Not to mini-mod here or anything, but can we please move off whether dwarves are or are not boring to play against or too shooting orientated or mono-build or never seen in tournaments yaddah yaddah yaddah...

It's a subject that's been discussed almost to death - and by all means start another thread - and I for one genuinely want to discuss the upcoming dwarf release and what it may mean for the faction.

What direction do you think they'll take the Slayers in? The new Dragon Slayer model - which is one point of discussion, why is it not a Daemon Slayer - is very dynamic and quite un-dwarfy, even for a Slayer. Interesting, if you ask me.

I didn't ever want to see slayer blocks. I like the idea of one man slayers to take on any odd (like the first round of combat the slayer gets a +1 save because he ignores al types of wounds) or something equally ridiculous that makes them the actual... you know... SLAYER

Re: castling... There's a few dwarf players locally who love the trend of 1500-1800pt tournaments that we have going lately, because they feel like they can bring non-shooty lists and actually have fun and be competitive.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
Look. It is fine if he believes playing against Dwarfs or playing Dwarfs is not interesting, tedious, predictable, whatever. But making the claim that the majority of the people that play dwarfs or against them feel that way is ridiculous. The forums here and everywhere else are a very small percentage of the population of people that play these games. And out of all of the people that come on to these forums, even a smaller portion of those ever bother to even post anything.

I can speak for the majority of the ENTIRE UK TOURNAMENT SCENE, when I say that Dwarves are not fun to play.

Wow, that's a pretty bold statement. Care to back it up with concrete proof that you speak for the majority? Also, as others have said, who cares about tournament scenes. Tournaments do not make up the majority of Warhammer players. GW has even said this. They make their money off of the guy playing in his basement with his mates, not the tournament crowd. The tournament crowd only buys what they think is most powerful and skip everything else. GW would never make much money if they only sold to the tournament crowd.

Also, think about WHY you think they are boring. could it be because everybody brings the exact same list to every tournament in your area? I do admit that it would get boring to play against the exact same list every time you played but that is not the case for all dwarf players everywhere. I've seen quite a few players in quite a few stores that have ditched the castling up dwarfs and gone for more themed lists with slayers or miners or the Dwarf Ambush lists. I've seen lists with 3 gyrocopters and bolt throwers and no cannons. I've seen Ironbreaker heavy lists and rangers. I've seen strollaz lists with dwarfs moving more quick than you think they should. I've seen them in all kinds of ways. None of that has been boring as it is exciting to see what kind of tricks the Dwarfs try to pull off.

When you take out the tournament mentality of playing Warhammer, the enjoyment level for a lot of the people I have talked with has gone up when playing or playing against Dwarfs. Because the Dwarfs don't have to rely on just the gunline. It opens up whole new possibilities with playing them.

You guys have to remember, the tournament scene does not own warhammer. They do not get to say what is fun and what isn't fun. They have no authority over anyone but the people who go to the tournaments. So maybe dwarfs are boring for you guys because you only see one list. But for those of us who don't always see just the gunline, they are fun.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirsanth wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
making the claim that the majority of the people that play dwarfs or against them feel that way is ridiculous.

As ridiculous as stating otherwise, no?

No, because I make no claim to know what everyone thinks. I make no claim saying that everybody thinks they are boring to play or play against.

I didn't make the claim that everyone thinks they are boring, nor did I make the claim that everyone thinks they are fun. I did say the tournament scene thinks they are boring because all they ever see is a gunline castle army. But others see much more. so it would be valid to say some people think they are boring and some don't, which is all I have ever said about it when you read back through my posts.

I can back that up by seeing most competitive UK players say that they hate dwarves. It's a pretty common opinion over here that you should only play dwarves once per event. As for the money making, in the UK at least, the competitive scene outweighs the fluff scene. As demonstrated by the amount and the size of the tournaments here. ((SCGT being almost 200 players last year.))

As for your points about tournament lists being the same, that is true. But as someone who played dwarves regularly for a period of 8 months outside of tournaments in my local club. I'm saying now. The book is stale, rigid and deeply flawed. You say dwarves have choice. They can choose between hitty troop A, and hitty troop B. Troop B can shoot you. There you have your choice. So I say again. The variety in the dwarf book is lacking at best. This results in the majority of dwarf lists being the one list that works.

And yes. The tournament scene doesn't say what is and isn't fun. Players do. And I've not encountered a single player in my entire experience playing warhammer (Since '07) who has said they enjoy playing dwarves.

Honestly in my opinion from what I have seen most people hate playing Dwarfs as they are forced to change there game-plan in order to fight them, as the Dwarfs in general are an army that gets people frustrated to play against. That seems to be the main reason in my opinion, as with the Dwarfs strong shooting phase and there ability to negate the magic phase, opponents struggle against them and that Dwarfs in Tournaments especially have the ability to make an opponent change everything in order to fight them, as most people have a tendency to go Magic Heavy or have to get into CC to have a chance to win, both which favors the Dwarfs in most games. Plus, with a hight toughness and good army save across the board, they can be extremely tough to fight against, which is why so many people hate fighting them. Personally I like that kind of Army, and I am excited that the Dwarfs are finally getting a new book so I bring back the good old days of making people frustrated .

If only Slayers could skirmish.

 Rommel44 wrote:

Honestly in my opinion from what I have seen most people hate playing Dwarfs as they are forced to change there game-plan in order to fight them, as the Dwarfs in general are an army that gets people frustrated to play against.

Wayyyy off the mark. In 40k Tau aren't fun to play against because you are not allowed to actually play while facing them. The first few rounds is just the Tau player shooting and you seeing if you'll have enough people still alive at the end to take him in close combat. It's not fun spending 2 hours moving things around as they dwindle and then in the end finding out that, no. A fourth of an army can't take on a full army. Game is over, I hope you had fun, I didn't. I moved things for 2 hours. No fighting, no nothing.

 Rommel44 wrote:
I bring back the good old days of making people frustrated .

And this is why you think it's fun. Me, I like to play the game WITH my opponent, not in order to try and get under his skin. I like friendly games, you want to destroy the other person's day. To each his own.

Judging from what I've read so far, new Dwarfs will be just like old dwarfs, but with magic, 33% chance of army-wide hatred, +1str on the charge, and way better armour saves.

That's bad news for everyone.

Man I hope we get some nice M buffs , else that +1str on charge won't see much use . Maybe leaping slayers charging like cavalery , although without armor I don't think many would make it in to combat.

 Purifier wrote:

 Rommel44 wrote:

Honestly in my opinion from what I have seen most people hate playing Dwarfs as they are forced to change there game-plan in order to fight them, as the Dwarfs in general are an army that gets people frustrated to play against.

Wayyyy off the mark. In 40k Tau aren't fun to play against because you are not allowed to actually play while facing them. The first few rounds is just the Tau player shooting and you seeing if you'll have enough people still alive at the end to take him in close combat. It's not fun spending 2 hours moving things around as they dwindle and then in the end finding out that, no. A fourth of an army can't take on a full army. Game is over, I hope you had fun, I didn't. I moved things for 2 hours. No fighting, no nothing.

 Rommel44 wrote:
I bring back the good old days of making people frustrated .

And this is why you think it's fun. Me, I like to play the game WITH my opponent, not in order to try and get under his skin. I like friendly games, you want to destroy the other person's day. To each his own.

Hahahhahahahahhahahagagagagagagsgsh.... Cough cough...hahahahahahahahaha... Breathe... Dwarves are like tau.. My god I haven't had a laugh like that for a while.

Ok rudeness aside, your talking nonsense, we neither have even remotely the firepower or the massive range tau have, nor the ability to up our bs etc, so your idea that we could destroy your army enough leave only a few models is tosh pure and simple.

Rommel is correct 10000000000% in my experience and I even said pretty much the same earlier, tourny players don't like dwarfs because we throw a (dwarf) spanner in there cookie cutter waac netlists (yay 3 stereotypes there, prize?), normal players (80% + I'd guess) don't have an issue

Dwarves are an excellent army to screw with tournament game metas.

Relying on magic spamtricks to win? Not this game!

Wait until you see the new CHIBIhawk gyrocopters.

 Formosa wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Rommel44 wrote:

Honestly in my opinion from what I have seen most people hate playing Dwarfs as they are forced to change there game-plan in order to fight them, as the Dwarfs in general are an army that gets people frustrated to play against.

Wayyyy off the mark. In 40k Tau aren't fun to play against because you are not allowed to actually play while facing them. The first few rounds is just the Tau player shooting and you seeing if you'll have enough people still alive at the end to take him in close combat. It's not fun spending 2 hours moving things around as they dwindle and then in the end finding out that, no. A fourth of an army can't take on a full army. Game is over, I hope you had fun, I didn't. I moved things for 2 hours. No fighting, no nothing.

 Rommel44 wrote:
I bring back the good old days of making people frustrated .

And this is why you think it's fun. Me, I like to play the game WITH my opponent, not in order to try and get under his skin. I like friendly games, you want to destroy the other person's day. To each his own.

Hahahhahahahahhahahagagagagagagsgsh.... Cough cough...hahahahahahahahaha... Breathe... Dwarves are like tau.. My god I haven't had a laugh like that for a while.

Ok rudeness aside, your talking nonsense, we neither have even remotely the firepower or the massive range tau have, nor the ability to up our bs etc, so your idea that we could destroy your army enough leave only a few models is tosh pure and simple.

Rommel is correct 10000000000% in my experience and I even said pretty much the same earlier, tourny players don't like dwarfs because we throw a (dwarf) spanner in there cookie cutter waac netlists (yay 3 stereotypes there, prize?), normal players (80% + I'd guess) don't have an issue

I wasn't saying they were. I was giving it as an example. And I know from experience that Tau players have absolutely no idea why people hate Tau until they've tried flipping the table. I have a friend that is a very good player, but he only played Tau and he kept giving us all these reasons I see on the forums as well, where it's all just "well just adapt to it."

Once he started playing a nurgle Chaos Marines army, he saw things he hadn't on why it's not fun. It's not about not being able to adapt or having no chance. It's -just not fun-.

And saying "oh, it's just because we're so different and you're too stupid to adapt to it" is just nonsense.

 scarletsquig wrote:
Dwarves are an excellent army to screw with tournament game metas.

Relying on magic spamtricks to win? Not this game!

I'm sorry. I didn't realise that dwarves didn't spam anything.

Saying just adapt is not nonsense, saying we must play fantasy your way is though, but I do understand that adapting may not be always possible but trying to force dwarfs to adapt is just as bad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like I said before it can be quite devastating having my magic shut down when playing vamps or being shot up playing chaos, but they are weaknesses in those armies for a reason and you can't blame dwarfs for being good at exploiting them, for example if I get put maneuvered by skaven and they roll up my flank, does that make skaven boring to play because there fast?

There's a difference between maneuver, and lol. And I tried to point out that distinction in the beginning.

If you roll all bad, you're going to lose. If you get out-maneuvered, you're going to lose. If you don't have a chance to play, people get upset.

People get upset at mega spells because the enemy boxcars them AND THEY CAN'T STOP IT. A unit is wiped-out to a sizeable degree. They weren't out-maneuvered. The enemy said lol and threw a million dice. Even if you burnt one scroll, they do it next round.

If every army had an anti-anti-magic, where they could, I don't know, buy a 100pt item and make it so Dwarfs can't dispel anything ever in the game, Dwarf players would hate it too. Because they would be stopped from their game. Not via skill. Or even luck.

Another example, there's a million threads on cannons being OP. One big reason is because you simply can't take monsters or mounted heroes. They have no chance. The game people want to play is simply impossible because of the mere existence of those weapons.

Ah now if we are talking cannons then we have an accord! Cannons are bloody op and dwarfs are the best by a country mile, I hate that I can't take alot of monsters through fear of the empire gunline or the dwarf cannon, now that being said 1 cannon a gunline doesn't make, as I and others have said your issue is NOT with dwarfs it's with tournys and there players forcing you to take a step back and go "this sucks I can't do crap" I'd love to play several people on here and show them the other dwarf lists, I used to deal with teclis lists by having scout rangers with a dwarf Lord and the rune of challenge, a standard close to them to them to strollaz up and 1st turn I would move up to the nose of teclis and his unit 30 axes come at them, next turn I go master rune of challenge and good old teclis has an issue, charge me and die, or flee off the board, how is that boring?.... Stupid teclis

No one cares you came up with a list that 99% of Dwarf players don't use. Get over it that people aren't using the Formosa List. It's not happening. Nowhere in the world is it the most common list for Dwarfs. I'm not sure how this is difficult for you to understand.

Somewhere in the world all the players might stand on their heads and march their units backwards into combat. But, it's enough people to ever make a meta or to be debated by on a forum.

You just said Dwarfs are best at cannons and cannons are OP. So do you think Dwarf players are going to be marching backwards, using mass rangers, or using the most OP unit that they are best at? It's pretty simple.

No Duke its not, lets throw your logic back at you, whats the minority? answer Tourny players, whats the majority, players who do not actually post on these forums, now if we go by what you said then it is in fact YOUR list no one cares about, most of the dwarf armies i have seen run 1/2 cannons and a stone thrower, then lots and lots of warriors and longbeards, if we go with the tiny tiny amount of people you represent then yes you get 3 cannons, 3 grudge throwers, 2 organ guns and thunderer core backed by lots of anti magic, so back at you duke, how do you not get no one cares about your tournament, how do you not get it that hardly anyone wants to play 10000000000 guns and quite happily run the aformentioned ambush list or the strollaz list i use and described, hell we havent even touched on the anvil of doom lists yet.

You like I cannot comment on the " most common list for Dwarfs" all we can do is comment on the lists we have seen and here thats not the ultra gunline you think it is, you the tourny gamer mean less than nothing to GW, its me and my mates playing in our little club and not power gaming or attempting to make a tourny out of a mess of a game that they are aiming at.. infact thats not true either, its the little kid that buys whatever looks cool, so by that logic the most common dwarf army is probably some mish mash of units that are all over the place.. but you the hobby police have decided that is "Boring" so who am I to argue with that?

Stop.... feeding.... the trolll.

Go back to talking about whether the Dwarfs are being hyped up before a mod locks this - or bans the troll - either or.

sorry Fidel your right, Back on topic, anyone else loving the new gyrobomber and copter? I also like the new runelord, not as much detail as i would have liked but most definately dwarfy

I too thought the runelord was a little 'basic' in detail. the engineer i quite like the look of. Some of the special rules really look quite interesting as well and the stacking of runes sounds like an awesome idea.
Can't wait for the Army book. sounds like a lot of new options are available to make interesting themed lists.

 Formosa wrote:
You like I cannot comment on the " most common list for Dwarfs" all we can do is comment on the lists we have seen

Are you familiar with games? At all? Anyone who has played a game ever knows you will see armies that are composed of better units when players are given the option. It has happened in every edition of every game that ever existed.

-What was more common in 7th DoC, plaguebearers or Bloodletters?
-What was more common in 7th WoC, Marauders or...anything?
-Doc 7th Flamers or Doc 8th anything except Flamers?
-HE 7th Teclis or generic Lord caster in 8th?
-7th Giants or 8th non-Giants?

There's a ton. Did the meta magically change because people suddenly got bored of sculpts and strategies or was it because they gravitated to the most OP and advantageous set of units? For someone who has been gaming in one form or another for over three decades I can say with 100% certainty it is the latter.

This isn't just game theory, it's basic economics. If people have the option of buying a car that is exactly identical in every way to another car except it gets double the MPG, they are going to choose it. Dwarfen strengths aren't their ability to field so-so infantry. It's their ability to shut down magic and field a battlefield full of war machines. Things that no other army can do as well.

This isn't opinion, that's just the way the game is. Denying it is absurd because the numbers are printed right there.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Dwarves are an excellent army to screw with tournament game metas.

Relying on magic spamtricks to win? Not this game!

I'm sorry. I didn't realise that dwarves didn't spam anything.

That is not what he said . Dwarfs don't spam magic , mostly because they don't have mages and there is one anvil .

Makumba wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Dwarves are an excellent army to screw with tournament game metas.

Relying on magic spamtricks to win? Not this game!

I'm sorry. I didn't realise that dwarves didn't spam anything.

That is not what he said . Dwarfs don't spam magic , mostly because they don't have mages and there is one anvil .

Dwarves spam anti magic, war machines and tough infantry to mop up. When I play VC against dwarves and get all the magic which is integral to my army blocked, not fun. When I play elves/empire, and get my toys templated off, it's not fun. When I play Bret's, and get cannons through my lances, it's not fun. When I play demons and get my 600 odd point model removed on turn 1, it's not fun.
When I play warriors, and get my troops templated, and my prince cannoned, it's not fun.

I think you get the just of it. Dwarves aren't fun.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Dwarves are an excellent army to screw with tournament game metas.

Relying on magic spamtricks to win? Not this game!

I'm sorry. I didn't realise that dwarves didn't spam anything.

That is not what he said . Dwarfs don't spam magic , mostly because they don't have mages and there is one anvil .

Dwarves spam anti magic, war machines and tough infantry to mop up. When I play VC against dwarves and get all the magic which is integral to my army blocked, not fun. When I play elves/empire, and get my toys templated off, it's not fun. When I play Bret's, and get cannons through my lances, it's not fun. When I play demons and get my 600 odd point model removed on turn 1, it's not fun.
When I play warriors, and get my troops templated, and my prince cannoned, it's not fun.

I think you get the just of it. Dwarves aren't fun.

The depressing part is it doesn't necessarily mean you lose the game or even that dwarves are a strong army. It just means that their tricks are not fun. Even if you win the whole game, when someone purple suns one of your biggest units and you lose a fourth of your points to one dice throw, that's not fun. It doesn't matter if you're managing to do the same to him or if you're managing to wring a win out of what you have left, that spell isn't fun if you have no chance at all of countering it. The same goes for dwarves. They have things that just kill, and all you can do is stand there and watch it. Yeah, you can still win the game, but I set up to play against someone, not to simply roll off a bunch of dice, which is what it sometimes feels like.

Right. Unfun strategies are still unfun whether you win or lose.

That's where TFG can come in. He usually has unfun strategies that win. But at the core of it, it's unfun. TFG wasn't invented because a guy was making games super enjoyable.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
You like I cannot comment on the " most common list for Dwarfs" all we can do is comment on the lists we have seen

Are you familiar with games? At all? Anyone who has played a game ever knows you will see armies that are composed of better units when players are given the option. It has happened in every edition of every game that ever existed.

-What was more common in 7th DoC, plaguebearers or Bloodletters?
-What was more common in 7th WoC, Marauders or...anything?
-Doc 7th Flamers or Doc 8th anything except Flamers?
-HE 7th Teclis or generic Lord caster in 8th?
-7th Giants or 8th non-Giants?

There's a ton. Did the meta magically change because people suddenly got bored of sculpts and strategies or was it because they gravitated to the most OP and advantageous set of units? For someone who has been gaming in one form or another for over three decades I can say with 100% certainty it is the latter.

This isn't just game theory, it's basic economics. If people have the option of buying a car that is exactly identical in every way to another car except it gets double the MPG, they are going to choose it. Dwarfen strengths aren't their ability to field so-so infantry. It's their ability to shut down magic and field a battlefield full of war machines. Things that no other army can do as well.

This isn't opinion, that's just the way the game is. Denying it is absurd because the numbers are printed right there.

Your a fool, pure and simple if you think that what you have seen online represents the mass market, all the examples you have given represent the Tournies that no one cares about, keep banging that drum duke no ones listening, so you beat it louder even after i and several others have told you that your tourny view on dwarfs are irrelevent.

Grass roots 40k and fantasy has nearly been ruined by people like you, trying to force others into your views on how the game should be played and what is "fun"


Post 2014/02/06 05:22:49 Subject: New Dwarf Hype
Formosa wrote:
You like I cannot comment on the " most common list for Dwarfs" all we can do is comment on the lists we have seen

Are you familiar with games? At all? Anyone who has played a game ever knows you will see armies that are composed of better units when players are given the option. It has happened in every edition of every game that ever existed.

-What was more common in 7th DoC, plaguebearers or Bloodletters? In your meta, the only one you can actually comment on, dont know, here it was Bears... at tournys, non tourny the most common i had seen at the time was slaanesh
-What was more common in 7th WoC, Marauders or...anything? ONLY 1 person i ever saw used this and guess what... tourny list, of the 6 (including mine) chaos armies he was the only one who spammed marauders, i went mono Tzeench
-Doc 7th Flamers or Doc 8th anything except Flamers? As above in your meta maybe and at tournys, 1 person used a deamons netlist and i crushed him with my dwarfs, netlist doesnt = good player
-HE 7th Teclis or generic Lord caster in 8th? Well here is an odd one, was he not banned over your end too? he was for certain tournys here and as such we saw generic much more often
-7th Giants or 8th non-Giants? this one is easy, non giants, except me i used 2 in my chaos army

So from your condecending list we good a good idea of what kind of player you are, we already knew but its nice to see it confirmed, your a tourny player... yep thats why your bitter, you no doubt took a magic spam or such army and ran into dwarfs and got pissed, boo hoo, all the above examples show me that you should probably either stop playing tourny games for a bit and ..chill out a bit, or stop spewing your anti casual gaming online, im fine with either

No point in reading your posts. You're a troll with no grasp of gaming it seems. You were asked to bring up a poll on it. You said it doesn't matter--when you were proven wrong. What we see doesn't matter--when you were proven wrong. Nothing, apparently matters. In antarctica there are tens of millions of people playing ranger dwarfs. But they don't have internet, or planes, or phones, so none of us know about it. Fine, cool. Go back to 40K, I'm sure it's fun too and totally balanced in your world view.

You're on ignore. So if you respond. It's not to me.

 Purifier wrote:


The depressing part is it doesn't necessarily mean you lose the game or even that dwarves are a strong army. It just means that their tricks are not fun. Even if you win the whole game, when someone purple suns one of your biggest units and you lose a fourth of your points to one dice throw, that's not fun. It doesn't matter if you're managing to do the same to him or if you're managing to wring a win out of what you have left, that spell isn't fun if you have no chance at all of countering it. The same goes for dwarves. They have things that just kill, and all you can do is stand there and watch it. Yeah, you can still win the game, but I set up to play against someone, not to simply roll off a bunch of dice, which is what it sometimes feels like.

I've played against dwarves regularly for 8 months. Various players. I call that period the death of hobby. Every non-dwarf player I know, calls his games against dwarves that too. As do the people who represent the majority of the UK warhammer scene, the competitive players. My experiences with dwarves are generally having 10 or so models left by the end of the third turn. When I played VC, my characters died in the first two turns, often not getting a single spell off. Explain how that's fun. And don't give me the "That's just the list, not the army" bollocks. Every dwarf player ever who knows how to play the game will be taking war machines, because it's a case of bringing a gun to a knife fight.

 Formosa wrote:
In your meta

Seems to apply to much else written there too. . . .

Sounds like people have various opinions on why they love or hate playing the Dwarf's. However, when it comes to Dwarfs they are an army that relies heavily on unit placement at the beginning of the game, as they lack the movement to do little else at the moment. And I can understand why Purifier on his Tau comparison, as Dwarf armies can make the most effective Gunline lists in this edition with the +1 to hit Thunders and the auto-hitting Organ Gun, but like most books, I expect shooting to get a bit toned down for them as the name of the game is CC in this edition. Also Dwarfs have plenty of weaknesses still, it's just in my experience that many people fail to exploit them or in my case, I always try to minimize my weaknesses to the point where they wouldn't effect my army. Right now, Dwarfs have Rune Magic, a Strong anti-Magic Phase, are extremely tough, great Leadership, and effective war-machines and missile troops have good armor saves. That's what makes them a strong army but some of those could change with the new book

But that doesn't mean that Dwarf's have to sit back and do nothing. Many times I have actually marched forward with my Army, which has caught many opponents by surprise, and I loved running fluffy units such as Slayers and other things, but in Tournament play, like everyone else, I will take the list that gives me the best chance for victory.

 kirsanth wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
In your meta

Seems to apply to much else written there too. . . .

Not sure if serious...

My Meta (area of play) is different from his (area of play) as one is UK and the other US, these 2 countries play differently, BTW just checked Wiki just in case you were right and i wasnt useing the term correctly, I was useing it in the right context.


Well Said Rommel, you summed it up quite nicely, just because you can run that tourny list with all guns and what not, doesnt mean you always do, in normal games you like to run whatever you like and enjoy it, that is the point i have been trying to get over to Duke but seem to have failed

The same goes for dwarves. They have things that just kill, and all you can do is stand there and watch it. Yeah, you can still win the game, but I set up to play against someone, not to simply roll off a bunch of dice, which is what it sometimes feels like.

Wait . So it is fun and good for the game for every other army in the game to have magic that "just kills" and sometimes good machines , while an army that doesn't have magic at all and only has machines is unfun to play against ? How do you imagine dwarfs being played without the "just kill"machines ? Try to manuver like armies that move 2/3/4 times as fast ?

Your local players are not a metagame.

They are your local players.

editing to add:
The metagame of WHFB does not change if you move. (Unless you change books, of course.)
Are you meaning something akin to ETC? That would be a different 'meta' than I play - unless I misread.

 kirsanth wrote:
Your local players are not a metagame.

They are your local players.

And form a local META

Adaptation to a specific gaming environment[edit]
Another game-related use of Metagaming refers to operating on knowledge of the current strategic trends within a game. This usage is common in games that have large, organized play systems or tournament circuits and which feature customized decks of cards, sets of miniatures or other playing pieces for each player. Some examples of this kind of environment are tournament scenes for card games like Magic: The Gathering, or tabletop war-gaming such as Warhammer 40,000 or Flames of War.
Such metagaming could include compiling lists of what race or army choices are being used in a specific region or tournament scene, and tailoring your own army to fight the majority units, for example, knowing that Space Marine variant armies are the largest group of potential opponents, and modifying your own army with equipment which counters the strength of that majority force, or preys upon that majority group's weakness. By doing so, the player is metagaming, as they are attempting to improve their chances for victory by using information outside what will actually take place in a match.

Strength of opponents can vary depending on the store, however since I have played at really competitive places, my armies tend to be more of the competitive side of the coin as thats the strength of the store I play at. And I agree, Dwarf's at the moment NEED the machines that just kill, because we are already at a disadvantage with not being able to use Magic whatsoever, so people need to chill on that. It's something I point out to people all of the time, and you have to realize that Warhammer Fantasy is turning into 40k in the sense that there is no One Army Conquers All. Every army has strengths and weaknesses and all it takes is a little planning and studying to exploit your opponents weakness while minimizing yours. For example, the Army I have the hardest time fighting against Currently with my Brets is the Empire, as they are the most Flexible Army in the game, as you never know what they will bring, which makes it had for me to exploit any weaknesses baring there human stat line, where on the other hand, my army is very strong against Ogre Kingdoms, as not only can I outdistance him on charges and am able to ram a number of lance formations into the all fearing bull-horde, I negate the strength of his Gut Charge as I am on Cavalry bases. Basically, its all rock-paper-sissors. Your Army will be strong against a number of opponents, but be weak against others.


That being said and going back on topic, I still believe Dwarfs will be one of the better shooting lists in the game, as they have solid War-Machines and can field a number of Missile Troops such as Thunderers and Quarrelers as Core Choices, however I am not sure how that will change with the new book. At the same time, I can see the Dwarf Hammerers getting a buff, as they where woefully under-performing due to there high point cost and low survivability, and I can see some possible changes in points on various Dwarf Units, which is common in every book.

 Formosa wrote:

 kirsanth wrote:
Your local players are not a metagame.

They are your local players.

And form a local META

I will assume your additional capitals are to differentiate what happens around you to the metagame of WHFB discussed.

Otherwise it is silly.

editing to add:
If I play one person my discusson of WHFB 'metagame' needs to be addressed by you. . .right?
Or I need to preface every single thing I post with the silliness that MY 'META' is all that matters. As does everyone else.
Discussion in that light is . . . funny at best.

Meta means the game as a whole. WoC meta is melee and no ranged.

That said, local meta is whatever sub-universe has been created because of the players available. If half your players are DoC and WE, your local meta is very high magic attacks. I've heard it just referred to as meta, because most of us live locally as opposed to being international men of mystery, global gamers.

I agree Dorfs can't do a lot of dmg outside of war machines. AND their war machines do tons of dmg. I don't think anyone has denied that. We've stated that from the beginning. We're saying it's dull to walk up to a gunline in a game that is primarily melee-based. Especially with pre-measuring certainty. There's not a lot of skill. You're there, we're there. All you're rolling is for misfires. You're not doing a hell of a lot of tricky movement. It becomes a 40K shoot-fest.

Also, on the area of anti-magic, it's not just protecting yourself. E.g., TK core suck. They are meant to be buffed by their magic so they suck less. If they can't get any spells off, they simply suck. Which kind of brings us back to Dwarf war machines and my example earlier. If TK could go, lol, and make ALL your war machines disabled on a 2+, you would not have fun. You would not say it's great TK strategy that caused it either.

Did you guys not read the definition.. like at all?

Ok to answer the first question, i put "META" to emphasize that you were incorrect and it is a meta, just a local one, i also stated local as i have been discussing with duke that he cannont speak for the whole world when only his area or "meta" that he has first hand experiance with.

To dukes point, No meta is this
Adaptation to a specific gaming environment[edit]
Another game-related use of Metagaming refers to operating on knowledge of the current strategic trends within a game. This usage is common in games that have large, organized play systems or tournament circuits and which feature customized decks of cards, sets of miniatures or other playing pieces for each player. Some examples of this kind of environment are tournament scenes for card games like Magic: The Gathering, or tabletop war-gaming such as Warhammer 40,000 or Flames of War.
Such metagaming could include compiling lists of what race or army choices are being used in a specific region or tournament scene, and tailoring your own army to fight the majority units, for example, knowing that Space Marine variant armies are the largest group of potential opponents, and modifying your own army with equipment which counters the strength of that majority force, or preys upon that majority group's weakness. By doing so, the player is metagaming, as they are attempting to improve their chances for victory by using information outside what will actually take place in a match.

To which my statement is covers, just for emphasis

Such metagaming could include compiling lists of what race or army choices are being used in a specific region

So Local, Regional and international Metas do exist, juist because a book is designed a certain way does not mean all the players actually play it that way, so this "Meta means the game as a whole. WoC meta is melee and no ranged."
whilst accurate to a point, is not necessarily true, they are melee because they lack ranged attacks, but remember when people used to spam hellcannons and run them at you..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But i think im done with trying to reason with Duke, he clearly doesnt like dwarfs because of some bias or other.

Kinsarth just seems like he is trolling.

My apologies everyone else on this thread for derailing it, i will step back and let the OP get back on track

 Formosa wrote:

Did you guys not read the definition.. like at all?

Scissors are not better in the 'meta' of RPS because you think no one throws rocks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
Kinsarth just seems like he is trolling.

Spelling.

Details matter.
The personal bit, I leave on you.

True kirsanth one is your name one isn't, I admit I.can't spell, can you admit you can't read? Because your analogy doesn't work at all, by showing the definition I have shown that I Meta in the right context, not that "scissors are better than rocks" or whatever.

Now where your analogy does work, if everyone is going rock in my area of the UK and in another I go to its scissors, then I adjust to paper or rock respectively, I am playing the meta game.

To summarise, I have shown that I used "meta" in context, that local metas do exist thus disproving dukes and your assertions that there is no such thing as a local meta and "not sure if means what you think it means"

If TK could go, lol, and make ALL your war machines disabled on a 2+, you would not have fun

yeah that is what I based tests do to dwarfs and they would be doing it a lot more offten, if it weren't for dwarfs protection.


Anyway . Runes are in . Bombers and Flying steam cannons are in , Uber melee Ironbreakers are in , but I have no idea how anyone expects dwarf players to get them in to melee . Interesting thing slayers no longer have the size limitation they had before , although they still die to range which is sad.

Makumba wrote:

yeah that is what I based tests do to dwarfs and they would be doing it a lot more offten, if it weren't for dwarfs protection.

No, because you can only ever affect 1 unit not an entire multiple phases. And the same OMG init that dwarfs have is shared by Lizardmen, Ogres, Orcs, TK, VC off the top of my head. And they don't have those dwarf benefits to shut it down. If Ogres could trade no magic in the game and give up their slaughtermaster they would in a second, because then it would be just people get pounded by Ogres and ironblasters.

 DukeRustfield wrote:

Makumba wrote:

yeah that is what I based tests do to dwarfs and they would be doing it a lot more offten, if it weren't for dwarfs protection.

No, because you can only ever affect 1 unit not an entire multiple phases. And the same OMG init that dwarfs have is shared by Lizardmen, Ogres, Orcs, TK, VC off the top of my head. And they don't have those dwarf benefits to shut it down. If Ogres could trade no magic in the game and give up their slaughtermaster they would in a second, because then it would be just people get pounded by Ogres and ironblasters.

But there is a big difference here. While that particular spell may only affect one Dwarf unit, Dwarfs are so expensive points wise, and so few model wise that even one unit dying to that spell can and often does mean game over for Dwarfs, no matter which unit it hits.

Compared to Empire, or any other army, that happen to have plenty of other units to help keep the battle flowing, that is a pretty significant blow to a Dwarf army.

When you have ten units or fifteen units and one dies, it really doesn't tend to be a big deal, but if all you have is four or six, that changes things. Now you can't cover flanks, or have enough units left to affect the game. That is the reason Dwarf anti magic has been so powerful over the years. Gw IS fully aware of what damage a spell like that can do to dwarfs.

Wow there is a lot in this thread that's a big waste of space and time getting through.

I like dwarfs cause there tough, hairy alco's who are good at working a forge. I love the rune system and hope it stays. I have never thought its broken since when the current book came out +1S cost the same as +1S magic weapon so no problem there. Always had restrictions involved so no problem having restrictions to try make things fair now either just please GW dont get rid of them.

I hope the rumours of better parry saves are true to make us as tough as we should be. I have no problem with the damage output just that they were sooo not tough enough.

I hope slayers just outright kill all the bigger beasties out there and maybe get a special save against monsters like Vs monstrous creature\cavalry whatever has 4+ ward. Shooting them or sticking them up against a lot of little guys should deal with them but beasties should really fear them.

Unit of copters anyone? Ride of the valkyries maybe?

And they don't have those dwarf benefits to shut it down

unless it is cast with IF and then it works just fine no matter what the dwarf players does , buys etc.
ogers have the rhino gun and magic .
orcs make an even better gunline then dwarfs because their machines are cheaper and while more random , one can have more of them .
empire has guns and magic
skaven have uber machines and good magic etc

Machines and magic protection are not just dwarf fluff , they are also their MC cavalery , their fast moving units , their redirectors etc.
If the game would look like this that other armies would have magic or machines , and dwarfs would have everything other armies have only stoped magic and had powerful machines , then yes it It might be unbalanced , but it is not the case . Dwarf are a slow army , that lacks type of units and is unable to play the manuver game all other armies can . Without shuting down magic and powerful machines , they wouldn't be worth playing.

Ok, I've been staying hands off here hoping that this bickering would die out on its own. I really don't feel like giving one of my long speeches right now so here's the deal. The issue of Dearves being a static force is a very valid discussion topic in a thread about the new army book (which should drop tomorrow), as it relates to something we would like to change or stay the same. However, if y'all continue to derail this thread on topics of Dwarves list building and stage presence on the tournament scene and how "boring" they may or may not be; information that will, again, be obsolete tomorrow. I will politely ask a Mod to lock this thread, I will make a new one that is very specific to the new models and expectations for them, and I will invite you to start your thread of general Dwarven angst. Now do we all agree to play nice from now on?

well 1 week left of release, we know of iron breakers/new gunners. But any chance Gw was clever this time? Any chance, as a whisper... Dwarfs would get some sort of Bear or Ram riders? Clockwork MC golem, even a Monster Golem or some kind?

...Prob not, but heres hoping.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
But there is a big difference here. While that particular spell may only affect one Dwarf unit, Dwarfs are so expensive points wise, and so few model wise that even one unit dying to that spell can and often does mean game over for Dwarfs, no matter which unit it hits.

Less expensive than Lizardmen/Ogres who have the same issues. And Wizards are an optional unit, you know. Dwarfs always have +dispel. There's lizardmen+ogre lists on the first page of this forum that don't have any big casters. And they're probably inferior because of that.

FullFatMayo wrote:
Duke you seem to be very anti anything Dwarf. I have played Dwarf's for about 7 years and although I don't win a great deal I have a lot of fun. Why do you not like the rune system or how Dwarf magic phases go. All you would be doing by giving Dwarf's a magic phase would be, to keep it balanced, reduce there ability to stop magic which turns them into every other army. Why is that useful. I for the sake of an example I could not like playing Ogres because I theoretically think they have too many wounds. Therefore I think in the next book for Ogres they should have 3 times less wounds but cost 3 times less. What would that achieve?

Also why not a steam tank type thing, Empire has them and Dwarf's are meant to be more technologically advanced than them so it makes sense.

Sorry if I sound like I am having a go but I am really just annoyed that people get annoyed about things like Dwarf's which are really not that powerful and accuse them of being broken/out of place so should be taken out completely because they are in fact not broken but are boring to play against. You have any idea how infuriating it is when 1 irresistible force roll on a certain spell can obliterate a large portion of your army even when you are supposedly the best at stopping magic?

I agree mate. Dwarfs have very limited movement, no magic what-so-ever, and although they aren't as expensive as the High Elves and such, they are usually outnumbered by most opponents they will play against. People hate Dwarfs due to the fact that they are an Army that you need to change tactics in order to fight against them, which can be frustrating because a good Dwarf player will utilize the terrain and his placement to the best effect. Add that the whole army is T4 minimum, they are an army you cant move by shooting and due to there resistance to Magic, they can be a pain to shift by spells so the opponent is forced to come to them. Dwarfs are unique, but thats what makes them a strong army, as they are an Army built around strong blocks of Infantry, supported by strong War-Machines/Missile Troops and Magic Defense, which is my type of Army as I feel Dwarfs have some of the best infantry in the game . Although many people like to use them as a sit-back-and-wait-army, I have attacked opponents many times with my Dwarfs when I played them, and it actually proved effective, and Dwarfs I think have more options now to be aggressive, especially with the Squadron of Gyropcopters and the fact certain Dwarf units can actually gain +1 strength when they charge if the rumors are true, so maybe that might give Dwarf players options to assault with them. As on the Ogre comment, they need the extra wounds as they are an Army that is always outnumbered and they have little to no armor, so yes they are worth there points lol.

That being said, all I am hoping for is that the Dwarfs remain the same as they are, as they are a unique army that throw something different compared to all of the other lists out there, and though I expect the usual changes such as points and new charters and units, I believe that what makes the Dwarfs a Dwarf army should remain. But I do expect shooting to change a bit, as they want this to be more of a CC game, but I don't think they will effect Dwarfs too much on that end as it is one of the Dwarfs strengths and what makes them more effective in this edition. No news of any Bear or Ram riders, as to be frank I can't see anything the Dwarfs would ride to fit there fluff, but they are getting a squadron of Gyrocopters so that's pretty cool in my opinion. Can't wait for the new Dwarf's Book to come out as I am excited to see what they can do.

By the looks of this release, I might have to quit the hobby. If dwarves don't change, and become the fotm, there is literally no reason to play anymore.

That being said, I'm going to pick up the book, just to flick through it. And burn it, if they don't change the laser template abilities.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
By the looks of this release, I might have to quit the hobby. If dwarves don't change, and become the fotm, there is literally no reason to play anymore.

That being said, I'm going to pick up the book, just to flick through it. And burn it, if they don't change the laser template abilities.

Wow someone is overreacting lol. Really dude, what is so bad about the Dwarfs? There War-Machines are no different then being able to use spells such as the Purple Sun to wipe out units in other armies. Hate to say it but there is no major difference between them.

There's a huge difference. A misfire almost always does nothing. And rare. Your resistance to cannons is either regen/ward which are both almost always capped at 4+, terrain, which is random, or to simply pray. Anyone in the game can dispel. If you have no Wizards. If you're a Khorne army who hates all things magic, you can still dispel.

To cast Purple Sun a Lord caster has to throw 4 dice to have a better than 50% chance of success (3 is 50, 4 is like 83). But then you have a 11.5% chance of miscast. 4 dice is on average more than half your PD on any turn. But you still have to beat the enemy dispel, who is going to have a lord dispeller, and have close to the same dice.

If you have 6 war machines, you fire 6 times. Your chance of misfire doesn't increase with each subsequent one. The target's ward save doesn't increase with each one. No one is going to cast 6 purple suns. It's really rare to get off multiple 6 spells. But it's not really rare to fire all your war machines multiple times.

I'm hopeful dwarfs will be fun. The gyrobomber thing seems a little cartoonish. Like it's a Lego toy. Or worse, a World of Warcraft model. And I don't know what it is with Big Hats in the world of WHFB. I swear there is some deviant biology going on where every creature on the planet has double vertebrae and super strong neck muscles. That's the only way they could support all the helmets they wear.

 Rommel44 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
By the looks of this release, I might have to quit the hobby. If dwarves don't change, and become the fotm, there is literally no reason to play anymore.

That being said, I'm going to pick up the book, just to flick through it. And burn it, if they don't change the laser template abilities.

Wow someone is overreacting lol. Really dude, what is so bad about the Dwarfs? There War-Machines are no different then being able to use spells such as the Purple Sun to wipe out units in other armies. Hate to say it but there is no major difference between them.

It's not an overreaction. Dwarf war machines are infinitely worse than super spells. The spells affect a percentage of an army. I've had my VC purple sun'd and I still went on to do well. Dwarf war machines affect an ENTIRE army.

The general consensus around here is that one dwarf game in every 4/5 events is too much. Let alone them being the fotm.

Well no one forces you to play an army that crumbles when their Heros/lords get cannon sniped . Imagine dwarfs had to play last two editions without good machines . No magic , slow and no way to force your opponent to come to you . You could just sit at safe 19" away from them and barrage them with spells while your fast/range units kill of the gun crews.

To cast Purple Sun a Lord caster has to throw 4 dice to have a better than 50% chance of success (3 is 50, 4 is like 83). But then you have a 11.5% chance of miscast. 4 dice is on average more than half your PD on any turn. But you still have to beat the enemy dispel, who is going to have a lord dispeller, and have close to the same dice.

If you have 6 war machines, you fire 6 times. Your chance of misfire doesn't increase with each subsequent one. The target's ward save doesn't increase with each one. No one is going to cast 6 purple suns. It's really rare to get off multiple 6 spells. But it's not really rare to fire all your war machines multiple times.

only dwarfs kill stuff with machines . other armies kill stuff with machines and magic and in melee . Dwarf melee is limited to , lets hope those dudes don't kill too many before we actualy get to strike .

Although many people like to use them as a sit-back-and-wait-army, I have attacked opponents many times with my Dwarfs when I played them, and it actually proved effective, and Dwarfs I think have more options now to be aggressive, especially with the Squadron of Gyropcopters and the fact certain Dwarf units can actually gain +1 strength when they charge if the rumors are true, so maybe that might give Dwarf players options to assault with them.

when your the slowest moving army in the game with ,0 redirect units , while other armies can run more then a few , how do you charge stuff? When I started playing dwarfs I tried to charge too , that always ended with me being kited with 2-3 units of ravers , eagles or something else that is fast and getting charged in the sides or suddenly ending up with my back side turned to half the opposing army and in a forest.

Well no one forces you to play an army that crumbles when their Heros/lords get cannon sniped .

What a nonsense thing to say. Basically, "play another army because ours is poorly designed." VC/TK/DoC all suffer from it. So no one should play those armies because Dwarf meta is perfect.

Speed isn't a huge deal it was. You're an inch slower than other slow races. Or 25% on normal move. On the charge you're about 10% slower. Big deal.

Dwarf melee is fine. It was maybe off by a point, but not like it needed a total rewrite. And I'm sure there won't be one. It will likely be adjusted...a point or so.

Makumba wrote:
Well no one forces you to play an army that crumbles when their Heros/lords get cannon sniped . Imagine dwarfs had to play last two editions without good machines . No magic , slow and no way to force your opponent to come to you . You could just sit at safe 19" away from them and barrage them with spells while your fast/range units kill of the gun crews.

To cast Purple Sun a Lord caster has to throw 4 dice to have a better than 50% chance of success (3 is 50, 4 is like 83). But then you have a 11.5% chance of miscast. 4 dice is on average more than half your PD on any turn. But you still have to beat the enemy dispel, who is going to have a lord dispeller, and have close to the same dice.

If you have 6 war machines, you fire 6 times. Your chance of misfire doesn't increase with each subsequent one. The target's ward save doesn't increase with each one. No one is going to cast 6 purple suns. It's really rare to get off multiple 6 spells. But it's not really rare to fire all your war machines multiple times.

only dwarfs kill stuff with machines . other armies kill stuff with machines and magic and in melee . Dwarf melee is limited to , lets hope those dudes don't kill too many before we actualy get to strike .

Although many people like to use them as a sit-back-and-wait-army, I have attacked opponents many times with my Dwarfs when I played them, and it actually proved effective, and Dwarfs I think have more options now to be aggressive, especially with the Squadron of Gyropcopters and the fact certain Dwarf units can actually gain +1 strength when they charge if the rumors are true, so maybe that might give Dwarf players options to assault with them.

when your the slowest moving army in the game with ,0 redirect units , while other armies can run more then a few , how do you charge stuff? When I started playing dwarfs I tried to charge too , that always ended with me being kited with 2-3 units of ravers , eagles or something else that is fast and getting charged in the sides or suddenly ending up with my back side turned to half the opposing army and in a forest.

So what you're saying is, "Don't play an interesting army, that is well balanced, and fun to play, because dwarves are the least well written book in warhammer and rely on a single trick to do well?" Remind me to never play against you.

I wanted to talk about organ guns apparently having to roll to hit, but there is clearly no intelligent conversation going on in here. I haven't read one thing in the last 4 pages that wasn't just grown man-children arguing. Its sad.

I've read the new Organ Gun is essentially a 2 artillery dice Hellblaster, so yes, rolls to hit with BS 3, shots = sum of 2 Artillery dice, resolved at Str 5 Armour piercing.

However, I've also heard it you can add an engineer for BS 4, and a rune of +1 to hit, which would make it quite nasty.

The special character Dwarf Engineer guy makes it quite bananas too.

Zoned wrote:
I've read the new Organ Gun is essentially a 2 artillery dice Hellblaster, so yes, rolls to hit with BS 3, shots = sum of 2 Artillery dice, resolved at Str 5 Armour piercing.

However, I've also heard it you can add an engineer for BS 4, and a rune of +1 to hit, which would make it quite nasty.

The special character Dwarf Engineer guy makes it quite bananas too.

That seems cool. I only field one and I don't think this will change that, but it makes me want to get an engineer. I always thought it was kinda unfair I could just slam down ten hits automatically, that seems a lot more balanced.

Yeah, auto-hitting is a bit weird in Fantasy shooting so I'm glad they are phasing it out. The version does seem quite balanced.

Other rumours I've heard:

army wide +1 parry when getting charged.
Ironbreakers have 5+ parry all the time.
Gyrocopter only 80pts and has a constant Str 3 Breath Weapon (not once per game.)
Flamebreakers variant are essentially Ironbreakers without shields, and their gun is range 18:, Str 5, quick to fire, flaming, and they have a 2+ ward vs flaming attacks.

I almost wish the Gyrocopters were really bad because I dont like the look of them, but I kinda get what they are going for. I was gonna buy some more cannons, though those flamebreakers seem like something I'd want to play around with. I wish they would have released the book week one. The waiting is killing me.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
Look. It is fine if he believes playing against Dwarfs or playing Dwarfs is not interesting, tedious, predictable, whatever. But making the claim that the majority of the people that play dwarfs or against them feel that way is ridiculous. The forums here and everywhere else are a very small percentage of the population of people that play these games. And out of all of the people that come on to these forums, even a smaller portion of those ever bother to even post anything.

I can speak for the majority of the ENTIRE UK TOURNAMENT SCENE, when I say that Dwarves are not fun to play.

No, no you can't. You can speak for yourself and that's about it. No more than someone else can tell you what you think is boring.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So what you're saying is, "Don't play an interesting army, that is well balanced, and fun to play, because dwarves are the least well written book in warhammer and rely on a single trick to do well?" Remind me to never play against you.

Single trick? Yeah, because they've been forced into a box without any other escape. You hate dwarfs, fine, but don't pretend it's more than just you or that they're this hugely dominant force - they aren't and your opinion is yours alone, not the entire scenes. Dwarf cannons are good against monsters because NOTHING ELSE IN THE BOOK IS. I mean, seriously. Just stop taking a game so seriously that you will let your blind hatred stop you doing something you enjoy. You don't even know how the new book plays yet for crying out loud.

Eyjio wrote:

Single trick? Yeah, because they've been forced into a box without any other escape.

But the problem is, people here are arguing:

a) they have TONS of options
b) even if they don't, their single trick should stay because That's Dwarfs, So Tough Luck
c) a third thing

Were you beaten by Dwarves a few times or what?

d) we must hate dwarfs and/or were beaten by them to ever question their meta

 Thunderfrog wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
Look. It is fine if he believes playing against Dwarfs or playing Dwarfs is not interesting, tedious, predictable, whatever. But making the claim that the majority of the people that play dwarfs or against them feel that way is ridiculous. The forums here and everywhere else are a very small percentage of the population of people that play these games. And out of all of the people that come on to these forums, even a smaller portion of those ever bother to even post anything.

I can speak for the majority of the ENTIRE UK TOURNAMENT SCENE, when I say that Dwarves are not fun to play.

No, no you can't. You can speak for yourself and that's about it. No more than someone else can tell you what you think is boring.

Yes, I can. Because, I've been playing Warhammer since 2007, and been competitive for over two years. And when I say that everyone, bar the few dwarf players on the scene, hates dwarves, it's from hearing it from them, or from seeing it on twitter/hearing it on podcasts.

Like I said, it's a commonly agreed thing overhere that you should only ever play 1 dwarf player per six game event. Why would that be, if people didn't dislike them?

Eyjio wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So what you're saying is, "Don't play an interesting army, that is well balanced, and fun to play, because dwarves are the least well written book in warhammer and rely on a single trick to do well?" Remind me to never play against you.

Single trick? Yeah, because they've been forced into a box without any other escape. You hate dwarfs, fine, but don't pretend it's more than just you or that they're this hugely dominant force - they aren't and your opinion is yours alone, not the entire scenes. Dwarf cannons are good against monsters because NOTHING ELSE IN THE BOOK IS. I mean, seriously. Just stop taking a game so seriously that you will let your blind hatred stop you doing something you enjoy. You don't even know how the new book plays yet for crying out loud.

See my previous statement about the scene's opinion. As for cannons, it isn't just them. It's the two cannons, two stone throwers and an organ gun you see in 99.9999999% of all lists. It gets better! Those cannons are magical, and those stone throwers never miss. It's like Duke pointed out. 6th spells are not only challenging to cast, they have multiple ways that they can go wrong. It's why the earthing rod is so important. War machine misfire charts are 1- Bad. 2- Nothing. 3- Nothing. 4- Nothing. 5- Nothing. 6- Something that looks bad, but overall does nothing. Which allows dwarves to sit back, and ruin people's hobbies.

As I've said, Dwarves NEED to be changed to have multiple options beyond "Short hitty person A backed up by war machines" or "Short hitty person B, with a gun, backed up by war machines."

The runic system needs to be altered. Stackable dispel scrolls, Spell Eaters, and MRoChallenge especially need to go.

Which allows dwarves to sit back, and ruin people's hobbies.

As I've said, Dwarves NEED to be changed to have multiple options beyond "Short hitty person A backed up by war machines" or "Short hitty person B, with a gun, backed up by war machines."

The runic system needs to be altered. Stackable dispel scrolls, Spell Eaters, and MRoChallenge especially need to go.

Ok , then let us say those things are removed . Dwarf machines are now like imperial machines , only with lower stats and dwarf anti magic is like khorn anti magic . The dwarf army no longer can gunline . What would have to happen to make them good ?
Because they are slower then any other army and have no magic . Bound spell runes won't help them , because those can be easily dispeled by armies that run 2-3 casters . If anvil is , again , made the dwarf movment cruch then without being stuck in a unit and movable it becomes very vunerable and what are dwarfs suppose to do , if anvil gets stoped . It also wouldn't help dwarf be less monobuild , as every dwarf army no matter at how many points would need to have an anvil . If there were any points range where dwarfs wouldn't be able to take an anvil it would automaticly make them unplayable at those points.

So what is left ? ambush style armies with miners and now rare rangers with let us hope no Bugman forced on people ?

Makumba wrote:

Which allows dwarves to sit back, and ruin people's hobbies.

As I've said, Dwarves NEED to be changed to have multiple options beyond "Short hitty person A backed up by war machines" or "Short hitty person B, with a gun, backed up by war machines."

The runic system needs to be altered. Stackable dispel scrolls, Spell Eaters, and MRoChallenge especially need to go.

Ok , then let us say those things are removed . Dwarf machines are now like imperial machines , only with lower stats and dwarf anti magic is like khorn anti magic . The dwarf army no longer can gunline . What would have to happen to make them good ?
Because they are slower then any other army and have no magic . Bound spell runes won't help them , because those can be easily dispeled by armies that run 2-3 casters . If anvil is , again , made the dwarf movment cruch then without being stuck in a unit and movable it becomes very vunerable and what are dwarfs suppose to do , if anvil gets stoped . It also wouldn't help dwarf be less monobuild , as every dwarf army no matter at how many points would need to have an anvil . If there were any points range where dwarfs wouldn't be able to take an anvil it would automaticly make them unplayable at those points.

So what is left ? ambush style armies with miners and now rare rangers with let us hope no Bugman forced on people ?

Again, people are missing the point entirely. Take the dark elf book, what makes it good? Variety. Warriors? Variety. High elves? Variety. Ogres? Variety.

Do you get it yet? Those books are mostly fun to play as and against. Because they have what dwarves don't. Variety.

Case in point all of those books can run an MSU, MMU, and MLU list. Elves and ogres can run shooty and combat lists. Warriors have marks.

Dwarves have tough hitty troops and war machines.

Makumba wrote:
What would have to happen to make them good ?

Whatever the game designers come up with. I'm not a game designer, I just pretend I'm one. But I know what is boring and what isn't in my personal view (and the largely-echoed voices by nearly all non-dwarf players who have responded).

LOTR Dwarf meta is pretty dull stuff. They got warriors and warriors. I mean, you can even see that in GW's Hobbit game. WHFB is a tactical game, however. So you need to fill tactical roles and give options. I was playing the World of Tanks online game and they have all the countries in WWII. But of course, some countries had suck tanks or no tanks in WWII, so they cheated and grabbed stuff that existed on blueprint or came in later years. Dwarfs are whatever they say they are. If they say they are wine-drinking nancy boys, then they are--in this game.

Again, people are missing the point entirely. Take the dark elf book, what makes it good? Variety. Warriors? Variety. High elves? Variety. Ogres? Variety.

Do you get it yet? Those books are mostly fun to play as and against. Because they have what dwarves don't. Variety.

Case in point all of those books can run an MSU, MMU, and MLU list. Elves and ogres can run shooty and combat lists. Warriors have marks.

Dwarves have tough hitty troops and war machines.

But they can play those different list , because their units can get in to melee or they can use magic and machines or they have good monsters.
Dwarfs don't have monsters and they are slow . It is cool to have "oh that unit takes the charge well" when you have something like mindrazor in support to turn that "takes charge well" unit in to a destroyer of worlds . Dwarfs if they try to do melee are like a slower WoC army , with weaker stats.
Dwarfs don't have chaff , they don't have good scout units , nor fast cavalery . The whole movement game of luring someone in , side charges etc is not doable by dwarfs ,unless they somehow slow the opponent down to their own speed.

Whatever the game designers come up with. I'm not a game designer, I just pretend I'm one. But I know what is boring and what isn't in my personal view (and the largely-echoed voices by nearly all non-dwarf players who have responded).

But you did not start to play the game a week ago . You did see the codex in this edition , was there ever one that made an army much faster then it was before ?

As the non-dwarf players goes. I play dwarfs . I want dwarfs to be good , so I can have fun playing with the models I paid for . The idea that others should have even more fun , by removing my faction or nerfing it to the ground , is not one I can accept , unless GWr refunds me the dwarf models I bought.

Makumba wrote:

Again, people are missing the point entirely. Take the dark elf book, what makes it good? Variety. Warriors? Variety. High elves? Variety. Ogres? Variety.

Do you get it yet? Those books are mostly fun to play as and against. Because they have what dwarves don't. Variety.

Case in point all of those books can run an MSU, MMU, and MLU list. Elves and ogres can run shooty and combat lists. Warriors have marks.

Dwarves have tough hitty troops and war machines.

But they can play those different list , because their units can get in to melee or they can use magic and machines or they have good monsters.
Dwarfs don't have monsters and they are slow . It is cool to have "oh that unit takes the charge well" when you have something like mindrazor in support to turn that "takes charge well" unit in to a destroyer of worlds . Dwarfs if they try to do melee are like a slower WoC army , with weaker stats.
Dwarfs don't have chaff , they don't have good scout units , nor fast cavalery . The whole movement game of luring someone in , side charges etc is not doable by dwarfs ,unless they somehow slow the opponent down to their own speed.

Whatever the game designers come up with. I'm not a game designer, I just pretend I'm one. But I know what is boring and what isn't in my personal view (and the largely-echoed voices by nearly all non-dwarf players who have responded).

But you did not start to play the game a week ago . You did see the codex in this edition , was there ever one that made an army much faster then it was before ?

As the non-dwarf players goes. I play dwarfs . I want dwarfs to be good , so I can have fun playing with the models I paid for . The idea that others should have even more fun , by removing my faction or nerfing it to the ground , is not one I can accept , unless GWr refunds me the dwarf models I bought.

Can you even read? I said that Dwarves need variety. In fact, they need it like a person needs a pulse. Dwarves aren't a weaker warriors army. 40 Dwarves with Great Weapons beat 18 Warriors with halberds.

You know what works for chaff? Minimum squads of troops. I do it with Dark Elves. Ogre players do it with bulls. Just because you don't have cheap chaff, doesn't mean you don't have chaff. Fast cavalry? Gyrocopters. You have flying drops that can redirect. And you have scouting rangers. With Great weapons. Some of the best scouts in the game, because they can shoot and fight.

You want dwarves to be good so you can have fun playing them? Does you opponent's fun enter that equation? Because current dwarves don't cater for that.

You keep going on about making dwarves faster. Do Saurus have high Initiative? Do Ogres have high Initiative? Do TK have high Initiative? Do VC have high initiative? And three of those move 1" faster than dwarves. You don't hear complaints about those armies because they're fun armies.

Dwarfs are not going to be faster, but I do expect them to remain with the ability to march whenever they want, so basically they will be to march 6 inches all the time. As for the Dwarfs themselves, they are an army built around strong infantry and war-machines, and I don't expect that to change as that's what the Dwarfs are good at, so people need to stop whining about it. Dwarfs NEED that to be competitive in this edition as the have no magic whatsoever, so people need to stop complaining.

That being said, this is what I expect from Dwarfs after looking at all of the information I was able to gather and all of the rumors out there at the moment:

* All Dwarfs will benefit from the Resolution Rule for the +1 Strength on the charge, which will also make Dwarfs players be more aggressive, but on the same note, Dwarfs will benefit from the Shield-Wall special rule, which gives Dwarf's +1 to there parry save.

*Longbeards and Rangers will be there own unit choices, however I can see Rangers moving to a special slot as fluff-wise they aren't very common in the Dwarf Holds.

*Organ Gun will lose the Auto-Hit ability, but I can see them giving the Organ Gun something to make for that such as longer range or BS4 base.

*Slayers will still be awesome, as they are one of the fluffiest units in the game, and if the Slayer King is a new character in the book, then that makes them even better.

*I can see Thunderers going down in points, but losing the +1 to hit. But since they are Dwarfs and if this rumor is true, both Quarrelers and Thunderers will benefit from ignoring the -1 modifier for stand and shoot. I can see this happening. Plus I still expect them to remain solid Core units, as Dwarf Missile troops can still form effective fighting blocks of standard Warriors when given shields.

*War-Machines will still be effective, as they are a big part of the Dwarf army, and I can see some increasing in price while others are lowered in price.

*Gyrocopters will become special slots, as since they are Dwarfs version of monstrous cavalry, makes no since to keep them rare.

*Hammerer's will either get stat increases or a change in some special rules to make them worth there points, while Ironbreakers will become a much more alluring choice for people to take.

* Dwarfs will keep there Rune Magic for Weapons, Armor, etc. But I can see it possible for them to get some ancient heirlooms like other armies.

That's just some quick thoughts that I have on them at the moment, but the fact remains is that Dwarfs are an army built around Strong Infantry and Solid War-Machines and Anti-Magic defense. Always have been, always will be so stop whining about it.

Just a quick point. Got myself the new hammerers and they are quite a bit bigger than the old dwarf line. While this is rubbish as it means I want to replace all my dwarfs with the new ones, they are the exact same height/build as the avatars of war slayers! So i'm hoping slayers will get a boost, as I already have loads!

BlessMyBeard wrote:
Just a quick point. Got myself the new hammerers and they are quite a bit bigger than the old dwarf line. While this is rubbish as it means I want to replace all my dwarfs with the new ones, they are the exact same height/build as the avatars of war slayers! So i'm hoping slayers will get a boost, as I already have loads!

Why do you have to replace all of your models with the new ones? There's nothing wrong in using older models, as long as they have the same base size as the current ones.

 Rommel44 wrote:
Dwarfs are not going to be faster, but I do expect them to remain with the ability to march whenever they want, so basically they will be to march 6 inches all the time. As for the Dwarfs themselves, they are an army built around strong infantry and war-machines, and I don't expect that to change as that's what the Dwarfs are good at, so people need to stop whining about it. Dwarfs NEED that to be competitive in this edition as the have no magic whatsoever, so people need to stop complaining.

That being said, this is what I expect from Dwarfs after looking at all of the information I was able to gather and all of the rumors out there at the moment:

* All Dwarfs will benefit from the Resolution Rule for the +1 Strength on the charge, which will also make Dwarfs players be more aggressive, but on the same note, Dwarfs will benefit from the Shield-Wall special rule, which gives Dwarf's +1 to there parry save.

*Longbeards and Rangers will be there own unit choices, however I can see Rangers moving to a special slot as fluff-wise they aren't very common in the Dwarf Holds.

*Organ Gun will lose the Auto-Hit ability, but I can see them giving the Organ Gun something to make for that such as longer range or BS4 base.

*Slayers will still be awesome, as they are one of the fluffiest units in the game, and if the Slayer King is a new character in the book, then that makes them even better.

*I can see Thunderers going down in points, but losing the +1 to hit. But since they are Dwarfs and if this rumor is true, both Quarrelers and Thunderers will benefit from ignoring the -1 modifier for stand and shoot. I can see this happening. Plus I still expect them to remain solid Core units, as Dwarf Missile troops can still form effective fighting blocks of standard Warriors when given shields.

*War-Machines will still be effective, as they are a big part of the Dwarf army, and I can see some increasing in price while others are lowered in price.

*Gyrocopters will become special slots, as since they are Dwarfs version of monstrous cavalry, makes no since to keep them rare.

*Hammerer's will either get stat increases or a change in some special rules to make them worth there points, while Ironbreakers will become a much more alluring choice for people to take.

* Dwarfs will keep there Rune Magic for Weapons, Armor, etc. But I can see it possible for them to get some ancient heirlooms like other armies.

That's just some quick thoughts that I have on them at the moment, but the fact remains is that Dwarfs are an army built around Strong Infantry and Solid War-Machines and Anti-Magic defense. Always have been, always will be so stop whining about it.

That's the problem. They're built like that for a completely different edition. They need an overhaul like I need oxygen.

No they don't. You just want them changed because you have a huge bias against them for some reason. Dwarfs have no magic at all so it's already impossible to be like every other army, so you need to stop complaining about it.

 Rommel44 wrote:
No they don't. You just want them changed because you have a huge bias against them for some reason. Dwarfs have no magic at all so it's already impossible to be like every other army, so you need to stop complaining about it.

Yeah, because that's what I've been saying. Not that I've been saying that Dwarves lack dimension. Which inherently makes them unfun to play against, as every game against them results in the same thing. When you can predict a game result by turn two, it means something is flawed with one of the armies. Next you'll be telling me every army other than dwarves is at fault.

I'm not saying that Dwarves need to be like every other army. They just need an overhaul to bring them up to date. The book was written for an edition completely different from the current one. It just so happens that their strengths in that edition are amplified to a ridiculous level in the current one. Which results in them being a rock paper scissors matchup. Which is not good for a tactical game.

Well some stuff got nerfed , some got changed . At least most of the runes are intact . No idea why they made anvil the way they did , bound spells are good in armies like empire when you can either use them to drain the dispel dice pool or cast them after all have been used up on your normal magic. With dwarfs who don't have magic , when opposing armies are build to deal with multiple mages the anvil won't see much use.
I like how they handled machines both the new bombers/gyros and the old ones . I may actualy buy a second organ gun . Ironbreaker are full of cool and nice rules , but they seem to cost a lot . Sure they are resilient and all , but not shield wall is going to protect them from passing I based tests .

A minute of silence for the rangers bugman ambush list .

You know what works for chaff? Minimum squads of troops. I do it with Dark Elves. Ogre players do it with bulls. Just because you don't have cheap chaff, doesn't mean you don't have chaff. Fast cavalry? Gyrocopters. You have flying drops that can redirect. And you have scouting rangers. With Great weapons. Some of the best scouts in the game, because they can shoot and fight.

we are talking old or new dex. because in the old one gyros are rare and to get ambushing scouts you need to run a special , and specials are generaly banned from any games . And yes I do know what chaff is . There is only the slight difference of using a saber tiger in ogers to do it or a unit of elyrians etc which are all cheap and three times as fast as a unit of warriors. Unless you want dwarf chaff to work in tandem with the anvil , yeah , then we have one brutal combo.

And if we are talking about the new dex then gyros are fragil as hell and rangers on the other hand are rare .

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Thunderfrog wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
Look. It is fine if he believes playing against Dwarfs or playing Dwarfs is not interesting, tedious, predictable, whatever. But making the claim that the majority of the people that play dwarfs or against them feel that way is ridiculous. The forums here and everywhere else are a very small percentage of the population of people that play these games. And out of all of the people that come on to these forums, even a smaller portion of those ever bother to even post anything.

I can speak for the majority of the ENTIRE UK TOURNAMENT SCENE, when I say that Dwarves are not fun to play.

No, no you can't. You can speak for yourself and that's about it. No more than someone else can tell you what you think is boring.

Yes, I can. Because, I've been playing Warhammer since 2007, and been competitive for over two years. And when I say that everyone, bar the few dwarf players on the scene, hates dwarves, it's from hearing it from them, or from seeing it on twitter/hearing it on podcasts.

Like I said, it's a commonly agreed thing overhere that you should only ever play 1 dwarf player per six game event. Why would that be, if people didn't dislike them?

Eyjio wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So what you're saying is, "Don't play an interesting army, that is well balanced, and fun to play, because dwarves are the least well written book in warhammer and rely on a single trick to do well?" Remind me to never play against you.

Single trick? Yeah, because they've been forced into a box without any other escape. You hate dwarfs, fine, but don't pretend it's more than just you or that they're this hugely dominant force - they aren't and your opinion is yours alone, not the entire scenes. Dwarf cannons are good against monsters because NOTHING ELSE IN THE BOOK IS. I mean, seriously. Just stop taking a game so seriously that you will let your blind hatred stop you doing something you enjoy. You don't even know how the new book plays yet for crying out loud.

See my previous statement about the scene's opinion. As for cannons, it isn't just them. It's the two cannons, two stone throwers and an organ gun you see in 99.9999999% of all lists. It gets better! Those cannons are magical, and those stone throwers never miss. It's like Duke pointed out. 6th spells are not only challenging to cast, they have multiple ways that they can go wrong. It's why the earthing rod is so important. War machine misfire charts are 1- Bad. 2- Nothing. 3- Nothing. 4- Nothing. 5- Nothing. 6- Something that looks bad, but overall does nothing. Which allows dwarves to sit back, and ruin people's hobbies.

As I've said, Dwarves NEED to be changed to have multiple options beyond "Short hitty person A backed up by war machines" or "Short hitty person B, with a gun, backed up by war machines."

The runic system needs to be altered. Stackable dispel scrolls, Spell Eaters, and MRoChallenge especially need to go.

Im from the UK, I go to tourneys, I like playing Dwarfs and as Dwarfs, you dont speak for me or anyone else and its very arrogant to think that you do.

" As for cannons, it isn't just them. It's the two cannons, two stone throwers and an organ gun you see in 99.9999999% of all lists"

Caveat, TOURNAMENT LISTS, of which make up .00000000000000000000000000000000001% of dwarf lists btw 87.34% of statistics are made up on the spot.

!"Those cannons are magical, and those stone throwers never miss."

Caveat, if you pay the points for the engineer and the runes on the cannon/stone thrower. agreed that misfires are rare though.

"6th spells are not only challenging to cast, they have multiple ways that they can go wrong"

Caveat, 6th spells are not challenging at all to cast if you throw enough dice at them, this does increase chances of a miscast, which is what some armies rely on or used to abuse, also dwarfs have no access to this at all.

"Which allows dwarves to sit back, and ruin people's hobbies."

Major caveat, "everyones hobbies" means tourny players alone, no possible way to account for other player

"The runic system needs to be altered. Stackable dispel scrolls, Spell Eaters, and MRoChallenge especially need to go"

Runes are fine as they are, stackable dispel i agree does need to go and more than likely will, spell eaters are also fine as its a very situational thing but should be 1 only as per the dispel scroll stack i just said, MRoChallenge is also purely based on what the enemy army has and immune to psy forces are not affected as far as i know, it is also not a great choice to me as its a master rune and expensive for a 1 use item.

From what I've seen of the new book, i like that all the war machines are basicly written as "acts as per [machine type] in the Warhammer Fantasy rulebook, with the following exceptions:" because it allows for possible changes to the way war machines (particularly cannons) work when we change edition. Even the flame cannon, with its extra special overcharge attack thing, is written in terms so as to allow for this stuff.

Makumba wrote:
The idea that others should have even more fun , by removing my faction or nerfing it to the ground , is not one I can accept , unless GWr refunds me the dwarf models I bought.

Remember the rage when WoC marauders were nerfed? There are still people saying WoC are unviable when IMHO they are one of the strongest armies in the game. One unit got nerfed hard and people cried--and still cry. No one got refunds either. That's what happens when a game keeps releasing new editions.

My friend is a huge Blood Bowl fan and he's on the opposite end of the spectrum. NO official support. No changes. Only the community coming together and making tweaks. Of course, all their armies cost a lot less. But still, I think it's a whole lot better to have a vibrant, official updating than nothing. Even if it means nerfs.

 Micky wrote:
From what I've seen of the new book, i like that all the war machines are basicly written as "acts as per [machine type] in the Warhammer Fantasy rulebook, with the following exceptions:" because it allows for possible changes to the way war machines (particularly cannons) work when we change edition. Even the flame cannon, with its extra special overcharge attack thing, is written in terms so as to allow for this stuff.

I agree, I read the new book and I am pretty excited about what I saw. Means that I can run 3x S7 Bolt throwers thanks to the runes to go w/my 2x Grudge Throwers . But I am tempted to try the new Organ Gun. Granted it's no longer an Auto-Hit weapon. it's now a 30 inch range which makes it more of a threat to opponents. Bugmans Rangers though are now really expensive, he is still worth it as it can still be effective to have 20x+ BS4 Crossbow Rangers appearing on the flank, as well as the fact that they also have throwing axes included in there kit, making them very versatile in short to long range situations. I am mainly just stoked about how much stronger our Infantry has gotten, particularly the Longbeards. Longbeards w/Shields are now a very good unit being WS5 and S4 base, especially when you include the new Resolution and Shieldwall rules. Plus, Thunderers and Quarrelers are still a solid choice, as if you give them shields they can still be a solid Core choice for any Dwarfs army, but I am still debating on whenever if I should go with Hammerers or Ironbreakers for my special Unit, as well as Slayers. Unit of Slayers with the Slayer King in them sounds like a fun, fluffy option to me in my opinion, especially with the 5+ ward save banner.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

BlessMyBeard wrote:
Just a quick point. Got myself the new hammerers and they are quite a bit bigger than the old dwarf line. While this is rubbish as it means I want to replace all my dwarfs with the new ones, they are the exact same height/build as the avatars of war slayers! So i'm hoping slayers will get a boost, as I already have loads!

Why do you have to replace all of your models with the new ones? There's nothing wrong in using older models, as long as they have the same base size as the current ones.

I think he means because of aesthetics. I'm like that too. The old monkey clanrats will never be seen in my army of modern clanrats.

I played against Dwarfs at the weekend (old book). It was dreadful. I think I managed to kill three of his dudes in combat.

His war machines peppered away at my units until there was eff all left.

A dull yet frustrating game, but quick due to reduced magic.

However, I love the new look the Dwarfs have, and reckon I'll be picking the new book up when it's released.

 Micky wrote:
From what I've seen of the new book, i like that all the war machines are basicly written as "acts as per [machine type] in the Warhammer Fantasy rulebook, with the following exceptions:" because it allows for possible changes to the way war machines (particularly cannons) work when we change edition. Even the flame cannon, with its extra special overcharge attack thing, is written in terms so as to allow for this stuff.

the change to the flame cannon is realy nice , it was always sad that such a cheap model is bad , when chaos dwarfs version of the flame cannon was three times better. Now it got fixed , so it will be possible to play cannon /cannon /flamer/ lobber/organ gun and we won't have to stack burning on cannons like it was with the last codex .

All in all a fine codex. Some stuff got changed , some bad stuff got better , but the core of the dwarf army is there . good machines , runes and defensive infantry . Sad about the anvil and I hoped against hope that the gyrobomber will have an option to kamizkaze using and apocalyptical sized template , but one can't get it all when your not an elf.

That's one thing I have wondered about. So in re-guards to the Flame Cannon, does that mean we can shoot the flame cannon up to 12 inches, then place the flame template where we want? Because if that's the case that might make it more appealing then what it once was.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Yes, I can. Because, I've been playing Warhammer since 2007, and been competitive for over two years.

You do realize that this is an absolutely microscopic sample size, right?

For example, I've been playing WHFB since 1988 and playing in tournaments since 2000. My experience differs from yours.

Saldiven wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Yes, I can. Because, I've been playing Warhammer since 2007, and been competitive for over two years.

You do realize that this is an absolutely microscopic sample size, right?

For example, I've been playing WHFB since 1988 and playing in tournaments since 2000. My experience differs from yours.

Ah 88 warhammer, such a different game back then eh?

So, hey, rather than join in this e-peen contest, I figured I'd post something interesting I noticed.

You know how the Dwarves went on sale this weekend? Their limited edition codices are almost gone, and probably are by now. They had 1000, and were down to just 60 when I checked this morning.

That's impressive. That's the fastest I think any LE codex has sold for WHFB or 40k this edition. Well, I guess Space Marines sold faster because they had 500 of 5 different books rather than just 1000 books, but still. People are hyped about dwarves.

Thanks for the info dude

So I hear the Anvil can move now any confirmations of that?

from what im seeing its just a piece or artillery, so yes, i will check again incase there are some special rules that forbid it

The drakeguns are so cool! I love the models, I love the rules so much.

^+1000 and i don't even play dwarfs. They got great rules my flamers are so jelly!

You know, I'm quite surprised to find myself agreeing with thedarkavenger. I mean, I still disagree with the "no fun to play against", as I've not heard that except against all but the most hardcore gunlines, but they DO need variety. Heck, even if they're going to maintain reliance on warmachines, make them different for once. From what I've heard, Organ guns haven't really gotten worse (hit on BS3 but fire 2 artillery dice now) and the new stuff looks awesome. It'd be cool to see a Dwarf army about harassment with implacable wall rather than just straight up gun lines and cannons all day. Heck, it'd make a ton of difference for TK IMO, who just die to Dwarf armies currently. We'll see; I'm worried about if they neutered magic resistance in an edition where magic is so strong but that's more of an issue with the rules in general. I'm sure they'll remain fairly playable regardless.

For the first time in ages, I'm really excited about a fantasy release. Gonna need to start practising up again to be at my best.

Eyjio wrote:
You know, I'm quite surprised to find myself agreeing with thedarkavenger. I mean, I still disagree with the "no fun to play against", as I've not heard that except against all but the most hardcore gunlines, but they DO need variety. Heck, even if they're going to maintain reliance on warmachines, make them different for once. From what I've heard, Organ guns haven't really gotten worse (hit on BS3 but fire 2 artillery dice now) and the new stuff looks awesome. It'd be cool to see a Dwarf army about harassment with implacable wall rather than just straight up gun lines and cannons all day. Heck, it'd make a ton of difference for TK IMO, who just die to Dwarf armies currently. We'll see; I'm worried about if they neutered magic resistance in an edition where magic is so strong but that's more of an issue with the rules in general. I'm sure they'll remain fairly playable regardless.

For the first time in ages, I'm really excited about a fantasy release. Gonna need to start practising up again to be at my best.

Be careful. The dwarf players are going to say you're wrong for playing a different race and that dwarves are perfect the way they are.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
You know, I'm quite surprised to find myself agreeing with thedarkavenger. I mean, I still disagree with the "no fun to play against", as I've not heard that except against all but the most hardcore gunlines, but they DO need variety. Heck, even if they're going to maintain reliance on warmachines, make them different for once. From what I've heard, Organ guns haven't really gotten worse (hit on BS3 but fire 2 artillery dice now) and the new stuff looks awesome. It'd be cool to see a Dwarf army about harassment with implacable wall rather than just straight up gun lines and cannons all day. Heck, it'd make a ton of difference for TK IMO, who just die to Dwarf armies currently. We'll see; I'm worried about if they neutered magic resistance in an edition where magic is so strong but that's more of an issue with the rules in general. I'm sure they'll remain fairly playable regardless.

For the first time in ages, I'm really excited about a fantasy release. Gonna need to start practising up again to be at my best.

Be careful. The dwarf players are going to say you're wrong for playing a different race and that dwarves are perfect the way they are.

The only way to make dwarfs non gunline is to make them move just as fast as other armies reliably or give dwarfs goblin/skaven costed harrasing units aka making miners/rangers realy cheap. At all other times it is just not worth it to go up the field . Right now a dwarf unit to pull of a charge needs its opponent to fail it own charge or for people to play 3 way games and the dwarfs opponents to get stuck in melee or terrain.

I already went over this, but most armies move 4. When they charge, it's 2D6+4 instead of 2D6+3. Avg 11 vs. 10. Please stop making it seem like they are vastly slower than all the races.

They could do any number of things to balance it. Like they can always march without any checks, but only straight ahead because they're stubby and stubborn. etc etc etc.

Yes they are , because first turn your march move is 2" slower then the 4" moving one . This means that compering to a different faction unit that started in the exact same place and charging on turn 3 your laging 4" behind and then have a 1" penality for being dwarf and suddenly your charge is not 2d6+3 , but 2d6-2" compering to an identical unit that started in the same place as a dwarf one would .

But you're not charging to a spot. You're charging to a unit. It's not the olympics where you're all sitting on the same starting line and running a dash. You are moving towards each other from opposite sides. If you meet in the middle or meet 6 inches towards your side it doesn't amazingly matter.

Your charge is 2d6+3. Period. There are no extra points awarded at the end if a unit moved 50 inches or more.

Duke is right. The fact that you can't run as far is a lesser issue.

Is it an issue? Can 1 inch make a difference? Yes. Of course it can.

Does it mean you might aswell not move and will always be outmanouvered? Not by far.

Unless of course you're running towards a (oh delicious irony) gunline, whether or not complimented by magic. That difference should most definitely make dwarfs more inclined to go gunline, although the boost to gyrocopters may mitigate this somewhat.

Dwarves were hugely in need of an update. This one was hugely disappointing. Hammerers are awesome (both models and rules), but that's about it. Everything except apparently warriors (stayed the same) quarrellers (got heavy armour) and gyrocopters (got cheaper) got either more expensive, worse or both at what they/it are supposed to do, meaning that basically the army as a whole was nerfed.
Neither gunline nor combat dwarfs got the boost they needed to match every other army's shiny new toys.

 SRSFACE wrote:
So, hey, rather than join in this e-peen contest, I figured I'd post something interesting I noticed.

You know how the Dwarves went on sale this weekend? Their limited edition codices are almost gone, and probably are by now. They had 1000, and were down to just 60 when I checked this morning.

That's impressive. That's the fastest I think any LE codex has sold for WHFB or 40k this edition. Well, I guess Space Marines sold faster because they had 500 of 5 different books rather than just 1000 books, but still. People are hyped about dwarves.

It's interesting to me that they really didn't start selling until the "preview" copies of the Army Book made the rounds. I think a lot of people are tired of forking out a lot of money for a book for an army that sucks (LE Dark Angels, LE Tyranids). It's one thing when it's a good, fun, solid army. It's another one altogether when your army sucks and you might be looking at playing another army or game. That $100 can go a long ways towards getting you started on something else.

Nice to hear that the rumors say the Dwarf's got a solid army book.

Whelp I was looking forward to starting my first fantasy army but not at 50 bucks for 10 guys, and I need probably 100ish for a good sized game. Even If I cheated and used blank bases on my trays and just one unit for the front line, some places I go wouldn't let me play, and people will give you "the look" like your some kind of scum for resorting to this when THEY spent all the money they should to build a proper army.

Seriously how does GW plan to attract new players like this?

 Orock wrote:
Whelp I was looking forward to starting my first fantasy army but not at 50 bucks for 10 guys, and I need probably 100ish for a good sized game. Even If I cheated and used blank bases on my trays and just one unit for the front line, some places I go wouldn't let me play, and people will give you "the look" like your some kind of scum for resorting to this when THEY spent all the money they should to build a proper army.

Seriously how does GW plan to attract new players like this?

Because I bought, two gyrocopters, 6 boxes of longbeards/hammerers all the clampack heroes, and the book

Soon to be 3 boxes of Ironbreakers

"Dwarves are no fun to play against." This is so, so, sad and for so many people, so true. I have been playing Dwarves for 27 years, and while much has come and gone in that time, GW has not addressed the fundamental problem at the heart of Dwarf armies - mobility.

The simple truth is that if a dwarf player's opponent brings more ranged capability to the table than the dwarves do (be it shooting or magic), the Dwarf player must make his way across the battlefield and engage the enemy in their deployment zone to win.

This is even less fun for the dwarf player than it is for someone else facing a gun line, because of 6" march moves. 6" march moves are less than the base non-march move of many units in the game. So the basic mentality of a Dwarf player has to be, under this scheme, how do I force the enemy to come to me or how do I give myself the ability to get quickly into their deployment zone?

This leads to the two basic types of dwarf lists -- gun lines to make them come to me, or ranger/miner/anvil lists to go to them.

What GW really needs to do is to break this mold and provide mobility options. So long as the basic issue still exists when facing an opponent with more ranged capabilities, the basic solutions and responses must be the same.

Removing the movement enhancing component of the Anvil will probably, sadly, steer more players away from the ranger/miner/anvil lists.

I am desperately hopeful that Vanguard will help by giving Dwarf players more options to get up close and personal -- what we don't know yet is, will the points cost of adding the vanguard option be too heavy a tax? Multiple gyrocopters and bombers may also help, just as Dogs of War or Allies used to years ago, but only time will tell.

If you hate playing against gun line armies, please for the love of God let GW know that this isn't fun for you. Until they get this into their heads, they will not be willing to truly break away from the "Dwarves are slow" history that truly works in their fluff but truly does not work on the tabletop.

 Verthane wrote:
"Dwarves are no fun to play against." This is so, so, sad and for so many people, so true. I have been playing Dwarves for 27 years, and while much has come and gone in that time, GW has not addressed the fundamental problem at the heart of Dwarf armies - mobility.

Mobility isn't as important as you make it out to be. I play a combat army, and I rarely leave my deployment zone, unless I have to. You all cry like little girls about this, and it is really a miniscule matter. It's a textbook argument, albeit a slowed one, as to why "dwarves are fun and you're just wrong."

 Verthane wrote:
The simple truth is that if a dwarf player's opponent brings more ranged capability to the table than the dwarves do (be it shooting or magic), the Dwarf player must make his way across the battlefield and engage the enemy in their deployment zone to win.

Magic capabiity? A dwarf player has no right to complain about magic, when the army is so good at denying it. IF I can deny my opponent combat res, I wouldn't cry and whinge when my opponent occasionally manages to kill a guy. As for higher ranged capability via shooting, nobody can bring more of that than dwarves. wjic his the problem. Dwarf shooting is far too good. Rerollable S5 templates are not fun to play. Regardless of how you think other armies are in the wrong for not being dwarves.

 Verthane wrote:
This is even less fun for the dwarf player than it is for someone else facing a gun line, because of 6" march moves. 6" march moves are less than the base non-march move of many units in the game. So the basic mentality of a Dwarf player has to be, under this scheme, how do I force the enemy to come to me or how do I give myself the ability to get quickly into their deployment zone?

Once more, movement is a miniscule issue. You can quite happily run a combat army that doesn't leave the combat zone. It's called a reactive army. But the fact that dwarf combat troops are designed to mop things up after war machines, means that they cannot do that. And they need the machines. Which, again, goes back to the core problem of lack of variety

 Verthane wrote:
This leads to the two basic types of dwarf lists -- gun lines to make them come to me, or ranger/miner/anvil lists to go to them.

The correct term is lead. Past tense. The current meta means that dwarf combat and anvil lists don't really work. Due to the popular armies walking straight over them. Which leaves us with, you guessed it, the gunline. Which again links back to the lack of variety issue.

 Verthane wrote:
What GW really needs to do is to break this mold and provide mobility options. So long as the basic issue still exists when facing an opponent with more ranged capabilities, the basic solutions and responses must be the same.

What GW need to do is give the book some variety. Mobility isn't important. You don't see Empire players complaining that elves are M5. You know why? Mobility is a miniscule issue. That can be easily averted. Just take stacks of 10 warriors or miners. They act as chaff, which due to the relative movement of your army, can do their job very well.

 Verthane wrote:
Removing the movement enhancing component of the Anvil will probably, sadly, steer more players away from the ranger/miner/anvil lists.

I am desperately hopeful that Vanguard will help by giving Dwarf players more options to get up close and personal -- what we don't know yet is, will the points cost of adding the vanguard option be too heavy a tax? Multiple gyrocopters and bombers may also help, just as Dogs of War or Allies used to years ago, but only time will tell.

If you hate playing against gun line armies, please for the love of God let GW know that this isn't fun for you. Until they get this into their heads, they will not be willing to truly break away from the "Dwarves are slow" history that truly works in their fluff but truly does not work on the tabletop.

Stop focussing on a single flaw of the book. Especially one of the most pointless ones. The main flaw is the lack of variety. Dwarves don't need to get up close and personal. They need more variety in lists. The inclusion of irondrakes and gyrobombers are two steps towards the completion of this. Once that issue is resolved, and we see a variety of dwarf lists, the complaints will stop. If the new book results in the same list, then the complaints will continue.