Warhammer-Empire.com
Between the Battles & the Art ... => The Count's Tavern => Topic started by: wissenlander on August 03, 2009, 12:38:14 PM
-
I had this discussion with Siberius when he was up our way. Quite a lengthy one, but in the end we sort of shrugged our shoulders and said we should just put it up here for other people to figure out. :wink:
This discussion was about the bland nature of the Dwarf list. I had mentioned that it was difficult to make them 'more exciting' without completely unbalancing them. They're a very effective army, but I've only ever seen a couple of army builds. I find it unfortunate that such a cool race has such a boring army list to choose from.
So, what are some things that could be changed? New additions perhaps? And if you think I'm daft, you can tell me, I won't mind.
-
+1 attack on Hammers or Iron Breakers
5 or 6+ Ward save on Troll Slayers
Fact is the only viable list revolves around a gunline and the hope that your infantry will remain once combat begins.
Long Beards and Hammerers seem to be the only real decent infantry but neither strikes back with any real strength, only 1 attack each.
They can't dish out enough damage (apart from their characters and there are other characters that are better).
-
Dwarves are my first love in warhammer, ever since I started playing, I was buying dwarves and I completely agree, their current army list is so bland and uninspiring it pains me, and it can only have been designed by someone who has no idea about what dwarves are like and about.
There are 3 different elite infantry types. They are all identical, so much so that ultimately people tend to chose Hammerers for the stubborn perk they get.
This needs to change, make them different, make a different unit a different tactical choice.
Hammerers - as they are, they work, but they are the Kings Elite bodyguard. I would say they should be Stubborn normally, unbreakable if the King is with them
Iron Breakers - Great AS in mellee (2+), but they need a better perk, given their fluff I would say "cant be flanked"
Long Beards - Work ok I think, in the context of their fluff.
Warriors - Bring back spears for dwarves is what I say! Give all dwarven warrors the option of throwing axes/hammers - not just rangers.
Rangers - bring back the rule that made them skirmishers/able to move through rough terrain freely.
Handguns/xbows. Ok I think. Though all dwarves including warriors should have the heavy armour option.
Warmachines - bring back dwarven fire throwers! Artillery is ok, but why the hell are dwarven cannons so weedy in comparison to Empire ones? Just makes no sense. Left to their own devices they are no more reliable.
Gyrocopters - bring back the bomb rack!
Slayers - a fast way of giving the enemy points. Give them a ward sv vs missile fire, allow them the same skirmish then rank rule as beastmen, anything to allow them to fullfill their glorious destiny of dying in mellee with something powerful
Lords - why when EVERY OTHER ARMY LIST GETS A FLYING MOUNT do dwarves get a stone they can stand on and not move?
Its like GW WANT dwarves to play a gunline.
Oh, and back when every other race had a move penalty for armour, Mv3 was ok. Now its just a joke, especially when most dwarves dont even get heavy armour like they should.
rant rant rant rant rant
And you think the Empire gets the crappy end of the stick
-
Sorry but this dwarf blandness is BS to me.
You could just as well discuss using Daemons that don't rip armies when their general is sleeping.
Dwarfs are fine, and have a lot of options to play differently.
True, it works best with guns, machines, and solid blocks but that's not all it does.
And I agree with Bies, some ward save on the slayers and a small boost (an extra attack or some other benefit) on the elite units would work wonders. To take away the slow compact Dwarf army and make it more versatile will take away what it is all about.
Also if you want it to be another Empire, get real!
Few armies besides O&G and DE can get such a wide range of builds and units.
There are a lot of other armies that play differently so there is a lot of options if the Dwarfs don't do it for you.
-
True, last time I played I didnt have a single static war engine, the only ones I took were 2 Gyro copters :)
2 small shooty units, a unit of warriors, iron breakers, slayers and miners. - Tally Ho!
Problem comes when you have to try and get through the AS of any kind of knight. (failed to kill a single Bret knight with anything other than the lord)
But yeah, a tiny tweak to slayers, and a bit more differential for the elites would be good (and throwing axes for warriors ;) ) would be fine
-
Dwarves are trapped by one characteristic.... M3 and -1" to pursuit and flee
Warhammer is a game of movement and initative. This instantly restricts the army. They will never be a true offensive army and as a result it forces down the path of gunline or a shield wall. They are designed to hold the charge and then flank after softening up the enemy with gunfire. Dwarves cannot achieve the long range breakthrough of other armies.
Although minor tweeks to rules such as slayer ward saves, or addition bonuses to their elite units will help but htey will stll be stuck by the fact that they won't changing anything and will rely on artillery fire to weaken forces before engaging them.
-
The anvil can make a unit per turn quite fast, and able to charge something it couldn't at the start.
Also, when your movement stat is only 3, but you can still march when an enemy is within 8, it's not -as- slow as people make out. Anyone who says the only way to win with dwarfs is with a gunline is kidding themselves. It's just "easier" :dry:
Luckily I don't have to play dwarfs anymore. The guy who had them is now gone.
-
True enough, as I said, M3 was fine when other races lost move if they wore heavy armour, it balanced out nicely (and was pleasingly realistic.)
I say give em more gyros (make them core :ph34r:) and give them a zeppelin too.
Airmobile dwarves. Awesome.
As for the Anvil, thats a huge points sink to get a chance of doing something (and trust me, as a dwarf player, the anvil really isnt worth it for the points) and the relentless rule, again all that does is make it easier for you to be charged...
-
Sorry but this dwarf blandness is BS to me.
Would boring be a better word then? :wink: I think in the end I agree with fauthsie about the movement issues. Relentless is a nice advantage, but isn't always applicable. There are some tactics to make dwarfs move faster, admitadely, but it's a core lack of things such as cavalry, scouts and skirmishers that hurt them, IMO. However, how can you give an army as hard as the dwarfs cavalry without making them even harder than they already are?
A start would be to allow rangers to skirmish and give them their forestry rule back.
-
@ MrDWhitey
Yes relentless does give dwarves a tactical advantage in the close range movement, but it does not help with the fundamental strategic problem of dwarves being slow. The Anvil does help but it is a major point and slot sink. By taking an anvil your are fundamentally beeing yourself to a certain play style since you are giving up a Dwarf lord for runepriest.
@ Uryens
Moving Gyro's to Special (or Core ;)) will not solve the problem. Since Gyro's cannot on their own break units. They can only pester and march block which lend to the dwarven strategy of delay, weaken, and engage. A zeppelin is a cool idea in that it provides mobility but it doubt that a zeppelin will be able to break units (from a rules standpoint) without reinacting the Hindenburg
@ Wiss
Giving Dwarves Cav in a traditional sense (horses or ponies) doesn't fit with the character of the Army. The only way your could do that is give them a steam tank of their own....
-
Hmmm I don't even know what the 'typical' builds are yet. I have a big box of dwarfs slowly growing, but I haven't really figured out how to build them.
Gunlines aren't for me, although I really like the bolt thrower and chucker-thingie models, they look great!
I'd move on over to the bugman's for some newbie advice, but the few threads I read seems like they can be pretty hard on noobs.
My preference would be for 3 strong blocks with support a la my SRP army, but no idea as to the tricks etc to make it work.
Partly I'm attracted to them is that a well painted unit of Dwarfs is one of the best units visually in the game for me.
Still, reliable has a tendancy to seem 'bland' in some eyes. Lizzies are also 'reliable' and were bland by most accounts until recently.
-
I agree, fauthsie, which in itself is another issue. Not that it's a bad one. In a sense the uniqueness of the dwarf army is a hinderance in itself.
And the reason for this thread isn't to bash the dwarfs, even though that can be sometimes fun. I think part of the issue is as Uryens put it, in his synopsis of the elites. I wouldn't think about doing a major overhaul, just something to break up the monotany that often accompanies dwarf games.
-
Warhammer is a game of movement and initative. This instantly restricts the army.
True but the same can be said about certain armies regarding other aspects of the game, and in truth also makes these "one dimensional". Also, movement have become less valuable as certain armies these days contain units that can still rip you a new one even if they are attacked in/on the rear/side (HE, DE, WoC, DoC and so on).
For instance Warriors of Chaos have abmyssal shooting and VC have none.
Tomb Kings rely on movement from their heroes and lord to even be able to compete with the simplest of opponents.
To me, Dwarfs caters heavily to one playing style but it does not end with it.
@ Wissenlander, the Dwarf player in our gathering plays his army more offensive than I do with my Empire.
-
To me, Dwarfs caters heavily to one playing style but it does not end with it.
I think this quote basically sums up what I was thinking. I've seen lists of dwarf offensiveness, but never played against them.
It's good to know it can be done, but I suppose my problem is that it almost funnels people into playing the one way. Maybe that's just my bias as an Empire player showing.
-
I'm taking my "Dwarf" Goblins out for a 3,000 point spin tommorow. Mostly by adding a 1,000 points of mounted Goblins and perhaps a Shamen to give me more than 2 phazes a turn. It should make it more interesting to say the least.
Mogsam
-
I almost always take an offensive (ish) dwarf list, but that cos I like big units of infantry, and I would very much say one major weakness is no scouts - rangers used to be brilliant, but then they took the Forrester rule away for god knows what reason.
I have thought long and hard about cavalry and think its a major "no no" for dwarves and would destroy some of their uniqueness I think.
Gyros are great against St 3 units (it eats gobbos and empire for breakfast quite happily) but making them core was a bit of a jest, but I might make them specials and not rare...since all the fluff has them everywhere.
Elites need addressing, as I said but the last time I played my Iron Breakers wreaked havok, and a tooled up Lord is the match for anyone and anything imo.
But ultimately there are a multitude of builds that can be done with Dwarves, just the most effective one is the static gunline, and the present army list pretty much says to build a static line.
-
They are fine the way they are. They are dwarves, unbreaking, uncaring, powerful in CC, and strong in shooting. They are stoic and use what works. They are efficient and effective.
They don't need anything else. There are 13 other armies if people really want something else.
Phil
-
Are they really strong in CC?
They have 1 attack each str3,4 if elite, 6 with Great weapon. Yes str6 is nice along with WS5 but you're still only going to kill 5 enemy models at best with a non-upgraded unit.
Yes thats enough to win combat against regular infantry but against heavy cavalry how many will you really kill? Hell even Empire knights still get a 4+ armour save.
I think giving slayers a banner of 45pts (and giving them the option of a 50pt banner- can't remember if they have this option already) giving them a 5+ ward save against ranged attacks, be it magic missiles, non-base contact spells and regular shooting.
I'd work on the elites, maybe give Iron breakers 2 attacks that puts them on par if not above Hammerer's who are stubborn
-
Are they really strong in CC?
As a whole, yes. They have unkillable characters, tough infantry, and big blocks. They have to rely on combat res (somewhat like the Empire), but they're strong in cc. Not strong as chaos warriors are, obviously, but they don't need to.
I think giving slayers a banner of 45pts (and giving them the option of a 50pt banner- can't remember if they have this option already) giving them a 5+ ward save against ranged attacks, be it magic missiles, non-base contact spells and regular shooting.
I don't see why people don't like slayers. Compared to flagellants, I'd take them every time. Perhaps because dwarfs already have hard to break infantry, and slayers die quickest of them all? In any case, I think that any unit should have a weakness, and the fact that slayers die quickly to shooting is theirs.
I'd work on the elites, maybe give Iron breakers 2 attacks that puts them on par if not above Hammerer's who are stubborn.
Why? With two S4 attacks, they'd only worry things that they don't have a problem in defeating already. The really tough enemy units won't care.
-
Giving Dwarves Cav in a traditional sense (horses or ponies) doesn't fit with the character of the Army. The only way your could do that is give them a steam tank of their own....
Not quite true, Dwarves used to have their own cavalry, a friend of mine had the models for them. Bear cavalry!
They fit perfectly with dwarves. They're hairy, stubborn, tough and don't move too fast. I believe they used to have M6. M6 would still deny the Dwarves a unit with a 3d6 flee/pursue but gives them some movement options.
Bring back bear cavalry I say!
-
Not strong as chaos warriors are, obviously, but they don't need to.
True dat, and if any army can tool its characters to deal with other heroes/lords it is the dwarfs.
Them runes you know.
-
Bring back bear cavalry I say!
I'm not too enthusiastic about that. First, I just think it wouldn't fit. Can you imagine bears living in the dwarf holds underground?
Second, dwars *are* supposed to be infantry-based, slow and all that. Yes, perhaps it's a little bland, and perhaps it does invite players to play gunlines too much. However, you can't expect an army to have tough-as-nails infantry, good anti-magic, unkillable and very customizable characters AND all sorts of tricks to help them control movement (anvil, rune of challenge, etc) and on top of that cavalry.
-
I've seen lists of dwarf offensiveness, but never played against them.
Hey! I beg to differ :wink:
Looking on what have been proposed in here, I can see it mirrors very well what they want over at bugmans as well.
I want Gromril for my hammerers, but no shield.
I want a special rule for my Ironbreakers
I want either skirmisher for my rangers, or give them forrester back
Bombs for Gyro would be cool
6+ WS for Troll slayers, 5+ for Dragon Slayers and 4+ for Deamon Slayers, and let them take tallisman runes
That's about it.
I'd move on over to the bugman's for some newbie advice, but the few threads I read seems like they can be pretty hard on noobs.
I'm not there as much as I used too, but they weren't that last time, but much have changed I fear. Many of the old ones have left, and new have come, tho there is still a whole lot of helpful articles. If you post and some are a bit hard on you, I'll just come and bash some heads :wink:
-
Well, it seems the topic was ripe for debate anyways...
I don't think I've ever actually managed to get a game in against Dwarfs (I should really right that) but I've observed sometimes.
In trying to think up fluffy ways in which Dwarfs could have some variation, I wondered about couple of things.
What about pony drawn carts filled with Dwarf warriors. They could perhaps move 5" and don't get impact hits, but allow the Dwarfs to close on the enemy faster, or attempt something of a flanking move. One would have to think of what advantage the Dwarfs would get on reaching combat, something about jumping out and laying into the enemy...
That was the best substitute cavalry I could come up with really :|.
I'd also think some kind of scouting would be good, but not just necessarily like normal scouts, but maybe coming on from a selected board edge at a selected time so that you could more surround your enemy, encouraging forwards momentum.
I know there are probably plenty of people out there who love things the way they are, it's just that as we discussed things, we realized that we didn't really fancy the idea of having a dwarf army because it seemed rather uninspiring in terms of how they work.
-
The problem I have with dwarfs is they all look the same....well almost the same. They need more variety. I think dwarfs could use a cav mount...mountain lion, wolf, eagle....something. Proberbly been said before but if dwarfs are the ultimate smiths, why do their war machines suck so badly?
-
Though their magic items do rock...
3 magic effects on one weapon/armour/item etc...yes please.
-
I think they got pretty good warmachines... Autohit organ gun anyone? Engineers as upgrades?
Runes?
Anyway, I once again feel a small pull toward making a dwarf army, maybe after I made a TK army... Weīll see...
What would really make dwarf awesome is to give them spears, a big fuckin shield counting as Gromril armour, a red cloak and a thong!
Donīt get more awesome than that! :icon_razz:
-
These threads always make me laugh. Dwarves are flawless representitive of everything they are supposed to be. They are competitive and difficult to beat.
Phil
-
But they struggle to win high as they have no fast troops that can destroy units in the endgame they have to force the enemy into combats and therefore have difficulties to win by a large margin as only enemies that are also slow (big chunky infantry), frenzied or in a position where they canīt flee will ever attack a dwarf unit.
One suggestion I would like to see is that additional to the always march rule dwarves should triple their movement while marching M9 for an army without infantry is not too strong as skaven are about the same. Other than that I would like an overall increase to all kind of cav and artillery pieces and an increase in the infantry department.
-
They can always march, and with a 9 inch march :icon_lol:
Just to make sure " :icon_lol: "
I'd be happy with them as having a movement value of four. And Ironbreakers getting 2 attacks. Admittedly I see +1 to movement not likely to happen, but an elite unit or two getting extra attacks in the current enviroment is quite likely.
-
Dwarves are tough to beat
But they are tough to win with...especially in a big way, very true.
The huge problem is catching fleeing units, this is where damage is really done in Warhammer, this is where an armies ability to fight is broken properly.
Dwarved break and die, dwarven enemies break, rally, rejoin the fight.
-
I'd like to see Bear Cav.
I'd start playing them tomorrow if they got Bear Cav. Awesome.
As it is, Dwarfs are my least favourite army in WFB. They're boring.
-
You actually can play a dwarven close combat army with at least two units of miners and that banner that lets you rush towards your enemy first turn lead by a king and a bsb clan warriors unit (yes you heard right the king and the bsb make basic clan warriors lethal a unit of 27 with heavy armour and shield) you just have to focus on close combat, this also works with the rune anvil of the dwarves as it lets your miners go into close combat the turn they arrive. Problem here most dwarf players are conservatives they just need to field hammerers and bolt throwers as they have always used them and they worked, the same with handgunners they are too good to pass on and also close combat is difficult, you have to move you have to think and not just take up the dice and roll away.
Even right now dwarves can field
Anvil
Bsb movement rune
cc thane rune of challenging
3*25 clan warriors
1*20 long beards with 5+wardsave banner
3*18 miners champion with drill
2* bolt throwers S7 one with rune of sacrifice
2 gyrocopters
And be very close combat oriented, you can move in for the kill you can sit back and use the miners as flank chargers as soon as the enemy hits your army, the gyros are perfect to kill units that are fleeing from your dwarves or to divert some killer units that would be able to break your tough as nail dwarves.
Oh also bear riders would be awesome I think about something like this
(it is a boar but still nice)
http://www.battlefield-berlin.de/shop/index.php?cat=WG834&product=MEO1048 (http://www.battlefield-berlin.de/shop/index.php?cat=WG834&product=MEO1048)
-
I played a 1,500 point game earlier with my "Dwarfs". Nothing could kill me but I was losing due to not being able to get a high combat resolution. I simply wasn't killing enough enemy units to match their resolution. My Ironbreakers took no wounds from about 12 attacks a turn (got double front charged by swordsmen with priest and mage + free company) but I was killing perhaps one or two men a turn.
The gyrocopter took out nearly 20 greatswords though.
I'd love miners but with them coming on via table edge with 3 movement they are pointless.
I'd like to go aggressive but if they can't kill anything unless accompanied by a hero then it's not really that encouraging.
I wouldn't mind some bound spells though. Would give me something else to do.
Mogsam
-
I know this is abit off-topic but if someone (like me) is interested in fluff only, which is the best armybook to buy regarding Dwarves? The 6th or 7th edition one?
Castozor
(also: Bear cavalary would be awesome)
-
I would be interested in a dwarven magic rune system, whereupon they act much like warrior priests, with Rune Priests being able to use the lesser runes of the "Spell list", and the Rune Lords (?) being able to use the greater ones.
-
I played a 1,500 point game earlier with my "Dwarfs". Nothing could kill me but I was losing due to not being able to get a high combat resolution. I simply wasn't killing enough enemy units to match their resolution. My Ironbreakers took no wounds from about 12 attacks a turn (got double front charged by swordsmen with priest and mage + free company) but I was killing perhaps one or two men a turn.
The gyrocopter took out nearly 20 greatswords though.
I'd love miners but with them coming on via table edge with 3 movement they are pointless.
I'd like to go aggressive but if they can't kill anything unless accompanied by a hero then it's not really that encouraging.
I wouldn't mind some bound spells though. Would give me something else to do.
Mogsam
Miners with Anvil are on a 2+ a 9 inch charge range on the turn on which they appear from any table edge I think this efficient enough if you field them 18 strong with champion you have 5 A with S 5 and 2 A with S 6 not too shabby if you hit a flank or even a rear of a unit. If the unit is already pinned by clan warriors they are usually in for it.
-
It also means you have to take an anvil. Which means Hammerers are not nearly as good and no shieldbearers!
Mogsam
-
It also means you have to take an anvil. Which means Hammerers are not nearly as good and no shieldbearers!
Mogsam
Wouldn't it be absolutely epic to get carried around on a shield while going down the post office?
-
As has been stated, dwarves struggle to win big, but are VERY hard to move of a minor victory if you are playing against them.
Phil
-
Giving Dwarves Cav in a traditional sense (horses or ponies) doesn't fit with the character of the Army. The only way your could do that is give them a steam tank of their own....
Not quite true, Dwarves used to have their own cavalry, a friend of mine had the models for them. Bear cavalry!
They fit perfectly with dwarves. They're hairy, stubborn, tough and don't move too fast. I believe they used to have M6. M6 would still deny the Dwarves a unit with a 3d6 flee/pursue but gives them some movement options.
Bring back bear cavalry I say!
Yes, Dwarfs have changed a bit fluffwise and conceptwise since the earlier editions. Saying 'bring back bears' is like saying bring back wood! The new Dwarfs have been pidgeon-holed into a very specific cultural archetype and have no wooden warmachines or weapons at all any more.
Take a gander at the old Dwarf sculpts, quite different from current ed.
-
Take a look at the 6th edition metal dwarf models. Look at the cannon and its crew. Look at the ironbreakers, the characters, and most of all, the longbeards. Hadn't it been for those shitty plastic warriors it would have been the best line of models created by GW. Today's plastic dwarves have no soul, and the warmachines look completely retarded(and have equally retarded names. "Grudge thrower"? what the fuck?.).
-
Gob lobber is where it's at.
Then again that makes "Where it's at" in a portal to hell.
-
I would be interested in a dwarven magic rune system, whereupon they act much like warrior priests, with Rune Priests being able to use the lesser runes of the "Spell list", and the Rune Lords (?) being able to use the greater ones.
Rune priests like warrior priests? Only if we get their engineers. :engel:
-
Dwarves are fine as they are a little more mobility and they are even more fun to play. If they get some sort of cav their shooting should be reduced, lets face it their handgunners with BS 4 are ok right now but nasty if they have some sort of cav.
-
The Dwarf book specialises in those types of builds, because those are the type of builds Gav likes playing. Dwarves afterall, are his favourite army, and he got to design them just as he likes them.
The list is fine as is rules wise. Only a few changes needed really
- Thorek less overpowered
- Remove movement rune (on Anvil)
- "Charge me or Flee" rune removed
- Rangers option to skirmish (as a reform option)
- Gyrocopters as special
- Dwarven Warriors should have heavy armour option (not crossbows / gunners though)
- Oathstone can be picked up again in the remaining moves phase (if unengaged)
- Organ gun roll to hit
- No stubborn on War Machines
- Slayer Heroes allowed Weapon and Talisman runes
- Hammerers get Gromril, but no shield.
- Ironbreakers +1A
- Miners come in from board edge OR like tunnellers.
Options wise though, it is awefully boring.
- Add in Doomseekers (up to two per unit of slayers, deployed like detachments, only D3+1 hits each)
- A new unit of 'youngun dwarfs' who are equipped with pistols (option for brace) and no shields. Can skirmish?
- Throwing axes available for rangers / warriors / slayers.
- Goblin Hewer as a permanent fixture?
- Steam Carriage (see General's compendium for ideas) that functions similar to a steam tank, however much lighter, does less damage, just shoot steam, and is more reliable.
- Allowed to purchase an upgrade to slayers giving a 6+ ward save from non-magical attacks, 5+ for Hero level, 4+ for Lord level.
- Engineer can ride a Gyro or a Zepplin (not sure of rules for a Zepplin)
- Mortar-like war machine (possibly replace the grudge thrower?)
- Runesmiths, Runelords and Anvil working as bound spells that can buff Dwarf units.
-
Oh god, can we either lock this or move it to Bugmans?
My mod options lack a move thread to Bugmans... is it an admin function?
Phil
-
We have enough of those popping up after some time :wink:
-
interestingly (or not as your point of view) but there is a thread like this on Bugmans, the interesting part is the views on how to change the dwarven lists
(not make them more powerful, just all round better)
Unlike most armies where their fans want all sorts of massive power ups and the opposition to be nuetered, both Bugmans and here are suggesting many of the same things.
It implies to me that the Dwarves are very well fixed in everyones mind as to what they should be like, and that the 7th ed army book completely failed to get there.
-
No, the 7th ed. book just introduced some nasty items and tricks, and thought that that's solve the movement problem (ie, movement rune on the anvil and the rune of challange). But they also changed the thunderers so they had to stay put, and made rangers less useful. So the army book just seemed to contradict itself.
(not make them more powerful, just all round better)
Unlike most armies where their fans want all sorts of massive power ups and the opposition to be nuetered, both Bugmans and here are suggesting many of the same things.
Some of the proposals on Bugman's were not all that reasonable, though. Less so than what you see on other sites sometimes, but still. That's to be expected, I suppose.
Dwarfs are hard to balance - for starters, there's the problem that they are indeed very hard to beat already but they are hard pressed to win big themselves. Second, dwarf armies in fluff have a style that doesn't necessarily make for a fun game of WHFB: shooting the enemy to bits and then smashing them with rock hard infantry is only fun for one side...
-
Lucky for us we can outshoot the dwarves and their rock hard elite infantry wonīt make it over the table to us. :biggriin:
What I would like in dwarves or warhammer overall is more use of infantry the game overall is won due to close combats but mostly not the kind of close combats where you hack and slay models over a couple of turns but during the charges of the hammer units that win combat and than ride over the unit earning hundreds of points in one turn +100 for the standard. If a wing broke and openend the flank of a battle line in real war history fights it was a catastrophe and chimed the end of the battle (in some cases) but in warhammer a) there usually is little battle line left
b) a 1st round of cc break of a unit is common
c) to prevent this 1st round of cc there is no sense in increasing your large unwieldy static blocks of infantry.
c) the role of cavalry is not supporting but major
therefore infantry vs infantry fights are usually a weak flailing against each other with one or two kills per side (more if a hero is accompanying) but overall it is luck to kill anything because of few low S attacks and there you have to rely on your CR....boooooring. Also Cavalry should get an impact bonus but after that they should be easy meat for infantry as it is easy to stab down a horsemen if he is swarmed by infantry.
-
What about pony drawn carts filled with Dwarf warriors. They could perhaps move 5" and don't get impact hits, but allow the Dwarfs to close on the enemy faster, or attempt something of a flanking move. One would have to think of what advantage the Dwarfs would get on reaching combat, something about jumping out and laying into the enemy...
That was the best substitute cavalry I could come up with really :|.
Hmmm ... so that where 40K Orks came up with the idea for carrying the boyz in trukk, an ancient dwarf trick aye? :icon_wink: :icon_lol:
-
Very true Fandir.
Given that on average an Empire unit will break 50% of the time on a loss, that sees half of all combats in the first round fleeing (and half of them utterly destroyed.)
That combined with rank bonuses mean there is little point taking an infantry unit of over 25 - no large infantry formations here...
Adding on the advantage of the charge, the resiliance of knights and their impact power means infantry are forsaken for mounted - who can sweep away infantry in a single turn, then destroy them in the pursuit
-
and earn all their points all in one charge, therefore I think infantry is underpowered and Bies who is also playing the game to the extend to get to the extremes and test the overall systems weaknesses has the same experience the game itself if flawed. I would like to have
a) more overall casualties on each side
b) a stronger survivability of infantry on combat resolution (lots of deaths but no break and all dead syndrome)
c) cavalry as a support unit that needs the open flanks of units to achieve anything
d) artillery and Monsters as answer to infantry
so you basically have the old solid heavy infantry trumps cavalry, light infantry and artillery trumps heavy infantry, horse trumps light infantry and artillery
-
Its a bit more complex than that I think, but the one thing that does need to change is the "break in round 1, everyone dies" thing thats going on now.
But then the game has evolved to be played in 6 turns (nice and simple for the timmy's in the shop to do in an afternoon) with an obvious winner.
-
Some of the proposals on Bugman's were not all that reasonable, though. Less so than what you see on other sites sometimes, but still. That's to be expected, I suppose.
Yeah, you see some pretty strange suggestions to improve the book around here as well.
-
Oh god, can we either lock this or move it to Bugmans?
My mod options lack a move thread to Bugmans... is it an admin function?
Phil
Have you tried the admin tab extra options ?
-
Why can't we keep this thread? If anything it should stay here or in the back table. Or was it a joke and I haven't gotten it.
-
I'm with PhillyT on this one.
The thread has to die.
Too many nerds, with too much time, is way too dangerous for the world order.
Join "Dwarfs are fine!" today!
-
Join "Dwarfs are fine!" today!
What about "Dwarf Players" ? :icon_biggrin:
-
What's wrong with the thread? The whole reason Wiss and I were talking about it was because it doesn't come up on here, or at least not in my memory. And it is correctly placed in the Counts Tavern.
People like to talk about things like this, mull over ideas and 'I wish that...'. As long as it stays civil, I can't see how it's a bad thing. Certainly it seems hard to argue that it's a waste of time when after all it is on a forum... about wargames... :-P
Plus it is up to 3 pages now which means there is an interest beyond us.
I'd suggest if you don't fancy reading it, do what I do with all the ridiculously long and boring political threads in the Back Table and not open it...
:-P
-
It's not different to the vast majority of threads in the main Empire forum. Not that I read them.
Mogsam
-
The mere Mods can be quiet - I am quite happy with this excellent thread, and it is exactly where it should be. :icon_wink:
I too have a fondness for our Dwarf allies, and I also love the minis, and can be often found browsing ebay for older Imperial dwarfs.
Indeed several dwarf spearmen and knightly looking short persons have made their way to my residence recently.
:engel:
-
I'm often not a fan of other races appearing in another race's army, but a smattering of dwarfs in an Empire army does look just spiffy and quite fluffy feeling too (probably from the shampooed and conditioned beards).
Hey, maybe this is they way to solve the problem. Just eradicate their army list and use them as stand in for the odd cannon crew and mercenary looking unit!!
That was easier than I thought :-P. :engel:
-
... and knightly looking short persons have made their way to my residence recently.
And I appriciate that you let me stay even with such a short notice.
And you make some damn fine tea my good sir. :::cheers:::
-
Yes it was a joke.
This thread is fine. It will die, since it isn't personally important to Empire players, isn't on a board with a significant number of dwarf players, lacks the screams of "fix me!" most bad armies have (which makes sense since the dwarf army isn't unplayable) and it is about as boring as the army in question (apparantly).
It will trickle off, with no real interest once everyone has piled on their "I can fix this!" comments.
Phil
-
They don't need anything else. There are 13 other armies if people really want something else.
I'm late to the party with me own thread, but I wanted to pick up on this if it hasn't already been stated. I believe this statement to be a cop out. I like the different feel of the Dwarf list, but to not look into a way to balance out what the quirks are is just laziness. Laziness! :wink:
Anyhoo, now that I've read through the thread...my point of contention is to change the feel of the army within the confines of the fluff. Not to make them even more powerful than they are. Just a bit of a brain exercise. I'd think people would actually like to talk about an army besides one of the big 3 for a change.
-
Big 3?
Empire, Dwarves and who else?
Oh, I thought you meant big in cool factor, small in wiff.
-
I suppose the greenskins would be in that group. Odd as the 3 are probably the most popular armies, at least in my experience.
-
What are you balancing out? Dwarves are perhaps the hardest army in the game to actually beat and beat well.
Phil
-
Some uniqueness between units, mainly. It really has nothing to do with outer consistency, just how well it matches up to choices within.
I've faced Dwarfs a number of times and never gotten anything better than a draw, so I know how difficult they are to play, but that's not my point. It's about the general traditional and bland armies you come in contact with whilst playing, hence the title. If they were a bit more exciting, perhaps I'd have an army of them by now, which was a distinct possibility because I had about 1K worth, but lost interest rather quickly. I suppose I did go ahead and choose another army afterall. :closed-eyes:
-
I know I have 60-80 thunderers somewhere. But the buggers keep going missing.
I think in total due to my mass purchasing from bwbits/thewarstore of dwarfs from the BFSP set, I have at least 2000 points. No artillery though, as it was supposed to be a Chaos Dwarf army (so I had a hellcannon and gobbo bolt throwers, and two homemade death rockets).
Still, 80 thunders could scare people, maybe I could pair them up with all my handgunners. :engel:
In the end though (ignoring the Chaos Dwarfs thing), I couldn't get into dwarves, that and my mate nicked my army book for them, then moved far away. The lack of interaction in magic phase was the final thing for me, as I love magic. It's why I play fantasy and not historicals exclusively.
-
They have:
A strong core CC unit.
A CC core unit which is immune to mose psychology and has S4 T4 WS5.
A special unit with S6 and stubborness
A special unit with S4 AS2+
An unbreakable unit
The second best artillary in the game
Crazy hand missle weapons
Brokenly good engineers and war machine upgrades
Oppressive magic suppression for very little points
The most customizable magic item system in the game
The only thing that could be done to make them have variety is cavalry. That won't ever happen, nor should it. It violates the entire point of dwarves from the very source, Tolkien.
Phil
-
PhillyT ... I'm not a big dwarf fan, and the only reason I have any is cause I picked up the starter set on sale for the goblins and the smaller rule book, and maybe some day I'll paint them to compliment some fluff for an Empire battle, but maybe not, too. However, is cavalry really the only thing? I'm not sure I'd be in favor of a cavalry unit for them anyway, yet how about a skirmish or scout unit?
-
Gyrocopters
-
PhillyT ... I'm not a big dwarf fan, and the only reason I have any is cause I picked up the starter set on sale for the goblins and the smaller rule book, and maybe some day I'll paint them to compliment some fluff for an Empire battle, but maybe not, too. However, is cavalry really the only thing? I'm not sure I'd be in favor of a cavalry unit for them anyway, yet how about a skirmish or scout unit?
I would like slayers as skirmishers makes sense for those crazy lunatics.
-
I would like slayers as skirmishers makes sense for those crazy lunatics.
Unbreakable skirmishers, with WS4 and T4 - not likely to happen, I'd hope. I don't even think there are a lot of, if any, stubborn skirmishers; let alone unbreakable.
-
Ws 5 bs 5 s 5 skirmishers with hatred and with repeater crossbows anyone?
slayers are still T4 without any kind of armour not to different from our old flagellants make them costly enough and everything would be fine also they are M 3 the dark elf dudes are M 5.
-
I don't understand the whole hipe about dwarfs. I can't personally see them as being competitive except in a gunline formation.
People extoll the virtues of their infantry but they all still only have 1 attack at str3 or 4 which isn't enough to punch through medium/heavy armour on infantry or cavalry.
-
as the role of infantry in warhammer is more anvil like they are excellent in this 3+ AS T4 Ws4 and most important Ld9 meaning you seldon panic them (close to never if longbeards are around) they stay....and stay....and stay...and stay therefore you usually kill all the auxilliary stuff warmachines, handgunners etc. and leave the blocks alone and score your minor victory. I have seen successful cc dwarf combat armies that go all cc infantry with one or two gyrocopters.
The army my girl friend likes to use are two bolt throwers (costing near to nothing) two units of miners, one big unit of hammerers with bsb two large blocks of clans warriors if I want to get any points I need to break those regiments by 30 strong clansmen blocks this is quite difficult especially as one of those clans blocks also has a thane with the oath stone.
-
I think the most dwarf players are just chickens and donīt use the full potential of the list example
2250 points list
King of killiness rune of challenge and that throwing hammer that doubles strength against T 5 and higher
Bsb with marching rune both in a unit of 26 hammerers with shields and the ward save banner
29 clansmen with thane and full command + oath stone
29 clansmen with thane and full command + oath stone
4 units of 18 miners with full command
have fun.
the clansmen and the hammerers are only to bring down due range attacks (hard to impossible) if you ever engage them the other two large blocks can come to help or at the latest some miners will show up for the rear or flank charges they also help to get rid of those nasty war machines and shooter units.
-
The only thing that could be done to make them have variety is cavalry. That won't ever happen, nor should it. It violates the entire point of dwarves from the very source, Tolkien.
Who gives a rip about Tolkein in this instance, it's not his world. That's the same line of thought as combining pikes in an Empire army for the sole purpose of making it historically acurate. Inspired by, but not real life, or in this instance, not Tolkien. If you think the internal balance is fine then so be it, but I don't. So we'll agree to disagree.
I've not asked for cavalry, even though it has been shown that in the past GW has had it in Dwarf armies. Also, though they may have awesome infantry, it still leads to a similiar style build. Is it possible to get around this? I don't know, that's why I asked the question. If it gets down to the point where it is impossible without ruining them, then so be it.
As it is there have already been a few things that would allow them to have some form of flexibility, such as rangers. Hardly seems unbalancing and makes sense.
-
Unbreakable skirmishers, with WS4 and T4 - not likely to happen, I'd hope. I don't even think there are a lot of, if any, stubborn skirmishers; let alone unbreakable.
If this were done, there would have to be some sort of limitation on them to balance it out. It would add in another unique flavor of their army, and may even help with the maneuverability.
-
Someone had better tell the undead and demons that their flamers and wraiths arent unbreakable then...
-
Someone had better tell the undead and demons that their flamers and wraiths arent unbreakable then...
Well at least CR takes care of those if you're lucky.
But I have to admit that flamers and wraiths are two units that I whole-heartedly dislike and that I think are a serious mistake made by the designers.
-
Well I imagine they'd go up slightly in points if they became skirmish (great if they used the Beastmen rule).
Also to possibly minimize this against various armies on a 6+ each turn they move towards the nearest target on a monster base. But this may be tampering too much.
-
Actually, rather than see a unit of troll slayers, per se, I would rather see them beefed up, and used more like DE Assassins or Gobbo Fanatics.
One of them hidden in a unit that explodes out wreaking carnage then dying gloriously.
Failing that, skirmishers as per the Beastmen rule (they dont forget their training after all) so they can close with the enemy as fast as possible, limiting damage from missiles than kicking ass when they get there. Its a rule almost written just for slayers imo...
Ordinary dwarf infantry suffers in the same way all ordinary infantry does, its relegated to a side show these days rather than being the way the battle is actually won.
Any changes I would suggest would be to make Dwarves more Dwarfy (in GW terms) than they are at the moment.
-
Who gives a rip about Tolkein in this instance, it's not his world. That's the same line of thought as combining pikes in an Empire army for the sole purpose of making it historically acurate. Inspired by, but not real life, or in this instance, not Tolkien. If you think the internal balance is fine then so be it, but I don't. So we'll agree to disagree.
I referred to Tolkien because the GW dwarf plays to the archtype. There has never been any precedent for dwarf cavalry and there never should be. They live underground. What are they going to ride, rothes? They use mules and donkeys to transport things, thats it.
Maybe skirmishing rangers, but outside of that whats wrong with the army?
phil
-
They still struggle to win...
-
I dont think they do, they struggle to win in the same way other armies do.
Last time I played mine in a competative environment they were solidly mid table, and thats without taking a WAAC army and not being that good a general.
-
There has never been any precedent for dwarf cavalry and there never should be. They live underground. What are they going to ride, rothes? They use mules and donkeys to transport things, thats it.
Maybe skirmishing rangers, but outside of that whats wrong with the army?
phil
I thought someone mentioned that in an earlier edition they did have some cavalry...?
Indeed, if I remember, back in the day they even used to have dwarf wizards...
Not suggesting that they should bring that back... but it's been done...
I think Wissenlander (and indeed myself) are looking at a non-how-good-are-they perspective and infact more of a making them more appealing and haveing some variety.
I know there are other armies that generally theme around one form of attack, but they seem on the whole to have a lot more diversity to their play such as big monsters, or cavalry and infantry, or magic influence. All sorts.
Dwarfs just kinda stand there and look hard whilst shooting you. That's it.
-
But they have perfected the Angry Eyes and Stare of Doom... never forget that.
-
I think they should have something done just to let them into more areas of the game. Most of the time you litterally sit there and do nothing with no incentive to advance. I'd love to go aggressive but I can't get big enough units due to lack of convertable models.
Because the new plastics are made of disapointment and failure.
Though I do have a lovely idea for miners involving sculpted head lamps. Somehow I think people who have invented steamships can invent a way of not using candles on their head. I mean, it's a freaking cave system, putting a candle on your head will just result in darkness anytime you move.
Mogsam
-
I think Wissenlander (and indeed myself) are looking at a non-how-good-are-they perspective and infact more of a making them more appealing and haveing some variety.
Basically, yes. Not every exercise in list tweaking involves power gaming. And frankly, I don't know what else I'd add beyond the change to the Rangers. Possibly the slayers, but I don't know for sure. That's why I asked the question instead of stating what it is I'd do.
-
Because the new plastics are made of disapointment and failure.
They're just so static and sterile and ultra-generic.
-
Dwarves sell well, so I don't see the issue with them being apealing. I love them, why does the army need a pile of variations to be fun? Look at chaos, you have one type of play.
Beastmen have no shooting, they are still fun. Variation can be found in any of the other 13 armies if someone doesn't want to do the infantry march style or the mega shooting style. A dwarf army loaded with great shooting and hard infantry will force the enemy to come to them like no other army. That in and of itself IS the playstyle.
And dwarf wizards and cavalry is silly.
Phil
-
Silly, but not unprecedented...
:-P
-
I actually quite liked the dwarf druid model.
And Phil, there is nothing wrong with a little variety in a list. Regardless of other lists and their play styles, ALL other lists in this edition so far got new units, or majorly changed rules for current ones (which makes them behave like new units).
All Dwarves got was an updated Anvil (lord mount) and Oathstones. That and the removal of move and fire on their Thunderers (which was an appropriate change).
Even though the Dwarf list was a 6.5 edition list, arguably so were the O&G and Empire ones.
The discussion is not looking at changing the power level, more just looking at adding a new unit or changing a unit or two so they have something new to talk about, rather than having basically the same list for 10 years like they have had.
And regarding Beasts, they have plenty of major ways to play, and their units can do all kinds of different things (besides shoot). Lots of skirmishers, lots of ambushers, lots of monsters, lots of chariots, beastigor heavy (unlikely, but still an option - which is the point of this discussion), cavalry heavy (dogs/centigors - again unlikely, but still an option) and balanced (and any others I can't think of).
Dwarfs have infantry heavy, shooting heavy, miner/ranger heavy, slayer heavy and balanced. That isn't really going to change. Instead, add more variety of unit choice into each.
The beasts list has a lot more variety than the dwarf list, because as we all know, Warhammer is a movement game. Dwarfs have the least movement of any other army. I'm not saying they should get more (no cavalry), I am more saying that perhaps they should be compensated with a greater variety of unit choices that can do a broader range of things. The points cost of a Dwarf army generally means that the variety they choose will define the playstyle all the more.
Lets look at the Chaos list. Yes, they lack variety now too. However, they still have more varied ways to play than Dwarves also. Horde Infantry heavy, Elite Infantry heavy, Monster Heavy, Magic Heavy, Light and/or heavy Cavalry Heavy and Balanced.
Comparing two of the most limited lists isn't a very good comparison anyway, because besides Chaos and Dwarves, pretty much every other list has a wide variety of play styles, and yet somehow are still unique.
-
Dwarves sell well, so I don't see the issue with them being apealing. I love them, why does the army need a pile of variations to be fun? Look at chaos, you have one type of play.
Beastmen have no shooting, they are still fun. Variation can be found in any of the other 13 armies if someone doesn't want to do the infantry march style or the mega shooting style. A dwarf army loaded with great shooting and hard infantry will force the enemy to come to them like no other army. That in and of itself IS the playstyle.
And dwarf wizards and cavalry is silly.
Phil
:eusa_wall:
-
Gyrocopters
Similar to a pegasus in that it flys?
-
I take a gyrocopter purely so that I have something to move in the first two turns.
Mogsam
-
You wish. You can't take a gyrocopter because you break it everytime you even think about it.
-
True actually. It currently has one wing and the plastic rod firmly stuck in it's hole. Bloody whirly bird.
Mogsam
-
I wonder if I can convert up a 'Captacopter' .............
...... I'm just sick to death of those old Bret Peggies ......... :engel:
Dwarfs have lovely units - they could be tactically much more interesting if Rangers and Miners were core and unlimited.
The tactical use of Miners and their 'pop-up' factor could be exploited.
The dwarf general could issue orders to his miners at the start of the game ( written down) about where and when they should turn up - roll a D6 and a 1 means they get lost as normal.
It would be a bit like summoning zombies, but pre-planned.
Rangers should be able to skirmish with one unit as Scouts. I'm not sure about the form up and rank, but if they were something like the Cult of Ulric Wolfkin that wasn't overpowered - you could employ the 5- max 15 rule they had, so only a 2 rank CR bonus.
-
One major downside of miners is that they cant charge on the turn they arrive :(
-
One major downside of miners is that they cant charge on the turn they arrive :(
..... but that could change in the new rules.
The general has told them where to be and when, they have dug their tunnel and are patiently waiting ready to spring the ambush - so they are all ready for the charge ...............
:engel:
-
"It came from below", now not just a TK/Skaven rule, now comes in Dwarf Miner flavour.
-
I regularly play a Tomb Kings player and he use the came from below rule to great efficiency.
Too bad the rest of the army sucks.
-
**(Wally's two cents)
Yes, its almost outside of the forum topic and in no way involved with the current conversation.
I played dwarfs exclusively until the last year of 5th (when I moved to empire). I must say that they suffer from some awful basic weaknesses, M3 being the greatest. When I played dwarfs I was forced game after game to abandon the Gun line and engage the battlefield. I used to fantasize about having movement 4 and Knights. Dwarfs taught me about the importance of Initiative and Movement in warhammer. I can defeat most dwarf players soundly due to my experiences.
That being said there are several builds for a dwarf list. Even if you view them as static combat blocks how you use and behave with your dwarf infantry can make them a deadly force on the field. There is a ton of theming that can be accomplished from slayer armies to engineer forces. A fool would discount them as boring. And their magic item selection is un-paralleled. The new dwarf list is more deadly then its predisisors and more maneuverable as well. There are dwarf players of talent who will rout you and chase you off the board. I still believe that this army is absurdly high tier and it would only take a few philosophical and tactical articles to make their playerbase into a better force (much the way that chaos dwarfs or the empire remains competitive despite the newer books).
-
More deadly, perhaps. Fool? You got me. :happy: Still boring? You betcha. :wink:
-
What aout armies with fewer builds than dwarves?
VC anyone?
Phil
-
Don't see anyone lamenting their lack of options.
Well, I do see VC players say that their weaknesses need reigning in, being too much.
-
What aout armies with fewer builds than dwarves?
VC anyone?
Perhaps that's another thread idea?
-
Again, this isn't about power or anything. It is about option for armies.
Phil
-
One major downside of miners is that they cant charge on the turn they arrive :(
As it SHOULD be. Tunnelers who CAN do that, are ridiculously easy to use and no brainers. One unit of miners can already charge when they arrive thanks to the Anvil, that's bad enough as it is.
-
Again, this isn't about power or anything. It is about option for armies.
Yep. I'd agree with that.
-
And as I said, I don't see anyone lamenting their lack of options. Not usually anyway.
I have however seen plenty for Dwarfs.
VC only really lack shooting in options. They have a form of fast cavalry, they have heavy cavalry, they have ultra heavy cavalry, they have a chariot (with loads of goodies), they have skirmishers, they have magic heavy, they have combat heroes and lords, they have blocks of infantry, one of the few decent elite blocks of infantry, they have units of flyers, they even have monsters.
It is infact, one of the better books I've seen for Warhammer. Options wise though, I'd say Dark Elves are kings.
-
Agree with cisse regarding tunnellers being able to charge. And agree with MrDWhitey about VC. There are SO many ways to play VC its ridiculous. The VC list is easily one of my favourites thanks to the huge variety of troops the can bring to the table. Just because a few power gamers bring grave guard, wraiths or blood knights to the table, doesn't mean you have to.
-
And as I said, I don't see anyone lamenting their lack of options. Not usually anyway.
Because they are too busy pounding things with WAAC.
I have however seen plenty for Dwarfs.
Such as? And keep in mind the general issues with all of the other armies. Dwarves lack: skirmishers and cavalry. They have magic defense in spades, which is really what magic is about. While those two things can be seen as significant, they are made up with monstrous shooting, crazy leadership, and absolutely nasty infantry and characters.
Phil
-
I thought it was options, not power? :icon_mrgreen:
So they have limited options in comparison to most of the armies.
I also disagree that magic defense is all magic is about. Actually casting spells to cause damage, buff units, etc, is probably more the intent. At least that's why I take magic. :-P
So dwarves lack actual magic, all forms of cavalry, and all forms of skirmishers.
And the VC generally don't lament their lack of options, due to this "lack" being one thing.
-
What aout armies with fewer builds than dwarves?
VC anyone?
Phil
not remotely.
i can think of half a dozen ways just to run my big sack o' skeletons. hell, there are uncountable ways to spec characters. it's not even worth fretting over lack of shooting, since i can essentially shoot a unit of zombies 18" in any direction without line of sight once or twice a turn if i want to.
that said, i only have a big bunch of the BfSP dwarfs, and realize that the only change i'd really make would be to replace a unit of thunderers with a unit of quarrelers even if i did have three full units of everything. as far as i can tell, the options are thorek gunline or lord combined-arms, and the rest of it is just negotiating details.
-
i can think of half a dozen ways just to run my big sack o' skeletons. hell, there are uncountable ways to spec characters. it's not even worth fretting over lack of shooting, since i can essentially shoot a unit of zombies 18" in any direction without line of sight once or twice a turn if i want to.
And all of this couldn't also be done with dwarves? Replacing the launching of zombies for the launching of cannonballs, bolts, catapult balls, tiny cannonballs, and flames of course.
MrD: magic in an of itself has never been effective. Only when coupled with a model that can also bring the pain, Vampire Counts and Demons of Tzeentch, does it really work as advertised. Otherwise it is a big crapshoot.
Phil
-
That covers shooting. What about cavalry and skirmishers?
As has been stated, the lack of those two things are of monumental importance in WFB, as it eliminates, or greatly reduces, the most crucial factor of the game which is maneuvering.
-
Is phil just being stubborn or is he playing Devil's Advocate?
-
Both?
I want the experimental gyrocoptor rules someone (I think at GW) came up with a while back. The one that carries Dwarfs as passengers.
If you let it carry 10, then downgraded flight movement if it's carrying passengers (to 12" I think) it sounds nice, would look fantastic and would add some of the stuff you guys want.
-
reminds me of the Landspeeder Storm army I wanted to make...
-
Is phil just being stubborn or is he playing Devil's Advocate?
:icon_lol: :icon_lol:
A question for the ages, which can almost be applied to anything he says.
:engel:
-
Dwarf Air Cavalry army! :-D
*Ta-dadadaDAAA-da-dadadaDAAA-da-dadadaDAAAAA-da-dadadaDAAAA...*
-
My gaming buddys ordered stuff from britain as the pound was weak and I also wanted to order but was short on money and they had an IG Valkyrie bundle they called apocalypse now! :icon_cry:
-
MrD: magic in an of itself has never been effective. Only when coupled with a model that can also bring the pain, Vampire Counts and Demons of Tzeentch, does it really work as advertised. Otherwise it is a big crapshoot.
And in the context of options, not power, or anything else, such as efficiency, what are you getting at?
They don't have the option. Doesn't matter if it's a sucky option. They don't have it
I make a vague reference to the power level of Vampire Counts when commenting on how people don't note their lack of options (because at most they lack 1 option), and you come down on it about it all being "options, not power", and then you promptly dispute what I say based on the "power", or "efficiency" (neither of which are "options") that the armies have.
-
i can think of half a dozen ways just to run my big sack o' skeletons. hell, there are uncountable ways to spec characters. it's not even worth fretting over lack of shooting, since i can essentially shoot a unit of zombies 18" in any direction without line of sight once or twice a turn if i want to.
And all of this couldn't also be done with dwarves? Replacing the launching of zombies for the launching of cannonballs, bolts, catapult balls, tiny cannonballs, and flames of course.
MrD: magic in an of itself has never been effective. Only when coupled with a model that can also bring the pain, Vampire Counts and Demons of Tzeentch, does it really work as advertised. Otherwise it is a big crapshoot.
Phil
i don't think so. dwarf infantry is just too one-dimensional, in my view, especially core. they range from slow-moving well-armored troops that die slowly to slow-moving medium-armored troops that die sort of slowly and maybe get one or two more kills with great weapons. just between skeletons, ghouls, and even just a mediocre hero level vampire, i can run core infantry in several unconventional ways. plus VC gets fast cavalry core...
and most or all of the vampires never see combat in some the best VC magic armies.
-
I lost to an Empire army yesterday without a steam tank or arch lector purely based on my men being completely inept at killing anything. 5 attacks aren't enough to beat units. They just couldn't get any combat resolution so the laurels of victory and the battle banner in two different units meant my pitifully few attacks did nothing. My Ironbreakers couldn't do any bloody damage! I wasn't dieing or losing any men but I was losing based entirely on my lack of kills.
It was so utterly frustrating. Why bother playing an aggressive Dwarf army if you can't kill anything and get run down because some guys waving a bloody flag.
Mogsam
-
Look at it from the other way - I find it extremely frustrating to fight against a well-played dwarf army with my Empire because I don't have a lot of shooting and they never, ever, run away from CR only (not to mention that a lot of your manouvring advantage is undone due to cheap tricks like the Rune of Challenge and the Anvil).
-
What about people who don't want to use cheap tricks?
Last week I beat the same army at 1,500 points by targeting and decimating specific units to inflict panic with artillery and missile troops before engaging. Which isn't fun for either of us but it's the only way I can win combat when they start at +6 combat resolution or more. It's unlikely i'll break with the eventual -1 or -2 I lose by but the point is that eventually I'll be unlucky.
I've been trying to play with uncommon units (no hammerers, no anvil, using miners and only having 20 missile troops) and not using items such as the rune of challenge or the oath stone. But stubborn and forcing people to actually bother fighting my lord is making me reconsider my choices. Hammerers might be relatively easy to kill but at least they can actually do something and stubborn gets rid of the frustratingness of running away from the enemy having a battle banner.
Mogsam
-
I've been reading through the VC book and have had tonnes of ideas for different types of armies I could make, all sorts of cool variations and themes that would work in totally different ways. Comparing them in terms of lack of options doesn't seem the one to go to to me.
I'm not sure Dwarfs inspire that kind of thinking that an army like VC, Dark Elves or Empire can where you could go this way or that. Or the other.
-
Yeah, there is something special when your read those books, Siberius, that makes you start thinking along so many different lines at once. I have wanted to do dwarves many times, but I am fashinated by the rangers, those dwarves who are not just sitting in their stupid dungeons all the time, but those that have to move about in the enviorment all those grumbling grognards say is bad for your character.
Yet, without those rangers and others living outside the dwarf holds, the dwarf holds would crumble even faster!
But you canīt do an army really based around them, since you can take one unit of rangers and that is it...
However, I would like to add that Wood elves can also make you think about different ideas for armies, but today so many of those different builds are too weak to be anything but for pure fun.
I loved the all-elven idea, but not basing it on a lot of annoying fast cavalry or just a huge number of archers, but a more balanced army.
But nowadays, you just canīt do without forest spirits... So I got enough dryads to field two units, three treekins and an Orion mini counting as a Treeman (Fluffwise a Avatar of Talu)...
-
i don't even think it's necessarily an issue of other army builds being too weak to be super competitive.
as far as i can tell, every dwarf build revolves around mass shooting or slowly grinding the enemy down with well-armored, high-toughness infantry that isn't too great at killing. it seems like no matter how you craft a build or try and play, those two things are pretty much all that's going to happen.
-
Compare that to ogres, or beastmen, or chaos warriors. All are built with certain concepts in mind. They aren't able to do some things, but excel at what they were designed for.
As for dwarf armies lacking in killing power, there is a dynamic between causing wounds and taking wounds. They can cause a fair amount and take very few. thats fine. Flagellants are the opposite end of that spectrum.
If you add anything to the list, that will require the removal of somethings. The high leadership, low armor saves, nasty shooting. Something needs to give.
Additionally, reading through the vampire count book, how does the army become that different when you look at the options? They are still characterless armies based around specific vampires.
Phil
-
If you add anything to the list, that will require the removal of somethings. The high leadership, low armor saves, nasty shooting. Something needs to give.
Herein lies the problem. It would be almost too powerful to give them a maneuvering element. That still doesn't negate the fact that it hinders a very important part of the game in which every other army in said game doesn't struggle nearly as much as dwarfs. The reason of which why there are boring builds, on top of the fact that the internal balance between infantry units is very similiar.
The simple aspect of the power of the dwarf army can be seen from the last GW campaign. Part of this was guaranteed because of the starter set, which allows for a lot of new players to get their hands on them easily. And a lot of young'uns could play a lot of games and report them. Granted it's not the greatest case study because they paired a tough and shooty starter set of dwarfs against a mob of night goblins. But even before the campaign started, a few of us called the dwarfs as winners. So, for that reason I understand your point, Phil. It is near impossible to allow them the all important maneuvering element without making them the hardest army in the game. However, it doesn't stop one from trying to balance the list internally based off of trends from the past and maybe even some inovative ideas of their own. We have an entire sub-forum dedicated to the Empire because of thoughts like this. I see no reason why it can't occur for other armies as well. Ideas and discussion about tweaking armies doesn't have to be an exercise in power gaming but a chance to actually get things right and make the game more fun for everyone involved.
Buh...
I just keep repeating myself, and it's going nowhere.
To reiterate where I think some improvements can come from. Give rangers back there skirmishing. That's got precedent and not even that unbalancing. It would give them a touch of maneuverability. Give slayers some skirmish ability...but tweak them so they aren't uber crazy. The easiest way is a point increase, I suppose. Also, capping the number in which you can take. Are these guys rare? If not, maybe they could go into the special and rare categories to help offset the balance, and then there would have to be a choice between all the shooting.
Those are the two best things I've got, and I suppose they're not all that original as they've been said a couple times.
-
Herein lies the problem. It would be almost too powerful to give them a maneuvering element. That still doesn't negate the fact that it hinders a very important part of the game in which every other army in said game doesn't struggle nearly as much as dwarfs.
But that is only important if it is intrinsic to winning. Not to beat the beastman issue to bits, but I would love to take advantage of that very important shooting phase, but my army isn't made for that.
The reason of which why there are boring builds, on top of the fact that the internal balance between infantry units is very similiar.
Boring how? I think that is where I am struggling. If any army is meant to be uniform, it is Dwarves. They have enough variety in their troopd: Tough core (warriors), really good core (longbeards), extremely durable specials (ironbreakers), stubborn on a 9 or 10 special (Hammerers), unbreakable multi-attack specials (slayers), ambush style models (miners), and scouts (rangers).
However, it doesn't stop one from trying to balance the list internally based off of trends from the past and maybe even some inovative ideas of their own. We have an entire sub-forum dedicated to the Empire because of thoughts like this. I see no reason why it can't occur for other armies as well. Ideas and discussion about tweaking armies doesn't have to be an exercise in power gaming but a chance to actually get things right and make the game more fun for everyone involved.
Which assumes they didn't get it right in the first place. Their list is nearly impossibleto massacre. The best games end up as major victories. Most of the time it is minor or draws. What needs to be tweaked? The army represents the style, the static and tried and true dwarves with their old style gear and some new fangled items.
To reiterate where I think some improvements can come from. Give rangers back there skirmishing. That's got precedent and not even that unbalancing.
True, but there is certainly something to be said for a ranked scout unit too. I tactually think that is far more effective than a M3 skirmisher.
Give slayers some skirmish ability...but tweak them so they aren't uber crazy.
Flagellants aren't skirmished, what justification is there for slayers to have it? It still doesn't get away from the diminished effectiveness of skirmish on an M3 model.
Phil
-
But that is only important if it is intrinsic to winning. Not to beat the beastman issue to bits, but I would love to take advantage of that very important shooting phase, but my army isn't made for that.
If this were 40K I'd feel sorry for you. But I was under the impression that in fantasy it was the movement phase which was the critical component? Not that it would be that hard to remedy. Give beasts slings or throwing axes, at least that would give some form of shooting.
Boring how?
Boring as in sit in a fixed position and not move. Does it make sense for them? Yes. Does it mean it's the most exciting game to play? No. It's fine when it's upon occasion, but not when you know 9/10 of the time they're going to sit in their corner and not move. Do I expect them to move out? No. It makes tactical sense to stay on your side and have the other guy come at you when you've got that tactical advantage.
Which assumes they didn't get it right in the first place. Their list is nearly impossibleto massacre.
I'm not worried about how hard the list is. This is where you and I differ.
True, but there is certainly something to be said for a ranked scout unit too. I tactually think that is far more effective than a M3 skirmisher.
Perhaps, but they really have no purpse being rangers then because they can't get through some woods, which is their purpose in life. Sad isn't it? And it's not like they are lacking in the CR department. So lets throw them in the woods and see them move a whole 1.5 inches, negating movement even more?
Flagellants aren't skirmished, what justification is there for slayers to have it? It still doesn't get away from the diminished effectiveness of skirmish on an M3 model.
I'm not really looking at flagies in this case. There are tons of troop types that could be skirmishers, but I suppose it wreaks havoc with all sorts of balance and rules. This isn't one that I'm too set on. Just something to add a bit of variety. You could even put in a rule that slayers get an extra inch move since they are itching for a fight or some such. There are ways around it without making it too unbalanced.
-
Extra D3 to their charge if they are charging monster based size creatures or bigger (not including chariots).
Rangers don't get a penalty for moving through woods.
There, those two are fixed.
Now drop the Rune of Challenge already - its a cheap trick (I have never gotten close enough to a unit of hammerers for it to work, but its just a dumb rune).
-
Skirmishing Slayers might make them less prone to pointy arrow death. Which in all the background books is their biggest fear. It would make sense to try to limit their shoot deaths.
Mogsam
-
You can run a shooting beastmen army. Just load up all your specials with large units of centigors armed with throwing axes. :-P
(could be an amusing concept in some ways, a horde of drunken centaurs out to have a throwing contest...)
I think Chaos has more ways to play too because of the different marks you can take. You can load up on a single mark, making your army differently flavoured in a few ways and that is over and above the different builds you can take. Beasts are as good as WoC for this cos you can go skirmished, monsters, ambush, cavalry heavy, magic heavy, block unit heavy or any combination thereof.
As to VC, I just look through the book and see so many different ways you could play them due to the huge array of options. I don't think you even have to build it around your vampire. And even if you do, the sheer variety of what you can kit the vamp up with means you can really take it in many directions. They won't necessarily be all uber good, but then, as we've already said, we're not just talking about that...
-
If this were 40K I'd feel sorry for you. But I was under the impression that in fantasy it was the movement phase which was the critical component?
Only in the context of how the movement phase helps you win. If people are really having a blast dropping the ruler and shimying their unit a couple inches, thats great for them. If you are moving just for the sake of moveing then people are getting alot more out of the game than I ever thought.
Boring as in sit in a fixed position and not move. Does it make sense for them? Yes. Does it mean it's the most exciting game to play? No. It's fine when it's upon occasion, but not when you know 9/10 of the time they're going to sit in their corner and not move. Do I expect them to move out? No. It makes tactical sense to stay on your side and have the other guy come at you when you've got that tactical advantage.
Lets say that they got something weird like cavalry. Is that going to change their army style? No. they will still be a slow infantry army with a crappy knight option. Miners and rangers still give them option to deploy trickery.
I'm not worried about how hard the list is. This is where you and I differ.
Then why change anything? The addition of one or two things which move more than 3" isn't changing anything. It would require a fundamental change in the army to REALLY impact the playing style of dwarves. That would open up the slot the dwarves already occupy. They fill an important niche.
Perhaps, but they really have no purpse being rangers then because they can't get through some woods, which is their purpose in life. Sad isn't it? And it's not like they are lacking in the CR department. So lets throw them in the woods and see them move a whole 1.5 inches, negating movement even more?
Whoa now, if you want to alter units make sure you know the unit before you go changing them. They have the forester rule which allows them to ignore the forest for movement purposes.
Phil
-
Oh bully for them. As I've nothing further to add because we see things entirely differently, I'll leave this to those who have fresher ideas and something, hopefully, more original than what I've got.
The only thing I have going for me is my opinion that they are a dull army to play against. And whether you agree with that or not, Phil, won't change my opinion. No matter how tightly and neatly packed they are into that niched, which judging by the normal play style, is pretty well packed. :wink:
-
Well I would agree, they are a bit boring to play against. That comes out of the fact that they shoot the crap out of you then when you actually hit them, you are left to grind away all day with little or no results. Giving them the ability to move won't affect the outcome if you are looking for more fun as an opponent.
Phil
-
Well I would agree, they are a bit boring to play against. That comes out of the fact that they shoot the crap out of you then when you actually hit them, you are left to grind away all day with little or no results. Giving them the ability to move won't affect the outcome if you are looking for more fun as an opponent.
Phil
Well, only if the designers gave them the ability to move and took away from their very good shooting and durability. That'd give them an incentive to change army composition and it'd also help balancing them (they get something extra, so should lose somewhere).
Seeing as that's not going to happen, I do wonder what people expect - dwarfs with a higher movement, as mobile as other armies, and still very good shooting and such? Eh?
I have to admit I didn't think this'd happen, but I have to agree with Philly here. :wink:
-
I don't think anyone really expects it to happen, the concept is more trying to figure out some way in which it could happen...
So far, pretty tricky. :-P
-
So let me get this straight.
They can shoot you... thats it.
They can't out move you
They can't out magic you
They can't out combat you
They're a weak list and have 1 basic build (shooting).
Dwarf Infantry suck. They have high ld, yes, decent to great saves, yes. Are there ways around that save, yes, Can you negate their static CR and almost certainly win combat, yes, can you expect them to get any kills back, NO.
As mentioned at the beginning of this thread. Give Long beards and Iron breakers 2 attacks each so they can actually compete in the combat phase.
make slayers skirmish but stubborn 9 instead of unbreakable and cause fear.
-
Ok, so I'm seeing the same points being made over and over ad nauseum.
I'd like to see the various factions present their lists based on the current book
One side showing the best, the other showing the inherent issues. I need facts, not conjecture :)
-
So let me get this straight.
They can shoot you... thats it.
They can't out move you
They can't out magic you
They can't out combat you
If you are playing them correctly, they can shut down magic. If you have fired correctly, they will remove the more dangerous threats and THEN outcombat the enemy.
Who exactly can out fight them in most combats? No dwarf unit should be without a character. Dwarf characters are some of the nastiest around.
They're a weak list and have 1 basic build (shooting).
How so?
Dwarf Infantry suck. They have high ld, yes, decent to great saves, yes. Are there ways around that save, yes, Can you negate their static CR and almost certainly win combat, yes, can you expect them to get any kills back, NO.
Are you kidding? What models can really pound them in combat? Maybe 4 in the whole game? And even then, they aren't crushed. They will tie them up for the remainder of the game.
Phil
-
Executioners - str6 killing blow -
Warriors of Chaos - str4 2 attacks or GW str6 2 attacks
Frenzied maruaders with great weapons or flails
Flagellants
Black Guard- str4 re-roll hits, 2 attacks
Tomb Guard str4 killing blow
Grave Guard str4 killing blow, str6
Bloodletters - str5 killing blow
Saurus - str4 2 attacks
if we're talking with each side having 3 ranks and full command against warriors. Some may be close but the amount of attacks or high strength attacks coming at them will eventually cause a few dwarfs to die and thats without going into Cavalry or other hammer options.
Also what characters would you have in your blocks? If you go for magic shutdown you're taking a few runesmiths and that immediatly diminish's your combat ability.
-
Execs are S5 KB IIRC.
-
what does IIRC mean?
And executioners are str4 base.
-
Executioners - str6 killing blow -
Warriors of Chaos - str4 2 attacks or GW str6 2 attacks
Frenzied maruaders with great weapons or flails
Flagellants
Black Guard- str4 re-roll hits, 2 attacks
Tomb Guard str4 killing blow
Grave Guard str4 killing blow, str6
Bloodletters - str5 killing blow
Saurus - str4 2 attacks
Ben, most of these will do some damage but not enough to really cripple a unit (at least not fast enough) or reliably break it.
Yes, some armies can out-combat dwarfs. On the other hand, these tend to be armies that specialize in cc, whereas dwarfs are just good at static cr and not dieing instead of killing.
Also, the game doesn't need more units with multiple attacks, rather the opposite. Any more, and the cr system needs a serious overhaul. Static cr just isn't what it used to be with all those units with multiple attacks and stubborn/unbreakable units around...
-
No but they can realisitically win the combat.
And again you're saying that they rely on static CR- which is easily beaten (except by an oath stone).
Also I think I proposed this elsewhere that rank CR should go to a max of 5 instead of 3 if they want to be able to regularly beat heavy cavalry options.
-
Executioners - str6 killing blow -
Attack after the dwarves. Lets pretend its just a unit of hammerers, the core version of dwarves. 5 executioners versus 5 hammerers. The hammerers get 3 hits, wound with 2, with no save for the executioners. The executioners get 3 back, hit with 2 lets say, wound with both, and the dwarves save one. Most of the hits aren't going to be killing blow. A tie if anything. Add the much more potent combat abilities of dwarves, then this one does fly.
Warriors of Chaos - str4 2 attacks or GW str6 2 attacks
Yup.
Frenzied maruaders with great weapons or flails
Nope. Both will get eaten alive. Run the numbers.
Flagellants
Err... if they can somehow break them on the first turn. They will only hit on 5+ with their WS2.
Black Guard- str4 re-roll hits, 2 attacks
Dwarves will most likely grind them down. They only hit with 3/4ths of theit hits, wound with half, and then half get ignored.
Tomb Guard str4 killing blow
No. Half hit, half wound, one in 6 ignore AS, the rest get ignored half the time.
Grave Guard str4 killing blow, str6
Similar.
Bloodletters - str5 killing blow
These guys can cause some problems. True.
Saurus - str4 2 attacks
Not really. Half hit, half wound, half get ignored. Thats only one or two wounds per turn.
if we're talking with each side having 3 ranks and full command against warriors. Some may be close but the amount of attacks or high strength attacks coming at them will eventually cause a few dwarfs to die and thats without going into Cavalry or other hammer options.
Why are we talking about just warriors? We are looking at all options. The implication was that the elite dwarves couldn't cut it. They certainly can. As for cavalry and hammer options, all of this assumes that half of the dwarf army isn't shooting. They are.
Also what characters would you have in your blocks? If you go for magic shutdown you're taking a few runesmiths and that immediatly diminish's your combat ability.
A thane, one lord, and two runesmiths with dispel runes. Even they are more than capable of adding combat ability to a unit since they can still take magic runes to beef combat. The thane and lord will mulch most units.
Phil
-
While a bit optimistic, PhillyT is spot on when it comes to dwarf elite.
While I hate playing against them with my Empire force, fluff reasons, I better tool up right or those suckas stand when I charge them.
-
I was leafing the Dwarf Book and found that you could theoretically have a Dwarf miner character. I'm not sure why you'd want one but I might make one. Sounds unique.
Mogsam
-
Well to have a king come out in the back of your army could change the whole battle....but even a thane with 4A S6 can increase the battle lust of a unit of miners immensly
-
What would you give a Miner character? Aside from the 20 points in Runes of Digging Holes and Tree Walking.
Mogsam
-
hmmm, rune of challenging is not too bad to prepare or even lure enemy characters out (at least we play it that way you use the rune and if the unit canīt attack the miners due to other units or terrain but a character for example on horse can attack he has to sortie out alone or the unit flees) fantastic flank charges. Or that slayer rune that grants him a great weapon and the always strikes first rune to kill some enemies that charge the miners with a stone rune he still has a 3+ As with T 5 not too bad.
-
My woman made me so happy right now we are going to play a warhammer game 1500 points this weekend and here is her list she will use to rape my empire
bsb thane with that marching rune thingy
machinist (on bolt thrower)
15 clanswarriors shield and greatweapon
15 clanswarriors shield and greatweapon
17 longbeards shield and greatweapon
2 bolt throwers
12 Miners
12 Miners
Gyros copter
If that isnīt close combat I donīt know....
I will try to make pictures and post a battle report!
-
Enginner for a general? I thought only I was that bad.
Good list though. Not that i'd know but it looks more fun than they usually do.
Mogsam
-
Hi guys,
here I am -> Fandir's "Warhammer-Weib"
and that's my final army list 1500 points:
General: Thane (naked), shield, great weapon, stone rune 76 points
Thane (naked) shield, great weapon, 71 points
Thane BsB, marching rune, rune of courage 175 points
Core
2* 14 clan warriors, shields, musician, standard bearer282 points
1* 17 long beards, shields, great weapons, full command, Master rune of Grungni 313 points
Elite
2* bolt throwers with engineer one with the master rune of sacrifice 150 points
2* 10 miners, champion, steam drill 290 points
Rare
1 Gyro 140 points
1497 points
So what do you guys think? Will those tough as nails dwarves just steam roll through those soft empire guys of Fandir?
Any suggestion what I should field differently?
-
I would say cut the Longbeards down to 15, and drop the GWs, S4 is good enough, beef up the warrior units to 20.
Move the MRoGrungni over to the BSB, drop courage, and replace it with RoGuarding, try to get RoStone for the second thane, and see if you have points for either RoStoicism (double US) or RoBattle for the Longbeards
And good luck :wink:
-
Take from him everything, and give him nothing!
Movie quote was too appropriate to pass up...
-
I would say cut the Longbeards down to 15, and drop the GWs, S4 is good enough, beef up the warrior units to 20.
Move the MRoGrungni over to the BSB, drop courage, and replace it with RoGuarding, try to get RoStone for the second thane, and see if you have points for either RoStoicism (double US) or RoBattle for the Longbeards
And good luck :wink:
How is str4 good enough? Wait what will Fandir be playing? If you expect to run into GS, Swordsmen you may as well take the GW and just butcher them all with little/no save back.
-
S4 is good enough with so few attacks anyway. I follow the philosophy that dwarfs wins by not dying. The GWs gives her a flexibility, but the cost is to high, and the attacks to few. If she can handle any detachments, Longbeards will win hands down anyway (not including GS here) :wink:
-
I would say cut the Longbeards down to 15, and drop the GWs, S4 is good enough, beef up the warrior units to 20.
Move the MRoGrungni over to the BSB, drop courage, and replace it with RoGuarding, try to get RoStone for the second thane, and see if you have points for either RoStoicism (double US) or RoBattle for the Longbeards
And good luck :wink:
How is str4 good enough? Wait what will Fandir be playing? If you expect to run into GS, Swordsmen you may as well take the GW and just butcher them all with little/no save back.
I am going to field 1500 out of my tournament army I am going to use in Karlsruhe next month but I am not 100% sure what to take. There are lots of limits therefore the stank stays at home. Here is the flesh of the unit and I am not sure if I should swap the Ic Knights for some outriders but I donīt know where to put the warrior priest than. I had great success with the IC knights in the past but I want to try pistoliers and outriders more.
BsB with sword of might and white cloak
Warrior Priest with Enchanted shield and Icon of Magnus
Battle Wizard Lvl 2, rod of power ring of volans
23 spears with MS (BsB here)
5 archers
9 swords
10 Crossbows
5 archers
5 FC
5 Knights M
13 Flagellants with Prophet
1 GK
5 IC Knights with full command war banner
5 pistoliers with champ with repeater pistol
1 HBVG
-
hmm I'd give your IC knights 1 more knight (so the champ and WP get a Look out! Sir roll). Same on your pistoliers.
I'd also get a full command in the spears if your bsb is going in the unit (someone to challenge/accept for the bsb so you don't loose that banner to nasty guys).
-
Sounds good especially the IC knights part.
Would you leave them out? My list is pretty weak against those close combat dwarves as my shooting will deal nill to nothing and I have to crush them in close combat (at least I have two units of knights) but overall I am not very confident...but lets see how the battle goes I will try to make a battle report.
-
Dwarf Warriors are like almost all "core close combat" troop choices in that they are their for padding, better to take the required 3 core choices as shooters
(Empire at least has 'nilla knights as core)
CR is all so easy to overcome, especially since dwarves rarely get to charge and are outmanouvered by everyone
In my experience, dwarves get slaughtered by knight armies (Empire, Chaos or Bret) as they are outmanouvered, charged and massacred on the charge by lance armed troops
That said, the only changes they need are to give rangers back their skirmish option and forrester option and to allow miners to charge on the turn they arrive (which they presently cannot do)
-
Uryens is being bad with that last sentence. :icon_wink: :icon_lol:
-
Dwarf Warriors are like almost all "core close combat" troop choices in that they are their for padding, better to take the required 3 core choices as shooters
That's exactly what I don't like - playing them like everyone else does - the usual gunline. :wink:
Besides, I already got him once - with two units of miners. :-D
In my experience, dwarfs get slaughtered by knight armies (Empire, Chaos or Bret) as they are outmaneuvered, charged and massacred on the charge by lance armed troops
Well, I can't beat anyone in terms of experience because I have been playing Warhammer for just a few months. But I'll try my best not to let him outmaneuver me.
-
I think I'll change my list as you suggested, Dunrik - thank you very much. As I have been playing Warhammer for just a few months, I still find the runes very tricky.
-
Knight armies fall in droves to Dwarves when used properly. Refused flank, two organ guns, and a couple crossow units backed by 4 BT's and knights have absolutely no chance. When they hit the line they get swallowed by the blocks.
Phil
-
Yeah Brettonians suffer a lot against Dwarfs.
-
That's so entirely subjective. If you don't prepare to fight them then they aren't that effective. If you take a balanced list then they roll right through you. Although everytime I take an Organ Gun it proceeds to get destroyed on the 1st turn by people who notice it's knight churning skill.
Mogsam
-
A balanced dwarf list is a cavalry army's worst nightmare. They don't have to load up, they just need to drop a balanced list. And organ guns being destoryed come with the territory. They destroy that and they leave something else alone.
Phil
-
Ok the battle took place and who is interested in the outcome can look it up here:
http://www.warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=30204.0 (http://www.warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=30204.0)
at least the first three turns.
-
Having secured another 50 Dwarf bodies from the 6th edition I can now produce a more exciting list. So help me write a list. I'd like to do something aggressive rather than the typical dwarf semi gunline. Here is what I have!
Dwarf King on/off Shieldbearers.
BSB.
Enginner.
Runesmith.
Thane.
40 Dwarf Warriors with H/W and Shield.
50 Dwarfs without anything so far.
10 Quarrellers.
10 Thunderers.
15 Ironbreakers (With the parts to make another 10 or 10 more Miners.)
10 Miners.
2 Bolt Throwers.
2 Cannons.
Gyrocopter.
Organ Gun.
5 DOW Light Cavalry. (Baggage Guard for the new campaign.)
The best list i'll use in my next game, although there are probably enough dwarfs to make a dwarf horde army...
I quite fancy making a tournament army.
Mogsam
-
I would go for as many miners as possible they are great to make a dwarven cc list.
I will post another battle report the next couple of days close combat dwarves against close combat dark elves.
-
If knights are losing to dwarves, the knights player deserves to lose, simple as that.
-
Really? You a big GT winner?
Please elaborate. Knights cannot touch Empire, how do they get through dwarves who are even better than Empire at shooting small arms?
Phil
-
They manage to do it well enough to my dwarves often enough.
-
Really? You a big GT winner?
Please elaborate. Knights cannot touch Empire, how do they get through dwarves who are even better than Empire at shooting small arms?
Phil
Agree. I tried knight lists for a long time against the resident Dwarf player in our group until
1/ the steam tank came out in 6th
2/ he stopped playing warhammer
* these two points above are unrelated.
-
A Grand Templar with the Laurels and a fairly large unit of Inner Circle with the Warbanner pretty much munch any unit they hit unless they charge a lord or slayers. A few weeks ago I lost a unit of Ironbreakers with a Lord (who fluffed his attacks) and a unit of Longbeards to frontal charges. Sure I can kill a couple before they get there with artillery but on turn 2 they usually just break a unit.
Then again Willx knows my dispair at the bloody warbanner and combat resolution. Part of the reason I want slayers.
Mogsam
-
I rather field the Grand Master when I need as many units immune to fear/psychology as possible - fearless IC knights are something really helpful and prove themselves to be the death-star in friendly games I play. But his 6WS is more than compelling.
I don't know, but I find a GotE on barded warhorse in full plate, with Enchanted Shield, Holy Relic and Sword of Power particularly effective at hacking down well-armoured Dwarfs while staying untouched - strength 6, 0+ save and 4+ ward save (did I count these stats well?). With that kit he almost single-handedly dealt with the longbeards, survived multiple bolt thrower shots as well as the organ gun cannonade which literally obliterated the IC knights he was in.
My opponent was also really unlucky with the dice, as a perfectly aimed catapult shot scattered, even with the reroll provided by runes. We wanted to find out what if he had a second reroll, but it also scattered. My opponent then said "Sigmar willed it!" ;) I also like GotE as the leader against Dwarfs as I can equip my CC state troops with that fancy banner that makes them immune to panic - quite useful against Dwarven shooting.
-
See, I've lost count of the times knight armies have chewed the crap out of my balanced Dwarf army, sure I have got lucky in the past and blown great chunks of them away with an organ gun, but thunderers get two shots tops before they die to knightly slaughter.
Warriors are a speedbump at best and their are only so many elite units that balanced list can take
Bretonians are even worse with their poxy ward save for an entire army.
It might be said that if you charge headlong onto a dwarven line, you get what you deserve...would you expect a different outcome from an empire gunline?
-
What is your balanced list? If it lacks 2+ BT's, a pair of organ guns, and at least 2 shooter units of small arms, it isn't really going to be all that balanced.
A unit of thunderers will eat most units. Deployed in refused flank, what knight unit is really going to make it through? Two BS4 BT's will get at least 2 knights killed and the organ gun will chew through at least 2 before impact. Every dwarf infantry block should have a thane at least, meaning they will have the dandy ASF and S6 with at least 3 attacks.
Not much getting through that.
Phil
-
why a pair of organ guns?
Isnt that the creamiest of cheese?
-
Simple, they are easily the best rare choice dwarfs have.
-
Gyrocopters are preferable to me. Mine has killed a unit of greatswords and god knows how many spearmen by itself.
Mogsam
-
I love Gyrocoptors.
http://www.asrai.org/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=12813
Not when I'm playing against one though. Probably my friend's most annoying Dwarf list is the dual Gyro one. The damn things go through Wood Elves like a hot knife through butter!
-
why a pair of organ guns?
They are cheap and efficient.
Isnt that the creamiest of cheese?
What, seriously? Within the dwarf list I guess potentially, but they are far from oerpowered and really just help fill a need.
Plus, we aren't talkin cheesy, we are talking about balanced lists that crush knights.
Phil
-
Organ guns wonīt help you though if the enemy reaches your gunline the gyro on the other hand can keep about every unit in the game busy for two turns even blood knights of the regenerating missle ward shield.....I think dwarves seldon win high as they rely on shooting and shooting as nice as it is still doesnīt win the battle. The close combat reaps great point values.
-
Gyros have never done much to or for me.
Phil
-
The problem is that you need so much shooting, it turns into a semi-gunline. I would hate my mate if he placed two stupid Organ guns with his dwarves!
Stupid autohitting stuff, when our Helblaster have to use the BS value to hit.
Having a hero with each and every infantry unit also shows the problem with WHFB, namely that infantry is useless unless you attach a hero, that might have been of better use elsewhere. Now, dwarves only have infantry, so they get away a bit easier, but still... I hate that trend. Cav can do well without heroes, but infantry needs the hero-crutch to be of any use.
And if something needs a crutch to be used, it should really be classified as useless and not fielded. Sad but true...
-
Than you donīt play close combat dwarves that rely on them direly....or you play against empire often and your gyro is shot down by a volley of the nuln great cannon corps.
Other than that they are the "BEST" light cav in the game as they can always move 20 " have the highest base ld of all light cav units in the game and also have the highest toughness of all light cav units in the game.
-
Gyrocopters are brilliant, I rarely leave the hold without one whereas organ guns and flame cannon are interchangable
Nothing like doing a single wound to your enemy block then watching him run in fear...
-
Gyrocopters are not very good. Organ guns are gun-tastic, and laugh at the feeble helblaster.
-
Gyrocopters are brilliant
Then take one and an organ gun. It still doesn't change the fact that a decent Dwarf player will crush cavalry.
Phil
-
As an enemy of dwarves I had the opposite experience, the dwarves crushed my infantry with easy but my knight armies went quite well against them as it is better to be in close combat with a couple of units fast against gunline dwarves.
-
My knight army crushes nearly every dwarf foe it meets (been a while).
but then it's probably due to my 3 cannons and 2 stanks...
-
And there again jump in the 4 bolt throwers....and a gyro also can keep a stank busy at least for one turn but that sucker also escaped my knights even as he was only 1 inch away 3d6 flight distance CAN end up 18 inch.
-
Most dwarf armies I face have 2 organ guns, 4 BT's, an engineer on a cannon, 20 crossbowmen, and the rest are a unit of longbeards, a unit of hammerers, and warriors.
Pretty tough for an army to grind that with cavalry.
Phil
-
That is one hell of a gunline to phase, Philly. Or shall I say artillery line. No amount of infantry can make up for that.
Sad that you face such cheesy gits.
-
What do people think of this 2250 point list? I'm thinking of writing a list then just painting the entire lot. The way I paint armies will result in never finishing if I don't paint certain units specifically. Then taking it to any tournaments or such I might ever play in. It's not supposed to be very cheesey but it'd be nice if it was reasonably competant.
Characters:
Dwarf Lord: Great Weapon, Shieldbearers, Gromril, Rune of Stone. 181
He has 93 points left over to rune himself up.
Thane: Hand Weapon, Battle Standard, Gromril, 1+ Save, 1x Re-Roll Save. 140
Plan is for him not to die. Goes in the Ironbreakers.
Dragon Slayer: Slayer Axes 50
I sliced the crap out of my hand converting the bastard. I'm going to use him.
Runesmith: Hand Weapon. Gromril. Shield. 72
+1 Dispel Dice.
Core:
25 Warriors: Hand Weapon. Shield. Heavy Armour. Command. 225
25 Longbeards: Hand Weapon. Shield. Heavy Armour. Command. 300
15 Warriors: Hand Weapon. Shield. Heavy Armour. 120
10 Thunderers: Guns. Shields. 150
10 Quarellers: Crossbows. Shields. 120
2 Big blocks and a smaller flank guarding block. The shooters could get involved if I get desperate with their shields.
Special:
20 Ironbreakers. Hand Weapon. Shield. Gromril Armour. Command. Rune of Courage 320
No fear or terror. Should stay around. Hammerers are usually standard but I'm quite taken with Ironbreakers.
2 X Bolt Throwers. Enginners 120
10 Miners. Picks. 110
I don't know why I like Miners but I do.
Grudge Thrower. Rune of Re-Roll Scatter. 105
I prefer rock throwers to cannons. Everytime I take a cannon it kills perhaps 2 knights. I figure the bolt throwers are supposed to do that. There's something satisfying about dropping large rocks onto tiny creatures.
Rare:
Gyrocopter: Buzzzzzzz. 140
ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
-
it is a nice and basic list. I wouldn't add anything to your lord yet, unless you have some points leftover in the end.
RoStone and 1 or 2 spellbreakers should go to your Runesmith.
A RoCleaving might go to your BSB for some extra punch.
I love the slayer, just make sure he doesn't meet a to quick death to missiles :wink:
Core is fine, but i think I would have added a magic standard to the Longbeards (RoStoicism or battle, or even courage with another cheap rune)
Special looks goo as well, though I would have added at least RoPenetrating to one of the BTs. Brace of pistols for the engineers could be a good idea if you have the points
Cheers
Dunrik
-
Most dwarf armies I face have 2 organ guns, 4 BT's, an engineer on a cannon, 20 crossbowmen, and the rest are a unit of longbeards, a unit of hammerers, and warriors.
Pretty tough for an army to grind that with cavalry.
Phil
Quite average dwarven list, still I would prefer to face it with knights instead of infantry sluggers. Usual empire knight lists also have great cannons to go with them. I would try to get rid of the organ guns ASAP and to reach the line in turn 2 with at least three better four elements. There will be one Master rune of challenging the other 2-3 elements will charge crossbows or even better war machines, those have to accept the charges as dwarven crew never may run. If I have no rubber lances with me I usually kill the crew (hatred priest helps a lot) and I can often even wheel charge into the flank of an infantry block or another war machine. If I know I am going against dwarves three great cannons and dual helstorms will show them what real artillery is worth.
-
What, as in all knights? What will that do? The BT's will shoot anything that gets its flank around, and everything is tucked in behind blocks. There is only one Empire knight unit that can really dig through a block of dwarves, and then only if it is whole on arrival.
I found outshooting them worked well.
Phil
-
Maybe that is where the shoe hurts, Philly. That the only thing that works is outshooting the enemy, something I donīt think is that fun in the long run.
-
Well thats the irony. When myself and Willx play his knights are the only thing that can reliably beat me in one round. They roll through a unit and try to go off the board. My units are stronger and better but I can't compete with that one combat resolutioned unit. Although it certainly suggests good things for hammerers. I'm allways tempted by hammerers and the banner of you litterally can't break for a turn. (1 d6 dice break test)
Mogsam
-
What also works nice enough is the rune of challenge on your king so those knights go where you want them to go (except the Grand Master lead unit that is for that one you need the gyrocopter to send them on a fools crusade in the woods and open them for nice flank shots with your bolt throwers).
-
God that rune of challenge is pure hate when it is tucked in a unit of hammerers...
Lord Karnik used that on my griffin riding elector once.
Phil
-
It is also nice to get rid of HE Dragons, come and charge into your doom or flee the battle! :biggriin:
I still think it is fair for dwarfs as the Sirensong for demons is same price and you can have as many as you have hero choices.