PDA

View Full Version : Dwarven movement value



Lord Malorne
20-03-2010, 17:40
I am pretty sure this has come up, but I don't want to threadomancy and I want a more up to date opinion as well as letting more people add their opinions.

How would people feel about dwarves getting movemnet 4 instead of 3.

I know there are many reasons why they would and would not:

'They have short legs!'
'So do goblins!'
'Yeah... but they are fat, ha!
'so, ogres are fat and big and M6!'

And so on...

What do you think? Also, in terms of the future and how the army plays, should it be M4 so that more people feel inclined to play them and can do so without the whole 'right I have to see how much I can minimise my casualties' which is a poor way to play an army, always on the defensive and thinking of ways to not lose to badly in combat.

So then, M4?

Commodus Leitdorf
20-03-2010, 17:46
I honestly don't think it's that big a deal if it were to happen. Though they will just end up finding out having MV4 isn't all that hot either...

Avian
20-03-2010, 17:51
If you don't like Movement 3, go play another army. :p

bigcheese76
20-03-2010, 17:56
Their slow movement is one of the things that makes them the dwarf army and as a dwarf general you have to accomodate for that set back when writing your lists and playing the game, besides my cannon crew dont really need to move at all.

snottlebocket
20-03-2010, 17:56
More than anything it's probably just a gameplay mechanism to balance out their many strengths.

Ozorik
20-03-2010, 18:06
More than anything it's probably just a gameplay mechanism to balance out their many strengths.

Don't say things like that here, you will get lynched :shifty:


I am pretty sure this has come up, but I don't want to threadomancy and I want a more up to date opinion as well as letting more people add their opinions.


There was a (fairly large) thread about this very subject about a month ago.

Amlesh
20-03-2010, 18:07
If you don't like Movement 3, go play another army. :p

Yes, exactly.

Rogue
20-03-2010, 18:17
I used to be a die hard in the M3 camp until I was in a conversation about dwarves and I started looking at previous editions. From the 4th and earlier, armour restricted movement for all races by reducing the movement that you were allowed to move. Of course if you had more armour then you were docked more in movement. The only race that did not have this issue was Dwarves, but they had a natural movement of 3. Had they had the same armour as now and a movement of 4 I believe that they would be moving at 2.5 or less, so this was a deal for dwarf players.

Since then the armour restrictions have been removed in order to streamline the game, and I am having a tougher time justifying Dwarves to move at 3" any more now that I remember why they did things back then. Honestly, I dont know what to do as to a difference of M3 to M4.

Condottiere
20-03-2010, 18:20
TBF, if the game had more turns, it wouldn't matter.

If they change the movement rules, it may turn out that the Dwarves will eventually arrive somewhere.

Kulgur
20-03-2010, 18:24
'They have short legs!'
'So do goblins!'
A goblin that can't run is a very dead goblin, natural selection.

'Yeah... but they are fat, ha!
'so, ogres are fat and big and M6!'
Ogres aren't fat, they've got obscene amounts of muscle. That gut that makes them look fat? Muscle.

So then, M4?
Should these short, very heavily armoured troops, whose specialisation is in defense have movement 4, making them the same speed as most armies, as well as having better armour, and better weapons in general? No.

Desert Rain
20-03-2010, 18:53
M3 is one of the things that characterize the dwarves, just as their Ld9 and T4 does. Their ability to always march actually makes them pretty fast when your getting close to them when you are moving at 4 or 5 inches and they are still moving 6".

Gazak Blacktoof
20-03-2010, 19:11
I'd prefer see the option for an additional turn to "settle grudges" instead of an increase in the movement characteristic. I think that would better suit the nature of dwarves and their ability to outlast their opponents.

silks
20-03-2010, 19:15
Dwarves can move?

Commodus Leitdorf
20-03-2010, 19:26
I think when they finally get around to it they will address the issue properly with something like...I don't know, a sprint that they can do to get them where they need to be.

But just so Dwarf players are aware, mv4 isn't all that hot either. It's better then you have now which makes you want to have it. I get that....but it's not all that fast either.

rodmillard
20-03-2010, 19:44
Sure, make dwarves M4. Then the empire players will want to be M5, because "humans have always been faster than dwarves." So we up all the M4 troops to M5, and the elf players will start moaning. Pretty soon everything will be moving 6" per turn, just like in 40K.

architect
20-03-2010, 19:57
who cares what their movement value is when they're just gonna stand at the back of the board and shoot at you?! :p

Griefbringer
20-03-2010, 20:24
I think it is better to leave all that huffing and puffing and rushing around like mad for the younger races. Dwarves are stoic and determined, they do not need to be running all over the place.

(Besides try moving fast when your beard is so long that the guy behind you ends up stepping accidentally on it.)

brendel
21-03-2010, 00:59
I dont think changing there movment to 4" would change to much, mostly every other army has somthing that moves faster than movment 4" anyway all the Dwarfs have got are Gryocopters

SonoftheMountain
21-03-2010, 01:13
I would much rather see army wide stubborn and not auto flee from fear causers.

SilverFeather
21-03-2010, 01:15
Dwarves aren't M3 that may run. They are M6 that can't run in a way.

wizbix
21-03-2010, 01:20
Have Dwarf's grown a foot ot two in the warhammer world recently ?

LaughinGremlin
21-03-2010, 02:05
How about Movement 3.5 ?
It's a compromise.
Dwarves still wouldn't be able to "outcharge" the human infantry sitting in front of them, so why not? When movement 4 faces movement 3.5, a one inch difference in marching/charging may make the game a bit more interesting/challenging.
Plus, dwarfs still can't be march-blocked, and marching seven inches a turn across the board is better than six, and it may just make a dwarf player at least a tad more aggressive. No, on second thought, 3.5 wouldn't really help dwarf players at all, but just make the change anyway! Haw!

Odin
21-03-2010, 02:43
There was a thread about this very recently. It was a daft idea then, it's still a daft idea now.

LaughinGremlin
21-03-2010, 03:06
Is movement 3.5 daft also? LOL!

Lord Malorne
21-03-2010, 03:18
If you don't like Movement 3, go play another army. :p

I don't play dwarves :p, I play against them.

R Man
21-03-2010, 03:39
Typically, what facilitates an advancing, agressive army is things like Fliers and Cavalry. Most M4 infantry in agressive armies are supported by knights and unit fliers. Dwarves have the Gyro, but thats it. Is there any army that fights with M4 infantry alone? No.

And Dwarves have relentless, so when it gets in close they are faster than Elves.

Lord Malorne
21-03-2010, 03:47
The extra inch move makes a big difference, it would take three turns to get to the enemies deploymnet zone (in the rares cases they would move) instead of 4, it makes the army more capable of adapting, the biggest problem I have found is people playing with or against dwarves find it boring.

Pathetic snide comments aside, why truely not make it M4?

Agnar the Howler
21-03-2010, 04:01
Probably because I see Dwarves as less of a "Get to their end as fast as possible!" army and more of a "Hold to the last!" army. I see them mostly as defensive, using their machines and guns to coax the enemy into coming to them in order to stop getting shot at.

I don't think that they should be given M4 unless they're also given a good reason to use it, such as an agressive play-style that takes the extra movement into account and requires them to move forward and meet the enemy rather than stand back and shoot and ready themselves to repel charges.

I think M3 is good enough to use what they already have and put it into practice, but unless they're given a reason to march out and take the fight to the enemy, I don't think there's a large need for M4.

Lord Malorne
21-03-2010, 04:03
The main reason I am interested, is I am looking from the perspective of 'why should they ever have been move 3 and not 4?' instead of the increasing move viewpoint.

Hellebore
21-03-2010, 04:15
Because GW fails at biology.

I went through this in the background thread. If movement represents a set pace (like a fast walk) then you can easily determine what has a faster movement than what. A dwarf is around 4' 5" whilst a human is aronund 5' 5-10". A dwarf's stride is going to be about 75% that of a human's.

A halfling is going to have a stride about half a human's. Thus the game should have:

M4 Human
M3 Dwarf
M2 Halfling/goblin

If two creatures are moving at different paces then they are not using the same 'move' action. A halfling would have to use the Run pace in order to keep up with a Walking pace human because they need to cover twice the distance their stride would normally cover in a set amount of time.

So it has nothing to do with the physicallity of the races and all to do with game balance.


Hellebore

Agnar the Howler
21-03-2010, 04:17
Because they had no reason to be movement 4. What use is movement 4 if you're never going to move? At least movement 3 gives you a degree of manoeuvreability in tight spots. Saurus and Swordsmen and the likes need movement 4 because they have to get close to do damage, and the faster you do it, the more you can do afterwards. Dwarves don't need combat to be effective, but unlike Wood Elves, they're tough enough to survive combat and fight back should they need to, and they don't need to be able to skip away merrily through the mountains.

Admittedly, i've not played earlier editions, but from comments above (mainly the one about armour lowering movement and dwarves ignoring that penalty) it sounds like they're just stuck in the middle of a transition from where the ability to still move relatively fast even in lots of armour is no longer that much of a boon than it used to be.

R Man
21-03-2010, 04:54
The extra inch move makes a big difference, it would take three turns to get to the enemies deploymnet zone (in the rares cases they would move) instead of 4, it makes the army more capable of adapting, the biggest problem I have found is people playing with or against dwarves find it boring.

Pathetic snide comments aside, why truely not make it M4?

This just goes to show that you don't have a very good understanding of what makes a defensive army. Dwarves are not defensive because of M3, but because their army is set up to be defensive. M4 will not change this. Now there are other armies that rely on infantry to attack but these armies have very different options to Dwarves. Elves for example (both High and Dark) now they both have M5 true, but they also have cavalry, cheap fliers and skirmishers. Skaven are similar (M5) and they have many skirmishers too.

Undead are a slow M4 and its hard for them to march, but they too get cavalry (3 types, one of which moves through terrain), ghosts like Wraiths and Magic to help them move, not to mention terror spreading fliers. Chaos Warriors are also slow, but are backed up by cheap Marauder cavalry and powerful chaos Knights. Lizardmen have Terradons, Saurus Cavalry, Stegadons and ample Skinks. The Empire have knights, pistoliers and outriders plus huntsmen.

What do Dwarves have? The Gyrocopter, which is neither cheap nor in ample supply. Rangers? Ranked, and can't move through Terrain. This is why Dwarves never attack. If they go forward they leave their shooters behind. They have no one to counter enemy cavalry if they do this, and no way to beat out skirmishers who, while they cannot march block, they can still harry the slow Dwarvern infantry through forrests as they dwarves have no fast units to counter them. This would be the same regardless of M3 or M4. Hence why they are defensive. If you want Dwarves to have more agression, you need to re-think their list choices, not their M value.

Freman Bloodglaive
21-03-2010, 05:34
If you want to stop Dwarfs marching, just park a unit of cavalry 5 inches in front of a block of non-shooty Dwarfs. They charge, you flee, they fail their charge and move 3.

Of course that's why Dwarfs have lots of shooting.

Although movement 3 is "fluffy" for Dwarfs, I wouldn't mind if they got movement 4. Sure they'd still play defensively, but occasionally a Dwarf General might go for a stroll just to see what it's like. If they're playing defensively then they won't gain or lose anything by having the move increase.

I'd say go for it.

Condottiere
21-03-2010, 09:29
Wearing armour should have penalties in terms of encumbrance, which the Dwarves being slightly stronger and tougher should partially ignore; but giving them M4 doesn't feel right.

maze ironheart
21-03-2010, 09:55
The only time the M3 bothers me is when some dumb ass thinks hes special cause he out moved a dwarf unit it's like not that hard.

zeebie
21-03-2010, 10:07
as a new dwarf player, I don't mind m3, but I do mind not having any other options. if we are saying armour slows them down, then Slayers should be M5, Ranger should be skirmishers. I also believe all core infantry should get 1 free wheel move at the beginning of a move.

Tymell
21-03-2010, 11:10
So then, M4?

No.

Slow movement is part of what Dwarfs are, it's part of their identity. If there is a problem with their gaming effectiveness/balance, the answer is not to simply remove one of their defining characteristics.

Novrain
21-03-2010, 11:58
What use is movement 4 if you're never going to move?

Argh! You guys don't get it...

Dwarf players don't move much because they know that they will a) take forever to get there b) are always going to get charged anyway c) can spend the entire bloody game chasing an enemy unit and never catch them!

And then, they get moaned at for never moving from their deployment zone? Even when there is almost no point for them even thinking about movement because of the above reasons! Come on!

Dwarfs are shafted by the fact they are all infantry (infantry blocks suck, we all know that), don't have any quick support units (like other infantry based armies do e.g spider/wolf riders, empire knights etc etc), and their infantry which is just about the only thing they have, is too slow to make it worthwhile doing anything but sit there and hope for the best. Compound the above with the lack of actual aggressive combat infantry (the only 2 attack infantry they have are the completely unarmored slayers) and you get a situation where most games for a dwarf player consist of letting the opponent roll dice and hoping your meager and expensive static CR wins the day somehow.

And, whats more every time a Dwarf player reacts to the stuff above by taking a gun line / anvil we get shouts of cheese and brokenness. Lets face it, the dwarves are screwed by the warhammer meta-game, which rewards small quick hard hitting units which dwarves simply dont have.

Dwarves never move because their is no point in them moving, perhaps something like M4 or M3 but charge 8" would fix that.

PS Heya Malorne

Cambion Daystar
21-03-2010, 12:09
Because they had no reason to be movement 4. What use is movement 4 if you're never going to move? At least movement 3 gives you a degree of manoeuvreability in tight spots. Saurus and Swordsmen and the likes need movement 4 because they have to get close to do damage, and the faster you do it, the more you can do afterwards. Dwarves don't need combat to be effective, but unlike Wood Elves, they're tough enough to survive combat and fight back should they need to, and they don't need to be able to skip away merrily through the mountains.

This is total BS. So According to you the only way to play dwarves is a gunline.

The real problem in not dwarves being M3, but the other races not incurring a penalyt for wearing heavy armour or better.

CrystalSphere
21-03-2010, 14:41
I wouldnīt mind seeing something (either M4, or something else) that makes the dwarf army more viable to do something else other than wait and shoot. Perhaps giving the dwarves move and fire for their crossbows/handguns, and no penalties for moving and firing, things like that would really encourage a more agressive playstyle instead of always defensive ones. I also liked what some other user mentioned somewhere, of giving all dwarves throwing axes, so dwarf infantry blocks canīt be avoided so easily. I think i would prefer changes like these rather than increasing their movement, but i definitely think something should be done so that dwarves have more options like the rest of armies, and are not only about standing and shooting.

theunwantedbeing
21-03-2010, 14:43
Dwarves have the gyrocopter, its mv20.
Isnt that fast enough?

I've always liked the idea of extending the game to 8 turns in length.

This gives the dwarf player the ability to move a full 48" over the entire game (and comfortably reach the other side of the board which is only 36" away at the start).

Dwarf players do seem to forget that dwarves are very good at taking a charge and get to march the full 6" when nearby enemies, unlike other foot troops who are stuck being march blocked when enemies are nearby. Similarly anyone taking an anvil always seems to go for the damage ability, rather than the movement one. That and they're unwilling to bother with strollaz rune on a BsB.
The army just needs a few tweaks to get the dwarf army up to speed (cheaper strollaz by 5pts, d3+1 units moved for the ancient power, rangers given move through terrain).

Condottiere
21-03-2010, 14:59
Maybe you can use a Zeppelin as an APC?

Movement only matters if the Dwarven player is stuck on the other side of the table; if the scenario has a more centralized deployment zone for the Dwarves, they'll be able to reach most places before the end of the game.

Djekar
21-03-2010, 15:20
Firstly, +1 to what R Man is saying.

Secondly :
I also believe all core infantry should get 1 free wheel move at the beginning of a move.

I love this idea. Dwarves are pretty darned disciplined, and I can definately see this from a fluff perspective. Letting dwarves get free wheels and such makes M3 less of a big deal and even makes them better on the defensive if you prefer to go that route.

Kneedles
21-03-2010, 18:13
I would like to see slayers that can skirmish. Also having a skitter forward rule (look Snorri, trolls!) like nightrunners. Rangers skirmishing would also be amazing, they used to have foresters as a rule.

Dwarf handguns used to be move or fire, I would not be opposed to reinstating that.

Dwarfs are commonly having to turn to get a unit into LOS for a charge, only to have that unit move out of the arc. Something that would give the ability to turn left or right and charge would be nice, or not take movement subtractions for turn maneuvers.

Agnar the Howler
21-03-2010, 18:45
This is total BS. So According to you the only way to play dwarves is a gunline.

The real problem in not dwarves being M3, but the other races not incurring a penalyt for wearing heavy armour or better.

I'd love to see a direct quote that states I said a gunline is the only way to go.

Condottiere
21-03-2010, 19:33
The question is skirmishing the same as cavalry for Dwarves, something that just won't be considered.

The Rangers do need some form of movement capability in terrain.

yabbadabba
21-03-2010, 19:50
No. No way. Never.

There are a myriad of other changes that can be made to make the game great and challenging for everyone, which will support m3 dwarves as well.

but no m4.

Lord Malorne
21-03-2010, 20:01
Why though? What is the real reason people are so mad dog about the idea?

sorberec
21-03-2010, 20:22
Personally I would give them M4.

While Dwarves might traditionally be slower fluff-wise, game-wise I just can't see it being anything other than mind-numbingly boring to play with and against M3 Dwarves.

Condottiere
21-03-2010, 20:23
Probably the same reason M5 is accepted for Elves - we're so indoctrinated through contact from other RPGs and/or games.

CasaHouse
21-03-2010, 20:35
I honestly think that everyone is looking at the wrong part of the fluff. Dwarves aren't M3 because their legs are short, Dwarves are M3 because they are in no hurry. They are patient and stubborn. They don't sprint as fast as they can to get into combat. They march forward at a reasonable stomp as a wall of gromril, axes, and hammers.

I think it boils down to more "Hell no. We're not sprinting to give those manlings a quicker death, let 'em see us coming for a while. Let 'em taste the cannons."

Because logic would dictate that if 6" were maximum dwarf speed, they could only flee/pursue 6". Fleeing and pursuing are when we see true dwarf max speed. 11" to most other infantry's 12". So dwarves are a tad slower than other infantry, but mostly they just like being a slow, inevitable tide of metal.

-Casa

Lord Malorne
21-03-2010, 20:41
You say they are in no hurry, what about when an enemy is engaged in the front of a friendly unit, they take two turns with move 3 (in some cases) to get in their to help, because they are in no hurry? So by fluff, kinsmen dying within *running distance* is not worthy of a little sprint?

:eyebrows:

CasaHouse
21-03-2010, 21:05
You say they are in no hurry, what about when an enemy is engaged in the front of a friendly unit, they take two turns with move 3 (in some cases) to get in their to help, because they are in no hurry? So by fluff, kinsmen dying within *running distance* is not worthy of a little sprint?

:eyebrows:

Dwarves can't be marchblocked. So your move is effectively 6" in that instance. Again, this fits with the fluff, because they are an inexorable wall of gromril.

Your counterexample assumes that the unit in trouble somehow outdistanced your combat unit. If they're both combat, and move 3, why is one two turns away?

Lord Malorne
21-03-2010, 21:07
The 6 inches does not get you there, unles you are right next to the unit.

CasaHouse
21-03-2010, 21:24
So your argument is, if a Dwarf unit is somehow 7+ inches ahead of the rest of the melee units, their move is insufficient and makes no sense? I'm still stuck on the Dwarves that magically rushed forward.

Even if, as you said, they were only six inches up, and not side-by-side, so six inches was insufficient, why didn't the supporting units move at all previously? Your argument falls to a Dwarf player blindly charging or pursuing forward with one unit and leaving the rest standing in a line. Bad tactics do not provide a counterexample.

Lord Malorne
21-03-2010, 21:47
Tactics aside, it is within the range that they *should* have been able to make it, regardless.

weatherr
21-03-2010, 21:59
This whole debate is pointless. I personally like to sit back and shoot up the opposition. If I really want to mess up the opposition I bring in the Anvil and invoke the rune of Oath and honour with ancient power. d3 units move up to 12 inches. It is incredibly effective, and gives the extra movement in a surprising way.

There is also nothing like overrunning a unit fleeing 10 inches with a unit of dwarves :D

Tymell
21-03-2010, 21:59
Why though? What is the real reason people are so mad dog about the idea?

Because Dwarfs = slow movement. This is an essential part of what they are.

If they aren't effective enough in-game, then it's their strengths that are lacking and in need of a boost. There are better ways to make them more effective.

If someone doesn't like playing an army that doesn't allow for a lot of speed/maneuverability, then they shouldn't be playing Dwarfs. There's still room for some variety, but not every single different playing style is possible with every single army, nor should it be.

I do not want to see the races reduced to bland copies of one another by removing all the things that are core to their identities.

Lord Malorne
21-03-2010, 22:03
If they where move 4 all this time, do people think we would have 'grr, dwarves should be movement 3!' demands?

R Man
21-03-2010, 22:48
Argh! You guys don't get it...

Dwarf players don't move much because they know that they will a) take forever to get there b) are always going to get charged anyway c) can spend the entire bloody game chasing an enemy unit and never catch them!

And then, they get moaned at for never moving from their deployment zone? Even when there is almost no point for them even thinking about movement because of the above reasons! Come on!

Dwarfs are shafted by the fact they are all infantry (infantry blocks suck, we all know that), don't have any quick support units (like other infantry based armies do e.g spider/wolf riders, empire knights etc etc), and their infantry which is just about the only thing they have, is too slow to make it worthwhile doing anything but sit there and hope for the best. Compound the above with the lack of actual aggressive combat infantry (the only 2 attack infantry they have are the completely unarmored slayers) and you get a situation where most games for a dwarf player consist of letting the opponent roll dice and hoping your meager and expensive static CR wins the day somehow.

And, whats more every time a Dwarf player reacts to the stuff above by taking a gun line / anvil we get shouts of cheese and brokenness. Lets face it, the dwarves are screwed by the warhammer meta-game, which rewards small quick hard hitting units which dwarves simply dont have.

Dwarves never move because their is no point in them moving, perhaps something like M4 or M3 but charge 8" would fix that.

PS Heya Malorne

No GAH! You don't get it. Dwarves are slow because they lack the support units that make offensive play a viable option, not because of M3. All their best support units are shooters, which require protection encouraging defensive play. Other infantry armies suffer from a weak advance if they lack supporting units, especially from scouts and skirmishers. These armies would then be reduced to being slower than the dwarves. The reason these armies are viable is because they have skirmishers/cavalry of their own to combat them. M3 or M4, without these support units Dwarves will never be an offensive army.

The best changes to make would be to supporting units, not to their movement value.


Firstly, +1 to what R Man is saying.

Yay! I'm popular!

squig the idol
21-03-2010, 22:56
If they where move 4 all this time, do people think we would have 'grr, dwarves should be movement 3!' demands?

... Yeah, I think that would be the debate.
I think dwarves movement 4 would just be a **** off, not only does everything of their's hit harder but it also can be the charger and not the chargey. That would be surprisingly sucky for my M4 troops...

(woot! 1st post!)

CrystalSphere
21-03-2010, 23:23
I donīt think it would be so bad, as the rest of armies with M4 infantry have other faster units to support their footsloggers. The ones that do not, like skaven, have M5 infantry. Still i donīt think this is going to happen, GW is more capable of doing something weird like giving all dwarfs units the stubborn rule (precedent: speed of asuryan) rather than increasing their movement or doing something else to make dwarfs more likely to go on the offensive.

Tymell
21-03-2010, 23:26
I donīt think it would be so bad, as the rest of armies with M4 infantry have other faster units to support their footsloggers. The ones that do not, like skaven, have M5 infantry. Still i donīt think this is going to happen, GW is more capable of doing something weird like giving all dwarfs units the stubborn rule (precedent: speed of asuryan) rather than increasing their movement or doing something else to make dwarfs more likely to go on the offensive.

Doing something like giving them a rule/stat that actually fits with Dwarfs?

Doesn't sound weird to me.

Phelix
22-03-2010, 00:35
ACK, whats with all tha beardlings running around thinking moving fast be a good idea. They need to take their time and sip their ale, and learn that a proper dwarf takes things slow, softens their enemy up with a bit o' firepower before they crash upon our shields. Not running around like a bunch of ninny elves.

mythic77
22-03-2010, 00:59
Now I don't play dwarfs, but I don't think dwarfs should get M4... this just turns them into humans with higher t and WS. My TK skeletons get along fine with M4 and no march during a game, because they have the support units they need.

However, that being said combat dwarves need some sort of buff to their ability to make it to combat. Maybe something like an extra 6 inches to their deployment zone?

Tarliyn
22-03-2010, 03:34
I would much rather see army wide stubborn and not auto flee from fear causers.


GW is more capable of doing something weird like giving all dwarfs units the stubborn rule (precedent: speed of asuryan) rather than increasing their movement or doing something else to make dwarfs more likely to go on the offensive.

Give dwarfs army wide stubborn and they might as well be unbreakable. Horrible horrible idea would completely break the army. The only army that could gain army stubborn and not be broken would be ogres, lol, and that is because they are JUST THAT BAD.

But back on topic no army wide stubborn would be a horrible idea and would make the army as broken as daemons.

Condottiere
22-03-2010, 07:50
You could give them stubborn, but then you need to lower their leadership.

Ozorik
22-03-2010, 09:05
It wont happen for the simple reason that it breaks the core mechanic of combat res. Thats fine for single units but not entire armies.

yabbadabba
22-03-2010, 09:53
Or you could just reverse the codex creep and reduce some of the over-effectiveness of some of the units out there.