be integrated, I would see it done in two ways. One option would be make the Longbeard's "Old Grumblers" rule offer Stubborn instead of Immune to Panic. It makes Longbeards more relevant, and gives players the option to build strategies around Longbeard support. I would also suggest that Stubborn be given to all Dwarf elite units (ie Hammerers/Ironbreakers/Longbeards), just to emphasize the eliteness of the elite units. The second option I see would be simply to make it army-wide, but reduce the Ld of all non-elite units to 8. This gives character leadership more of a role, and it helps to make the army-wide Stubborn slightly more reasonable. Perhaps Longbeards can do for Dwarf units what Bretonnian Knights do for peasants, where the "Old Grumblers" rule allows units in range to use the Longbeards' leadership.

The more I think about army-wide Stubborn, the more I think the idea might have some credence.

[Balerion]

Second - and this is just supposition on my part - it would turn the Dwarf melee army from a horde-based army to an MSU-based army, which is more in keeping with idea of Dwarfs being the few against the many.

When you're the few against the many you concentrate your strength, not fracture it into even smaller units. MSU doesn't suit Dwarfs at all.