PDA

View Full Version : Lack Luster of the DWARVES!



knightime98
20-03-2010, 10:21
I have been a long time avid player of Warhammer since the beginning of 6th edition (about 10 years ago). For 5-6 years or so, I played exclusively Empire and O+G. Primarily, because I bought 4 of the starter box sets (you got both Empire and O+G w/that set). About 2-3 years ago, I expanded to first include Lizardmen(before 7th edition advent), then Dark Elves (start of 7th edition), High Elves (during 7th edition), and Dwarves (7th), along with Skaven (end of 6th).

So much for the interlude.

Moving on. It seems to me that the Dwarves had a punch in the 6th edition rules and format. I have not had any real success with the Dwarves and through my experienced play seem to find that they are flawed in many ways.
I don't want to make this a rant and I'm not a power gamer. Simply put, I don't play the Broken busted Thorek Anvil line. To me, that is the most ridiculous set up that I can ever think of... Since when do (up to 3 units) of Dwarves get to charge 12" on their turn? How the hell does this make any sense.. On the flip side, many Dwarf players swear by it and I wonder why?

I'll tell you why - it's because it's the only thing that works!

I'll go on point to point from here. Several components that I find lacking are

*The REAL ability to mitigate magic (4 dispel dice base - doesn't cut it with 7th!). Armies with 12+ PD are so very common it's pathetic.

* Lack of mobility (base 3 move?)

* Being outclassed in all facets by certain armies.. i.e. Woc (via WS, Armor, points cost, attacks, movement, frenzy, 4-6 pt mauraders w/flails etc..)

* No cheap - bait and flee units available... To static of an army all around..

* Warmachines are a bit over costed in some aspects and simply don't cut the mustard at the end of the day.. Granted you can get a great shot off here and there.. My concern is with efficiency and reliability. It is my opinion that the Empire outclass them here..

* The rune magic items thing? Yeah, its great - but why don't the Dwarves have the real "hammer".. Meaning where is the I do a d6 wounds with no armor save gimmick? Everyone else does...

* Anvil equals broke and retarded as I mentioned above. Great idea needs to be reworked.

* So called Elite units? Where? Iron Breakers with 1 attack, Hammerer's with 1 attack?, .. for the IB (1+ AS is nice). I think the problem is here that.. the Dwarves don't have the punch..

* Lack of any shock troops.. i.e. no chariots, heavy cavalry, monsters or of any other type. Now, I'll concede this point to the theme of the army itself. It's not supposed to have those things.

* Shooting.. Oh brother.. 14pts for a thunderer? Whose smoking from the Sherriff's Evidence locker now? 8pts for an Empire hand gunner! 10 points for a Dark Elf Repeater Crossbow with higher BS and can shoot twice! Empire Crossbows are s4 range 30 and are 8 pts! Come on already!
For Warmachines in this category, w/engineers and such to make them "functional" and gain any real benefit makes their points become a bit silly. Especially when a units of harpies/dogs/flesh hounds, etc.. come charging them on turn 2.. Turn 1 if your TK with Carrion and the spam move incantation. Wow, Dwarves getting pummeled by TK even!

Aside from the ONE and ONLY way of winning with the Dwarves (broken Thorek Line) - I find that the Dwarves are not competitive in any way to the current armies out there? Is it me or am I just the lone wolf barking at the full moon by myself?

Next, the same kind of ridiculous builds seem to be out there for other armies.. Here are some examples of broken ideas that seem to work and really seem to be the only way for them to win..

High Elves w/ Star Dragon

Dark Elves w/ Pendant of Khalef (broken), Ring of Hotek(broken), ASF Banner, dual Hydras (they have other builds but this is somewhat common)

Lastly, these armies are also lacking any real competitiveness

O+G
Tomb Kings
to some degree High Elves (AS of a 5+ with any troop choice? for ASF @ s3?)
Ogre Kingdoms

So these are my thoughts, don't mean to sound like a rant but rather an observation of where GW is going with 8th edition now that they have 3 super broken armies...
DoC
DE
Vampires

Beastmen and Skaven have been recently released and the Hellpit Abomination - I will NEVER play against or with! PERIOD.. Most broken thing GW has ever put in print! Absolutely ridiculous! (Point for point, I do play Skaven so... )

Ok - thanks for reading my book.. Your thoughts on what I have written..
Cheers..

P.S. Don't Blast me with YOUR CRAZY, HOW COULD YOU SAY .... .. Be constructive.. Thanks in advance.

elvinltl
20-03-2010, 10:53
Several Misconception of Dwarves you seem to have.

1) Dwarves are NOT supposed to be Anti-magical creatures. The reason why they have an addition 2 Dispel dice is simply because Dwarves are unlike other Armies which can easily integrate Wizards into their army for additional Dispel Dices. Take of Example Vampire Counts/Lizardmen/Elves/Empire who can easily field Level 2 Wizards to gain more Dispel Dices.

2) Dwarves are not supposed to be mobile. They are a defensive stonic race that would rather stay in fortresses. If they can march move 10", Elves should be able to march move 16". Calvary can charge on the first turn.

HOWEVER, I agree with you on the following.

1) Their Elite unit sucks. Seriously... They pose no serious threat to anything in melee.

2) Their warmachines are unreliable and overshadowed by Empire. It is true it might be scary to face 2 Cannons and 4 Bolt throwers. But it is really easy to disable Warmachines in the current edition.

3) Their rune magic is kind of lame and wierd. I do not play dwarves but they should give more generic runes that confers frenzy, amour piercing or even poison which will make them more potent in closecombat.
Not to mention the fact that there are always so few dwarves on the table that the runes do not come as a surprise.

4) Dwarves are suppose to be able to tank and hold. Unfortunately.... they are not fearless like Undead. They are not as potent in Closecombat as Elves. According to fluff, dwarves are meant to be stubbon creatures who are able to hold the fort but from what I see, they almost always get raped in close combat. Their immobility also result in flank and rear flank and they run at 2D6-1". lol

Dwarves need something to shine. If they want the "Surprise Rune" tatic to work, they need to make dwarven infantry more durable and potent. Or simply reduce the point cost so that more dwarves will appear on the table.
Their Warmachines need to be special and reliable. Like lowered chance of misfire even the ability to move and fire without suffering penalty.
GWS really need to differentiate dwarves and give them a Hallmark.

rodmillard
20-03-2010, 10:58
What you have to remember is that the Dwarf book was actually the last book released under 6ed. As such, it was balanced against the other 6ed army lists, although it was written with 7ed rules in mind. The early 7ed books have the same problem (O&G, Empire) - its only with HE that army creep of doom started to set in, with the apparent change in design philosophy that instead of balancing each new book against those that were already in print, every new army had to be in some way better than anything already available (WTF?)

I play dwarfs, HE, skaven and beastmen (I also have an empire army, but that is more of a modelling project and has yet to see the battlefield). Like you, I try to avoid the cliched "broken" lists, but here are a few dwarf builds I find work well (usually because your opponent isn't expecting it):

Mobile Dwarves: Rangers (led by a thane with rune of brotherhood), multiple units of miners, twin gyrocopters. NO ANVIL (I do own one, but only ever use it as a generic anvil, and only at 3K or more when it is my 2nd lord choice). I find a single runesmith with the MR of Balance is sufficient magic defense - 6 DD (one of which is stolen from your opponent's power dice pool) - allowing for failed rolls, this gives you a reasonable chance to block any really nasty spells without completely shutting your opponents magic phase down (which I consider bad sportsmanship).

Low Tech: Crossbowmen (one unit deploying as rangers), grudge throwers, and bolt throwers, with the Goblin Hewer in rare. This army can use "gunline" tactics, but the points (and special slots) freed up by using low tech war machines allow for some nasty infantry blocks - I find 28 Hammerers led by a lord with shield bearers is enough to ruin most peoples day (even if the hammerers are only there to provide ablative armour for the lord!)

With either build, a lone dragonslayer with the MR of swiftness is an entertaining (and nasty) wildcard without being broken.

Hope these give you a bit of inspiration - and show that themed lists can be surprisingly effective without breaking the game.

knightime98
20-03-2010, 11:16
Yes, and I forgot to mention that for the few units that you have points into it that can actually fight... Yeah, the 28 dwarves w/Lord in it unit is a classic example. Just as you said, "IF IT GETS INTO COMBAT"... Everybody and his brother won't be anywhere within 6" to the front of that unit ever at any time.
You just spent 250+ points on the unit and 150-250 on Lord. Somewhere around ~400-500 points that is easily avoided! Just get moved around and slaughters your warmachines as this unit just watches...

On the other hand, I think they can take something that draws enemies to them if I remember right. But it costs points with a character to do it. Maybe that was a challenge gauntlet or something..

One other fine point to expand upon is the idea of having any fast cav.. which means you WILL NOT ever have a unit with US 5 behind an enemy that breaks from combat.. funny that!

I get your idea with the miners popping up and all that but the gamers I play with have at least a 6 foot wide table and battles are in the middle almost always. Considering the miners won't pop up until AT LEAST turn 2.. then marching across the board... when will they see combat turn 6?

All great ideas.. but they can not be implemented easily if at all....

The idea of a Dragon Slayer bit might be a nifty one trick pony. I'll put that in the stocking stuffer for a nice surprise.

Edit - On a side note, I've have GREAT success with the Gyro-copter. It's the one thing that all my opponents want to kill immediately! It's the only thing with mobility that can march block the enemy! Then fry them! That's just awesome.. Too bad, Dwarves don't have more things like that!

Grimstonefire
20-03-2010, 11:28
A lot of the issues metionned here are design issues with victory points. Players should have to fight your dwarf unit in order to win, their lack of movement should not be an issue at all.

Thunderers and quarrellers are slightly over priced imo. As are ironbreakers (who need a serious boost anyway imo).

I wouldn't say that swiftness should be the way forwards for dwarfs (if they change to objective driven battle), but they need things to break their 'war of attrition' static combat. Something like the skaven doomflayer would be ideal really, but the dwarfs wouldn't have something like that because of tradition.

elvinltl
20-03-2010, 11:34
A lot of the issues metionned here are design issues with victory points. Players should have to fight your dwarf unit in order to win, their lack of movement should not be an issue at all.

Thunderers and quarrellers are slightly over priced imo. As are ironbreakers (who need a serious boost anyway imo).

I wouldn't say that swiftness should be the way forwards for dwarfs (if they change to objective driven battle), but they need things to break their 'war of attrition' static combat. Something like the skaven doomflayer would be ideal really, but the dwarfs wouldn't have something like that because of tradition.

The problem is people will fight Dwarves at their advantage. Even with the lack of movement, Dwarves do not seem to have enough control over the board. They will fight Dwarves after having disabled their shooting and preparing to flank/rear charge. Or even having the desired units like 10 Executioners charging dwarves which will surely end in devestation for the Dwarves.

They do not need swiftness but they need something to effectively maintain some control over the board.

Ozorik
20-03-2010, 11:40
A lot of these issues are also due to the fact that the army book is old, hence the relatively underpowered elites (but only when compared to the last few army books), restrictions on the master rune of challenge etc.

Dwarf missile units aren't actually all that overcosted given that they can stand up fairly well to fast cavalry and other missile unit hunters which is unqiue (unless you count goblin archer blocks) and thunderers are effectively BS 4.

That dragon slayer is much better naked as he is very cheap and he still retains the slayer axes rule, use him to tarpit low strength units for the entire game.

As for the one and only way of winning with Dwarves I think that you will find that is an error. I play an infantry centric army with minimal missile support and I win more than I lose, even against some of the current power builds.

The core of the army is sound, it just needs a little tweeking.

If the rumours about objective based games are true Dwarves will become much more widely regarded as powerful.

Davo
20-03-2010, 11:44
I think Thunderers, Organ Gun and the Gyrocopter are excellent units that most armies fear. They could do with putting Longbeards into special pretty much as they are (maybe cheaper points cost) and giving the Ironbreakers and Hammerers an extra attack to bring them into line with other elites.

One of the things that I love about Dwarves is their lack of special rules just for the sake of special rules which many other armies suffer from and wouldn't really want that to change however I would agree that they do need something.

Somehow get a unit of flyers into the fluff? Make rangers/slayers skirmishers? I am not sure but I sure hope that GW does not overcomplicate what is in practice an excellent army and my favourite.

Lord0rcus
20-03-2010, 11:46
One of the reasons that GW has not redone chaos dwarves, is that they were superior to their cousins the dwarves. They had the elements that the regular dwarves lacked: spell casters, cheap units in the form of hobgoblins, cavalry and flankers. When the dwarves are redone, I hope GW realizes that the thematic limitation placed are dwarves diminish the fun of both playing with and against them.

Davo
20-03-2010, 11:49
Oh, and I would be entirely in favour of making Dwarf Warriors a 1+ unit to try and get rid of the 3 units of Thunderers gunlines out there. However in return for this, we Dwarf players really need something good. I really don't think Dwarves are far away from being a greatly balanced army so GW needn't tinker to much.

Ozorik
20-03-2010, 11:50
I hope GW realizes that the thematic limitation placed are dwarves diminish the fun of both playing with and against them.


I for one do not share your opinion.

rodmillard
20-03-2010, 13:23
Somehow get a unit of flyers into the fluff? Make rangers/slayers skirmishers? I am not sure but I sure hope that GW does not overcomplicate what is in practice an excellent army and my favourite.

I know when the current army book came out many players were desperately wishlisting slayers to become skirmishers, although I think rangers should stay as they are (a unit with great axes and full ranks that can set up in advance of your main position? I don't leave home without one...)

It does bother me that the empire are more technologically advanced than the dwarves, and I would love to see a mobile war machine/chariot for the dwarfs - something similar to the stank but with the rules done properly ;)

Dwarves are not supposed to dominate the movement phase - part of the skill in playing dwarves is to control it by dictating your enemy's movement to set up fields of fire for your war machines (although I freely admit its not a skill I have fully mastered myself!) I love taking bolt throwers against cavalry armies, and then "accidentally" exposing the flank on my longbeards - any knights that survive the horsemeat kebab get into combat just in time to discover the thane has an oathstone and the longbeards no longer count as having flanks (or a rear, for that matter!)

Artinam
20-03-2010, 13:35
I also tend to disagree here. Dwarves have many options of be somewhat more faster with the anvil,gyrocopter (which is their bait and flee unit btw) and the March banner.

You have a Ws4 Army with T4 and ld 9 across the board. You need some pretty decent Infantry to actually match this.

They are very reliable and trough runes I have seen them do some very funky combinations where my 3 lances of Knights are auto broken by a unit of iron breakers with Bsb, fearcausing Banner and double unit strenght. Their Heros are quite good (my opponent never uses a Dwarf Lord for the by you mentioned reasons).

With Bretonnia it's like charging a Brick wall...an experienced Dwarf player knows where to put his infantry (my opponents has several, not the standard shooty list) to get/force them into combat. Overall a very dangerous army in my opinion.

Souppilgrim
20-03-2010, 15:08
I agree with the OP 100% I've played dwarves since 4th. Nowadays you don't win with dwarfs unless your opponent has a casual list, and it's a casual game that they play really soft in, or you totally outclass them.

The things they have to make up for movement? Rangers...garbage, if they are deployed in terrain they won't see combat...ever. Miners? They might see combat, if you are fighting a gunline, AND you are lucky enough to have them come in on an early turn. The gyrocopter is the only one worth anything.

Every dwarf combat unit is just SCR ...very expensive SCR. Very expensive SCR that can be flanked EASILY. Very expensive SCR that can autobreak to fear causers just like everyone else. The only way to make them killy is with a very expensive hero choice that is easily avoided. Not to mention if you do play someone who isn't smart enough to avoid them or flank the hell out of them and manage to actually make the opponent flee (assuming they are not unbreakable) chances are you will never catch the unit you just fought.

Dwarf warmachines and missile troops are too expensive, and will have a very hard time finishing anything off.

So yeah, show me a non thorek list that won a serious tournament and I will show you a purple unicorn.

Tactical Retreat!
20-03-2010, 15:16
Dwarfs are bad because we are simply outclassed in combat nowadays.
Warriors used to be great... but when up against a standard cavalry hammer they might as well be skavenslaves with ld 9.

none of our units has any real chance of actually winning a combat against a similar pointed opponent anymore, the best we can do is die slowly. And dying slowly doesn't win many games.

Tooled up units will as stated before just be avoided. The only thing really effective in a dwarf army is the shooting. That's why many players max out on it instead of spending 200+ points on units that die after 2-3 turns of combat without doing anything.

rtunian
20-03-2010, 16:22
dwarves are supposed to be slow. that is just part of who they are. they are stubborn area defenders. they are not roaming warriors of fortune.

this does not mean that you have to be out-manouevered every time. it simply doesn't. what it does mean is that you have to play cautious and defensive. use terrain better. support your units better. deploy better. yes you will still be outmanouevered sometimes. you don't think that happens to fast armies too? wrong!

you shouldn't be chasing with dwarves. to chase with dwarves is to play up their weakness. instead you should be forcing the enemy to come to you. they can't get points if they don't kill or force off your units. sure, scenarios in 8th might change this dynamic, but let's live in the moment :p

if you haven't learned that fast cav and other war machine hunters (fliers, etc) are your first priority targets, then that is not the dwarf army's fault, that is the dwarf general's fault. sure, you won't destroy them before they reach you every single time, but then again, the other player deserves a chance to win now and then too, neh?

homogeneity is the bane of warhammer. let's keep all the armies different okay? if you don't like the way an army plays, perhaps you might like a different army? if you are dead set on the way an army looks, perhaps you might benefit from learning how to play to the army's strengths and minimize its weaknesses, or alternatively, stop caring about whether you win and just have fun pushing awesome looking models around with your buddies.

Ozorik
20-03-2010, 16:28
What he said.

There are ways to protect your flanks, use them. There are ways to increase your mobility, use them. If flanking bothers you that much simply take oathstones.

Loading up on missile troops is not a very satisfactory answer both in terms of enjoyment nor in terms of effectiveness.

Commodus Leitdorf
20-03-2010, 16:34
2) Their warmachines are unreliable and overshadowed by Empire. It is true it might be scary to face 2 Cannons and 4 Bolt throwers. But it is really easy to disable Warmachines in the current edition.

I will not argue against a lot of the points made in this thread because I do agree with a lot of them. Dwarfs have no teeth beyond shooting and characters and characters can be avoided. However this point I will argue against.

Dwarf war machines are not outclassed by Empire ones. Dwarf war machines are expensive once runed up...but they are infinetly more reliable then Empire war machines. If my cannons survive past turn 2, they have already exceeded my expectations for them. Dwarf war machines are reliable and precision weapons of destruction. Empire War machines can cause devastating amounts of hurt...at the cost of more then likely blowing themselves up, something Dwarf machines can at least avoid.

Dark14
20-03-2010, 16:39
Chaos warriors make evreything look bad. I would take them as a rare choice in any other army they need to be special with 6th ed stats....

The thing i like with dwarves is they stick to fluff which does hold them back. One thing to add to them IMO is a stone giant/golem. something like
m5 ws4 bs/ s6 t7 w5 i2 a5 or special? ld10? unbreakable? terror?

it would add something new to an army with no fear anything above m3 (dont say the helicopter of i dont belong in fantasy). no infantry with one weapon should have had 2 attacks in the first place but since units like chaos,black guard and swordmasters helped the powercreep GW denies dwarves do need it. I would give Ironbreakers 2attacks personally since a st4 attack is not alot anymore.

Memphrite
20-03-2010, 16:40
My group usually play 2999 up to 3999 points games.

My experience with dwarfs is positive. Even against a very competitive dark elf player's I never lose but most time it is a draw.

My last game was a 5500 points battle against a High Elf, Lizardmen army.
It was a tough game but I achieve a solid victory.

I think a good dwarf army needs to max out the Slayers and Longbeards. I always use 30 slayers and if I have the chance 2 units of up to 40 Longbeards (only in very large games). Most units will never break a unit of Longbeards. They will hold the line until other units can flank and break them. Slayers are also in most situations a very good unit. Last time they manage even to kill the temple guard.( I had 3 giant slayers in that unit). They can hold most units long enough for flanking.

The other big factor are the Bolt Throwers. I always try to use 2 and in bigger games 4.
The main advantage is the custom ability. Hydras/ Abomination? => rune of fire
Dragons => rune of strengt etc. and with good strengt you can try to destroy the enemies war machines,
and with an engineer you have BS of 4.

Canons and Grudge Thrower are in most situations crap. In my last game I had 3 Grudge Thrower’s
with 3 master engineers, +1 strenght rune. I could re-roll all dices. I manage to kill something but compare to 6 bolt throwers or a slayer unit it was a waste of points.

Normal dwarf Infantry is against most rank and file units a very solid unit.

Here I agree, expensive characters are not very efficient. I like to use hero’s and master engineers.

What Dwarfs need is some interesting steam powered unit like a Golem and some more possibilities to increase the strength of units like +1 attack for your iron breakers. This could be achieved with more and better runes for standards.
Units champions should be also able to buy up to 25 points of runes.

snottlebocket
20-03-2010, 17:05
Dwarves have their problems but none of the ones you mention in the first post. That post just shows you're an inexperienced dwarf player, not what's wrong with the army.

Tactical Retreat!
20-03-2010, 17:24
Even if you do protect your flanks and prevent the enemy from simply outmaneuvering you, there are so many units nowadays that can simply smash through dwarfs head on anyway.

Condottiere
20-03-2010, 17:27
Dwarves have strengths, that don't mix that well if you happen to like a more dynamic game.

Give a Dwarf player a hill in a corner and he'll fortify it and castle his army on it. There are no flanks and interspersed with missile troops are hard combat regiments.

There are also players who take the Strollaz Rune and go out and meet the enemy; this probably works better if the game had objectives.

Stronginthearm
20-03-2010, 18:44
Dwarves have their problems but none of the ones you mention in the first post. That post just shows you're an inexperienced dwarf player, not what's wrong with the army.

So oh master of wisdom and understanding, deliver unto us the knowledge that you would so graciously impart, dont jsut slam somebody without saying what the real issues are

My assumptions for dwarf delema's is jsut they do hit hard enough in close combat, they can just get run over with most armies heavy cav charge or monster infantry units dwarves dont really have that stuff

snottlebocket
20-03-2010, 19:23
So oh master of wisdom and understanding, deliver unto us the knowledge that you would so graciously impart, dont jsut slam somebody without saying what the real issues are

My assumptions for dwarf delema's is jsut they do hit hard enough in close combat, they can just get run over with most armies heavy cav charge or monster infantry units dwarves dont really have that stuff

I didn't respond in full mostly because the points mentioned are countered by simply common sense and a 5 minute glance over the dwarf tactica thread.

Let's start with the basic truth that the entire dwarf army is build upon.

You don't need to cause any casualties to win combats! Combats aren't won through kills, combat is won by combat resolution. If you don't de, it becomes much harder for your opponent to win combats. Yes dwarfen elite only have a single attack each. They also pack weaponskill 5, toughness 4 and a great armoursave.

Which leads us to characters. New dwarf players are often dazzled by the amazing (and expensive) runic items they can build to create killer characters. Your opponent already knows how hard it is to defeat dwarfs, sticking a character like a dwarf lord into a unit just ensures your opponent will make sure that unit never sees combat.

All need need is some simple heroes. Give them the rune of stone to bump their armoursave. You're already denying your opponent a high combat res by not dying. If your troopers and hero kill even two or so of the enemy, you're probably already winning.

A runelord and an anvil are simply the best genera because they bring utility to the army instead of the certainty that your dwarf lord's unit won't find a good combat.

Which is a nice bridge to magic defence. Your base 4 dice plus a runelord makes 6 dispel dice. I think the anvil adds another dispel dice. (it's been a while since I played dwarfs) And a great item for the runelord is the rune of balance, which steals a power dice from your opponent and adds it to your dispel dice. On top of this it's pretty cheap and easy to give select units magic resistance as well. If your magic defence isn't rock solid with dwarfs you're doing something wrong.

On to units. Whoever wrote that first post is completely missing the points of dwarfs.

Every dwarf in your army is bring at least ws4 and t4. Yes thunderers with shields are almost twice as expensive as empire handgunners. They also aim better and ws4, t4 and a 4+ armour save in combat means that it's going to take a dedicated assault to kill the unit. Unlike the missile units of other armies, you can't take out dwarfen missile troops with light units. Skirmishers, fast cavalry, agile hunters of any sort... handgunners will take aim, stand and shoot and then proceed to beat it up in combat. If your opponent wants them gone he's going to have to dedicate serious resources.

As said before. Dwarfen combat is not about killing the other guy but about not dying yourself. Who cares if you don't kill anyone if your enemy breaks against your shield wall.

The basic dwarf warrior unit is good, the elite dwarfen units are better. Yes chaos warriors have better stats, but guess what they're quite a bit more expensive still. And even a unit of chaos warriors is going to have to think twice about charging a block of dwarfen elite.

Yes, for the most part you lack redirecters, marchblockers and so on. Mostly you don't want them any way. You want to encourage your enemy to head into combat, not prevent him from doing so. You can deal with your enemy's support stuff through clever deployment and proper application of firepower.

Which brings me to firepower. Dwarfen warmachines are expensive but by no means overpriced. You get some of the most destructive and reliable firepower in the game. And you're going to need it. Again realize that they don't have to stand on their own. Your missile units and warmachines are intended for softening your enemy up and encouraging him to enter into combat with your dwarf units. Extreme dwarf armies are very situational. Full on combat suffers from manouvring issues and lack of firepower, gunlines suffer from lack of support. Instead you want to create a castle. An army with enough firepower to convince your opponent he can't win at range and enough combat power to make sure you can win when he closes in.


My final advice is: trust in the basic excellence of dwarfs. It's very easy to spend a ton of points on runes and trinkets. The inherrent slowness of dwarfs means it's very easy for your opponent to avoid certain points in your battleline. Instead use runes to balance out your entire line so that it is secure. Then trust on dwarfs to carry the day.

Examples:

Heroes. I start my combat heroes of on a rune of stone nothing more. The unit champion can challenge characters. The heroes 3 strength 4 attacks are sufficient to kill rank and file. As long as your dwarfs don't die in combat, you'll win on simple static res. The cheaper your keep your heroes, the more you can invest in your units and the battleline is where dwarf armies win. (or at least survive)

Units. As said, the goal isn't to kill, it's to avoid dying. Runic banners are far more important than runic weapons for characters. The rune that doubles your unit strength especially is very important. It has the double advantage of ensuring you get the outnumbering bonus and while you do, fear causing enemies won't bother you much if they win a round. Focus your runic banners on providing static combat res.

Warmachines. Again go for economy. Bring about 1 warmachine for every 500 points. I usually start with 2 relatively cheap boltthrowers. Always buy engineers because even though they increase the price, they make sure your shots count. I usually give one a rune of strength for anti chariot duty and another the rune of burning for anti treeman duty.

Both the organgun and gyro are expensive troubleshooters. The organgun is death to almost everything. The gyro is an incredibly flexible machine that marchblocks, fries infantry and in case of crisis can redirect enemy charges you don't feel ready for.


This quote from Sun Tzu sums up dwarfs perfectly:



In ancient times, skillful warriors made themselves invincible, and then watched for vulnerability in their opponent. Invincibility is in oneself; vulnerability is in the opponent.

Ozorik
20-03-2010, 20:06
Its nice to see a post from someone who actually knows how to play Dwarves.

Dwarves miss out on certain tricks which prevents them being a 'top tier' army but that hardly invalidates them.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
20-03-2010, 20:22
SNIP
Examples:

Heroes. I start my combat heroes of on a rune of stone nothing more. The unit champion can challenge characters. The heroes 3 strength 4 attacks are sufficient to kill rank and file. As long as your dwarfs don't die in combat, you'll win on simple static res. The cheaper your keep your heroes, the more you can invest in your units and the battleline is where dwarf armies win. (or at least survive)SNIP

Fine advice if playing with fluffy players who bring armies rather than the hero/monster fests GW seems to be encouraging. 3 Str 4 attacks won't dent anything outside of core infantry which has been a liability on the table for a long time [though the game SHOULD be based around it].

Plus, surviving with Dwarfs leads to many draws and minor losses which is not the results that should be obtained by the army which has dictated the battle. Causing an opponent to break through SCR does little good when you cannot pursue [breaking up your battle line is bad idea and leaves your units vulnerable to flanking], don't have suitable units for crossfire and since you didn't kill anything don't even get 1/2 points.

In short, against fluffy armies Dwarfs are well balanced and fun. Against WAAC armies, Dwarfs really struggle even when outplaying an opponent because they have very few means to actually capture VPs and really aren't that invincible against what other armies can now field.

snottlebocket
20-03-2010, 22:41
Fine advice if playing with fluffy players who bring armies rather than the hero/monster fests GW seems to be encouraging. 3 Str 4 attacks won't dent anything outside of core infantry which has been a liability on the table for a long time [though the game SHOULD be based around it].

Plus, surviving with Dwarfs leads to many draws and minor losses which is not the results that should be obtained by the army which has dictated the battle. Causing an opponent to break through SCR does little good when you cannot pursue [breaking up your battle line is bad idea and leaves your units vulnerable to flanking], don't have suitable units for crossfire and since you didn't kill anything don't even get 1/2 points.

In short, against fluffy armies Dwarfs are well balanced and fun. Against WAAC armies, Dwarfs really struggle even when outplaying an opponent because they have very few means to actually capture VPs and really aren't that invincible against what other armies can now field.

True but frankly for the most part I'd say that's not a problem with the dwarf book but with certain other lists. Dwarfs are by no means an invincible army, especially with some of the more recent and extreme lists in the game. Besides I'm not saying I want to wipe out the front rank with my heroes and dwarfs. Usually dwarfen infantry is already on pretty equal footing when it comes to static res. If your infantry and characters kill even one or two of the enemy, a feat which isn't impossible against any troops, you're often already winning on combat res. (or at least almost winning) You can afford to lose around, dig in your heels and keep going. Or if you win, it's ok if the enemy doesn't run, next turn he's probably going to be taking another break test, and another one, until he does run.

Truth be told you'll probably never massacre your foe. But the dwarfs are by no means a terribly flawed army. More than any other army it just requires the player to realize the dwarfs strengths and weaknesses and play in the spirit of the army.

When I play my dwarfs I step away from the idea that I want to achieve total victory. Playing my dwarfs is like drawing a line in the sand, this and no further. When my opponent fields his monsters, his cavalry, his diabolical magic and daunting heroes, my dwarfs will lock their shields and stand. And at the end of the battle when my opponent has thrown everything he has against my line and finds himself battered and repulsed. I'm thinking my dwarfs have done their job, even if it means it's just a draw or a minor victory for me, I've taken the worst you can throw at me and survived through grit and steel. And these days they can throw some pretty bad stuff at you.

With my other armies I've had massacres that left half my army butchered on the field while their leaders stand victorious. Those victories never felt as satisfying as seeing my dwarfen throngs survive the battle, their opponents powerless before them.

Yeah, I guess playing dwarfs takes a certain mindset.

wyvirn
20-03-2010, 23:10
One of my main problems is that dwarfs strike last, and don't have the sturdyness to take those initial hits, making it so that i usually only get three attacks in combat(1 bobo and 2 champ). Those 3 wounds negate rank bonus, forcing the banner and those 3 attacks to counter ranks, banner, and outnumbering (Ro Stoicism ftw). It wouldn't be so bad if i ever got a charge in, but no one in their right mind allows their units in 6'.

Tactical Retreat!
21-03-2010, 02:02
Yeah, I guess playing dwarfs takes a certain mindset.

While it is fluffy and cool to have the mindset of an old grumbling dwarf who refuses to admit being outmatched it really doesn't win you any games.

Dwarf warriors don't hold up to cavalry hammers. Longbeards don't hold against cavalry hammers. Ironbreakers dont hold against cavalry hammers, hammerers do but then A. Opponent decides to ignore this unit/feed it crap or B. Hits it with a "superheavy unit" a la Knights of Blood Keep, Chaos knights with character, BG unit with character and assassin etc. until the hammerers are killed to the last dwarf.

Static combat ress is great. Having ONLY static combat ress, in a game that is increasingly more filled by uberlords, super strong hammer units, and monsters is not. Dwarfs have no offensive power in close combat, couple that with a not-so-great durability and you are bound to lose every round of combat against a unit worth its name. Leadership will only keep you there for so long until you all die or finally break.

Dwarfs are good in close combat against an opponent who spams blocks of core infantry or relies on empire knights as hammer units. Against tougher stuff, meh.

If you want proof just mathhammer some of these units against each other.

Dwarfs are good at shooting.

WLBjork
21-03-2010, 07:06
I always use 30 slayers and if I have the chance 2 units of up to 40 Longbeards (only in very large games). Most units will never break a unit of Longbeards. They will hold the line until other units can flank and break them. Slayers are also in most situations a very good unit.

Big units like 30 are survivable, but that's not exactly a useful unit when facing even moderate levels of missile fire. They are still as tough as other Dwarfs, but the lack of armour means they die in droves to even S3 shooting.


The other big factor are the Bolt Throwers. I always try to use 2 and in bigger games 4.
The main advantage is the custom ability. Hydras/ Abomination? => rune of fire
Dragons => rune of strengt etc. and with good strengt you can try to destroy the enemies war machines,
and with an engineer you have BS of 4.

Canons and Grudge Thrower are in most situations crap. In my last game I had 3 Grudge Thrower’s
with 3 master engineers, +1 strenght rune. I could re-roll all dices. I manage to kill something but compare to 6 bolt throwers or a slayer unit it was a waste of points.

Horses for courses. My experience of Bolt Throwers is that they are a waste of points. I used to take 2. 1 would get a hit , and I might get 2 kills from it, for a total of 12 kills (if i was lucky and they survived to the end of the battle with a shot every turn).

Grudge Throwers and Cannon I find far more reliable. However, I've come the the conclusion that I will need to start cannon sniping.


Here I agree, expensive characters are not very efficient. I like to use hero’s and master engineers.

I disagree here. Despite my continuous use of a powerful Lord, by sticking him in a biggish unit of Hammerers alongside the BSB with +combat res. banners, my opponents target the unit as there's a lot of points in it. They bounce off... every time


A runelord and an anvil are simply the best genera because they bring utility to the army instead of the certainty that your dwarf lord's unit won't find a good combat.

Yeah, lets waste 300 points on something completely unreliable :rolleyes:. Unless it's cast at normal power, it's too likely to go wrong.



Every dwarf in your army is bring at least ws4 and t4. Yes thunderers with shields are almost twice as expensive as empire handgunners. They also aim better and ws4, t4 and a 4+ armour save in combat means that it's going to take a dedicated assault to kill the unit.

On paper and if you get the dice rolls. I've never had better than 50% hits from my Thunderers at short range - it should be 2/3. My Quarrellers regularly get that at long range. I dunno what causes it, but that fact means that I take Quarrellers rather than Thunderers.


Unlike the missile units of other armies, you can't take out dwarfen missile troops with light units. Skirmishers, fast cavalry, agile hunters of any sort... handgunners will take aim, stand and shoot and then proceed to beat it up in combat. If your opponent wants them gone he's going to have to dedicate serious resources.

Looks good on paper, but doesn't always work out on the tabletop. I find that opponents either commit enough resources to tie up the unit for a turn
or more, or ignore them in favour of getting into CC (where they can't be shot).


The basic dwarf warrior unit is good, the elite dwarfen units are better. Yes chaos warriors have better stats, but guess what they're quite a bit more expensive still. And even a unit of chaos warriors is going to have to think twice about charging a block of dwarfen elite.

Say what? The basic Dwarf Warrior is about acceptable, the Dwarf Elites are about average.

By way of comparasion the Sarus Warrior is very nasty for what is paid.


Yes, for the most part you lack redirecters, marchblockers and so on. Mostly you don't want them any way. You want to encourage your enemy to head into combat, not prevent him from doing so. You can deal with your enemy's support stuff through clever deployment and proper application of firepower.

This at least is pretty much true.


Which brings me to firepower. Dwarfen warmachines are expensive but by no means overpriced. You get some of the most destructive and reliable firepower in the game. And you're going to need it. Again realize that they don't have to stand on their own. Your missile units and warmachines are intended for softening your enemy up and encouraging him to enter into combat with your dwarf units. Extreme dwarf armies are very situational. Full on combat suffers from manouvring issues and lack of firepower, gunlines suffer from lack of support. Instead you want to create a castle. An army with enough firepower to convince your opponent he can't win at range and enough combat power to make sure you can win when he closes in.

Castle. Boring! Many people don't like playing with static Dwarfs. Many (most?) people don't like playing against static Dwarfs.



BTW - wyvirn, when did Dwarfs get access to horses?

R Man
21-03-2010, 07:44
You have to remember about Playstyles. Things like Chaos Warriors may be tough, but they are very vulnerable to shooting, as are elven elites (but even more so). Dwarves are very resistant to shooting, and excellent at shooting back and in a pinch their shooter units can fight in combat as well as infantry.

The Dwarves could do with a few patches here, drop a point or two there, but they are not too bad.


Say what? The basic Dwarf Warrior is about acceptable, the Dwarf Elites are about average.

By way of comparasion the Sarus Warrior is very nasty for what is paid.

Dwarf Warriors don't match up too badly with Saurus. And they have to come to you so you can shoot them. Of course, they can have other things too.

And I believe that someone mentioned Dwarves having weak anti-magic. This is flat out wrong. 4 Base is good, can be buffed to 6 easily. Runesmiths are still good in combat so they affect multiple phases unlike a scroll caddy and there are multiple runes that grant magic resistance (which in the right combination can be used multiple times). Its also worth noting that on stats alone, even Iron Breakers are ok. Hell, they can theoretically even match Blackguard on pure combat abilities. Its psychology where they could use a break.

snottlebocket
21-03-2010, 08:08
Horses for courses. My experience of Bolt Throwers is that they are a waste of points. I used to take 2. 1 would get a hit , and I might get 2 kills from it, for a total of 12 kills (if i was lucky and they survived to the end of the battle with a shot every turn).
[quote]

Well if you're going to use your warmachines in a silly manner it's no wonder you don't like them. Despite their skewer rule boltthrowers aren't for shooting ranked units.

Target priority for almost any warmachine is monsters > chariots / other warmachines > expensive elite units like cavalry > expensive infantry > infantry. If you go straight for the infantry it's no wonder you don't like boltthrowers. Even if every shot skewers 4 guys, you'll barely earn your points back.

[QUOTE=WLBjork;4501597]
I disagree here. Despite my continuous use of a powerful Lord, by sticking him in a biggish unit of Hammerers alongside the BSB with +combat res. banners, my opponents target the unit as there's a lot of points in it. They bounce off... every time


Sounds like you have very inexperienced opponents. Attacking a hammerer / lord block because that's where all the points are is just throwing away your own units. Hammerer / lord blocks mean two things. 1 it suddenly is incredibly easy to prevent the dwarf player from using most of his points, simply by making sure the hammerers never find a worthwhile combat. 2 it's suddenly worth shooting at dwarfs, with that many points invested in one unit, the rest of the dwarf army is far less of a threat. Just shoot / magic / harrass the hammerer unit until it dwindles to nothing.



Yeah, lets waste 300 points on something completely unreliable :rolleyes:. Unless it's cast at normal power, it's too likely to go wrong.


Which is why nobody ever uses the ancient powers. A single anvil power a turn is positively game changing. I won't even bother trying to explain all the application but I've never needed to use d3 anvil powers. Just one suits me fine and completely ruins my opponents plans. Anvil lord as wasted points, haha.


On paper and if you get the dice rolls. I've never had better than 50% hits from my Thunderers at short range - it should be 2/3. My Quarrellers regularly get that at long range. I dunno what causes it, but that fact means that I take Quarrellers rather than Thunderers.


So your argument against thunderers is that you fail to make average dice rolls? (you probably throw perfectly average but people have a tendency to remember only the bad rolls)



Looks good on paper, but doesn't always work out on the tabletop. I find that opponents either commit enough resources to tie up the unit for a turn
or more, or ignore them in favour of getting into CC (where they can't be shot).


Which is fine. If people ignore my thunderers to get into combat they've done their job. Just about all dwarf warmachines and missile units have only one purpose. Convincing the enemy that he's unsafe at range so he closes in and engages in combat with the dwarfs. If that's what happens it sounds like they're doing their job perfectly. If your thunderers get shot to bits while your enemy sits back, that's when it's time to worry.



Say what? The basic Dwarf Warrior is about acceptable, the Dwarf Elites are about average.

By way of comparasion the Sarus Warrior is very nasty for what is paid.


I guess you still fail to understand dwarfs. Dwarfs are about durability, not killing potential. I'd be more than happy to take a charge from saurus infantry with my dwarfs.

If your battleline is properly set up, it is extremely difficult to shift dwarfen infantry in combat. People in this threat mentioned the worst of the worst, units like blood knights and such.

Blood knights are terrible and could actually pose a threat to infantry blocks. They're also few and far between and you have plenty of options to deal with units like that before they ever make it into combat. You can focus a lot of firepower on bloodknights while slowing them down with the anvil. If they ever make it close, you can still redirect them with the gyrocopter.

Other than that, there are very, very few units in the game that can afford to frontally charge dwarf infantry. I've played against almost every army in the game with my dwarfs. I've lost, I've been massacred, I've had units of dwarfen elite wiped out.

But never in a frontal charge from anything in combat. If your enemy manages to destroy a block of dwarfen infantry by simply charging it in the front. You have seriously failed with your dwarfs in every way possible. (which considering your views on what certain parts of the army are supposed to do doesn't sound that unlikely)



Castle. Boring! Many people don't like playing with static Dwarfs. Many (most?) people don't like playing against static Dwarfs.


If you don't like horses don't play Bretonians. If you don't like melee, don't play chaos. If you don't like castles...

I'm sure other players don't like playing against castles, personally I have a burning hatred of playing against all skirmisher armies like wood elves and the old beastmen. Heck Bretonian horses bother me a bit to, next time I face them I'll ask the woodies to only play ranked units and I'm sure the bretonian players won't mind if I request they only bring infantry.

Ozorik
21-03-2010, 09:43
Dwarf warriors don't hold up to cavalry hammers. Longbeards don't hold against cavalry hammers. Ironbreakers dont hold against cavalry

Actually they can. The only problems that I have had have been 1000+ point blood knight units. You may well lose the initial combat but not by all that much and with runic standards and a character you will wear those cavalry away. Khornate knights bounce off my infantry blocks more often than they break them.


Against WAAC armies, Dwarfs really struggle even when outplaying an opponent because they have very few means to actually capture VPs and really aren't that invincible against what other armies can now field.

Thats true of all army books of this vintage. Empire is at least as bad.

shelfunit.
21-03-2010, 10:05
It's true, Dwarfs are tactically limited - you can stand and shoot, charge all out or perform a mixture of the two. Oddly this is true for almost every other army, heck, some can't even shoot!

In my last couple of games I have played both the new VCs (ghoul spam, Vargulf, regenerating black knights, Blood knights, 4 vamps etc) and new skaven.

First game I took a mixture of shooting and combat - bolt throwers took out the Vargulf in 1 shot, 5 of 6 black knights (inc army standard reg banner) - although this was lucky and everything else mopped up the weak infantry in HtH. Troll slayers held up the blood knights (in conga line) and in the end it was a major victory to the dwarfs.

Second game Stollanz rune first turn 12" across the board full CC troops and 2 boltthorwers, skaven being a horde army were stunned and had no room to manouver, I picked my targets and smashed them in CC. It got so bad for him he brought the gutter runners onto his own table edge in turn 3 - they flank attacked the longbeards which has just broken his generals unit, I threw down an oathstone and they broke and fled off the table inside 3 mins of comming on the board.

As far as I see it dwarfs are a very much un-stuffed army, requiring only a few points tweeks here and there (with a few less stupid runes - rune of disguise...) to be a very dangerous army indeed.

Chaos Undecided
21-03-2010, 10:39
Had a couple of ideas for racial rules that could make Dwarves a bit of a harder nut to crack like they should be. For instance fair enough "Resolute" means they're a bit slow on the running away but I dont think it would be that big a stretch to also mean that Dwarves ignore outnumbering (or at least be unaffected by it until outnumbered by 2:1). There could also be a "shieldwall" rule whereby units armed with shields can gain a further +1 sv modifier when receiving a charge to the front, this could possibly be at the expense of losing an attack (to a minimum of 1) for the first round of combat.

It could also be an idea to allow champions in Dwarf units to be further upgraded to a Longbeard giving them the reroll on panic checks. Ironbreakers just need 2 attacks in my opinion or always considered to have two hand weapons as being tunnel fighters they'd surely have learnt to use those iron shields a secondary weapons.

As to the vulnerability to flankers maybe its time to revive the old weapons teams? I'm sure I've still got a couple of the old flamethrower teams lying around somwhere. Theres no reason for Skaven to have exclusive rights to such things after all Dwarves have been fighting in tunnels arguably longer than the rats have been around.

shelfunit.
21-03-2010, 12:09
It could also be an idea to allow champions in Dwarf units to be further upgraded to a Longbeard giving them the reroll on panic checks. Ironbreakers just need 2 attacks in my opinion or always considered to have two hand weapons as being tunnel fighters they'd surely have learnt to use those iron shields a secondary weapons.

As to the vulnerability to flankers maybe its time to revive the old weapons teams? I'm sure I've still got a couple of the old flamethrower teams lying around somwhere. Theres no reason for Skaven to have exclusive rights to such things after all Dwarves have been fighting in tunnels arguably longer than the rats have been around.

Some decent suggestions here - I feel that across the board immunity to panic would be more useful, and could be used in-lieu of a points decrease. Iron breakers by their fluff should be allowed to follow a unit of miners through a modified underground advance, and as for flanking, I feel the oathstone works fine for that - although a dwarf weapon team would be fun :)

Artinam
21-03-2010, 13:05
I would like to point out that Cavalry Hammers outside maybe Chaos Knights, Knights of the Bloodkeep and Grail Knights will have a lot of trouble of Breaking a Fully ranked units of Dwarven warriors, let alone Dwarven elites like Ironbreakers. My Bretonnians often bounce of these units without doing any serious damage. (Curse ld 9!)

And besides, they are Dwarves, its normal for them to have S4 like humans while being tougher and slower. Its their style. Its like complaining that Elves and Humans have T3 and this being very vulnerable with high Strenght.

Condottiere
21-03-2010, 13:53
Going by the past few Army Books, it does seem likely that Dwarven Champions will be upgradeable, or at the very least, can take along around 25 points of Runes. At least one unit is going to get two attacks in the profile, and likely another may get an improved save.

Barbarossa
21-03-2010, 15:40
knighttime98, you almost convinced me that my army is too weak. But then I remembered that I actually win whenever I play with my dwarfs. I must be doing something wrong. :-D

yabbadabba
21-03-2010, 16:04
How old is the Dwarf book now? We are just about to have 8th Ed released and the dwarf book is a 6th Ed book?

I think it bears up quite well considering. My advice would be to carry on plaing, or play another army until GW release a new Dwarf army book. No point complaining as nothing is going to happen between now and then, certainly not with threads like this.

If you care enough I suggest you track down the WD with the Dark Elf book amendments to see how to really change things.

And as an Empire player, I think Dwarf war machines are far more effective in a regular game.

Tactical Retreat!
21-03-2010, 16:13
Thats true of all army books of this vintage. Empire is at least as bad.

Fair enough.

Lets just hope GW is aware of the issues with the army list and that they simply don't slap on more guns and a steam dragon and call it a day.

snottlebocket
21-03-2010, 17:50
Fair enough.

Lets just hope GW is aware of the issues with the army list and that they simply don't slap on more guns and a steam dragon and call it a day.

I doubt they'll change to your satisfaction. I'd say the vast majority of issues mention in this thread are faults of the players and perfectly fine as they are in the current dwarf book.

Tactical Retreat!
21-03-2010, 23:29
I doubt they'll change to your satisfaction. I'd say the vast majority of issues mention in this thread are faults of the players and perfectly fine as they are in the current dwarf book.

Unless you have a PhD in Warhammer Fantasy you have no right to claim that everybody having an issue with this are incompetent.

What it for me comes down to is that unless you put a ridicolous amount of points into a m3 unit they mathammer wise are at a disadvantage against most enemy hammer units. For an army that's supposed to be able to thin down the enemy when they come closer and then win through attrition that's pretty bad.

Run a unit of Chaos Knights against longbeards or Ironbreakers, for example.

Ozorik
21-03-2010, 23:40
Run a unit of Chaos Knights against longbeards or Ironbreakers, for example.

Ok:

5 knights with full command vs 20 longbeards (a core unit by the way) with shields and full command. The knights do 3-4 wounds on average so the combat will be a draw or a chaos loss. Against Ironbreakers the ironbreakers will probably win.


Unless you have a PhD in Warhammer Fantasy you have no right to claim that everybody having an issue with this are incompetent.

Not strictly true I'm afraid.

ChaosVC
22-03-2010, 02:06
imagine a human or some other race as tall trying to take cover on a dwarven wal...

Tactical Retreat!
22-03-2010, 02:37
Not strictly true I'm afraid.

Neither is your math example really.

A unit of 6 knights, moN, standard and mus is an example of how chaos
knights really are fielded.

vs. Longbeards
18 attacks.
12 hits.
8 wounds.
5.33 go through armor.
evil ponies
12 attacks.
6 hits.
3 wounds.
1.5 through armor

total: 6.88 dead longbeards. Chaos knights likely win by 3.
Longbeards have a decent chance of holding but next round they will get their asses kicked and autobreak.
There is no runic standard they can take that can do anything but make them lose a tiny bit slower.

Ironbreakers fare a little better but they still lose the first round of combat and it goes downhill from there since the static combat ress shrinks the longer the fight goes on.

Standard Khorne Knights have very good odds of smashing through a dwarf unit too, it will likely just take another round of combat or so.

EDIT: Forgot to add Frenzy banner for the nurgle knights

Rodman49
22-03-2010, 04:10
Neither is your math example really.

A unit of 6 knights, moN, standard and mus is an example of how chaos
knights really are fielded.

vs. Longbeards
18 attacks.
12 hits.
8 wounds.
5.33 go through armor.
evil ponies
12 attacks.
6 hits.
3 wounds.
1.5 through armor

total: 6.88 dead longbeards. Chaos knights likely win by 3.
Longbeards have a decent chance of holding but next round they will get their asses kicked and autobreak.
There is no runic standard they can take that can do anything but make them lose a tiny bit slower.

Ironbreakers fare a little better but they still lose the first round of combat and it goes downhill from there since the static combat ress shrinks the longer the fight goes on.

Standard Khorne Knights have very good odds of smashing through a dwarf unit too, it will likely just take another round of combat or so.

What? Bolded for lack mental capacity.

knightime98
22-03-2010, 04:18
As I am the OP, this is a prime example of one of the points I was talking about.

WoC outclasses Dwarves in EVERY facet (Movement, WS (MoN), AS, Attacks, Strength, Frenzy, Ward Saves (Tzeench), etc.) when it comes to CC.

Let's take this same unit with shooting! Let's say for the sake of discussion you have a bolt thrower and you want to peg a knight. You shoot at the said unit of knights above. Let's go even further and say you have an engineer and you paid the points for rune of penetration (S7, chariot killer). Now you have 85 points or so in this bolt thrower. Say, chaos had first turn and they moved up and are now in close range. You need a base of a 3 and now because of MoN need a 4! Now you have a 50/50 of hitting and an 83/17 of wounding (provided the said unit doesn't have the ward save banner vs shooting). Chances are just under 50/50 that you will take a knight out. Granted this is a poor choice for said bolt thrower but in some cases what are you really going to do? For the sake of the above math hammer - You MUST whittle this unit down! - If you play balanced lists that are pre-written BEFORE you know who you are going to play - this may be a classic scenario.

Next, with said unit of Chaos Knights - Since when have you seen a Chaos Knight unit parading around WITHOUT an Exhalted Champion on a Juggernaught? or in some rare cases a Chaos Lord. Rework the math on that one with your choice of Chaos Special Weapons - Chaos Deamon Sword, the sword of gee whiz you get no armor save and I hit you on 3's with my 6 attacks or however many they get at base s5.

Look... The point to this whole excercise is to point out that Dwarves really have not good answer for the elite heavy Cavalry. It looks all good on paper what they CAN do against them but in reality - Any competent Chaos General will shield this unit with throw away dogs or move them around woods/terrain so that they may only be shot at once. In most cases, this particular unit will be in combat by Turn 2 with a small chance it gets shot at once with a minimal results.

Lastly, it is true the dwarves have warmachines however, in Woc they have some serious pain in Magic. So, it's tit for tat. Dwarves struggle in this department as well. And btw, I have yet to see a WoC player NOT field the heinous Hell Cannon (t6, 6 wounds, monstrosity), this includes rather recently in a 1500 point game!

Note, this is not a rant but rather - WTF, how you deal with this stuff. It has been pointed out that you take Rune of Stocism (4+ and your unit is stubborn) or the other rune that makes them take a break test on a d6. But once again, this is not really doing anything for the dwarves as you need to have other units to help out. Said unit of Long Beards w/cmd = ~200-250 points. How many more units do you have just sitting around not holding the line. Especially if you have 400 points tied to warmachines/shooting. At best, you have 4 fighty units in 2,000 points. Chaos has nothing but throw away units and rock hard infantry. In some cases, even cheaper (Mauraders on foot with flails-s5, 6pts, frenzy, 2A's, OUCH!). Yeah, deal with that!

Well enough about this point for now. It's very frustrating to see that their really is no answer to the super buffs of Woc vs. Dwarves.

Edit @ Rodman
Wow! Chaos knights have a base of 2 attacks PLUS FRENZY!
Each model gets 5 attacks!
2 attacks base +1 for frenzy for rider.
1 attack base +1 for frenzy for each mount.
Yields a total of 5 attacks per basic Chaos Knight.

Lack of mental capacity? I wonder if you are talking about yourself Rodman?
The math for number of attacks in bold is correct! 6x3 for riders = 18. 6x2 for mounts = 12.
Oh, and yes, their mounts are s4!
This is barring no champion who would have yet another attack for 19.
Rodman - the last part of the sustained attack with Choas Knights is that their base S5 doesn't go away in the second and subsequent turns. They will do this number of attacks and wounds each round AND STRIKE ahead of the Dwarves! Spells disaster for Dwarves.

Tactical Retreat!
22-03-2010, 04:40
What? Bolded for lack mental capacity.

Ah my bad. I forgot to add in the frenzy banner with the Nurgle knights.

Knighttime: thank you !

knightime98
22-03-2010, 04:46
knighttime98, you almost convinced me that my army is too weak. But then I remembered that I actually win whenever I play with my dwarfs. I must be doing something wrong. :-D

I'm guessing you use the Thorek line whereby, you get to move up to 3 dwarven units 12" to charge?

Either that, or you are playing players that may be newer and perhaps not as experienced.

I'll freely admit, I'm new to dwarves but not to Warhammer as I am the OP.

It would be a great sight to see you play some of the players that I play on a regular basis.

In short, by MY MERITS alone (via, playskill, tactics, etc.) - and by no other standard. Look at my signature. I have a winning record with Empire, Lizardmen, and Dark Elves.
And by contrast, a losing record with Dwarves, High Elves, Orcs and Goblins
and a 50/50 split with Skaven. I haven't done anything with Skaven recently, as I'm still trying to feel their new book out. HPA (Hellpit Abom = BANNED FOREVER!)

What does this tell you... Quite simply that the power levels of the books are off. This once again, is based upon my playing skill.

Rodman49
22-03-2010, 04:51
Next, with said unit of Chaos Knights - Since when have you seen a Chaos Knight unit parading around WITHOUT an Exhalted Champion on a Juggernaught? or in some rare cases a Chaos Lord. Rework the math on that one with your choice of Chaos Special Weapons - Chaos Deamon Sword, the sword of gee whiz you get no armor save and I hit you on 3's with my 6 attacks or however many they get at base s5.

lolwut. First of all no one in their right mind is going to bring Chaos Heroes and Lords in 5-6 man knight units (at least against Dwarves and Empire) because they really don't defend them at all from cannons (you need 5 rank and file models to get Look Out Sir!)

Also if you are allowing Chaos Knight units to reach your army unscathed then you are doing it wrong fine sir. It doesn't make sense for your Core Infantry to defeat the some of the best heavy cav in the game. Get Over It. Try a different list and strategy, and listen to snottlebocket. The man knows his ****.

Tactical Retreat!
22-03-2010, 04:53
lolwut. First of all no one in their right mind is going to bring Chaos Heroes and Lords in 5-6 man knight units (at least against Dwarves and Empire) because they really don't defend them at all from cannons (you need 5 rank and file models to get Look Out Sir!)

Also if you are allowing Chaos Knight units to reach your army unscathed then you are doing it wrong fine sir. It doesn't make sense for your Core Infantry to defeat the some of the best heavy cav in the game. Get Over It. Try a different list and strategy, and listen to snottlebocket. The man knows his ****.

Exactly!

We dont bother with the crappy core infantry. We deal with it by playing to the Dwarf's strengths.





SHOOTING

knightime98
22-03-2010, 04:57
I agree with the OP 100% I've played dwarves since 4th. Nowadays you don't win with dwarfs unless your opponent has a casual list, and it's a casual game that they play really soft in, or you totally outclass them.

- Snip middle 2 or 3 paragraphs -

Dwarf warmachines and missile troops are too expensive, and will have a very hard time finishing anything off.

So yeah, show me a non thorek list that won a serious tournament and I will show you a purple unicorn.

LOL, I haven't seen a purple unicorn since.. Well, I think the Wood Elves have a fiery Unicorn somewhere.. Does anyone have purple paint?
It could happen! Somehow, someway.. if a deamon player blows his 80 ward saves on every unit and doesn't cast with any of his 20 power dice each magic phase. (now, the above is a rant in jest! - but really isn't too far off the mark)

knightime98
22-03-2010, 05:14
lolwut. First of all no one in their right mind is going to bring Chaos Heroes and Lords in 5-6 man knight units (at least against Dwarves and Empire) because they really don't defend them at all from cannons (you need 5 rank and file models to get Look Out Sir!)


This is why the Chaos player usually tends to elect NOT to take a unit champion. You still get your Look out sir!. Furthermore, the said unit can take the Ward Save banner and give the unit either a 4 or 5+ ward save.

Next, you are under the assumption that YOU know that you are playing against a Dwarven/Empire Gun line. Which could all be false pretenses and you have nothing to worry about when playing against VC or the like that has no shooting. Rodman, instead of being so critical and hyper sensitive - you should focus more on the problem. Bold Faced and super-sized comments just make it look like you want to stress your points across and silence the opposition. It's just not good form.

Lastly, I've already pointed out that ANY good Chaos player will shield this unit by throw away dogs and use cover like woods/hills/terrain until they get in a spot whereby they can charge and MAYBE shot at ONCE?

Any what pre-tell are you going to shoot them with (grudge thower, cannon, bolt thrower, Goblin Hewer?) Ideally, IF you have chosen it - an orgun gun? Now, you get a random MS,2,4,6,8,10 shots at s5.
take the 6 hits as an above average. You wound 4 times and they save 2 or 3 of them. In this case, IF you have everything in place AND it works out that way. You have limited said unit a small fraction. I'm sure in the 8th editon they will do away with the auto hits (this is the last remnant of auto-hit warmachines).

Oh, hit them with 14 point thunderer's.. Yeah, that's a good one! Provided they are in your arc of fire! Then again what Chaos Player is going to run up the gut into the front of these guys? None of the players, that I play against. Once again, sounds great on paper - implement it on the actual table with a competent General on the other side. Don't make the Chaos player look like he's your guinea pig for the slaughter!

KalEf
22-03-2010, 05:39
Neither is your math example really.

A unit of 6 knights, moN, standard and mus is an example of how chaos
knights really are fielded.

vs. Longbeards
18 attacks.
12 hits.
8 wounds.
5.33 go through armor.
evil ponies
12 attacks.
6 hits.
3 wounds.
1.5 through armor

total: 6.88 dead longbeards. Chaos knights likely win by 3.
Longbeards have a decent chance of holding but next round they will get their asses kicked and autobreak.
There is no runic standard they can take that can do anything but make them lose a tiny bit slower.

Ironbreakers fare a little better but they still lose the first round of combat and it goes downhill from there since the static combat ress shrinks the longer the fight goes on.

Standard Khorne Knights have very good odds of smashing through a dwarf unit too, it will likely just take another round of combat or so.

I agree, you should take things in context. I also agree, the special unit, with a mark, and a magic banner, would take out the core unit by a little bit. though the core unit would have access to a magic banner as well, so prolly only by 2.


Ironbreakers fare a little better but they still lose the first round of combat and it goes downhill from there since the static combat ress shrinks the longer the fight goes on.

A little better? :eyebrows: Assuming your frenzied unit doesn't get shot up -at all- and is exactly as you say. the math on the 335 in iron breakers is around 24~25 guys, a stan, musician, and a rune of +1 res
dudes hit with 12, wound with 8, saved 4; horses hit with 6 wound with 3 saved 2
5 kills... The iron breakers have +3 rank, numbers and, and a +1 banner... tie!
all other combinations of marks and banners (except korn+battle which is a tie as well) end with the knights losing!
Lets not forget, this is a foot troop, from the 6th edition books, taking a charge vs CHAOS KNIGHTS

In the best cav thread


Point for Point.

Honestly I think Black Knights and Chaos Knights take the category.

Chaos Knights even unmarked, usually scare the hell out of most people


Nurgle Chaos Knights seem to be quite scary.


Heavy Cav- Chaos Knights hands down.


Easy question:

For heavy cav, there can be only one: Chaos Knights. Reliable, strong and versatile with access to marks and banners.



Heavy Cav: Chaos Knights, especially Nurgle ones. You just can't kill the stupid things.



I'd agree with dark riders and chaos knights.


Pistoliers for light and Khorne WoC knights for heavy.

I'm going to stop there... there is a LOT more though. Any how, the fact that ANY foot troop (from 6th edition no less) isn't obliterated by (arguably) one of the best cav units in the game, would be enough to say they were "good". Being THE chaos knights need a particular mark and banner set-up just to break even :eek: ... Iron breakers are tough and one hell of an anvil. :D

BTW: the new monster hammer, should beware of the tricked-out bolt thrower! :shifty:

WLBjork
22-03-2010, 06:34
Well if you're going to use your warmachines in a silly manner it's no wonder you don't like them. Despite their skewer rule boltthrowers aren't for shooting ranked units.

Target priority for almost any warmachine is monsters > chariots / other warmachines > expensive elite units like cavalry > expensive infantry > infantry. If you go straight for the infantry it's no wonder you don't like boltthrowers. Even if every shot skewers 4 guys, you'll barely earn your points back.

Lets see. Monsters very rarely turn up, and when they do, S10 hits causing D6 wounds (Master Engineer is a very useful hero) from Cannons are far more likely to kill them. Same goes for Chariots, which I do see a few of - 1 Cannon is about as reliable as 2 Bolt Throwers, and comes in about the same price, with the added benefit that a Cannon can autokill chariots with no upgrades. In addition, if you have an opponent who likes to run 2 individual chariots in a very close pair, the Cannon can take both out with 1 shot.

Against Cavalry and Infantry - I can do more damage with a Cannon than a Bolt Thrower, due to the Cannon actively hitting everything in it's path, although depnding on the angle, I consider a Grudge Thrower is better (in the front arc of a single rank of cavalry, a Grudge Thrower will get 1 model and 2 partials with a centred hit).


Sounds like you have very inexperienced opponents. Attacking a hammerer / lord block because that's where all the points are is just throwing away your own units. Hammerer / lord blocks mean two things. 1 it suddenly is incredibly easy to prevent the dwarf player from using most of his points, simply by making sure the hammerers never find a worthwhile combat. 2 it's suddenly worth shooting at dwarfs, with that many points invested in one unit, the rest of the dwarf army is far less of a threat. Just shoot / magic / harrass the hammerer unit until it dwindles to nothing.

900 points is a lot, but the unit is pretty much always the last to go down, and actively acts to threaten the enemies hardest units. Dwarfs might be slow, but usually with 2 turns of marching from a roughly central position, I can be blocking an enemies line of attack forcing them to either charge or waste a couple more turns trying to get away.

Where I play, the threat is always honoured, especially if it gets both Generals into combat - nothing as awesome as a clash of the titans.




Which is why nobody ever uses the ancient powers. A single anvil power a turn is positively game changing. I won't even bother trying to explain all the application but I've never needed to use d3 anvil powers. Just one suits me fine and completely ruins my opponents plans. Anvil lord as wasted points, haha.

Pah, 300 points for something that only affects 1 unit per game? Forget it, waste of points.

Seriously though, whenever I've used it with just 1 power it's never quite been enough to win me the game/ impact their plans.



So your argument against thunderers is that you fail to make average dice rolls? (you probably throw perfectly average but people have a tendency to remember only the bad rolls)

No, just making the point that *for me* Thunderers aren't worth it. They consistantly underperform compared to Quarrelers. Probably that both sets of my dice hate the Thunderers.


Which is fine. If people ignore my thunderers to get into combat they've done their job. Just about all dwarf warmachines and missile units have only one purpose. Convincing the enemy that he's unsafe at range so he closes in and engages in combat with the dwarfs. If that's what happens it sounds like they're doing their job perfectly. If your thunderers get shot to bits while your enemy sits back, that's when it's time to worry.

Thunderers (and Quarrellers - should've included them, but I didn't) have only done their job if they've killed one or more ranks from an enemy unit or reduced it's effectiveness in some other way (e.g. turning a chariot into a quarrel-cushion/bullet ridden-wreck. Which isn't common, but causing a couple of wounds that get finished off by a Hero or Lord is a bit more likely).


I guess you still fail to understand dwarfs. Dwarfs are about durability, not killing potential. I'd be more than happy to take a charge from saurus infantry with my dwarfs.

Which is why they struggle, thanks to the increased hitting power of most of their opponents. Saurus Warriors with spears for example now have 33% more attacks when fighting defensively, and against Warriors have a slight edge.


If your battleline is properly set up, it is extremely difficult to shift dwarfen infantry in combat. People in this threat mentioned the worst of the worst, units like blood knights and such.

Blood knights are terrible and could actually pose a threat to infantry blocks. They're also few and far between and you have plenty of options to deal with units like that before they ever make it into combat. You can focus a lot of firepower on bloodknights while slowing them down with the anvil. If they ever make it close, you can still redirect them with the gyrocopter.

Other than that, there are very, very few units in the game that can afford to frontally charge dwarf infantry. I've played against almost every army in the game with my dwarfs. I've lost, I've been massacred, I've had units of dwarfen elite wiped out.

But never in a frontal charge from anything in combat. If your enemy manages to destroy a block of dwarfen infantry by simply charging it in the front. You have seriously failed with your dwarfs in every way possible. (which considering your views on what certain parts of the army are supposed to do doesn't sound that unlikely)

I'll almost agree with you there. I don't actually see Blood Knights (the VC player doesn't turn up that often, and the new book came out around the time he became a father, so further cutting into his time), or the new Chaos Knights now I think of it.

It has happened a time or two that Dwarfs have lost a frontal combat on the charge. Usually it's to a charge from 6 or 7 wide Cavalry hitting Warriors. A couple of times it's been simply that the dice didn't go my way. Another couple of times it's been my "fake detachments" - but they aren't blocks, so don't really count.


If you don't like horses don't play Bretonians. If you don't like melee, don't play chaos. If you don't like castles...

I'm sure other players don't like playing against castles, personally I have a burning hatred of playing against all skirmisher armies like wood elves and the old beastmen. Heck Bretonian horses bother me a bit to, next time I face them I'll ask the woodies to only play ranked units and I'm sure the bretonian players won't mind if I request they only bring infantry.

It might surprise you to learn that the most successful games I've had with my Dwarfs were at the end of 6th edition/beginning of 7th edition when I went all-out offensive infantry. No Anvil, no war-machines and (usually) no missile troops.

Unfortunately with the new books that have since been released, I've had far less joy - and that is why I consider that the power of the Dwarf Infantry is not good enough anymore.

Rodman49
22-03-2010, 07:08
This is why the Chaos player usually tends to elect NOT to take a unit champion. You still get your Look out sir!. Furthermore, the said unit can take the Ward Save banner and give the unit either a 4 or 5+ ward save.

Next, you are under the assumption that YOU know that you are playing against a Dwarven/Empire Gun line. Which could all be false pretenses and you have nothing to worry about when playing against VC or the like that has no shooting. Rodman, instead of being so critical and hyper sensitive - you should focus more on the problem. Bold Faced and super-sized comments just make it look like you want to stress your points across and silence the opposition. It's just not good form.

Lastly, I've already pointed out that ANY good Chaos player will shield this unit by throw away dogs and use cover like woods/hills/terrain until they get in a spot whereby they can charge and MAYBE shot at ONCE?

Any what pre-tell are you going to shoot them with (grudge thower, cannon, bolt thrower, Goblin Hewer?) Ideally, IF you have chosen it - an orgun gun? Now, you get a random MS,2,4,6,8,10 shots at s5.
take the 6 hits as an above average. You wound 4 times and they save 2 or 3 of them. In this case, IF you have everything in place AND it works out that way. You have limited said unit a small fraction. I'm sure in the 8th editon they will do away with the auto hits (this is the last remnant of auto-hit warmachines).

Oh, hit them with 14 point thunderer's.. Yeah, that's a good one! Provided they are in your arc of fire! Then again what Chaos Player is going to run up the gut into the front of these guys? None of the players, that I play against. Once again, sounds great on paper - implement it on the actual table with a competent General on the other side. Don't make the Chaos player look like he's your guinea pig for the slaughter!

Kal and Snottle have covered most of my views. I think that you should just admit that you're being outplayed by the Chaos player. Also change out your tampon.

Ozorik
22-03-2010, 07:27
A unit of 6 knights, moN, standard and mus is an example of how chaos
knights really are fielded.


How many of those knights will actually see combat givwn that knights are a high warmachine priority? The problem with mathammer is that it requires quite specific cuircumstances to work. Your knights also significantly outpoint the longbeards now.

Shadowsinner
22-03-2010, 07:52
1. make all units cheaper by a few points and add an extra atack to elite infantry units.

2. all dwarfs are immune to fear, or at least immune to being outnumbered by fear causing units. (Can't count how many times I've lost artillery due to dire wolves. Chaos hound win by 1... no problem... dire wolves have size which wins them combat, and OH MY GAWD!!!)

3. make the master rune of immolation NOT SUCK! either 2d6 s5 armor piercing or 3d6 s4

4. would be nice to have more mobile war machines. maybe a tunneling drill or a dwarfen valkyrie :P

then I would be a happy dwarf

shelfunit.
22-03-2010, 08:21
Edit: Mis read the marks - Crappy post, my bad.

theunwantedbeing
22-03-2010, 08:30
So a dwarf unit gets butchered by about 350pts of chaos knights....so what?
The knight unit gets blown to hell by a cannon costing a quarter.

Also not everything hits as hard as Frenzied Chaos knights do.
Those 6 vs warriors
19 attacks, 12 hits(ws5 vs ws4)
8 wounds(st5 vs t4)
5.56 wounds (3+ save reduced to 5+)
12 steeds attacks, 6 hits(ws3 vs ws4)
3 wounds(st4 vs t4)
1.5 wounds (3+ save reduced to 4+).

so 7.12 wounds total, plus standard. Dwarves get 3 ranks, standard and outnumber.
Lose by 3pts, break test on a 6.
42% chance of success, noticably more if a bsb is nearby (which he probably is).

So that's 250pts of regular dwarf warriors (25 strong) standing firm vs 385pts of the hittiest chaos knights.

Ironbreakers with a war banner(runic equivalent) will win by 1 without striking back.
(2 if the bsb has the +1 combat res to everyone nearby banner).

And thats vs frenzied chaos knights.
Vs regular knights 3.85 the knights are looking to barely scrape a draw in round 1 against the regular warriors, they lose by 1-2pts vs the ironbreakers before the ironbreakers get to fight back.

All without character support, which dwarf combat units tend to have anyway.
The problem is that most people just dont realise just have tough dwarves, and always pit them in daft fights like vs bloodknights to prove how they suck in a fight.

Yes bloodknights will steamroll even the ironbreakers.
Thats the entire point of blood knights, they'll be lucky to reach the dwarf lines though, dwarven handguns make a mess of blood knights.

Not to mention in the above warrior fighting knights examples, its unlikely that all 6 knights will reach the dwarf lines.

GuyLeCheval
22-03-2010, 08:41
Wow, someone finally realised that not all armies are on the same power level.

Congratulations Sir!

*sigh*

yabbadabba
22-03-2010, 09:07
Kind of a pointless argument, a dwarf unit vs a n other unit. Doesn't take into account supporting army lists, scenery layout, chosen tactics, scenario etc etc

Its an old army book. Better scenarios and a slight redressing of the rules to give infantry a slightly better performance overall will be a help for a start.

Dwarves might just have only one fit for tournaments. Doesnt stop them performing just fine in other settings. Dwarves are a dying race rarely venturing out of their holds. Take some time to design scenarios underground vs skaven and goblins and stop looking for dwarves to do well on huge open plains of rolling grass.

Barbarossa
22-03-2010, 10:14
I'm guessing you use the Thorek line whereby, you get to move up to 3 dwarven units 12" to charge?

Either that, or you are playing players that may be newer and perhaps not as experienced.

I'll freely admit, I'm new to dwarves but not to Warhammer as I am the OP.

It would be a great sight to see you play some of the players that I play on a regular basis.

In short, by MY MERITS alone (via, playskill, tactics, etc.) - and by no other standard. Look at my signature. I have a winning record with Empire, Lizardmen, and Dark Elves.
And by contrast, a losing record with Dwarves, High Elves, Orcs and Goblins
and a 50/50 split with Skaven. I haven't done anything with Skaven recently, as I'm still trying to feel their new book out. HPA (Hellpit Abom = BANNED FOREVER!)

What does this tell you... Quite simply that the power levels of the books are off. This once again, is based upon my playing skill.

Nope, I don't play with special characters. I use a normal anvil in combination with miners and a gyro. The miners come in, anvil-charge a war machine or shooty unit (or whatever hangs back) and overrun into the next best target. Having a fully kitted combat unit turn up behind your own line tends to unsettle opponents enough so they make mistakes. And since the gyrocopter is already behind the front lines, some enemy units can't march so the miners WILL have a target sooner or later.
As for your winning record: dwarfs play very differently from other armies. Their - ahem - shortcomings regarding movement and no sacrificial units make for a wholly different style of play, so don't expect to win from the start. Gotta get used to the little blighters first.

Gromdal
22-03-2010, 12:39
Yeah dwarfs are crap. I abandoned my dwarf army for my brets years ago.

All those who salute the dwarf army as anything than a weak, boring gunline army have no clue about the game (or dislike dwarfs and want them to stay craptastic)

yabbadabba
22-03-2010, 14:03
Yeah dwarfs are crap. I abandoned my dwarf army for my brets years ago.
All those who salute the dwarf army as anything than a weak, boring gunline army have no clue about the game (or dislike dwarfs and want them to stay craptastic)
You must have missed the no fishing signs on the way in.

Skyros
22-03-2010, 14:10
I think this has probably been the least competitive dwarves have ever been. They rely on blocks of core infantry and guess what? Core infantry in 7th sucks. And dwarf core infantry is even slower than normal core infantry!

They don't have skirmishers, hard hitting cavalry, or big monsters - the big players in 7th edition. They have hard hitting characters, but they are too slow to get anywhere. Other armies hard hitting characters get thrown on flying mounts that can zip around the battlefield 20" a turn. A dwarf lord moves 6". easily easily avoided. The anvil is your only hope. Or the one use rune of challenge.

Dwarf elite infantry is outclassed in all aspects by the elite infantry of other nations. Dwarves are supposed to be good in melee but all they really have is the same SCR that empire or skaven can get. They have no 'killy' elite infantry at all - compare them to swordmasters or black guard or warriors of chaos or temple guard etc etc.

Worse yet, their 'staying power' relies on their high leadership - which is easily overwhelmed by the mass casualties most powerful 7th edition units can cause on the charge.

Oh, and slayers and foresters, which could give dwarves some valuable other tactical options - totally suck. Foresters need to move through terrain and slayers probably need to skirmish. A block of naked dwarves moving 6" a turn? Wow, fearsome.

without the anvil to actually have the chance of getting some charges in, they have an extremely boring, linear, static gameplay (Line up and shoot my war machines!) Maybe I'm just slightly spoiled due to skaven and empire, who can do a million different things, but dwarf lists always seem to look and play the same - without the anvil/miners there's no real variety or surprise at all. Thank goodness for the gyrocoptor anyway.

SilasOfTheLambs
22-03-2010, 14:21
Dwarfs, it is true, are not a good recipe for tournament success. However, in casual play I have found them not to be hopelessly outclassed like OK or OnG. A few tweaks would be helpful (some have already been mentioned):

+1A on ironbreakers and hammerers (to bring them in line with other elite troops such as swordmasters, chaos chosen, etc).

Army-wide rule: Any unit which benefits from two or more rank bonuses to combat resolution counts as Stubborn for the duration of that combat. (not all dwarfs are Stubborn in gaming terms. but LOTS of dwarfs, being attacked from the front, are. This leaves out single-line shooters but includes warriors).

Some sort of fearsome monster (the MRo Fear just doesn't cut it, let's be honest). Cost and stats similar to a ghorgon, maybe carries a bolt thrower (using pistol rules?) or can throw some rocks or something. Dwarfs cannot play monsterhammer in the current metagame, which is in my view their most serious weakness.

EDIT: Skirmishing slayers also make sense. Currently they get shot beyond all reason.

However, I have fun playing with my dwarfs anyway, and I think they're reasonably effective. They require a totally different mode of tactical thinking compared to other armies, but hey, that's what makes WHFB great if anything does... the diversity.

Cambion Daystar
22-03-2010, 14:37
Dwarfs, it is true, are not a good recipe for tournament success. However, in casual play I have found them not to be hopelessly outclassed like OK or OnG.
Wow, that's almost like saying they are ok because there are some armies that suck harder. :confused:

dwarfhold13
22-03-2010, 15:32
cool.. another dwarfs are terrible thread..
they are a bit out of date and yeah, in order to be competative in the tourney scene, there are things you MUST take in order to secure any kinda chance, but they are still a fun army to play.
actually, what drew me to posting in this thread is that i recently played a couple friends of mine with most of my dwarf collection. I have about 2500 points of a slayer army and then another 4000-5000 points of the regular dwarfs as well. i played about 1000 points down (it was a 6000 point game) and yes, the slayer list is a bit rediculous with the doomseekers and all, but the regular dwarves held their own as well.. granted with some lucky make or break rolls.
what happens with dwarfs is that you really need to tool up with enough shooting, but not too much and then get your other units tooled up to trump in the combat res field.. unfortunately with every new book that comes out, the dwarfs chance to win combat by this default is becoming increasingly narrower, but it's really the only way you can do anything..
i like the runic idea for the weapons, but they need to be cheaper, as well as points per man. but what i don't get is why dwarfs are known for extreme engineering, and their 'mini' cannon can only do D3 damage?
there is a lot of stuff that is just terrible but i guess i'm on board with those who say the book isn't up to par, but is still good.
Jon

Condottiere
22-03-2010, 16:02
I remember from D&D that Dwarves used to have no penalties for movement in rough terrain (or at least in hills and mountains), as well as bonuses for fighting anything two sizes larger than they were.

Enigmatik1
22-03-2010, 16:09
I remember from D&D that Dwarves used to have no penalties for movement in rough terrain (or at least in hills and mountains), as well as bonuses for fighting anything two sizes larger than they were.

Those days are long gone...although Dwarves now are arguably the best Fighter, Warden or Paladin race, are among the best at moving around in heavy armor (doh!) and are harder to knockdown, push, pull or slide. :D

rodmillard
22-03-2010, 16:19
Yeah dwarfs are crap. I abandoned my dwarf army for my brets years ago.

All those who salute the dwarf army as anything than a weak, boring gunline army have no clue about the game (or dislike dwarfs and want them to stay craptastic)

Look Snorri, Trolls!

Dorack
22-03-2010, 16:59
Dwarves as such are pretty fine. Main problem is the 7th edition hate towards ranked infantry (and overpowered books/units). If 8th edition puts ranked infantry where they belong, Dwarves will do great

Bran Dawri
22-03-2010, 18:10
Well, as a longtime dwarf player, what irks me the most is that fluffwise, dwarfs are the finest infantry in the known world, barring none. Basic warriors are supposedly as good as most other armies' elites. That's true, if your definition of "most" is empire, greenskins (excepting blackorcs), and skaven.
Everybody else's elite infantry is often even better than dwarf elite infantry, who by right ought to be the bee's knees.

zak
22-03-2010, 19:38
My main gripe with Dwarves is that to be successful you are forced to play in a single style. If you take the Strollaz rune and move forward then you are just opening up your flanks to attack (especially on a 4x6 table). There just isn't enough warriors to make an effective line and the oath stone only works if attacked. Fast moving units just move past the unit and are open to hit your exposed rear or war machines. The only effective way I have found is to use 2 lines of slayers in a congo line, but this looks ridiculous and melts under any firepower (even s3), additionally it's a pain in the **** to move.
The dwarves can certainly take a frontal charge, even from Chaos Knights, the real issue is that you have to castle up and sit it out. The dwarves then usually get whittled down as I have found it is difficult to wound the opponent as they hit at s3/4 and most importantly last! This army book caertainly reflects the dwarven psyche and fluff, but makes for a very boring and predictable army and therefore game.
My fix for this would be to have dwarves ignore the penalty for flank/rear attacks and retain the rank bonus reflecting their stubborn nature and ability to form a shield wall/fighting square. The enemy would still get the +1/+2 bonus for rear and flanks. This would hopefully allow a more attacking style of play.

yabbadabba
22-03-2010, 19:43
Well, as a longtime dwarf player, what irks me the most is that fluffwise, dwarfs are the finest infantry in the known world, barring none. Basic warriors are supposedly as good as most other armies' elites. That's true, if your definition of "most" is empire, greenskins (excepting blackorcs), and skaven.
Everybody else's elite infantry is often even better than dwarf elite infantry, who by right ought to be the bee's knees. They were great when the book was released. Things have moved on now. So, as has been said many times either the armies need a bit of downgrading, the core rules need a bit or realigning or dwarves need a rewrite. Probably all 3.

This is like saying your black and white tv isn't as good as your friends plasma one, despite the fact you haven't bought a new tv for 30 years.

KalEf
22-03-2010, 19:51
For a lot of the complaints
Oh my… you guys need to play a different army.
If you want crazy inventions, and movement 5, and monsters please go play skaven
If you want cheaper less elite gun men, and cavalry; please go play empire
Both of these armies allow you to take giant blocks of cheap troops if you want them. ;)

If you want super fighty infantry (a spiked/ exposive anvil?) please go play chosen chaos… hell maybe some temple guard. (you can have monsters with artillery!)

Yes, I think a steam/rune golem would be COOL. I would LIKE a rune that made people flee d6 less. I would LIKE the slayers tattoos to have a O&G or wood elf tattoo like effect. I don’t really NEED them.

For some other complaints
I’m sure there is someone out there who loooooves satyrs… like more than a friend. And they are infinitely pissed that an all ungor army isn’t that competitive, and that Gors are too ugly. He would complain, there needs to be toughness 6, strength 7, 8 attack ungors. NO there shouldn’t. (Unless in the fluff some where it says 4 ungors killed 15 minotaurs). Some times you have to make a choice between fielding what is playable and fielding what you think is cool. BTW an entire unit of vampire knights SHOULD be really good at killing things, a skink with a spear… not so much.

As far as anvilness is concerned. Yes, you can make really good special choices in all sorts of armies that can beat dwarf core units IT SHOULD BE THIS WAY.

As for the iron breakers
As stated earlier they beat or tie THE chaos knights for the 330~350 points range
They tie savage boar boy biggunz with the banner o buch the first turn but the IB beat them after that.
They statically, straight out beat Dragon Princes, CoC, Boar boyz (of all types except as noted), CoK, TK all mounted units, BCoK, Inner circle, centigors, Black knights, :eek:

Grail knights and blood knights win on the first turn, and not afterwards (though the BKs actually win by a good margin)… WHAT DO YOU GUYS WANT? Toughness 6 and a -1 armor save and unbreakable :eyebrows: ? This is a 6th edition books infantry besting all these new cav units. The most GW should do is drop them a point or 2.

Also, the keeping rank bonus even if flanked seems very powerful, but not ridiculous. :)

BTW-I’m sorry if I missed someone’s favorite unit of knights.

Stronginthearm
22-03-2010, 20:45
So essentially if we wants to win without the anvil we are SOL

You state that Ironbreakers can beat Boar Boyz, Black Knights, Inner Circle, Centigors, TK, none of which are considered Top Tier Units, 5 man Black knight squads with full out stuff only costs 200 ish, so we are happy that the Iron breakers statistically beat troops that are going to cost a third less, weeee

Green Feevah!
22-03-2010, 20:58
Dwarves as such are pretty fine. Main problem is the 7th edition hate towards ranked infantry (and overpowered books/units). If 8th edition puts ranked infantry where they belong, Dwarves will do great

This.

You can't compare Dwarves to a Grave Guard Vampires list or a Bloodthirster Daemons list. NOTHING can stand up to those, except those armies. That is not, in ANY way a fault of the Dwarf Book, but a fault of the Game Designers who took the 'rule of cool' way too far in 7th edition. The last half dozen armybooks have been all about over-the-top killy elite units, super-monsters, and uber-characters. Look at Dwarves and Orcs (the first 2 books released for 7th ed. I know Dwarves were written in 6th, but they were the last book and were built with 7th in mind). They have NONE of those. So of course they are playing on a different level.

Take the Dwarven approach. Dig in, and wait it out. As the rumors go, 8th edition will (hopefully) be a return to emphasis on ranked, core infantry to balance out the disaster that is monsterhammer. Dwarves will do better in that environment.

Would I like to see a Dwarven Dirigible? Or a steam powered drill tank that comes up from under the ground? Or stone golems? Of course. But I'm not going to get my hopes up. Dwarves aren't even on the radar of coming attractions.

Honestly? Do what I did. Go play something else until 8th edition comes out. The game is too broken to be played unless you have a brand new armybook. Play 40k for a bit. Or Warmachine. It's much better to take a break from the game than to keep smashing your head against a wall.

Tactical Retreat!
22-03-2010, 21:15
Look, I neither want trippy inventions nor a cheap horde nor cavalry and that ****.
I want Dwarf units that can actually win combats against anything but chaff.

We have no magic, we have no skirmishers, we have no heavy cavalry, we have no fast cavalry, we have no monsters, we have no flyers except a really expensive rare slot, we have no infantry with a movement higher than 3, and most important of all we have no magic.

No other army in the game is restricted in this way. We have shooting and infantry. Thats it.

Is it then too hard to ask that our elite infantry can do anything except holding for a round or two against good enemy units? Barring of course that they don't simply outflank or ignore or magic us to hell?

Khorne Knights will tie against Ironbreakers. Alright. First round. Next round the Ironbreakers get rickrolled and thats 300 pts down the drain and even more victory points for your opponent, who then has plenty of time to kill something else with his unscathed unit.

A cannon doesn't kill a unit of heavy cav unless the opponent opens them up against a flank shot after being baited by skirmishers or fast cav... ohh wait

I want our infantry to be better. The rest can stay the same.

KalEf
22-03-2010, 21:44
So essentially if we wants to win without the anvil we are SOL


um... If you want to be competitive, you should take the stronger choices... Thought that went with out saying... oddly had to say it twice


You state that Ironbreakers can beat Boar Boyz, Black Knights, Inner Circle, Centigors, TK, none of which are considered Top Tier Units

lol I'm going to assume you got crabby after you did the math and just needed to post something. Yes, Iron breakers should beat them ALONG WITH all the other knights I listed. If I said "this special character is tough, he can kill archanon, sun eater, tyrion, luther huss, and break even with any blood thirster build." You essentially responded with... well luther huss is a wussy... that is true. Doesn't change anything I said. :eyebrows:


5 man Black knight squads with full out stuff only costs 200 ish, so we are happy that the Iron breakers statistically beat troops that are going to cost a third less, weeee

the same 330~350ish unit of IB should also beat them if you pump the black knights up to over 400... though yes, they will beet them if you drop them to about 200 as well. lol :rolleyes: On the positive side, maybe your dwarf opponents will only buy Iron breakers in blocks that you find palatable? ;)

lol and these are just a 6th edition dudes.

sergio
22-03-2010, 22:15
the same 330~350ish unit of IB should also beat them if you pump the black knights up to over 400... though yes, they will beet them if you drop them to about 200 as well. lol :rolleyes: On the positive side, maybe your dwarf opponents will only buy Iron breakers in blocks that you find palatable? ;)

ironbreakers have a good chance of winning that combat head to head, sure. through static CR and not dying. except to actually KILL the knights, you're looking at 1A S4 models, who pursue 2d6-1. so theres little chance to kill them in combat, and little chance to chase the knights down if/when they break. the odds are all in favor of pretty much every other enemy unit that decides to charge them.

Glabro
22-03-2010, 22:37
A unit of 6 BK with full command, no barding and banner of the dead legion (double US) runs at 209 points, but that's a nice portion of fear-autobreak right there for black knights. Might even run with a 7th knight to be sure.

Anyway, a unit like that charging into 20 Ironbreakers with FC, they're going to bounce back on average - but it's pretty close, and they only need to roll a bit better than average to win and break 'em.

All I'm saying is, the black knights are well worth their points with the right banner. Wouldn't take 'em without the banner though, and it'd the best place for it.

Hmm. I must have missed something while I was too busy thinking that expensive, slow "elite" infantry with 1 attack don't really cut the mustard and didn't notice Grave Guards becoming a top build, despite them being "raisable".
Of course, you can do that one atomic bomb unit, but at what cost...I guess with the character cap coming in place, things might not be so rosy for them due to the magic support rug being pulled under their feet.

Yeah, it's not going too well for the stunties at the moment, they're down there with the greenskins in the little league. I guess you could have a lot of fun with O&G vs. Dwarves, still, though obviously the constant Hatred might skew things unless the O&G player is skillful enough to consistently exploit it to his advantage.

Like the others said, take a break. It'll all be better later this year.

KalEf
22-03-2010, 22:57
A unit of 6 BK with full command, no barding and banner of the dead legion (double US) runs at 209 points, but that's a nice portion of fear-autobreak right there for black knights. Might even run with a 7th knight to be sure.

Anyway, a unit like that charging into 20 Ironbreakers with FC, they're going to bounce back on average - but it's pretty close, and they only need to roll a bit better than average to win and break 'em.

All I'm saying is, the black knights are well worth their points with the right banner. Wouldn't take 'em without the banner though, and it'd the best place for it.

Hmm. I must have missed something while I was too busy thinking that expensive, slow "elite" infantry with 1 attack don't really cut the mustard and didn't notice Grave Guards becoming a top build, despite them being "raisable".
Of course, you can do that one atomic bomb unit, but at what cost...I guess with the character cap coming in place, things might not be so rosy for them due to the magic support rug being pulled under their feet.



ironbreakers have a good chance of winning that combat head to head, sure. through static CR and not dying. except to actually KILL the knights, you're looking at 1A S4 models, who pursue 2d6-1. so theres little chance to kill them in combat, and little chance to chase the knights down if/when they break. the odds are all in favor of pretty much every other enemy unit that decides to charge them.

... I must be confused. I've never seen Black Knights run away. come to think of it, i don't seem to find any vamp unit running away... I must be playing wrong. :eyebrows: I do however think the rune of slowness being -D6 to run away from the unit as well, would be nice... though I do love shooting fleeing units lol

Stronginthearm
22-03-2010, 23:16
well done you spotted that as well, just because the individual example is innefective doesn't render the entire argument moot

Volker the Mad Fiddler
22-03-2010, 23:53
SNIP
Troll slayers held up the blood knights (in conga line) and in the end it was a major victory to the dwarfs.
SNIP

As far as I see it dwarfs are a very much un-stuffed army, requiring only a few points tweeks here and there (with a few less stupid runes - rune of disguise...) to be a very dangerous army indeed.

Mostly true, but, and please don't take this personally, when conga line slayers are required, something is wrong. The problem with Dwarfs is as I said before they have a very difficult time actually getting any VPs meaning even when they have outplayed an opponent, they may not win.

Ozorik
23-03-2010, 00:04
when conga line slayers are required, something is wrong

Blood Knights are one of the most broken units in the game. Few armies can deal with them easily and Dwarves have a harder time than most due to our restricted mobility. That being said a single enemy unit does not make the army underpowered.

theunwantedbeing
23-03-2010, 00:07
That being said a single enemy unit does not make the army underpowered.

Yes it does :)

Ronin_eX
23-03-2010, 00:11
My only big gripe with Dwarfs is that they give up a great swathe of advantages (movement, monsters, any kind of cavalry, magic, chariots, skirmishers, etc.) but the things we get in return aren't noticeably better for us having so many weaknesses.

If all we have are infantry, missile troops, anti-magic and static war machines (save one option) then shouldn't those things actually be quite good? But they aren't, Dwarf Warriors are pretty nice but pricey and slow and they aren't exactly as hard as most army's elite infantry units. Our elites fair even worse because none of them really fill the role of hard hitting. We just have two units which are fairly tough and little else (with one being more or less better than the other in almost all circumstances).

If an army gets a lot taken away in terms of versatility as Dwarfs do then the compensation in power should come from mastery in what they do do. As it stands they are good shooters (mostly due to the Anvil, without it they are fairly standard when put up next to other shooty armies), fairly standard foot troops and about on par to the Empire with war machines. If we are going to be standard to mediocre in the few arenas we can contend in then we should be more versatile. If the though of picking up certain un-Dwarfy things is anathema to you then the only option is for us to be damn good in the three areas of the game we can contend in.

We should be awesome in combat, we should be great shooters (to encourage people not to just dance around us) and our warmachines such as they are should provoke envy in others. These are all we have so having these categories being so lack luster compared to armies that get far more options than we do seems kind of silly. Other armies can at least have their cake and eat it to, all the Dwarfs get are a boatload of weaknesses with few reasons to take them despite the weaknesses they suffer.

Here's hoping GW can figure out a way of making Dwarfs interesting and strong in their few troop categories without having to butcher the fluff (though a few interesting new units would be fun as long as they stick to the strong points of Dawi fluff).

Tactical Retreat!
23-03-2010, 00:22
Blood Knights are one of the most broken units in the game. Few armies can deal with them easily and Dwarves have a harder time than most due to our restricted mobility. That being said a single enemy unit does not make the army underpowered.

Yeah lets ignore the discussion for the last few pages and pretend that blood knights is the only thing that beats dwarfs in a straight up fight :rolleyes:

Grimstonefire
23-03-2010, 00:55
I think having shooting as a strength would have to be done carefully. They could make them never misfire (finding a slightly different role for the engineer), and drop maybe a point off Thunderers. Imo that would be enough of a boost, anything else would really be pushing them once again into a gunline army.

Combat I think is where we need something special. Core units should remain as they are imo, they work well like that (excepting of rangers, but that is more for lack of foresters).

Special units; slayers need a boost to their strength, and an upgrade to boost attacks.
Ironbreakers need a second attack as standard, and if I had my way, the option to take an additional hand weapon. Immune to panic.

Hammerers need gromril armour as standard (no shield option). Maybe a second attack as well?

A core war machine (not counting for min) that did low strength autohits would be nice as well.

Miners remain the same, but other units can deploy after them! This is the biggest change I would make.

Gyrocopter capable of carrying a unit, plus other upgrades.

For all units either a free reform every movement phase, or not losing bonuses to flank/ rear charges.

RulesJD
23-03-2010, 02:17
Agree utterly.

Everyone feels Thorek is broken but, what choices do you have Throgrim at over 700 points or Joe Bugman. Bugman is great but, the range of choices is just too narrow. Give us some other legendary hero choices to flesh out our ranks or maybe some beefy unit champion upgrades for the core infantry.

Movement is still a problem for the reasons stated. Yes bunkering is fluffy but, its boring. Return the forester rule to rangers, give miners a true tunnelling rule and make Slayers a skirmish unit which is much more in keeping with their fluff.

Elite infantry. Yes, you can rune up the infantry and take a BSB for static combat res but, the current books are making ranked infantry obsolete. Give us some better elite, perhaps a rare choice so we aren't stuck with only war machines in that slot.

Gunlines. Everyone hates to play against them and they rapidly become boring to play with. Change this up. Maybe a skirmishing pistol unit. Or perhaps make throwing axes are greater option so that the slow Dwarves can actually generate a threat as they move.

Just for giggles, drop the marginal steam gun on the gyro and give a variable loadout like air droppable grenades.

If you can give the Dwarves greater variety and utility you will see more pure infantry armies.

ChaosVC
23-03-2010, 02:18
I think having shooting as a strength would have to be done carefully. They could make them never misfire (finding a slightly different role for the engineer), and drop maybe a point off Thunderers. Imo that would be enough of a boost, anything else would really be pushing them once again into a gunline army.

Combat I think is where we need something special. Core units should remain as they are imo, they work well like that (excepting of rangers, but that is more for lack of foresters).

Special units; slayers need a boost to their strength, and an upgrade to boost attacks.
Ironbreakers need a second attack as standard, and if I had my way, the option to take an additional hand weapon. Immune to panic.

Hammerers need gromril armour as standard (no shield option). Maybe a second attack as well?

A core war machine (not counting for min) that did low strength autohits would be nice as well.

Miners remain the same, but other units can deploy after them! This is the biggest change I would make.

Gyrocopter capable of carrying a unit, plus other upgrades.

For all units either a free reform every movement phase, or not losing bonuses to flank/ rear charges.

Considering how powerful dwarf's shooting already is, your suggestion may only make it as competative as DE and probably DOC which in terms make the army overpowered. Even High elves and Dark elves only have one elite troop each with 2 attacks...let us not talk about your other suggestion...really.

Stronginthearm
23-03-2010, 04:41
dwarf shooting is powerful in mass, in small amounts its just annoying, you can say the same about most armies with real shooting capabilities

Condottiere
23-03-2010, 05:34
You could always create a Pioneer Corps, which would allow them to make field fortifications.

silashand
23-03-2010, 05:53
A while back there was a thread about the most boring army in warhammer. Now ignoring playing with them since that's pretty subjective, I seem to recall Dwarfs were pretty near the top for least enjoyable armies to play against. There were many reasons, but the two most common ones were that Dwarfs never moved and all they did was shoot. Now I know that's not true of all Dwarf armies and players, but it is true enough to be anecdotal I have noticed over the years. And while I my love my Dwarfs as my favorite army, I have to confess Dwarfs are indeed pretty boring to face on the tabletop at times. Facing an army where you know they won't come to you, they can't outflank you, and are going to sit back and pound on you until you come to them gets a bit old IMO. It's like playing against the old TFC list where you faced 20 power dice and you could never engage anything. It's very one-sided.

That said, I think it is possible to give Dwarfs a few more options without destroying the character of the army. IMO it is essential to actually *not* touch the character of the Dwarfs because they have one of the most well developed imagery and identifiable characters in the entire game. To destroy that would be a travesty. Some ways I think would help make Dwarfs a bit more competitive without ruining what is good about them would be:

- Slayers. Ranks & command does not fit the imagery of a bunch of naked, half-crazed Dwarfs with a death wish. Limit the unit sizes, do away with the command option and give them skirmish. To make up for the lost combat resolution, simply give them the berserk charge rule from Mordheim (double attacks the turn they charge). This would give the Dwarfs a skirmishing unit that would increase their mobility slightly, but in limited numbers to keep them from being abusive.

- Miners. Simply put, they are too slow to have an impact in most games other than to claim a table quarter once in a while. The only time they will get to charge anything is if you combine them with an Anvil. I for one am against having to bring another option in the army just to make a unit somewhat worthwhile. Either allow them to charge the turn they come on, or let them arrive in the middle of the battlefield like the TK 'it came from below' rule. Either one would make miners a bit more useful without making them too powerful.

- Rangers. Ignore terrain, that's about all that needs saying. The only ranked scouts in the game and if you deploy a small unit of them inside of it, they will need three full turns just to get out of the blasted woods, let alone do anything. Realistically, they are the most worthless unit in the Dwarf list right now unless you get lucky with good blocking terrain to deploy them behind, and even then it's iffy at best.

- Movement: Yes, lots of people moan about M3. While I don't particularly agree with it, Relentless is a characterful alternative to upping their movement stat, however, it is not quite enough on its own IMO. Bring back a couple runic items such as the Golden Sceptre of Norgrim (+1M for the character & unit) and/or the Rune of Passage (talismanic: character and unit ignore diff. terrain). Either one would make a few, but not all, Dwarf units slightly more manouverable on the battlefield as well as give them a slight advantage in certain instances. Neither would overpower the Dwarfs much.

- Anvil: While I like some of the abilities, it is IMO too much of a crutch and also IMO the wrong way to create a "mobile" Dwarf army. That would be better served by either an army special rule where Dwarf infantry units' charge range was increased +D3" or some such, or a relatively cheap rune that granted that ability (not a master rune, there are too many of those now, and a single instance of it would hardly be worth mentioning). For the Anvil itself, I think a more appropriate ability would be something along the lines of the DE Cauldron, i.e. some special ability granted to D3 units or some such. Runic or not, it is a magical ability after all.

- Ironbreakers: for effectively the same cost with Hammerers you get Stubborn, great weapons, plus immune to Fear & Terror when joined by a Dwarf Lord, when all the IBs have is +1AS. IMO either give them +1A or bring back their original Rune of Stone rule and give them a 3+ save all the time, 2+ from the front in HtH. They would be unique in that they would be the only infantry in the game with a cav-like save. Given their description, this would be most fitting IMO. It would also keep the Dwarfs imagery the same of being really, really hard to kill, but not the uber-killyness that Wardancers and the like bring to the table.

- Hammerers: just for fluff reasons I think they should have gromril armour and remove the option for the shield. This would give them the same base AS, but encourage the use of their namesake weapons. half the time I see them now they end up using HW/Sh which for a unit named "Hammerers" doesn't seem right IMO.

- Engineers/Master Engineers: actually let them build battlefield fortifications which is entirely in character. I'd also like to see them be able to ride a gyro as a mount. I mean, if anyone would be riding one it would be an Engineer.

- Other minor changes would be bring back the MRoDeath (grants killing blow, something the Dwarfs don't have otherwise, but historically did), maybe add a gyrocopter variant or two (mainly because we know they will get a "big nasty" of some sort since all armies have been getting them and this would be the least disruptive to the imagery and style of play that we have now), and perhaps add in the option for Mountain Rangers ala the White Dwarf article a while back.

Anyway, just thoughts.

Cheers, Gary

Ozorik
23-03-2010, 07:19
Yeah lets ignore the discussion for the last few pages and pretend that blood knights is the only thing that beats dwarfs in a straight up fight

I think you need to look a bit more closely at previous posts.

shelfunit.
23-03-2010, 07:25
- Ironbreakers: for effectively the same cost with Hammerers you get Stubborn, great weapons, plus immune to Fear & Terror when joined by a Dwarf Lord, when all the IBs have is +1AS. IMO either give them +1A or bring back their original Rune of Stone rule and give them a 3+ save all the time, 2+ from the front in HtH. They would be unique in that they would be the only infantry in the game with a cav-like save. Given their description, this would be most fitting IMO. It would also keep the Dwarfs imagery the same of being really, really hard to kill, but not the uber-killyness that Wardancers and the like bring to the table.



With the Gromril armour and shield don't they already get this?

KalEf
23-03-2010, 07:26
I think you need to look a bit more closely at previous posts.

lmfao lol... i may need to change my pants.

Ozorik
23-03-2010, 07:34
They only get a 3+ from the flank or rear, the 'parry' rule only works from the front.

shelfunit.
23-03-2010, 07:39
They only get a 3+ from the flank or rear, the 'parry' rule only works from the front.

True. If I was worried about the iron breakers tho I'd just throw in a thane with an Oathstone.

Condottiere
23-03-2010, 08:06
Done correctly, Dwarven armies may deny their opponents the possibility of outflanking their main force, with a combination of Slayers, missile troops, war machines and the oathstone.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
23-03-2010, 08:12
Dwarfs should all be one point more but have Stubborn army wide.

Condottiere
23-03-2010, 08:17
Stubborn at 9 or 10 is worth a great deal more than one point.

zeebie
23-03-2010, 08:58
personally I would like to see engineers and runesmith have alot more use. Engineers should be able to entrench actual units (I know it would make dwarfs less likely to move).
runesmith/lords should have the ability of upgrading runic standards(cast like a spell) but each rune would need a standard, and upgraded option that way they can used in the magic phase.

Slayers should be m5 and the unit should get a benefit each time a slayer dies

Freman Bloodglaive
23-03-2010, 09:05
Ironbreakers need pistols in their cost. Voila, short range shooting, stand and shoot reaction, and the option of two weapons in close combat.

Hammerers should have gromril armour and two attacks (unless they tone down everyone else's elite infantry.

yabbadabba
23-03-2010, 09:06
Slayers should be m5 and the unit should get a benefit each time a slayer dies Why - what justification is there for that?


Hammerers should have gromril armour and two attacks (unless they tone down everyone else's elite infantry. I'd prefer that. I can't see the gaming justification for 2A in elites.

Glabro
23-03-2010, 09:13
Stubborn at 9 or 10 is worth a great deal more than one point.

I thought the main theme of the discussion here was that dwarves aren't worth their points? How did the +1 point suggestion make you forget all that? Context, man, context.

ChaosVC
23-03-2010, 09:31
I think dwarves infantry are well worth their point, they are already one of the toughest infantry the game have to offer, the problem lies with speed and overall army concept design.

zeebie
23-03-2010, 09:36
Why - what justification is there for that?


because they are a unarmour naked half crazy dwarfs looking for death. there is no reason they should be same speed as a dwarf in heavy armour. the fact that slayers are looking for death means they would become more crazy when fellow slayers die, as they can sense there honorable death coming.

This would also stop slayers being smashed by arrows, as you would have to think if you want them to get stronger or not.

Gromdal
23-03-2010, 09:38
I thought the main theme of the discussion here was that dwarves aren't worth their points? How did the +1 point suggestion make you forget all that? Context, man, context.

Yeah they forget so fast : (.

To move dwarfs from a boring gunline to a good fantasy army is gonna take alot of stuff. I like your stubborn idea to start.

yabbadabba
23-03-2010, 09:39
I think dwarves infantry are well worth their point, they are already one of the toughest infantry the game have to offer, the problem lies with speed and overall army concept design.
I am going to disagree with that slightly.

Their problems lie within options for variety of play in non-defensive scenarios (which to honest is true to background) and in the overall lack of effectiveness of infantry, and the over-exaggeration of some elite infantry. Last but not least psychology needs an overhaul - less immune to psychology, fear needing a slight reduction.

For an army book that is nearly 3 editions old it is still very good, balanced and reflects Dwarves fantastically. Whats happened is that the core game has got a little unbalanced against infantry (especially with scenarios) and some of the recent army book releases have been silly.

yabbadabba
23-03-2010, 09:40
because they are a unarmour naked half crazy dwarfs looking for death. there is no reason they should be same speed as a dwarf in heavy armour. the fact that slayers are looking for death means they would become more crazy when fellow slayers die, as they can sense there honorable death coming.
This would also stop slayers being smashed by arrows, as you would have to think if you want them to get stronger or not. Wards and skirmish would achieve this without having to break the mould. In addition Dwarven background makes armour incumberance almost non-existent. Certainly not to the effect of a +2m bonus.

sorry for the double post.

Condottiere
23-03-2010, 10:53
I thought the main theme of the discussion here was that dwarves aren't worth their points? How did the +1 point suggestion make you forget all that? Context, man, context.While not the most inspiring of books, Dwarves may have to follow the High Elven template (though how that works in light of the 8th Edition I couldn't say). That is, lots of elite units to choose from, priced more or less at 15 points each and highly specialized, combined with some all encompassing army wide rule.

The theme might be guilds, each guild contributing a different aspect to combat, and have them designed to utilize the maximum of those fifteen points.

Gromdal
23-03-2010, 13:54
While not the most inspiring of books, Dwarves may have to follow the High Elven template (though how that works in light of the 8th Edition I couldn't say). That is, lots of elite units to choose from, priced more or less at 15 points each and highly specialized, combined with some all encompassing army wide rule.

The theme might be guilds, each guild contributing a different aspect to combat, and have them designed to utilize the maximum of those fifteen points.

This is something I agree with. Both are old, rare races. Their armies should show this. And its time to move the dwarfs from gunlines to a real army fitting their character.

shelfunit.
23-03-2010, 14:06
Maybe also returning dwarf handguns to move and fire - enabling an advance whilst still shooting, possibly to back up any beefed up HtH troops.

CrystalSphere
23-03-2010, 16:08
I think the dwarves could use much more a rule so that they get no penalty for move and fire, than for example wood elves do. With their crossbows/handguns being move and fire (representing dwarf technology superior to the rest) and giving all dwarfs units throwing axes, they would no longer be the static army and would now have real reasons to move up and kill the enemy. What bothers me the most about dwarves currently is that their only way of killing things from afar involves being static, which pretty much force dwarves on the defensive if they want to shoot at all. And having no magic... you get the point, there is no point for the dwarfs to advance, and so the gun line armies start to appear.

grumbaki
23-03-2010, 16:20
If we can move and shoot with no penalties, we'll just inch backwards while firing, not forwards. Maybe give all dwarf units ability of the Banner of Rakaph? (free reform before charges are declared). Sure, they dwarfs are still M3, but this gives the units a 6'' zone of death and makes them really hard to outflank and will rewards blocks that move forward.

Baboon
23-03-2010, 16:53
If we can move and shoot with no penalties, we'll just inch backwards while firing, not forwards. Maybe give all dwarf units ability of the Banner of Rakaph? (free reform before charges are declared). Sure, they dwarfs are still M3, but this gives the units a 6'' zone of death and makes them really hard to outflank and will rewards blocks that move forward.

so whats the anvil for ?

Glabro
23-03-2010, 17:07
If we can move and shoot with no penalties, we'll just inch backwards while firing, not forwards. Maybe give all dwarf units ability of the Banner of Rakaph? (free reform before charges are declared). Sure, they dwarfs are still M3, but this gives the units a 6'' zone of death and makes them really hard to outflank and will rewards blocks that move forward.

Errr....that works in 40k to an extent (the extent being the board edge), but in WFB? Inching 1.5 inches backwards per turn isn't going to cause many problems.

shelfunit.
23-03-2010, 18:08
so whats the anvil for ?

It's fine if you only want to move a single unit, any more and the chances are you'll bugger the 4+ roll up.

EDIT: And at 315pts taking a lord and a hero slot, possibly moving one unit extra a turn has little real appeal.

KalEf
23-03-2010, 19:50
lolololol... this thread should be renamed --I want aggressive dwarves--
That seems to be what everyone is asking for in this thread.

The anvil should be making you're opponents blood knights/chaos knights movement 3.5, their black guard movement 2.5, their grail knights movement 4, ect... and if you have the spare time and resources, use it to move your slayers up. when you have good artillery low movement enemies are a good thing

A gyro copter should be march blocking (evil with anvil), turning frenzied units, and running down fleeing units. It is very useful, though it could stand to be a little cheaper.

Iron breakers, as stated and supported earlier, are great! They make an awesome metaphorical anvil. They take-out point for point almost every cavalry unit in the game!


I never leave home with out 4+ tricked out bolt throwers. When I play dwarves I have never had a problem with Abominations, hydras, blood thirsters, star dragons, or any other of the myriad of big "broken" creepies out there.

magic defense... every other army must be able field a 9dispell dice + steal an opponent power dice, add +3 to disspell (+3!), and have 5 disspell scrolls several of witch are spell erasers. The dwarves can, and listening to this forum, I guess they are really bad vs magic.

That being said, I too wouldn't mind more aggressive dwarf option, as long as the fluff supports it. In my imagination they should have the option to be more than only defensive + lots of artillery.

Malorian
23-03-2010, 19:54
How about this:

Give the dwarfs two leadership stats:

-One that is their regular leadership
-and one that is their stubborn leadership

So dwarf warriors would be something like Ld 9/6, they are leadership 9 but can't drop below 6.

If people don't want to be autobroken then they can take bigger blocks or use units that can't get the rune of courage.

Sand
23-03-2010, 21:18
An idea I had some time ago was giving them something like the rule zombies currently have. They don't pursue, but when people break from combat with them they take hits depending on the number of ranks in the Dwarven unit.

That would solve what I actually think is the biggest problem for Dwarfs; that they have trouble raking up VP. While Dwarfs are supposed to be a defensive army, it doesn't really do a lot of good (from a game-mechanic pov) to hold the line and defeat the enemy in combat if you don't kill anything and hence get no VP. My idea would be reasonably fluffy, I think and help Dwarfs get a few units below 50% and have a better shot at cranking out victories once in a while.

I think their infantry could probably do with a boost to bring them in line with all the newer elite infantry too. But that's more of an issue with the general powercreep.

Some more Stubbornness might be good too, but that might be overkill?

silashand
24-03-2010, 01:54
The theme might be guilds, each guild contributing a different aspect to combat, and have them designed to utilize the maximum of those fifteen points.

I have always thought that the old HoC rule where the general determined core/special/etc. was a good one for the Dwarfs. For instance, an Engineer Lord would represent the Engineers' Guild. A Miner Lord would represent the Mining Guild. Normal Dwarf Lord would represent the actual Dwarf Holds. Since everything in Dwarf society is based on guild membership of one form or another, with the exception of slayers who are outside Dwarf society, you could build some really characterful and unique Dwarf armies based on that concept. JMO though.

Cheers, Gary

Condottiere
24-03-2010, 03:15
I actually had the idea of guilds determining army setups in mind for another fandex, but I thought it might be really suitable for Dwarves.

They aren't Elves, in the sense that Elves will live through multiple Ways/Paths through their lifetime, but probably just concentrate on one craft, and by nature, you tend to take that acquired expertise with you in a militia army; plus, in the Middle Ages, a lot of Guilds organized their own military units in the defense of their cities.

Kevlar
24-03-2010, 03:17
dwarves just need assault marines with jump packs and the deep strike rule.

silashand
24-03-2010, 04:03
more like that weird pocket-gyro in warhammer online... :)

KalEf
24-03-2010, 05:13
dwarves just need assault marines with jump packs and the deep strike rule.
lol a storm shield and relic blade wouldn't hurt either (witch is dumb to be a legit combo)


An idea I had some time ago was giving them something like the rule zombies currently have. They don't pursue, but when people break from combat with them they take hits depending on the number of ranks in the Dwarven unit.


That is a very smart/ appropriate/ not OP Idea. :D A little bit of fluff on how close you have to get to stunties to fight them, and how they are use to baddies running away after their assault fails. ;) I would go with an option of every engaged dwarf getting 1 free swipe at retreating units, If they elect not to pursue... almost like inverted impact hits lol

also, never having them take a leadership test on less than 7 for any reason (the lower stubborn) is not too shab either.

Sand
24-03-2010, 08:17
That is a very smart/ appropriate/ not OP Idea. :D A little bit of fluff on how close you have to get to stunties to fight them, and how they are use to baddies running away after their assault fails. ;) I would go with an option of every engaged dwarf getting 1 free swipe at retreating units, If they elect not to pursue... almost like inverted impact hits lol

also, never having them take a leadership test on less than 7 for any reason (the lower stubborn) is not too shab either.Thanks :)
I think it is somewhat fluffy too; the Dwarves are way too proud to waste their time running after cowards who won't even stand and fight, so they just send them off with a good thrashing (alternatively, they know their legs are too short to catch them but they'll never make us admit that!).

The current zombie rule is 1d6 hits per full rank, at the zombies strength -which admittedly might be quite brutal if you were running from a unit of Hammerers. But I think there's some potential in the idea because it plays to the strengths of the army as it is, without adding monsters, cavalry or other stuff that they're (imho) clearly not supposed to have.

silashand
25-03-2010, 00:07
Hmmm... maybe give Dwarfs even more shooting. That'll fix everything, right? ;)

Seriously though, if we did get something new I'd prefer it be either:

1. gyrocopter variants / mount options

2. walker-type dreadnought

3. bring back the Juggernaut from days of yore

Pic of the walker idea attached...

Cheers, Gary

R Man
25-03-2010, 00:41
Hmmm... maybe give Dwarfs even more shooting. That'll fix everything, right?

Well if the shooting is short ranged and mobile it just might work.

I envision a machine gun like unit, mounted on a stream driven cart, M6. Short range 18, low power S3 and maybe Armour Piercing but high shots, (2d6 auto hits?). What use would it have? Well skirmishers, fliers and light cavalry are hard for dwarf infantry to chase down and a few are downright dangerous, so it would help deal with them. Of course it would have a good T and Save, but be pathetically weak in combat so decent heavy cavalry can still run it down. But how much should it cost?

Ultimate Life Form
25-03-2010, 04:36
I'm sure GW will soon address this issue with a new 50€ Monster kit. :shifty:

ChaosVC
25-03-2010, 06:34
dwarves just need assault marines with jump packs and the deep strike rule.

You know...that might actually work.

Condottiere
25-03-2010, 08:04
I think I've seen the conversions - but it's difficult not to smirk.

snurl
25-03-2010, 08:14
I like the Idea of giving the Ironbreakers and hammerers, and maybe the miners and longbeards an extra attack. That would even things up a lot.

Freman Bloodglaive
25-03-2010, 09:21
I think we need bikes and trikes with autocannon. Perhaps units of Hearthguard in exo-armour?

And an Ancestor Lord who can go toe to toe with a Bloodthirster.