Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think the fluff on Dwarfs is great. I also think, the army list does not do the fluff justice.

Slayers should not be rank and file. They are loners. Make them a small skirmish unit.

Any race that is as compulsive in their engineering as dwarfs should have a few neat gizmos. Dwarfs invented gunpowder, have helicopters and trains, and enjoy large guilds dedicated to pursuing feats of engineering. But only the empire can make a tank? And no dwarf would think to make a Gatling gun after fighting off skaven (because rats can invent better than dwarfs?) Give them something mobile with punch.

The only difference in a dwarf cannon and an Empire cannon is dwarfs refuse to make larger cannons? Or sometimes dwarfs have "Magic" cannons. I like the idea of runes, but why are they limited? Give dwarfs better accuracy with war machines (as opposed to a "free round to dig in").

Any other ideas?

So, let me get this straight: You don't think the Dwarfs live up to their strengths? You don't think they do a good enough job at the things they already do well at? Is that it?

There's a reason Dwarfs don't have skirmishers or portable gatling guns: game balance. Do you really want to see an unbreakable unit of psychos who can charge in any direction?

You don't think they already have 'better accuracy' with two different grades of engineer and the option to add runes?

Do you really think that an army that's all LD9 or better and fights with little worse than a 4+ armor save and T4 really needs a tank?

The game mechanics are good, but not the best representation of the fluff. You are right that the engineer accuracy bit was off. I am just frustrated that many things in the dwarf list do not make sense. Dwarfs had a problem being so slow. To fix that, they created a banner and made the anvil move units. This seems too 'magic' to me. I would rather the movement problem was solved with tech than magic.

dwarfs are fine as they are, they are one of the best armies out there IMO. the WORST of them still have WS4, T4, LD9 and all of them bar slayers have armour.

theres nothing wrong with our artillery, yes they invented it but the differance between ours and empire related to real life terms is the size of the gun. the empire gun is bigger, can fire bigger balls for longer distances ergo more damage, the dwarf one is smaller and therefore does less damage...
they also have access to engineers and runes which if kitted out properly makes them very rarely missfire and blow up aswell as adding extra crew, oh and all warmachine crew are stubborn at LD9.

dwarfs with extra movement arnt dwarfs, leave them at M3, why should every army be the same. its never caused me problems, if i want to move quickly well its generally tough i cant (i dont like anvils, miners etc) its the nature of the army.

did i mention we also proberly have the best magic items system in the game where you can tailor make every item you want?

slayers are fine as they are, i quite like having a block of unbreakable loonies with a full rank bonus and outnumbering. a skirmishing unit really wouldnt be that good, ok they can charge in any direction but really fat lot of good it'll do with M3 and without any rank bonus they are unlikely to win against bigger units at all. i see your point about them being loners and undisicplined but i think it would make the unit worse in the end.

I know it would make slayer worse as a unit, but they should not really be a unit based on fluff. I always make the argument of what slayer was hauling around a tuba "just in case"?

The dwarf list is indeed powerful. That is not my complaint. You are right in everything you said about that. I just would like rules closer to fluff.

Step One. Tear up Pete Haines version, and destroy all known copies.

Step Two. Make their handguns just like Empire ones. No silly +1 To Hit.

Step Three. Remove the relentless rule. All this does is make Stunties unfairly manouverable when the enemy are close. I get march blocked to 4", he gets 6". An apparent weakness now becomes a definite strength.

Step Four. I know this is going to annoy a lot of Stunty players, but remove the option for Great Weapons from Quarrelers. In my experience, this simply encourages Gunlines, as you can swap from shooting the enemy to hacking them up with good efficiency.

Step 5. Low the allowance for Runes. Clearly, having custom Magic Items isn't enough, so lets just make sure you can do it properly eh?

Step 6. Make Heavy Armour an upgrade on the Warriors.

The above steps are an attempt to avoid the Dwarven Army of Numbing Inevitability I all too often meet. A Gunlines weakness is meant to be that once (if) combat begins, you are largely stuffed. But not with Stunties. Oh no. You spend 3 turns legging it across the board, and promptly crash head first into a brick wall. Not my idea of fun!

Essentially, I want them to have a recognisable weakness, something the pretty much lack at the moment, beyond being pricey troops.

I actually think that thunderers should be allowed to have great weapons. I mean, what dwarf isn't going to take a great weapon to battle. Give Iron breakers the option to. now you can either have a 2+armour save in HTH, or a 4+ with +2 str.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Slayers should not be rank and file. They are loners. Make them a small skirmish unit.

That's what dragon and daemon slayers are for, the others want to die together

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Any race that is as compulsive in their engineering as dwarfs should have a few neat gizmos. Dwarfs invented gunpowder, have helicopters and trains, and enjoy large guilds dedicated to pursuing feats of engineering. But only the empire can make a tank?

Tanks don't run on gunpowder

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:And no dwarf would think to make a Gatling gun after fighting off skaven (because rats can invent better than dwarfs?) Give them something mobile with punch.

Organ Guns are somewhat similar to Ratling guns, besides, actually making a gatling gun would mean that the stunties are copying off the ratmen, which is just wrong

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:The only difference in a dwarf cannon and an Empire cannon is dwarfs refuse to make larger cannons? Or sometimes dwarfs have "Magic" cannons. I like the idea of runes, but why are they limited? Give dwarfs better accuracy with war machines (as opposed to a "free round to dig in").

Dwarfs would find it especially difficult to run an empire sized cannon, because after you have loaded the cannon, it is practically a cross country run to get to the end to ram in the powder, if you're a dwarf. Plus, Dwarf cannons have to be used in tunnel battles commonly as well

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Any other ideas?

yes, some kind of mortar or mining automaton would be fun or maybe a mix of the two.

[quote=P4NC4K3
Tanks don't run on gunpowder

Well, if you really want to look at it from a fluff perspective, perhaps the Dwarves have more pride dying by the Sword (Or axe, or mining pick, or what have you) than using their technology for war. I'm sure that would make them feel quite a bit weaker.

But as for completely unbalancing the game for the sake of fluff, look at it this way. It's a whole lot easier to justify inconsistencies in fluff than it is to justify an army that is nigh unstoppable.

Actually, Chrysaor brings up a good point: A lot of Dwarves don't trust the Engineers. Sure, they have their uses, but the entire race is so steeped in tradition (and living in the past) that bringing all those new-fangled 'machines' to a battle would just go against everything they hold dear.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Neither does the gyrocopter.

the prototype one did

To Mad Dok.
Yes, Dwarves are almost unbeatable when taken head on. Only a fool takes them Head on.

and that is why you take an oathstone in your biggest badest unit and make it impossible to flank.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:To Mad Dok.
Yes, Dwarves are almost unbeatable when taken head on. Only a fool takes them Head on.

A ranked up unit, I quite agree.

But when your army is being blasted to kingdom come by Cannons, Bolt Thrower, Grudge Throwers, Handguns and Crossbows, you need to cross that ground as quickly as possible, and frankly, fannying around trying to get a flank charge off is just leaving yet more time for the Stunties to annihilate your force.

Sure, this isn't so much a problem with the Dwarf list so much as the players (Gunlines are very boring) but then, the list does encourage it somewhat, what with engineering runs, +1 to hit for Handguns etc.

Nyuknyucknyucknyuck...

However, look at the dwarf army list. They have no economic fast troops. The Gyrocopter weighs in at 140 points, and its stats are only worth (tops) 1/2 that. For 140 points, however, I can get a cannon with R. of Forgeing and Engineer, for a 1 in a couple 100 odds of blowing up. The gun line is the only viable way for dwarves to match most foes.
If you need help, try cavalry. A good block of Knightsin the flank is quite immpressive. When fighting oathstones, charge them with expenible units to lock them in place, then just chew up the rest.

Absolute twaddle. So your base WS4, T4, 3+ Save in HTH Stunty is worthless is he? Utter pish I'm afraid.

Dwarves can make a formidable infantry force, an unbending line of regiments ready to take the enemy head on.

Cavalry against Dwarves is indeed one option, until the Knights get blasted from the saddle as the first order the day!. Oathstones are not a problem, because as you said it can lock a substantial amount of point out the game nicely, though I tend to bung a Dragon into them to ensure that stone gets dropped.

The Stunty book can do so much more than Gunline, but Pete 'Can you tell I play them' Haines decided to reward Gunlines, despite the addition of various tasty runes and that (Thorek or Anvil striking the Marchy Rune, Strollaz etc) making an infantry force even more viable.

Errr... thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Dwarves do not have anything fast, so they are super easy to outmanouver. An easy way to beat Dwarves is this:
1) throw a cheap unit at alyone who has oathstones. You can easily take 300+ points out of the game. Skinks, Terradons, Pistoleers, Wolf riders, etc.
2) start running a fast unit through the gun lines flank. At the same time, move up the rest of the army. the Dwarves will be dealing with a pottential loss of several hundred points, for relatively few of yours.
3) Once the gun line is sacked, slam your main army into the front, and the fast unit into the rear. With the oathstone and guns decomisioning about 1/2 your foes army for maybe 1/4 of yours, you should have an easy time.
Dwarves are powerful, but have clearly defined weaknesses. The only 2 ways to beat them are:
1: Play a powercheese list (Such as Etherials) or
2: Match your strength to their weakness.
A note on the anvil: its 315 points bare, only has 5 wounds, is prone to explosions, Takes a lord and a hero slot, and only has a 50% chance of working to full effect.

Dwarfs do need fixed. Their MR is terrible, their unit list is a mess, and some of those don't even work correctly.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Step One. Tear up Pete Haines version, and destroy all known copies.
OK A Little harsh

Step Two. Make their handguns just like Empire ones. No silly +1 To Hit.
This is OK also


Step Three. Remove the relentless rule. All this does is make Stunties unfairly manouverable when the enemy are close. I get march blocked to 4", he gets 6". An apparent weakness now becomes a definite strength.

This is the silliest thing I have read in a while. You complain about gun line armies, but you take this away and all you will ever see are gun line armies.

Step Four. I know this is going to annoy a lot of Stunty players, but remove the option for Great Weapons from Quarrelers. In my experience, this simply encourages Gunlines, as you can swap from shooting the enemy to hacking them up with good efficiency.

There are a fluff reason for this. Bugman's rangers, Personal All Dwarf Units Should get them

Step 5. Low the allowance for Runes. Clearly, having custom Magic Items isn't enough, so lets just make sure you can do it properly eh?

OK another silly proposal, You do realize this is the only magic we get right?

Step 6. Make Heavy Armour an upgrade on the Warriors.

We have Hammerers, Iron Breakers & Miners I think that is more then enough.

The above steps are an attempt to avoid the Dwarven Army of Numbing Inevitability I all too often meet. A Gunlines weakness is meant to be that once (if) combat begins, you are largely stuffed. But not with Stunties. Oh no. You spend 3 turns legging it across the board, and promptly crash head first into a brick wall. Not my idea of fun!

Even Dwarf Players hate it but the Thorek / Gun Line is what we got, outside of some exotic builds.

Essentially, I want them to have a recognizable weakness, something the pretty much lack at the moment, beyond being pricey troops.

How About:

Movement 3"
March 6"
Pursuit of 2d6-1
No Skirmishers
No Cavalry

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Absolute twaddle. So your base WS4, T4, 3+ Save in HTH Stunty is worthless is he? Utter pish I'm afraid.

Dwarves can make a formidable infantry force, an unbending line of regiments ready to take the enemy head on.

Cavalry against Dwarves is indeed one option, until the Knights get blasted from the saddle as the first order the day!. Oathstones are not a problem, because as you said it can lock a substantial amount of point out the game nicely, though I tend to bung a Dragon into them to ensure that stone gets dropped.

The Stunty book can do so much more than Gunline, but Pete 'Can you tell I play them' Haines decided to reward Gunlines, despite the addition of various tasty runes and that (Thorek or Anvil striking the Marchy Rune, Strollaz etc) making an infantry force even more viable.

You do realize that the moment a dwarf player places on Anvil on the table we get tarred with the "OMH CHEESE WAAC".

I run a Infantry based Dwarf Army with no Anvil and only 20 crossbowmen, 2 bolt throwers, and an organ gun with no anvil and I get accused of running a gunline. I can't win for losing.

And it's all to do with Pete Haines' apparent inability to write a decent book.

The Anvil is a quandry and a half. Make it magical, and with nothing else to worry about dispelling, it becomes next to useless as soon as a couple of Mages are present in the enemy army, which is almost guaranteed if you want to use Magic against Dwarves effectively. BUT, the current way it is used, with little risk and no way to stop it's effects, and it swings the other way entirely. Where the solution lies, I don't really know. Although I find the effects highly irritating, used in a non-gunline list it's really not that bad.

And so we come to Pete Haines' incompetence. Considering how the Dwarf list works, a Gunline is a natural choice. The Anvil compliments it, Engineer upgrades make artillery markedly better for little outlay, Handguns are stupidly accurate for no real reason, and Quarrelers can offer the best of both worlds, albeit at a price. For once, the problem genuinely lies with the list than the players.

And because of this, I find my games against most Dwarven Generals (though not the majority of games V stunties note) very tedious indeed, almost highly predictable. They simply have too many strengths compared to alleged weaknesses. Sure, you have no Skirmishers, which means your Artillery can have a hard time. Sure, you have no Cavalry to choose. But considering the upside, this is no seriously exploitable weakness. Bothered by Skirmishers? The Ubiquitous Organ Gun well mash them up. Cavalry? Meh. High Toughness, Heavily armoued troops chew them and spit them out thanks to not being especially expensive.

I just feel the book as is offers too much temptation to play like a knobend, tailoring not just the list, but the Runic weapons to your foe, whilst turtling up completely reducing your opponents game and tactics to a mad rush across the board into the teeth of your fire.

It's a shame, because Dwarves have truly excellent combat infantry, but compared to their ranged cousins, they hardly get a look in. So the solution seems (to me at least) relatively simple. Tone down the ranged stuff. Make Rangers an upgrade to Warriors rather than Quarrelers. Stop Quarrelers from being jack of all trades, remove the +1 to hit for Handguns, and do something about the Engineers. Either just them as a unit champion for the Artillery, allowing it to better survive Skirmishers (fair enough in my book) or remove them altogther. They are a relatively recent innovation after all, so not that big a loss to the Dwarf player.

This way, I feel, the Dwarven general has more options opened up to him. Rather than making the Combat Blocks more attractive (they are quite hard enough thank you!) it's about making the ranged troops slightly less attractive. In theory (and only in theory) this will help promote entirely combat infantry forces, and a more mixed arms approach.

Combat Dwarves die.
Simple as.
The gunline is pretty much the only way to run Dwarves effectively. Which is why I shelved my dwarves 3 years ago despite absolutely loving thier background. I wanted to play ubertraditionalist tunnel fighting dwarves: No handguns, no cannons, mostly melee warriors and iron breakers with some quarreller back up. I had one flame cannon, because I liked the idea of a flame cannon underground, coating the walls and cieling with burning oil. I figured the youngest brother of my general was a bit of an oddball engineer. I also had a unit of miners, because those old metals were gorgeous and they suited my theme. I lost every single game I played with them, usually without even putting up much of a fight. LD9 T4 means naught against lances, charging Big Uns or fecky little elf bastards that dance around you shooting you to death before slice'n'dicing what's left with an ubercharacter. Even with relentless, only a complete fool lets you get the charge.
As it stands, dwarves have one decent build and it is dull dull dull.

I still that is a fault of the book which can be rectified.

You now have Strollaz Rune, to help boost yourself up the board. The Anvil can back up an Infantry force nicely, either slowing down the enemy or moving your guys on.

But as you say, there is just too much temptation, and indeed incentive, to just Gunline your way through things.

I'm tempted to try an all Infantry stunty force, but I just don't like the race enough to bother sadly. Never really have.

One thing I would like to see in armies like dwarves and Empire is a built in reward for non gunline builds. For example, a traditionalist dwarf general would emphasize training and drills over reliance on machines. Yet the rules give absolutely no incentive to do so- quite the opposite. Blackpowder weapons are entirely too effective and reliable compared to other missile weapons. They should never be +1 to hit (crude unrifled arquebusses make a loud bang and lots of smoke, but don't tend to hit much!) and the Empire handguns should probably require a round to reload- remember these aren't even musket level guns (this would emphasize the superior training and arms of the dwarves and make other ranged options more viable). Indeed, I would guess Dwarven marksmen would favor the reliable crossbow and if any weapon gets +1 hit, it should be that!

Likewise, there should be more compelling options competing with war machines. Like rare cavalry for dwarves (bear riders sounds fun!). Perhaps restrict lists by the general type (so a warrior general makes an otherwise Rare elite infantry Special or can take a Special as a Core, but Handgunner become Special etc. while an engineer general makes the WMs Special, Handguns Core, etc.). This way, players have to consider the costs of focusing on one area.

Noooo! No Cavalry, please!

Perhaps a superhard unit of infantry, sure, but no Cav.

And make Rangers Skirmish. No harm in that, and adds options.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Perhaps a superhard unit of infantry, sure, but no Cav.

I'm pretty sure you could give Dwarves the hardest infantry unit imaginable and it still wouldn't make one iota of difference. Their army list (and indeed the entire concept of close combat troops with 3" movement) is just fundamentally flawed. I think giving them an extra inch of movement would be by far the least painful option in the long run, precedent be damned.

Even M4 heavy infantry are pretty well useless in most situations.

If Dwarfs are to have a viable non-gunline build they need to have something to give them at least passable speed.

This leaves several possibilities:

1) Monster-mount cavalry. Jmurph mentioned bear riders. I like that idea. A big 2 wound, M6 model with a good armor save (because armored bears are oft neglected sources of win), and maybe 3 S5 attacks. Probably keep him at T4. Could treat the rider and mount as separate for purposes of targeting, but that seems overly complicated.

2) Some kind war-wagon apparatus. This used to be an empire creation, but I think it could reclaimed for the shorter good. I'm thinking an M6 chariot (pushed by Rams?) with immunity to the S7 insta-death rule.

3) Bring back doomseekers in powered down role.

4) More movement based bound spells, and some form of similar crowd control magical trickery.

People Please. If you use the strollaz rune, march, and then use the rune of oath and honour with ancient power you can get between one and three units 18" across the board. that's pretty dang good in my opinion

The problem is that the ability to do so is tied to the anvil. Which I think is what people want to get away from.