Dwarf Army Book - Suggestions for 8th edition

[Flash Felix]

Personally, I'd rather not see army wide Stubborn as the Dwarf equivalent to Speed of Asuryan or Eternal Hatred. Stubborn is nice, but it only kicks in when you lose a combat. I'd rather see something that makes us more likely to actually win in the first place.

Army wide rerolls to hit, similar to Eternal Hatred, Speed of Asuryan or Primal Fury are the best mechanic that I can see. Dwarves struggle in combat due to the low volume of attacks, which is why you see the GW hordes; it's the only way to create that high volume. We've decided that 2A models, Frenzy and units with AHW are out, and for sound reasons too (Dwarves are slow after all). So the one attack per model that Dwarves do have should be able to hit hard (GW) and accurately (high WS with rerolls). Give it a nice fluff coating and Bob's your uncle .

Add in something that reduces damage (armour modifiers or even a universal +1 AS), price it all accordingly, and you'll have combat Dwarves who'll be able to fight in medium sized units, knowing they'll be effective. Reduce the reliance on shooting, allow our blocks to seperate from the war machines without gifting their VPs and you'll have combat Dwarves who'll come out to play rather than castling.

[Flash Felix]

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

[SNIP]

I think you need to add in some Warbeast chaff for movement control/redirection, some M5+ Monstrous Infantry Golems/Steambots, 6" move from a Swift Reform and a means of protecting war machines to allow combat blocks to move away from them.

Dwarves shouldn't be fast, but a few of these ideas will ensure that at least they're not static. I think the biggest one is the war machine protection issue. Seriously, against Shades or Gutter Runners, my combat blocks are nailed into place as castle walls, to stop those damn skirmishers killing 600 VPs of artillery, while the rest of their army scampers off sniggering.

[Charistoph]

What if instead of Stubborn, Leadership is only reduced by half of the combat losses instead of the full amount? It's not quite Stubborn, but more stubborn than what is normally seen.

[Warhammer Madman]

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.

in theory this sounds like a sound stratagem but MSU dwarfs works great! please try it!
just swap your three hordes for six units of 15 and you will see what I mean... if your using an anvil its well worth it, and makes for interesting tactical application as apposed to grind fests. getting flank charges on units with only two ranks remaining is golden.

[The Low King]

in theory this sounds like a sound stratagem but MSU dwarfs works great! please try it!
just swap your three hordes for six units of 15 and you will see what I mean... if your using an anvil its well worth it, and makes for interesting tactical application as apposed to grind fests. getting flank charges on units with only two ranks remaining is golden.

Problem is that against anything good in combat (chaos warriors for example) you will lose most of the unit before they can strike. Even weak shooting will knock of enough to maul your combat potential against weak troops.

Unless you take MSU backed up by a gunline it simply fails vs a lot of enemies (i have tried it)

[Balerion]

Oh, don't get me wrong -- I was talking about background and army design, not in-game strategy.

[Gromdal]

Id like to see the following:

Lords and thanes getting stubborn. Lords being IMTP and transfering it to hammerers. Remove oathstones and replace them with book of grudges for thanes and lords and slayer characters (character and unit he leads hates all enemies)

Remove shield option from hammerers and give them gromril armour.

Give ironbreakers rune of stone and shield wall special rule (5++ parry)

Change Master Rune of gromril to: Whenever the character suffers a wound (after saves etc) test against the characters unmodified T, if passed the wound is ignored (this also works against spells that kill outright and allows no saves, kbs etc). Costs 125 pts.

Give all dwarf warmachines +1 on the roll on the misfire chart.

Give slayers both +2 str and +1 attack (ie both bonus from 2 hand weapons and great weapons).

Make miners be able to charge when they arrive and underground adv etc

All dwarf units would be giving diffrent stuff: Slayers more attacks, IBs def, hammerers middle ground etc.

Price it accordingly and bam we got dwarfs properly defensive and dwarfish (eldar race, rarer etc)

[Warhammer Madman]

Problem is that against anything good in combat (chaos warriors for example) you will lose most of the unit before they can strike. Even weak shooting will knock of enough to maul your combat potential against weak troops.

Unless you take MSU backed up by a gunline it simply fails vs a lot of enemies (i have tried it)

you may laugh but on Saturday I won a game VS. WoC with just that sort of army... (when you say gunline does a GT, 2 cannons and an OG count?).
as I said flank charges are your friend as I was getting 5 static and only 1-2 warriors striking me a round...
but I digress said army will be rendered useless next book (no out of turn charging...).

[The bearded one]

Change Master Rune of gromril to: Whenever the character suffers a wound (after saves etc) test against the characters unmodified T, if passed the wound is ignored (this also works against spells that kill outright and allows no saves, kbs etc). Costs 125 pts.

hot daimn...

note though that this equals a reversed 2+ wardsave.. after taking any normal wardsave you might have.

All dwarf units would be giving diffrent stuff: Slayers more attacks, IBs def, hammerers middle ground etc.

Keypoint for a new book. Currently all units are differentiated by having either the warriorprofile or the eliteprofile, and then having a different piece of equipment. (warriors: heavy armour and shield/gw)(thunderers; warriorprofile, light armour and handgun.) (ironbreakers; eliteprofile, gromril and shield) (longbeards; eliteprofile, heavy armour and gw/shield) (hammerers; eliteprofile, heavy armour and gw) etc. etc.

[Engineer]

How about Slayers get +1 attack and skirmish and an army wide rule of all dwarves count shield has additional hand weapons has well has shield. So the choice becomes +2 str or +1 att and +1 armor

[Gromdal]

hot daimn...

note though that this equals a reversed 2+ wardsave.. after taking any normal wardsave you might have.





Keypoint for a new book. Currently all units are differentiated by having either the warriorprofile or the eliteprofile, and then having a different piece of equipment. (warriors: heavy armour and shield/gw)(thunderers; warriorprofile, light armour and handgun.) (ironbreakers; eliteprofile, gromril and shield) (longbeards; eliteprofile, heavy armour and gw/shield) (hammerers; eliteprofile, heavy armour and gw) etc. etc.

Yup but it would cost 125 pts so no other runes could be taken so it would not be possible to have a ward save. Making a single dwarf lord going all out defense should be a hard nut to crack.

[knightime98]

Gw has started the reverse trend of not allowing items over 100 points.

Prima facia evidence is the removal of the Drakkenhoff Banner.

Which, I believe was the only magic banner/item over 100 points (absent anything from the Storm of Magic).

Lastly, this would be a very stale and stagnant build. Nobody wants to face the nigh unkillable character. I just don't see this happening for several reasons. Some of which I have pointed out here.

[Gromdal]

Gw has started the reverse trend of not allowing items over 100 points.

Prima facia evidence is the removal of the Drakkenhoff Banner.

Which, I believe was the only magic banner/item over 100 points (absent anything from the Storm of Magic).

Lastly, this would be a very stale and stagnant build. Nobody wants to face the nigh unkillable character. I just don't see this happening for several reasons. Some of which I have pointed out here.

The nigh unkillable dreadlord for a magic item that costs 35 pts? The vampire lord with fear bomb, glittering scales and dragon that is nigh unhittable? (imo one out of 6 is not nigh impossible but anyways....), the chaos lord with 3++ and immunity against suffering more than a single wound?

Far worse combos than this exist at a cheaper price. I think that a full defensive dwarf lord should rival the absolute hardest character to kill.

Will it be points effective for the dwarf player? Not very much, but it would be proper to include it. I would always field it as it is the epitome of dwarfishness.

[xisor83]

just to give my 2 cents, i would rather see dwarves getting something more defensive that something like hatred as mentioned earlier. Maybe something along the lines of gromril armour halving AS modifiers so str 5 would only reduce the save by 1. I think this would help make dwarves the immovable object they should be and works well with fluff etc. Would also make ironbreakers a viable option once again.

[Liber]

Maybe something along the lines of gromril armour halving AS modifiers so str 5 would only reduce the save by 1

+1 to this idea.

And give Gromril to Hammerers and I'm happy.

[Bikhu]

Id like to see the following:

Lords and thanes getting stubborn. Lords being IMTP and transfering it to hammerers. Remove oathstones and replace them with book of grudges for thanes and lords and slayer characters (character and unit he leads hates all enemies)

Hello everybody.

I just joined the forum and I am really enjoying this thread. Some of the ideas have been quite intriguing.

I have seen this suggestion (lords and thanes have stubborn) pop up several times and it seems like a really good way to structure the dwarf army. Its not army-wide stubborn but allows Dwarves ready access to stubborn.

The other idea that seems really good is allowing dwarves one free swift reform during their remaining moves sub-phase with a musician ("Dwarven discipline"). I may be wrong, but wouldn't this allow more maneuverability without increasing the iconic movement 3? And wouldn't more maneuverability help encourage more dynamic movement tactics? I am imagining a unit of Ironbreakers moving 6" in a straight line to come between an enemy block and a unit of thunders and then reforming to face the enemy, while a unit of hammerers marches 6" and reforms to set up a counter-charge.

These 2 rules when combined with more expensive artillery, movement 5 or 6 monstrous infantry or mobile damage dealing machines, and slightly improved close-combat power per point would seem to encourage gunline alternatives.

Armywide piercing resistance would also help improve dwarven combat power without being overpowering. It would also hopefully give hw/s warriors a better place in the army. Would 8 point warriors with shield included that had one free swift reform, pierce resistance, and the ability to be stubborn with a 75 point thane (assuming his points increased by 10 for stubborn) be too cheap? Warriors could come with a shield and have to buy 2handed weapons for 2 points without losing the shield, which would differentiate the two by 2 points without arbitrarily increasing the points of 2 handed weapons to 3 points instead of 2.

If the dwarf army included a few mobile units that could effectively act as hammers (instead of requiring big blocks of slow moving GW hordes), that also might increase the usefulness of hw/s warriors, they could act as an anvil unit with enough ranks to counter steadfast while a mobile hammer unit can actually cause wounds. When you have slow moving, single str 3 attack, high toughness, high armor infantry, it seems like each block has to work on its own without support from other combat blocks, meaning it makes the most sense to simply give them GW's and have them act as their own anvil and hammer.

I do not think normal warriors need more combat power on their own more then they need some other unit to act as an effective hammer to their anvil.

Unfortunately, GW will probably just drop the points cost of dwarves by 2 (which is what I am hearing), add some units, and be done with it.

[knightime98]

Welcome aboard, Bikhu -

Nice to see someone with a fresh perspective. The Dwarves are in need of an update and face numerous challenges to adjust to the 8th edition climate. No one thing or change will address all the issues laid out before the Dwarves. When the 8th edition army book does hit the shelves, Dwarves as we now know them will be very different. Here are some things that will be changed.

- Anvil of Doom
- Organ Gun
- Flame Cannon
- Gyrocopter

everything else is speculation but most likely, the Dwarves in the new tradition of 8th Edition will be acquiring some big box set of some type. Albeit, it could be the so called Beer Cart or an Airship, perhaps a steam driven engine likening to the Steam Tank. Others have pondered the idea of Golems. Infantry need updates on runes for weapons, armor, banners and so on. Lastly, what has been talked about most recently is the possible addition of runic magic to the magic phase. This is the most serious of issues as it will arbitrarily and single handedly change the way Dwarves approach a battlefield.

The nuts and bolts of it are, we simply do not know the exact direction GW will go with the Dwarves. However, we can remain hopeful that we will have a good, fair, and balanced book that will open the door for new tactics and strategy - aside from park on the hill - combat Dwarves to the front, Warmachines behind, Defend the hill until the end of the game. This tactic - called castling is boring and stale. The Dwarves need a new outlook with fresh ideas and hence the reason for me starting this thread.

All for now...

[Gromdal]

Hello everybody.

I just joined the forum and I am really enjoying this thread. Some of the ideas have been quite intriguing.

I have seen this suggestion (lords and thanes have stubborn) pop up several times and it seems like a really good way to structure the dwarf army. Its not army-wide stubborn but allows Dwarves ready access to stubborn.

The other idea that seems really good is allowing dwarves one free swift reform during their remaining moves sub-phase with a musician ("Dwarven discipline"). I may be wrong, but wouldn't this allow more maneuverability without increasing the iconic movement 3? And wouldn't more maneuverability help encourage more dynamic movement tactics? I am imagining a unit of Ironbreakers moving 6" in a straight line to come between an enemy block and a unit of thunders and then reforming to face the enemy, while a unit of hammerers marches 6" and reforms to set up a counter-charge.

These 2 rules when combined with more expensive artillery, movement 5 or 6 monstrous infantry or mobile damage dealing machines, and slightly improved close-combat power per point would seem to encourage gunline alternatives.

Armywide piercing resistance would also help improve dwarven combat power without being overpowering. It would also hopefully give hw/s warriors a better place in the army. Would 8 point warriors with shield included that had one free swift reform, pierce resistance, and the ability to be stubborn with a 75 point thane (assuming his points increased by 10 for stubborn) be too cheap? Warriors could come with a shield and have to buy 2handed weapons for 2 points without losing the shield, which would differentiate the two by 2 points without arbitrarily increasing the points of 2 handed weapons to 3 points instead of 2.

If the dwarf army included a few mobile units that could effectively act as hammers (instead of requiring big blocks of slow moving GW hordes), that also might increase the usefulness of hw/s warriors, they could act as an anvil unit with enough ranks to counter steadfast while a mobile hammer unit can actually cause wounds. When you have slow moving, single str 3 attack, high toughness, high armor infantry, it seems like each block has to work on its own without support from other combat blocks, meaning it makes the most sense to simply give them GW's and have them act as their own anvil and hammer.

I do not think normal warriors need more combat power on their own more then they need some other unit to act as an effective hammer to their anvil.

Unfortunately, GW will probably just drop the points cost of dwarves by 2 (which is what I am hearing), add some units, and be done with it.

Welcome to the forum and glad to see that you have enjoyed this great thread about the dwarfs!

Lets have some confidence in GW though. I actually think and hope that they will give dwarf lords and thanes stubborn, I also believe that they will make it possible to make dwarf lords rival the absolute hardest defensive characters in the game. If I get these things I will be very happy. Add to this some general balance things that move dwarfs more to close combat and less towards gunlines and the dwarf army will be alot of fun!!

[GotrekFan]

I was thinking about slayers again and a mechanic to give them staying power against low strength "unimpressive" attacks that isn't too general or broken. How about a rule called "An honourable death"
Slayers receive a ward save equal to the strength of the attack that causes a wounding hit.
Trollslayers minus 2 to the result, Giantslayers minus 1, no modifiers for Dragonslayers, plus 1 modifier for Daemonslayers. No save may be less than 6+ or better than 3+.
There is no save against attacks with no S value outside of combat. Against poison attacks/ autowound use the opposing models base S to calculate the save.

This would allow them to shrug of bow fire and give them a chance against monsters/ big things. With the fact that they are likely to stay around longer there would be no need to increase their damage output.

It's a rough idea, but has potential I feel.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gromdal]

I was thinking about slayers again and a mechanic to give them staying power against low strength "unimpressive" attacks that isn't too general or broken. How about a rule called "An honourable death"
Slayers receive a ward save equal to the strength of the attack that causes a wounding hit.
Trollslayers minus 2 to the result, Giantslayers minus 1, no modifiers for Dragonslayers, plus 1 modifier for Daemonslayers. No save may be less than 6+ or better than 3+.
There is no save against attacks with no S value outside of combat. Against poison attacks/ autowound use the opposing models base S to calculate the save.

This would allow them to shrug of bow fire and give them a chance against monsters/ big things. With the fact that they are likely to stay around longer there would be no need to increase their damage output.

It's a rough idea, but has potential I feel.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I kinda like it and have thought about similar ideas myself. However im not sure about it since making normal slayers stay alive is nono for me.

My ideas have more revolved around letting normal slayers die in droves but making them more powerful offensively. Slayer weapons special rule: Slayers get both benefits from great weapons (+2 str) and +1 attack for additional hand weapon.

This would give the dwarfs a 2 attack trooper. With the downside that it lacks saves. Price accordingly.

Another alternative ive also thought alot about is the legendary status that a few slayers achieve. Thus changing the slayers in the following ways:

Make them into 3 ranks.

Slayers: The normal dwarf that suffers dishonor etc and takes the slayer oath. He will most likely die in the first battle, vs the first troll etc. So he has nothing but a basic dwarf profile.

The second rank, Trollslayers: These dwarfs are very dangerous, they have faced a troll, minotaur etc alone and killed it. We are talking amazing luck, resilience, strength and cunning. Hero profile (T4) and all wounds suffered are tested against the unmodified T of the model (see my master rune of gromril idea above). This will make trollslayers hard to kill.

The third rank, Dragonslayers: Think Gotrek. This dwarf cannot seem to find death despite throwing himself at a giant, dragon etc. Lord profile and test against his T like for trollslayers. This dude will be legendary.

And a final rule to make sure that we dont have many unbreakable heroes spread around: All slayers fight alone unless there are other slayers present in which case they always band together into a single unit.

I can see the unit of slayers lead by a dragonslayer, all of them being killed and as night falls old Rorek Dragonslayer yet agains stands untop of a mound of corpses. Bloodied and battered but still alive...