General consensus on Tamurkhan's Legion of Azgorh Chaos Dwarfs

[Veshnakar]

So it's been about 8 months now since the release of the Tamurkhan book, and thus the Chaos Dwarf list, and I am curious as to everyone's consensus in regards to this army in general.

All of my local tournaments have been allowing them and the ETC is allowing them also, along with many big name tournaments here in the US like Buckeye Battles, the Northstar GT, Lonewolf GT, the Colonial GT, and even though Game Workshop's team tournament had excluded them, they had a poll at the end of the tournament questioning weather or not people wanted the list to be allowed next time around, which they likely will be.

So basically are you for or against the Legion of Azgorh, and why? Have you had positive or negative experiences playing against it? Would you ever outright refuse to play against it?

[Agoz]

I've never seen anyone play it, but if someone went and shelled out the cash for all those pretty warhammer forge minis, I'd be all for playing them.

[Akkaryn]

Had a few games with them. It either lead to my opponent or myself being very bored. So won't be playing them again.

[Satan]

The general consensus is that it's awesome.

[Artinam]

Why not? The list has some issues, like the monster that is hard to destroy but Chaos Dwarves are certainly not alone in this.

[jtrowell]

From what I understand, there are a few broken choices, mainly the destroyer that can kill whole armies by itself if you don't have the appropriate counter, and the magma canon that is very powerful against big units with its flame template, even monstrous unit has the whole template is multi-wound.

But I don't remember much from the rest of the army, so I cannot say if it's just a problem with those two choices (especially the destroyer) with the rest of the army being fine, or if there are more global problems.

[Razakel]

Had a few games with them. It either lead to my opponent or myself being very bored. So won't be playing them again.

What about them was so boring? They have all the advantages of being Dwarves, and also have cavalry, monsters and more interesting artillery. What about them was so boring?

Why not? The list has some issues, like the monster that is hard to destroy but Chaos Dwarves are certainly not alone in this.

The K'daai Destroyer took this a step further though, in fairness. I would take on any of the other big shot new generation monsters before I fought another K'daai Destroyer. Give me a Necrosphinx, Hierotitan, Arachnarok Spider, Terrorgheist, Stonehorn or Thundertusk before you have me fight another Destroyer.

Having said that, I will play LoA and voted yes in the poll. Aside from a few things that I feel are poorly tuned, it's a great list with a lot of character.

[Karak Norn Clansman]

It's a different army list with quite little available variation and some stark oddities that show its poor playtesting. Just look at the ovemighty Magma Cannons, grotesquely costly great weapons for Infernal Guards and K'daai Destroyer without any weaknesses. This is however not a strong enough reason to disregard the Legion of Azgorh CD list.

I understand if tournaments won't allow it, but outside these it should be no problem playing with the LoA. This hobby is about having fun, and I'm sure most of us have enjoyed playing with or against odd, variant, thematic lists, such as Zombie Pirates, those found in Storm of Chaos, or any number of unofficial variant army lists published in WD.

Merely the fact that LoA brings back Chaos Dwarfs as a playable faction makes it deserve a chance on tabletop. Of course, I'll build my CDs as Dwarf-proxies, but I'm sure LoA will find a use in my gaming group in the future. It is, after all, quite hard to proxy a Skullcracker if GW won't bring in the Dwarf Deathroller come next army book.

[Akkaryn]

[QUOTE=Razakel;6238072]What about them was so boring? They have all the advantages of being Dwarves, and also have cavalry, monsters and more interesting artillery. What about them was so boring?[/QUOTE

I've tried numerous lists with them with varying themes. Very few things I haven't tried. I just dislike the fact that all apart from one game I have had with them has ended before the end of turn three, one way or another. Games just end up one sided. I've only ever played them with my Wood Elves though and even that was a turn 3 win for myself. I would never refuse to play them as I find them quite fair, the destroyer is a pain in the **** to kill but it is doable. I just find every game I have played with them has been so one sided in either direction that it just wasn't fun.

[Satan]

It's a different army list with quite little available variation and some stark oddities that show its poor playtesting. Just look at the ovemighty Magma Cannons, grotesquely costly great weapons for Infernal Guards and K'daai Destroyer without any weaknesses. This is however not a strong enough reason to disregard the Legion of Azgorh CD list.

I understand if tournaments won't allow it, but outside these it should be no problem playing with the LoA. This hobby is about having fun, and I'm sure most of us have enjoyed playing with or against odd, variant, thematic lists, such as Zombie Pirates, those found in Storm of Chaos, or any number of unofficial variant army lists published in WD.

Merely the fact that LoA brings back Chaos Dwarfs as a playable faction makes it deserve a chance on tabletop. Of course, I'll build my CDs as Dwarf-proxies, but I'm sure LoA will find a use in my gaming group in the future. It is, after all, quite hard to proxy a Skullcracker if GW won't bring in the Dwarf Deathroller come next army book.

The ETC already allows it. For many people in Europe at least, that is THE tournament format.

[GodlessM]

The ETC already allows it. For many people in Europe at least, that is THE tournament format.

Ireland and UK don't use ETC rules all that much, but in Ireland at least we allow Chaos Dwarfs at most tournaments.

[Far2Casual]

They were allowed in Belgium before the ETC accepted it, and now that they have, I would be surprised to find any tournament that ban them, at least before 9th edition.

[Gradek]

I am not a big fan. It is very obvious that someone was high when they wrote the rules for the destroyer and that alone is a reason to ban the list. I would probably be willing to play the chaos dwarfs without that abomination, but if an opponent insisted on running it, I would pass. No need to waste my time.

[Satan]

I am not a big fan. It is very obvious that someone was high when they wrote the rules for the Grey Knights/Lizardmen/A-bomb/Storm of Magic Items/Lore of Death/Lore of Shadow and that alone is a reason to ban the list. I would probably be willing to play the chaos dwarfs without that abomination, but if an opponent insisted on running it, I would pass. No need to waste my time.

Fixed that for you.

Always gonna turn up stuff like that, and always gonna be skinks around to blowdart it.

[Urgat]

Of course I'd play it. The more variety, the merriest I am

[pippin_nl]

It's a different army list with quite little available variation and some stark oddities that show its poor playtesting. Just look at the ovemighty Magma Cannons, grotesquely costly great weapons for Infernal Guards and K'daai Destroyer without any weaknesses. This is however not a strong enough reason to disregard the Legion of Azgorh CD list.

I understand if tournaments won't allow it, but outside these it should be no problem playing with the LoA. This hobby is about having fun, and I'm sure most of us have enjoyed playing with or against odd, variant, thematic lists, such as Zombie Pirates, those found in Storm of Chaos, or any number of unofficial variant army lists published in WD.

Merely the fact that LoA brings back Chaos Dwarfs as a playable faction makes it deserve a chance on tabletop. Of course, I'll build my CDs as Dwarf-proxies, but I'm sure LoA will find a use in my gaming group in the future. It is, after all, quite hard to proxy a Skullcracker if GW won't bring in the Dwarf Deathroller come next army book.

I think they are the first army in 8th edition to have correctly priced optional great weapons (+3 pts). I hope marauders, dwarfs and chaos warriors will follow. So far only empire knights have optional great weapons (Tomb Kings have a monstrous unit as well?), but knights do not benefit so much from step up.

[Malorian]

The poll needs more options.

I'm fine playing against them just as I was before, but I don't think they should be allowed in tournaments.

[Razakel]

What comp would you install to make them playable in tournaments, Malorian? Or do you feel the army is fundamentally broken?

[Gaargod]

I am not a big fan. It is very obvious that someone was high when they wrote the rules for the Grey Knights/Lizardmen/A-bomb/Storm of Magic Items/Lore of Death/Lore of Shadow and that alone is a reason to ban the list. I would probably be willing to play the chaos dwarfs without that abomination, but if an opponent insisted on running it, I would pass. No need to waste my time.

Fixed that for you.

Always gonna turn up stuff like that, and always gonna be skinks around to blowdart it.

Um. What? How is the entire lizardmen list a 'someone was high when they wrote this'? Lizardmen was easily one of the best books of 7th ed - there was a few... ill-advised choices (on the too-powerful side, Slann were amazing, focused rumination was a no-brainer, and skirmishing skinks were great. The 'stampede' lists of many stegs weren't a good idea too. On the flip side, the special characters were either crap or overcosted or both, and ranked skinks are crazy overpriced except for redirectors - and even then, meh. And saurus being Ws3 still annoys me), but mostly it was a pretty good book - with actual mostly decent fluff!


Back on topic:
The K'daai Destroyer is indeed too good but with the exception of the stupid T6 + Blazing body combo meaning non-magical attacks less then S5 are boned (which could still just have been fixed by errataing 6s always wound), it's not that good. It's certainly not the hyperbolic 'it destroys whole armies' good - sure it's quick and hitty, but it's not that quick, nor does it fly/have random movement. It's hitty, but then so are a lot of monsters. Having a 4+ ward save (+blazing body) does make it frustratingly hard to kill, and having a 2+ ward versus flaming makes it rather good against a lot of monster killers (who often kit out with the eternal flame banner)... But it's still not as dangerous as some people make out. Stupid, yes. Easily fixable with a proper FAQ, also yes. Underpriced/overpowered? Still yes. But a literal 'I refuse to play that list'? No.

[Djekar]

I'd play them, but every report I've seen of them has been "sit back with my pretty models and let magma cannons and the destroyer do all the work". If that's really the only way the army plays, then I'd get bored facing it pretty quickly.