10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
I think the fluff on Dwarfs is great. I also think, the army list does not do the fluff justice.
Slayers should not be rank and file. They are loners. Make them a small skirmish unit.
Any race that is as compulsive in their engineering as dwarfs should have a few neat gizmos. Dwarfs invented gunpowder, have helicopters and trains, and enjoy large guilds dedicated to pursuing feats of engineering. But only the empire can make a tank? And no dwarf would think to make a Gatling gun after fighting off skaven (because rats can invent better than dwarfs?) Give them something mobile with punch.
The only difference in a dwarf cannon and an Empire cannon is dwarfs refuse to make larger cannons? Or sometimes dwarfs have "Magic" cannons. I like the idea of runes, but why are they limited? Give dwarfs better accuracy with war machines (as opposed to a "free round to dig in").
Any other ideas?
721
Post by: BorderCountess
So, let me get this straight: You don't think the Dwarfs live up to their strengths? You don't think they do a good enough job at the things they already do well at? Is that it?
There's a reason Dwarfs don't have skirmishers or portable gatling guns: game balance. Do you really want to see an unbreakable unit of psychos who can charge in any direction?
You don't think they already have 'better accuracy' with two different grades of engineer and the option to add runes?
Do you really think that an army that's all LD9 or better and fights with little worse than a 4+ armor save and T4 really needs a tank?
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
The game mechanics are good, but not the best representation of the fluff. You are right that the engineer accuracy bit was off. I am just frustrated that many things in the dwarf list do not make sense. Dwarfs had a problem being so slow. To fix that, they created a banner and made the anvil move units. This seems too 'magic' to me. I would rather the movement problem was solved with tech than magic.
791
Post by: bork da basher
dwarfs are fine as they are, they are one of the best armies out there IMO. the WORST of them still have WS4, T4, LD9 and all of them bar slayers have armour.
theres nothing wrong with our artillery, yes they invented it but the differance between ours and empire related to real life terms is the size of the gun. the empire gun is bigger, can fire bigger balls for longer distances ergo more damage, the dwarf one is smaller and therefore does less damage...
they also have access to engineers and runes which if kitted out properly makes them very rarely missfire and blow up aswell as adding extra crew, oh and all warmachine crew are stubborn at LD9.
dwarfs with extra movement arnt dwarfs, leave them at M3, why should every army be the same. its never caused me problems, if i want to move quickly well its generally tough i cant (i dont like anvils, miners etc) its the nature of the army.
did i mention we also proberly have the best magic items system in the game where you can tailor make every item you want?
slayers are fine as they are, i quite like having a block of unbreakable loonies with a full rank bonus and outnumbering. a skirmishing unit really wouldnt be that good, ok they can charge in any direction but really fat lot of good it'll do with M3 and without any rank bonus they are unlikely to win against bigger units at all. i see your point about them being loners and undisicplined but i think it would make the unit worse in the end.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
I know it would make slayer worse as a unit, but they should not really be a unit based on fluff. I always make the argument of what slayer was hauling around a tuba "just in case"?
The dwarf list is indeed powerful. That is not my complaint. You are right in everything you said about that. I just would like rules closer to fluff.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Step One. Tear up Pete Haines version, and destroy all known copies.
Step Two. Make their handguns just like Empire ones. No silly +1 To Hit.
Step Three. Remove the relentless rule. All this does is make Stunties unfairly manouverable when the enemy are close. I get march blocked to 4", he gets 6". An apparent weakness now becomes a definite strength.
Step Four. I know this is going to annoy a lot of Stunty players, but remove the option for Great Weapons from Quarrelers. In my experience, this simply encourages Gunlines, as you can swap from shooting the enemy to hacking them up with good efficiency.
Step 5. Low the allowance for Runes. Clearly, having custom Magic Items isn't enough, so lets just make sure you can do it properly eh?
Step 6. Make Heavy Armour an upgrade on the Warriors.
The above steps are an attempt to avoid the Dwarven Army of Numbing Inevitability I all too often meet. A Gunlines weakness is meant to be that once (if) combat begins, you are largely stuffed. But not with Stunties. Oh no. You spend 3 turns legging it across the board, and promptly crash head first into a brick wall. Not my idea of fun!
Essentially, I want them to have a recognisable weakness, something the pretty much lack at the moment, beyond being pricey troops.
6553
Post by: Arion
I actually think that thunderers should be allowed to have great weapons. I mean, what dwarf isn't going to take a great weapon to battle. Give Iron breakers the option to. now you can either have a 2+armour save in HTH, or a 4+ with +2 str.
5644
Post by: P4NC4K3
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Slayers should not be rank and file. They are loners. Make them a small skirmish unit.
That's what dragon and daemon slayers are for, the others want to die together
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Any race that is as compulsive in their engineering as dwarfs should have a few neat gizmos. Dwarfs invented gunpowder, have helicopters and trains, and enjoy large guilds dedicated to pursuing feats of engineering. But only the empire can make a tank?
Tanks don't run on gunpowder 
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:And no dwarf would think to make a Gatling gun after fighting off skaven (because rats can invent better than dwarfs?) Give them something mobile with punch.
Organ Guns are somewhat similar to Ratling guns, besides, actually making a gatling gun would mean that the stunties are copying off the ratmen, which is just wrong
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:The only difference in a dwarf cannon and an Empire cannon is dwarfs refuse to make larger cannons? Or sometimes dwarfs have "Magic" cannons. I like the idea of runes, but why are they limited? Give dwarfs better accuracy with war machines (as opposed to a "free round to dig in").
Dwarfs would find it especially difficult to run an empire sized cannon, because after you have loaded the cannon, it is practically a cross country run to get to the end to ram in the powder, if you're a dwarf. Plus, Dwarf cannons have to be used in tunnel battles commonly as well
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Any other ideas?
yes, some kind of mortar or mining automaton would be fun or maybe a mix of the two.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
[quote=P4NC4K3
Tanks don't run on gunpowder
Neither does the gyrocopter. It has a small internal combustion engine. Also, they have a coal burning engine on their trains that are in the undergound highways connecting the various holds. This tunnel was destroyed, but is now working for the most part.
I agree that some steam-punk automations would be very cool in the dwarf army (like a mining thingy). It just buggs me that Empire has engineers on mechanical horses. Why? They have real ones!
7743
Post by: Chrysaor686
Well, if you really want to look at it from a fluff perspective, perhaps the Dwarves have more pride dying by the Sword (Or axe, or mining pick, or what have you) than using their technology for war. I'm sure that would make them feel quite a bit weaker.
But as for completely unbalancing the game for the sake of fluff, look at it this way. It's a whole lot easier to justify inconsistencies in fluff than it is to justify an army that is nigh unstoppable.
721
Post by: BorderCountess
Actually, Chrysaor brings up a good point: A lot of Dwarves don't trust the Engineers. Sure, they have their uses, but the entire race is so steeped in tradition (and living in the past) that bringing all those new-fangled 'machines' to a battle would just go against everything they hold dear.
5644
Post by: P4NC4K3
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Neither does the gyrocopter.
the prototype one did 
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
To Mad Dok.
Yes, Dwarves are almost unbeatable when taken head on. Only a fool takes them Head on.
6553
Post by: Arion
and that is why you take an oathstone in your biggest badest unit and make it impossible to flank.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:To Mad Dok.
Yes, Dwarves are almost unbeatable when taken head on. Only a fool takes them Head on.
A ranked up unit, I quite agree.
But when your army is being blasted to kingdom come by Cannons, Bolt Thrower, Grudge Throwers, Handguns and Crossbows, you need to cross that ground as quickly as possible, and frankly, fannying around trying to get a flank charge off is just leaving yet more time for the Stunties to annihilate your force.
Sure, this isn't so much a problem with the Dwarf list so much as the players (Gunlines are very boring) but then, the list does encourage it somewhat, what with engineering runs, +1 to hit for Handguns etc.
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Nyuknyucknyucknyuck...
However, look at the dwarf army list. They have no economic fast troops. The Gyrocopter weighs in at 140 points, and its stats are only worth (tops) 1/2 that. For 140 points, however, I can get a cannon with R. of Forgeing and Engineer, for a 1 in a couple 100 odds of blowing up. The gun line is the only viable way for dwarves to match most foes.
If you need help, try cavalry. A good block of Knightsin the flank is quite immpressive. When fighting oathstones, charge them with expenible units to lock them in place, then just chew up the rest.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Absolute twaddle. So your base WS4, T4, 3+ Save in HTH Stunty is worthless is he? Utter pish I'm afraid.
Dwarves can make a formidable infantry force, an unbending line of regiments ready to take the enemy head on.
Cavalry against Dwarves is indeed one option, until the Knights get blasted from the saddle as the first order the day!. Oathstones are not a problem, because as you said it can lock a substantial amount of point out the game nicely, though I tend to bung a Dragon into them to ensure that stone gets dropped.
The Stunty book can do so much more than Gunline, but Pete 'Can you tell I play them' Haines decided to reward Gunlines, despite the addition of various tasty runes and that (Thorek or Anvil striking the Marchy Rune, Strollaz etc) making an infantry force even more viable.
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Errr... thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Dwarves do not have anything fast, so they are super easy to outmanouver. An easy way to beat Dwarves is this:
1) throw a cheap unit at alyone who has oathstones. You can easily take 300+ points out of the game. Skinks, Terradons, Pistoleers, Wolf riders, etc.
2) start running a fast unit through the gun lines flank. At the same time, move up the rest of the army. the Dwarves will be dealing with a pottential loss of several hundred points, for relatively few of yours.
3) Once the gun line is sacked, slam your main army into the front, and the fast unit into the rear. With the oathstone and guns decomisioning about 1/2 your foes army for maybe 1/4 of yours, you should have an easy time.
Dwarves are powerful, but have clearly defined weaknesses. The only 2 ways to beat them are:
1: Play a powercheese list (Such as Etherials) or
2: Match your strength to their weakness.
A note on the anvil: its 315 points bare, only has 5 wounds, is prone to explosions, Takes a lord and a hero slot, and only has a 50% chance of working to full effect.
8247
Post by: with an iron fist
Dwarfs do need fixed. Their MR is terrible, their unit list is a mess, and some of those don't even work correctly.
5045
Post by: Evil Eli
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Step One. Tear up Pete Haines version, and destroy all known copies.
OK A Little harsh
Step Two. Make their handguns just like Empire ones. No silly +1 To Hit.
This is OK also
Step Three. Remove the relentless rule. All this does is make Stunties unfairly manouverable when the enemy are close. I get march blocked to 4", he gets 6". An apparent weakness now becomes a definite strength.
This is the silliest thing I have read in a while. You complain about gun line armies, but you take this away and all you will ever see are gun line armies.
Step Four. I know this is going to annoy a lot of Stunty players, but remove the option for Great Weapons from Quarrelers. In my experience, this simply encourages Gunlines, as you can swap from shooting the enemy to hacking them up with good efficiency.
There are a fluff reason for this. Bugman's rangers, Personal All Dwarf Units Should get them 
Step 5. Low the allowance for Runes. Clearly, having custom Magic Items isn't enough, so lets just make sure you can do it properly eh?
OK another silly proposal, You do realize this is the only magic we get right?
Step 6. Make Heavy Armour an upgrade on the Warriors.
We have Hammerers, Iron Breakers & Miners I think that is more then enough.
The above steps are an attempt to avoid the Dwarven Army of Numbing Inevitability I all too often meet. A Gunlines weakness is meant to be that once (if) combat begins, you are largely stuffed. But not with Stunties. Oh no. You spend 3 turns legging it across the board, and promptly crash head first into a brick wall. Not my idea of fun!
Even Dwarf Players hate it but the Thorek / Gun Line is what we got, outside of some exotic builds.
Essentially, I want them to have a recognizable weakness, something the pretty much lack at the moment, beyond being pricey troops.
How About:
Movement 3"
March 6"
Pursuit of 2d6-1
No Skirmishers
No Cavalry
5045
Post by: Evil Eli
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Absolute twaddle. So your base WS4, T4, 3+ Save in HTH Stunty is worthless is he? Utter pish I'm afraid.
Dwarves can make a formidable infantry force, an unbending line of regiments ready to take the enemy head on.
Cavalry against Dwarves is indeed one option, until the Knights get blasted from the saddle as the first order the day!. Oathstones are not a problem, because as you said it can lock a substantial amount of point out the game nicely, though I tend to bung a Dragon into them to ensure that stone gets dropped.
The Stunty book can do so much more than Gunline, but Pete 'Can you tell I play them' Haines decided to reward Gunlines, despite the addition of various tasty runes and that (Thorek or Anvil striking the Marchy Rune, Strollaz etc) making an infantry force even more viable.
You do realize that the moment a dwarf player places on Anvil on the table we get tarred with the "OMH CHEESE WAAC".
I run a Infantry based Dwarf Army with no Anvil and only 20 crossbowmen, 2 bolt throwers, and an organ gun with no anvil and I get accused of running a gunline. I can't win for losing.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
And it's all to do with Pete Haines' apparent inability to write a decent book.
The Anvil is a quandry and a half. Make it magical, and with nothing else to worry about dispelling, it becomes next to useless as soon as a couple of Mages are present in the enemy army, which is almost guaranteed if you want to use Magic against Dwarves effectively. BUT, the current way it is used, with little risk and no way to stop it's effects, and it swings the other way entirely. Where the solution lies, I don't really know. Although I find the effects highly irritating, used in a non-gunline list it's really not that bad.
And so we come to Pete Haines' incompetence. Considering how the Dwarf list works, a Gunline is a natural choice. The Anvil compliments it, Engineer upgrades make artillery markedly better for little outlay, Handguns are stupidly accurate for no real reason, and Quarrelers can offer the best of both worlds, albeit at a price. For once, the problem genuinely lies with the list than the players.
And because of this, I find my games against most Dwarven Generals (though not the majority of games V stunties note) very tedious indeed, almost highly predictable. They simply have too many strengths compared to alleged weaknesses. Sure, you have no Skirmishers, which means your Artillery can have a hard time. Sure, you have no Cavalry to choose. But considering the upside, this is no seriously exploitable weakness. Bothered by Skirmishers? The Ubiquitous Organ Gun well mash them up. Cavalry? Meh. High Toughness, Heavily armoued troops chew them and spit them out thanks to not being especially expensive.
I just feel the book as is offers too much temptation to play like a knobend, tailoring not just the list, but the Runic weapons to your foe, whilst turtling up completely reducing your opponents game and tactics to a mad rush across the board into the teeth of your fire.
It's a shame, because Dwarves have truly excellent combat infantry, but compared to their ranged cousins, they hardly get a look in. So the solution seems (to me at least) relatively simple. Tone down the ranged stuff. Make Rangers an upgrade to Warriors rather than Quarrelers. Stop Quarrelers from being jack of all trades, remove the +1 to hit for Handguns, and do something about the Engineers. Either just them as a unit champion for the Artillery, allowing it to better survive Skirmishers (fair enough in my book) or remove them altogther. They are a relatively recent innovation after all, so not that big a loss to the Dwarf player.
This way, I feel, the Dwarven general has more options opened up to him. Rather than making the Combat Blocks more attractive (they are quite hard enough thank you!) it's about making the ranged troops slightly less attractive. In theory (and only in theory) this will help promote entirely combat infantry forces, and a more mixed arms approach.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Combat Dwarves die.
Simple as.
The gunline is pretty much the only way to run Dwarves effectively. Which is why I shelved my dwarves 3 years ago despite absolutely loving thier background. I wanted to play ubertraditionalist tunnel fighting dwarves: No handguns, no cannons, mostly melee warriors and iron breakers with some quarreller back up. I had one flame cannon, because I liked the idea of a flame cannon underground, coating the walls and cieling with burning oil. I figured the youngest brother of my general was a bit of an oddball engineer. I also had a unit of miners, because those old metals were gorgeous and they suited my theme. I lost every single game I played with them, usually without even putting up much of a fight. LD9 T4 means naught against lances, charging Big Uns or fecky little elf bastards that dance around you shooting you to death before slice'n'dicing what's left with an ubercharacter. Even with relentless, only a complete fool lets you get the charge.
As it stands, dwarves have one decent build and it is dull dull dull.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I still that is a fault of the book which can be rectified.
You now have Strollaz Rune, to help boost yourself up the board. The Anvil can back up an Infantry force nicely, either slowing down the enemy or moving your guys on.
But as you say, there is just too much temptation, and indeed incentive, to just Gunline your way through things.
I'm tempted to try an all Infantry stunty force, but I just don't like the race enough to bother sadly. Never really have.
2548
Post by: jmurph
One thing I would like to see in armies like dwarves and Empire is a built in reward for non gunline builds. For example, a traditionalist dwarf general would emphasize training and drills over reliance on machines. Yet the rules give absolutely no incentive to do so- quite the opposite. Blackpowder weapons are entirely too effective and reliable compared to other missile weapons. They should never be +1 to hit (crude unrifled arquebusses make a loud bang and lots of smoke, but don't tend to hit much!) and the Empire handguns should probably require a round to reload- remember these aren't even musket level guns (this would emphasize the superior training and arms of the dwarves and make other ranged options more viable). Indeed, I would guess Dwarven marksmen would favor the reliable crossbow and if any weapon gets +1 hit, it should be that!
Likewise, there should be more compelling options competing with war machines. Like rare cavalry for dwarves (bear riders sounds fun!). Perhaps restrict lists by the general type (so a warrior general makes an otherwise Rare elite infantry Special or can take a Special as a Core, but Handgunner become Special etc. while an engineer general makes the WMs Special, Handguns Core, etc.). This way, players have to consider the costs of focusing on one area.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Noooo! No Cavalry, please!
Perhaps a superhard unit of infantry, sure, but no Cav.
And make Rangers Skirmish. No harm in that, and adds options.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Perhaps a superhard unit of infantry, sure, but no Cav.
I'm pretty sure you could give Dwarves the hardest infantry unit imaginable and it still wouldn't make one iota of difference. Their army list (and indeed the entire concept of close combat troops with 3" movement) is just fundamentally flawed. I think giving them an extra inch of movement would be by far the least painful option in the long run, precedent be damned.
5534
Post by: dogma
Even M4 heavy infantry are pretty well useless in most situations.
If Dwarfs are to have a viable non-gunline build they need to have something to give them at least passable speed.
This leaves several possibilities:
1) Monster-mount cavalry. Jmurph mentioned bear riders. I like that idea. A big 2 wound, M6 model with a good armor save (because armored bears are oft neglected sources of win), and maybe 3 S5 attacks. Probably keep him at T4. Could treat the rider and mount as separate for purposes of targeting, but that seems overly complicated.
2) Some kind war-wagon apparatus. This used to be an empire creation, but I think it could reclaimed for the shorter good. I'm thinking an M6 chariot (pushed by Rams?) with immunity to the S7 insta-death rule.
3) Bring back doomseekers in powered down role.
4) More movement based bound spells, and some form of similar crowd control magical trickery.
6553
Post by: Arion
People Please. If you use the strollaz rune, march, and then use the rune of oath and honour with ancient power you can get between one and three units 18" across the board. that's pretty dang good in my opinion
5534
Post by: dogma
The problem is that the ability to do so is tied to the anvil. Which I think is what people want to get away from.
6553
Post by: Arion
Look, if you want to play a mobile force, don't play dwarfs. I generally play armies for two reasons. 1) I like the Models. 2) I like the way they play. I play Dwarfs, Lizardmen, and High Elves. Each of these have their own unique play style, and each, imo, has great models. If you don't like the play style don't play that army.
10491
Post by: scotty kahn
Ya, you throw down the Anvil and people automatically call cheese.
I dont really see the reason for this though, as any other major character is just as, if not more cheesy.
Archaon, Malekith, Teclis to name a few that are at least as bad in my book.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
I love dwarfs!
I love the idea of weary yet hard warriors fighting for what they think is the right thing. I love their fluff. I read about lines of dwarfs slowing marching up under a hail of shot to get to grips with the foe. That is what I want to put on the table!
Instead I have a list where the tough lords like to stand on a rock.
“Aw crap. I just promised to never move, and now I am not in combat and there is a punk kid 5 feet in front of me hitting me with spitballs. I think I will just sit here and let him.”
I like the distrust of magic. I like that they feel magic needs to be trapped. I want that in my list.
Instead I have Runelords letting magic out of the anvils like bad gas.
I like the natural and nearly compulsive tinkering of the dwarves. I like the steam-punk of the gyrocopter, the ironsides of Barak Var, and the steam powered ‘wagons’ (trains) of The Underway (Undgrin). I even liked Malakai Makaisson’s goblin hewer. I want this stuff in my list.
Instead I get lightly armored gunmen with great-axes. (okay, I guess I do get the gyrocopters, but they really don’t compete with other rare choices and DOW are cheese-fest)
All I want is my list to play out like the fluff in black library and the army book.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I think some of the better fixes to make melee dwarves work would be magic items or unit abilities that slow down the enemy, make him fight you on your terms, and possibly a reduction in the penalties for being flanked. I can't imagine unflappable dwarves getting that disconcerted by folk outmanouvering them- they're damn well used to it at this stage and should know how to react!
I'd also like to see the ranged effectiveness cut down. I don't want to use the Anvil because I see it as being far too rare to fit the background I have for my army.
I'd like it if it was workable to play ubertraditionalist and ubersteampunk, melee defensive and ranged defensive. That would be the best Dwarf book I can think of and I don't think it's impossible to make.
8247
Post by: with an iron fist
This had been a discussion at this other forum here, sort of.
The dwarf army book does need some changes. My ideas were:
Thunderers - revert guns to 6e rules (24", move and shoot, +1 within 12", armor piercing).
Miners - revert to CORE or make S4 (inline with other special). Overhaul "underground advance", use explosives to emerge like the dirty skaven tunneling team! What?
Rangers - revert to have foresters, give them current "underground advance" (it's a flank march).
I also considered adjusting slayers, but that's another issue.
5534
Post by: dogma
What about army wide stubborn? Fits well with the fluff, and is consistent with DE, and HE army rules.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
That, Dogma, is brilliant!
That is the kind or reasoning I want!
I am not asking for the uber do-it-all army. I just want the fluff I love so much to make an appearance in my army list.
Then again, my chaos list and fluff recently was on the wrong side of a Charlie Manson get together, so I have no real hope.
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Stubborn is awsome, that would just nerf hamerers.
Destroy the anvil. Replace it with funky new Rune items. If you really want to give dwarves magic, make runes that allow bound spells.
Give Dwarves something like 40k's run rule (Move d6" in the shooting phase,may not charge), just make them have to pass a Ld or T test first.
Make heavy armour standard across the board (Except for Ironbreakers).
Make MR of Kragg the Grim cheaper, and just Rune of Kragg the Grim (Allowing multi-Great Weapon builds.)
Make Gyrocopters Cheaper, allow 2-3 per Rare choice.
Allow Rare artillery to take runes.
Allow Slayer Armies.
Allow Oathstones to move, but they are one-use only and you then lose the benifits.
To Mad Dok: STOP TRYING TO NERF DWARVES!!!!!
5534
Post by: dogma
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Stubborn is awsome, that would just nerf hamerers.
Hammerers could just be made ITP. Seems reasonable given that they are oath-bound bodyguards to the king.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Destroy the anvil. Replace it with funky new Rune items. If you really want to give dwarves magic, make runes that allow bound spells.
I like the anvil honestly. It makes sense to me. Though I think I'd rather see it lose it movement powers.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Give Dwarves something like 40k's run rule (Move d6" in the shooting phase,may not charge), just make them have to pass a Ld or T test first.
I don't know about that. I think their movement issues are really what define the army. Though I would like to see at least a couple additional options for some extra legs. Some M6 cavalry would do it I think. Though that might just be me gunning for Dwarfs riding bears.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Make heavy armour standard across the board (Except for Ironbreakers).
It already is essentially that way.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Make MR of Kragg the Grim cheaper, and just Rune of Kragg the Grim (Allowing multi-Great Weapon builds.)
What was Kragg's rune again? I don't recall.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Make Gyrocopters Cheaper, allow 2-3 per Rare choice.
Actually, I would just prefer to see gyrocopters get better. There is currently nothing in WFHB that functions as a mobile, tough, shooting platform. Could be a cool niche.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Allow Rare artillery to take runes.
I don't think that's overly necessary.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Allow Slayer Armies.
Honestly, slayer armies are annoying beyond belief. An unbreakable enemy that doesn't crumble? Don't really want to fight that.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Allow Oathstones to move, but they are one-use only and you then lose the benifits.
Has some potential, but I think it loses some of the flavor. Not much of an oath if you can just walk off.
10491
Post by: scotty kahn
The master rune of Kragg the grim allows you to keep all special rules associated with a normal great weapon.
I really like the idea about the whole army being stubborn. It makes sense and I've had my 30 man unit of Ironbreakers run away more times than I can count and that just doesnt seem right to me.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
dogma wrote:What about army wide stubborn? Fits well with the fluff, and is consistent with DE, and HE army rules.
Sweet jesus NO!
Just makes gunlines all the more appealing, as then the sodding Thunderers never, EVER run away!
You have Ld9 as it is...no need to add stubborn.
And as to Crazy Carnifex...once again a list of ideas which only power up and already dull army. Why the extra movement? Add that to the 6" March, and your Stunties are inexplicably capable of outpacing Elves and most Daemons. Explain the rationale behind this.
Heavy Armour....Meh. If you pay the points for it, no real complaint here.
Master Rune of the Kragg The Grim....so being able to customise your Magic Weapons isn't enough, you want them all to have +2S as well. Riiiiiight.
Gyrocopters are a complete pain to take on. Cheap, nasty breath template...takes up a Rare Slot. Why suddenly allow 2-3 per Rare Slot? They'd just double team enemy Infantry Blocks, steaming one into Oblivion every turn.
Rare Artillery with Runes? I shouldn't need to explain why this is wrong (hey, lookee, my Organ Gun now has +1S, Flaming Attacks, and can be invisible....because, like, I really don't like to think about tactics too much)
Slayer Armies....like Dogma said, they are just far too ridiculously hard. Slayers are there to take on big stuff and chin it. If I get to put say, Witch Elves up against them instead of my Hydra, you deserve to lose the Regiment.
Oathstones are about creating a solid perimeter, where the Dwarves will not shift from, not a get out of gak free item. They prevent you losing a critical unit to a sneaky flank charge, with the downside being you are now pinned in place.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
How about automatically Stubborn if they are on their opponents half of the table i.e. have advanced past the midway point.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Still too harsh, and would be rarely used and whinged about on the Intarwebs.
Now, if there was a Rune that allowed you count as Stubborn for a single test (there is precedent of a sort in the Daemon Book) then sure, makes some kind of sense as a one hit wonder. But always Stubborn? Combine that with their natural WS4, T4 and loadsa armour, exactly how am I meant to take them out now?
And for those who feel I am just out to 'Nerf' stunties (though I fail to see where air powered foam rockets will aid me where Crossbows don't) try re-reading my posts. The complaint from me is that the reward from a Gunline compared to a Combat arm is too high, and rather than raise the power of Infantry (which is already highly competent) you just need to lower the power of the guns until you reach a pleasent equilibrium.
10491
Post by: scotty kahn
@ Mad dok. Youre right, as of right now it is far better to take a gunline dwarf list.
So, do you suggest that the gunline be tooled down, or that they make the combat oriented dwarf army a little more competetive?
I can tell you that in most of the games I play, Dwarfs will be slaughtered in combat .
HE,VC's, Bretonians and WoC are all a few of my regular opponents and a dwarf melee force cannot stand up to any of these armies.
So, as of right now, while I agree that a gunline is boring, going with the alternative is just asking to lose.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Sorry, but I just don't buy it.
The trouble with the Stunty list at the moment, that beyond a Gunline, there is little coherency in the list.
For example, Iron Breakers are horrific to fight, as they are a foot unit with the save of a fully armoured, barded Knight. Yet they just don't hit hard enough, and come from the Specials.
Longbeards can be very handy for avoiding embarassing linebreaks when you least need them.
Hammerers are good enough to work on their own, once you pop a character in there.
Miners...well, they are good enough if your opponent has stuff sitting on his baseline, otherwise they might never see a fight, and I would agree are largely wasted points.
Warriors..well, far as I'm concerned, they are quality foot troops that aren't too expensive.
Slayers? Go and get your girly Ogres, see if I care!
But there is nowhere near the reward for using these units in unison like there is without an Anvil, which is a real shame. Add in Strollaz Rune, and the fight is on your enemies doorstep before he knows whats hit him. And this is fundamentally wrong. Sure, the list with the best synergy has a massive advantage, but I shouldn't have to fork out for a single binding agent to make the whole game worth my while.
Then we look at the Gunline. Chuck in some Quarrelers with Greatweapons for a pricey but very flexible unit or two. The rest then just sit up on a hill peppering the enemy with shot. Now, rather than call it beardy, I prefer to just call it boring. How so? It tends to reduce your tactics to point and click, and the enemies tactics to legging it across the board as fast as he bloody well can hoping to have enough troops left to make a dent if or when he gets there.
The Gyrocopter, used with an Infantry list can be highly irritating for your opponent, as not only is it a highly manouverable march blocker, but can do something about his Rank bonus, giving you an easier time once it comes to combat. BUT, in a Gunline, it's worse. I don't have the time to spend hunting it down, it's slowing me down a lot, AND it's adding weight of firepower to the deluge I'm already suffering. Regardless of which army type it's supporting, I have only ever knackered Gyrocopters when my enemy has slipped up!
Now, the exact answer is beyond me. As you said, Infantry could get powered up, and that is certainly one anwer, but I fear that the Gunline would still be more popular. Nerfing the Guns isn't an option either, as you are just swinging the other way.
So perhaps a sprig of both needs to be added. Make Gunlines slightly less ubiquitous, whilst making Infantry a bit stronger. One answer could be new Runes for Boltthrowers and Grudgethrowers, that once they hit, slow down enemy units. Trouble with that, it's another Rune which becomes almost compulsory, and makes Gunlines even better, as you get longer to knacker the enemy with. As I said before, making the Anvil bound magic is an exercise in futility, as you'll rarely cast anything, but as it is now, it's not especially fair as I can't do anything about it. The answer? I dunno, perhaps tone down the effects of the runes a bit? Raise it's points? I don't think anything overly complicated needs doing, just a small tweak here and there. Perhaps, seeing as they are ancient and venerated relics of a time now past, make them like Slaan, in that should it's Runesmith and Guards get knobbled, it gives away a crapload of extra VPs? This way, you are adding incentive for me to destroy it, and making it a double edged sword (especially with Ancient Power, as you could blow it up yourself, giving me more of a chance of winning???)
None of these suggestions have been considered for very long, but I'm trying to explain my thought process when it comes to tweaking things. I don't believe that any particular unit in any army is useless or overcosted, so much that I feel other units in the same list overshadow them somewhat, so in order to return balance, rather than upgun the weak, you downgun the strong, hopefully reaching a happy medium where a variety of list builds are just as 'viable' as another for Tournament play.
A good example of this, to me, is the Dark Elf book. Helped enormously by dirt cheap Spearelves, I can create a lot of different builds from this book, without ever worrying about needing sneaky tactics to secure a win, and there are only a couple of braindead ones to boot.
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Now thats better reasoning. You now sound less like someone who can't beat Dwarves and is whineing about it.
The run idea represents determined Dwarves rushing forewards fast, calling upon their legendary stammina for an extra burst of speed, while allowing for more mobile armies.
Maybe make the Gyrocopter's steam gun more like Grapeshot.
Also, for Elite infantry, give them multiple attacks to make up for the army lacking spears and two CC weapons.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I still think the best way to make dwarves work isn't to give them buffs to movement, but to give their opponent's penalties to movement. When you're a Dwarf you don't leg it around like an elf, you bring the nippy bugger down to your level and gakker him witha bloody big axe.
I'd like to see gunline as viable, but not the only way to play, and an end to the dominace of the anvil. I'd also like to see forces without a lot of warmachines be workable. I think giving the Dwarf player runes to slow down or control enemy movement in a limited fashion is the best way to do that. The rune of taunting is a good example, but others could be added- one use "half their movement for a turn" runes or special abilities of certain units.
5534
Post by: dogma
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:dogma wrote:What about army wide stubborn? Fits well with the fluff, and is consistent with DE, and HE army rules.
Sweet jesus NO!
Just makes gunlines all the more appealing, as then the sodding Thunderers never, EVER run away!
Then make projectile troops more expensive. Lord knows that stubborn thunderers would still be worth it. Or simply make more liberal use of that USR in the army. Maybe all special choices are stubborn, or maybe army wide stubborn only applies to traditionalist forces that have a more limited access to projectile weapons.
The thing is that gunlines are always going to be appealing with respect to an all infantry. If you can't use maneuver to constrict and enemy's options, you have to use shooting. There isn't any other alternative, well, aside from magic; which Dwarfs also lack.
In total that leaves two options.
1) Buff up elite infantry such that they can be viable in a game built on psychology, and maneuver.
2) Make additions to the list that allow for more speed. Probably also by forcing decisions between some of the more powerful artillery, and mobility/shock.
Personally, I would rather see option two. An army built on low-moderate speed, and ultra-tough units/characters is still plenty unique. Especially when you throw in the no magic caveat. Remember, the idea isn't necessarily to invalidate the gunline, but to provide alternatives to it.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I just see the Stubborn leading to players getting away with extremely sloppy play. For instance, the main trick for me against Stunties, where possible, is to hit them in the flank, stripping his ranks off, reducing his save by one (Shielding bonus only applies to the front!) and generally giving me a real chance at winning and him breaking. Stubborn however, makes this a more or less non-issue, as no matter how righteous a kicking the Stunties take, they just won't break most of the time. Add in the BSB, and you have a totally unassailable battleline, which I really don't agree with.
But...seeing as Stunties are happy moving about in rugged terrain, one answer might be to allow them to ignore difficult terrain? It doesn't make a game winning impact, but it makes their infantry far more attractive.
And amen to your gunline comment. Totally agree it should be left as a viable list, but needs to cease being the *only* list you ever bloody see. Well, see 80% of the time (I'm quite lucky, my usual Stunty opponent isn't that bad!)
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Well... If GW wasn't trying to phase out doctrines, I would say give dwarves a system like that.
For Example:
Traditionalists: This army may not take Organ Guns, Gyrocopter or Flame cannons. Cannons are rare choices, and May not take runes. Thunderers are Moved to special. May not assign a master Engineer to a cannon. However, All Longbeards and Ironbreakers are now stuborn for +2 points. Hammerers are immune to Psychology, for +4 points.
5045
Post by: Evil Eli
Dwarf ReDux
These are my suggestions for a revised Dwarf Army Book.
New Rules
Drilled - Well Trained Troops, Can Perform One free formation change with out penalty, If charged to the front by Chariots the unit can split and let the chariot pass through and take no hits.
Mountaineer - Treat Difficult Terrain as Open, Extremely Difficult Terrain as Difficult.
Shield wall - All H-t-H and Shooting Attacks to the Front of the Unit are at -1 to hit.
Anvil of Doom - All of the Runes become Bound Spells with a Power of 10 (12 w/ Ancient Power). The runes are struck during the magic phase and can be dispelled. The Rune Smith can strike more then one rune a phase but for every one after the first the chance to fail increased by 1. i.e. 2+ for the 1st One, 3+ for the 2nd, 4+ for the 3rd. Similar for Ancient Power.
Include a new rune that will shutdown all magic on the field. Open to ideas.
Dwarf Handgun* - 30 inch Range, No +1 to Hit
Underground Advance** - Unit can appear anywhere within 6 inches of a table edge. If they contact a enemy unit they count as charging.
Lords
Dwarf Lord - Clarify that Lords w/ Shield Bearers are not Mounted
Master of the Guild - Lord Level Engineer, Same Cost as Dwarf Lord with stats of a Rune Lord. Same Abilities As Master Engineer but can entrench up to three War machines. Also Makes Organ Guns and Gyrocopters Special Choices, Hammerers and Iron breakers become Rare Choices. Also Can have One Extra Unit of Miners* (see below)
Core Troops
Dwarf Warriors - Drilled & Shieldwall Cost 10 Points
Long Beards Upgrade - Drilled, Shieldwall, ItP, & Old Grumblers
Quarrellers - Remove Great Weapon Option
Ranger Upgrade - +5 Pts, Great Weapon, Mountaineer, Scout, Skirmisher
Engineers - Dwarf Handgunners*
Miner Upgrade - +1, Replace Handgun with Great Weapon, Gain Drilled and Underground Advance**.
Special Troops
Hammerers - Drilled
Iron Breakers - Drilled & Shield wall, If they charge a unit they will inflict D6 S4 Impact hits due to the mass of armor hitting a unit.
Slayers - Skirmishers
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Evil Eli wrote:Dwarf ReDux
These are my suggestions for a revised Dwarf Army Book.
New Rules
Drilled - Well Trained Troops, Can Perform One free formation change with out penalty, If charged to the front by Chariots the unit can split and let the chariot pass through and take no hits.
Mountaineer - Treat Difficult Terrain as Open, Extremely Difficult Terrain as Difficult.
Shield wall - All H-t-H and Shooting Attacks to the Front of the Unit are at -1 to hit.
Anvil of Doom - All of the Runes become Bound Spells with a Power of 10 (12 w/ Ancient Power). The runes are struck during the magic phase and can be dispelled. The Rune Smith can strike more then one rune a phase but for every one after the first the chance to fail increased by 1. i.e. 2+ for the 1st One, 3+ for the 2nd, 4+ for the 3rd. Similar for Ancient Power.
Include a new rune that will shutdown all magic on the field. Open to ideas.
Dwarf Handgun* - 30 inch Range, No +1 to Hit
Underground Advance** - Unit can appear anywhere within 6 inches of a table edge. If they contact a enemy unit they count as charging.
Lords
Dwarf Lord - Clarify that Lords w/ Shield Bearers are not Mounted
Master of the Guild - Lord Level Engineer, Same Cost as Dwarf Lord with stats of a Rune Lord. Same Abilities As Master Engineer but can entrench up to three War machines. Also Makes Organ Guns and Gyrocopters Special Choices, Hammerers and Iron breakers become Rare Choices. Also Can have One Extra Unit of Miners* (see below)
Core Troops
Dwarf Warriors - Drilled & Shieldwall Cost 10 Points
Long Beards Upgrade - Drilled, Shieldwall, ItP, & Old Grumblers
Quarrellers - Remove Great Weapon Option
Ranger Upgrade - +5 Pts, Great Weapon, Mountaineer, Scout, Skirmisher
Engineers - Dwarf Handgunners*
Miner Upgrade - +1, Replace Handgun with Great Weapon, Gain Drilled and Underground Advance**.
Special Troops
Hammerers - Drilled
Iron Breakers - Drilled & Shield wall, If they charge a unit they will inflict D6 S4 Impact hits due to the mass of armor hitting a unit.
Slayers - Skirmishers
Well Drilled...I like that apart from letting Chariots pass through the Regiment. Just seems a very cheap trick to avoid a perfectly valid weapon of war.
Mountaineer I like, as it gives the Infantry a real boost, without speeding them up beyond reason.
Shield Wall....I don't like it. Stunties are pain in the bum as it is when you get to combat, so why the -1 to hit?
Anvil...now that seems workable. A fairly high Casting Level, but not insumountable. Also, perhaps prevent Dispel Scrolls from affecting it? (not that I'd expect to see many against Dwarves) Could represent the legendary power of the Runes?
Handgun...30"....why would anyone take Quarrelers? Perhaps drop the +1 to hit and leave it at that?
Underground Advance. I'd remove the charging part. Bit cheap for taking out enemy artillery?
Dwarf Lord, fine. No problems there.
Master of the Guild....Entrenching is okay, but making Organs Guns and Gyrocopters special isn't right. Perhaps allow one of either as as an upgrade for him, or allow one of either to be selected as a single Special Choice. Otherwise it really is just encouraging Gunlining, especially as two of the better Infantry units are then moved to Rare?
Quarrelers I like.
Slayers shouldn't really be Skirmishers. Not keen on the idea of Stunty Skirmishers at all. It's not in character, and Unbreakable Skirmishers are way, way too hard!
Iron Breakers causing impact hits...I just don't see Dwarves building up the impetus to have that. Remember, even Ogres (who are very large, very heavy, exceedingly violent and fast moving) need to move at least 6" to get this....
But yeah, there you go. Again, please bear in mind my philosophy that the guns need toning down and the infantry toning up in order to promote multiple feasible builds!
5045
Post by: Evil Eli
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Evil Eli wrote:Dwarf ReDux
Well Drilled...I like that apart from letting Chariots pass through the Regiment. Just seems a very cheap trick to avoid a perfectly valid weapon of war.
This is a rule I borrowed from WAB. It it a pretty legit historical tactic.
Mountaineer I like, as it gives the Infantry a real boost, without speeding them up beyond reason.
It seemed Dwarfy and made sense.
Shield Wall....I don't like it. Stunties are pain in the bum as it is when you get to combat, so why the -1 to hit?
This is another rule I borrowed from WAB, Dwarfs are roughly modeled on the Saxon and Vikings and it just seemed dwarfy.
Anvil...now that seems workable. A fairly high Casting Level, but not insurmountable. Also, perhaps prevent Dispel Scrolls from affecting it? (not that I'd expect to see many against Dwarves) Could represent the legendary power of the Runes?
The Anvil is tricky and currently over powered, You got to give your opponent a chance.
Handgun...30"....why would anyone take Quarrelers? Perhaps drop the +1 to hit and leave it at that?
Points, Quarrlers are cheaper and the only way to get rangers.
Underground Advance. I'd remove the charging part. Bit cheap for taking out enemy artillery?
Not really, The opponent just set up Seven Inches in.
Dwarf Lord, fine. No problems there.
Master of the Guild....Entrenching is okay, but making Organs Guns and Gyrocopters special isn't right. Perhaps allow one of either as as an upgrade for him, or allow one of either to be selected as a single Special Choice. Otherwise it really is just encouraging Gunlining, especially as two of the better Infantry units are then moved to Rare?
Yeah He does promote gunlining, but remember no ANVIL!
Quarrelers I like.
Slayers shouldn't really be Skirmishers. Not keen on the idea of Stunty Skirmishers at all. It's not in character, and Unbreakable Skirmishers are way, way too hard!
I have always thought that idea of a unit of slayers were silly period. I have always imagined them more like NG fanatics and you would hide them in units and spring them on oppponents.
Iron Breakers causing impact hits...I just don't see Dwarves building up the impetus to have that. Remember, even Ogres (who are very large, very heavy, exceedingly violent and fast moving) need to move at least 6" to get this....
It was just a thought, Right now they nothing more then a glorified Road Block. I thought maybe giving them Hatred for Skaven,
But yeah, there you go. Again, please bear in mind my philosophy that the guns need toning down and the infantry toning up in order to promote multiple feasible builds!
I do understand.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Trouble is unless the WAB rules are dropped into others, the Stunties get a noticable upkick in their HTH combat abilties, particularly where Chariots are concerned. It's rare enough one survives long enough to charge the short arses, without them simply doing a ZZ Top as it passes!
10491
Post by: scotty kahn
I like the drilled and mountaineer rules a lot.
I agree that letting chariots pass by seems a little overpowered.
I do think though that Slayers should be skirmishers, but I think that the max unit size would have to be dropped.
30 skirmishing crazies would be cool but broken. Maybe down to like 15 or so.
I also think the shield wall is a feasible option against shooting but not HTH. My thinking here is that ironbreakers would become too much of an uber-unit.
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Maybe, for Thunderers+Quarrellers, leave the Thunderers w. +1 to hit, but give quarrellers the option to move and shoot.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
I think slayers should be Rare choice. There has to be fewer mentally screwed up dwarfs then there are longbeards or ironbreakers. Small units 5-10man. Skirmish, upgrade any number to giant slayers.
I would like some of the technological marvels to move to special. If the plans for organ guns/flame cannons are the same in every hold, and they function on the field, what thane wouldn't have a few on hand. You can make them 0-1/ +1 per Engineer Hero.
And I know it sounds cheesy, but I would like a tank like contraption. It makes sense for dwarfs to have one. Make it two rare choices. Make it expensive. But above all, make a model!
5997
Post by: JoeOrks
Why would you want to take Dwarves away from a gunline?
Thats like saying "i want to run a TK army with 0 magic." or "I want to run an all gnoblar OK list"
It just makes no sense fluff wise is all....
10491
Post by: scotty kahn
Dwarfs are supposed to be these great warriors and that is just not reflected in the rules right now.
I wouldnt say anybody is trying to take away the gunline, I just think that something needs to change combat wise to reflect the nature of Dwarfs better.
5997
Post by: JoeOrks
I dont necessarily agree, I think that a unit of longbeard rangers + miners being backed up by warriors and a few gyrocopters is a great army.
10491
Post by: scotty kahn
It's not bad by any means but do you think that that list could stand up to a khorne chaos army, or things like heavy cav, or even units like Swordmasters?
5997
Post by: JoeOrks
Slayers, can take out any of those, save maybe the swordmasters.
But on the same note, those are the toughest units in the game to take down...
And they can crush cars
10491
Post by: scotty kahn
Youre right Slayers could do it if they could get there. 
5997
Post by: JoeOrks
With khorne chaos, Swordmasters and cav, they all come to you at the same time so i dont see your point. Like i said the only thing that kills them is gunlines, which is why you put ironbreakers in front of them
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Thing is, it's gun lines or a complete fluff re-write for Dwarves.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Really? Complete fluff re-write. Vast, vast majority of the Stunty Background I've read is about their solid infantry going toe to toe against massive odds and breaking heads relentlessly?
I say again, all that is needed is to make Gunlines less of a no brainer, and to encourage those players currently lacking the wherewithall to embrace HTH.
Khorne Chaos, Swordmasters etc...Yeah, do what most races do. Use a bit of ranged firepower to whittle down their ranks, then jump them with your own Heavy Infantry. Remember, once it comes to actually hitting them, Swordmasters are no harder to kill than a weedy little Gobbo armed with a Spear....
4042
Post by: Da Boss
"Jump them"? Not likely. Dwarves get jumped, unless they're fighting other Dwarves. Close combat with Dwarves really doesn't work out too well most of the time.
I agree that their fluff is close combat based though- it's what attracted me to them.
10491
Post by: scotty kahn
Ya,I dont think theres really such a thing as "jumping" other units as dwarves are usually the ones getting charged...usually.
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
Aside from the humour one may derive from the idea of 'jumping' Dwarves, I'm suddenly inspired to invent a terrain feature incorporating an optical illusion, making your opponent think his unit is two inches closer to your lines than he really is...
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
It's a no-win situation. Power down the gunline, and the Dwarf army is incapable of chooseing it's fights. Give 'em cavalry, and All non-Dwarf players (and quite a few dwarf players) will complain.
Boost the Infantry, and Non-Dwarf Players will complain.
I would say that the solution is to boost the Infantry without weakening the gunline.
Giant slayers become cheaper, but make them their own unit, and a rare choice. Lower the Unit size for Slayers (5-20), Remove the options for a command, but allow a unit of Troll slayers to take a Unit Champion.
Longbeards become special and Immune to Psychology. They allow re-rolls on any failed Psychology test.
Hammerers Become core, Immune to Psychology, and Hate all enemies. VS Greenskins, they get re-rolls each turn. They do, however, become 0-1 per Dwarf Lord in your army, and must always rank up with the Lord. This Emphasises the oaths that they take to protect the Dwarf Lord.
Ironbreakers remain much the same.
Give Elite infantry 2 attacks each and make all Elite infantry stubborn. Now players will quite likely be willing to swap some cannons for Infantry. Make the point hike small for the amount that they improve.
For warriors, Drop the cost by a point or two, allowing Larger units for the cost, and allowing a solid core of cc infantry for similar costs to a small gunline squad.
Make Rangers a seperate 0-1 unit, Skirmishers, and Give them Great Weapons and Crossbows.
Remove the Great Weapons option from quarrellers.
Raise thunderers costs by a point or two, to make up for Warriors.
For Characters, allow each Dragon slayer to take a unit of Troll slayers as core. Same for Daemon slayer, but make it Giant Slayers. Allow them to take runes to protect them from shooting.
Lower the cost of the Anvil of Doom to say 100 pts, allow 1 rune to be selected before battle, that casts on 2+ with ancient power levels of capability. Thoreks power is that he knows all 3, and can use multiples each turn.
Make the Gyrocopter just shoot grapeshot like a cannon, not insanely weak junk.
These changes should hopefully see an increase in cc units gaurding the ever-present gunlines, which will hopefully be reduced in size, fitting Dwarven fluff of tough infantry backed by big guns.
8247
Post by: with an iron fist
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:It's a no-win situation. Power down the gunline, and the Dwarf army is incapable of chooseing it's fights. Give 'em cavalry, and All non-Dwarf players (and quite a few dwarf players) will complain.
Boost the Infantry, and Non-Dwarf Players will complain.
There're some simple changes that can be made, but they don't include making unit X cheaper and unit Y more expensive.
For starters, miners should be placed back in Core, and their underground advance needs fixing.
721
Post by: BorderCountess
with an iron fist wrote:Crazy_Carnifex wrote:It's a no-win situation. Power down the gunline, and the Dwarf army is incapable of chooseing it's fights. Give 'em cavalry, and All non-Dwarf players (and quite a few dwarf players) will complain.
Boost the Infantry, and Non-Dwarf Players will complain.
There're some simple changes that can be made, but they don't include making unit X cheaper and unit Y more expensive.
For starters, miners should be placed back in Core, and their underground advance needs fixing.
And maybe not giving shields to the guys with the guns. The true problem that encourages gun lines is that even your troopers with the missile weapons can be WS4 T4 4+ save in close combat. Thunderers/Quarrelers with shields and light armor are STILL among some of the harder infantry in the game. Removing the option for shields from those two units will make strides in discouraging gun lines.
I also think that removing some of the options from the war machines (like entrenching - they're T4 and Ld9 already!) will help move in that direction.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Again, if Dwarfs ever get Stubborn for more than just specific Combinations (I think it's Hammerers with a Lord/Thane just now) I will simply refuse to play them ever again, and I don't like turning down games!
And define toning down the Gunline meaning you can't pick your fights. It doesn't allow you to right now. Firing a Cannon or three into someones face doesn't slow them down, it just makes the inevitable combat against said unit far more in your favour.
Stunties should have a problem with people getting in past their lines. Now I can see this getting easier in their next book, as all evidence so far would seem to suggest the Organ Gun rolling to hit (following the trend of other such things).
Now, the two attacks for some Heavy Infantry (don't like the term Elite. Purely personal thing there though) does make a certain amount of sense. After all, Swordmasters got it, Black Guard got it, and both are exceedingly nasty things to deal with. So Stunties ought to get their fair crack of the whip as well!
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
What I mean by picking combat is, Dwarves have no ability to dodge "deathstar" unit. The gunline allows these units to be taken out on Dwarven Terms.
I agree with the idea of Takeing away Great weapons and sheilds from the Rangted units.
Reason I suggest giveing the Elites stubborn is that Dwarves are meant to be really stubborn, but Universal Stubborn on Ld9 would be cheap. However, giveing it to the (Fluff-wise) Standing Regiments makes sense.
As to the Organ Gun Haveing to roll to hit: I will be Disipointed, but not Surprised. Still (brigtens) it will give me an excuse to grab a Flame cannon.
6553
Post by: Arion
You already don't have reason enough to get a flame cannon??!!! You can hit more models, strength 5, -3 armour AND an Automatic panic test if you wound JUST ONE. the automatic panic test makes it worth while, and in many cases better than the organ gun (I see a lot of green skins runnin)
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Yeah, but Organ Guns are cheaper, more accurate, and non-Flameing attacks (One of my regular opponents plays HE, and always brings Dragon Princes). The re-rolls numbers of hits is also nice.
6553
Post by: Arion
True, true. But if you are playing a horde army, you get a lot more bang for your buck in the flame cannon. I once won a game against goblins with the flame cannon doing almost all the work. sure the organ gun killed a few, so did the other cannons, but the flame cannon made a unit run, it ran through his own units, and by turn 3 all of his units were running away, and off the board. We didn't even get into combat.
721
Post by: BorderCountess
Arion wrote:True, true. But if you are playing a horde army, you get a lot more bang for your buck in the flame cannon. I once won a game against goblins with the flame cannon doing almost all the work. sure the organ gun killed a few, so did the other cannons, but the flame cannon made a unit run, it ran through his own units, and by turn 3 all of his units were running away, and off the board. We didn't even get into combat.
...and therein lies the whole point of this thread.
6553
Post by: Arion
But it was funny, even the goblin player was laughing his head off. that isn't always going to happen. That is VERY rare, and Dwarfs are supposed to be good at fighting greenskins.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
MGD, it's been a long time since I've read posts on the interwebs that have incensed me so. Don't take this the wrong way, but after reading your posts on Dwarfs I've wanted to reach through my monitor and throttle you with a fish for being so silly. It's just really frustrating as someone who absolutely loves Dwarfs as GW has portrayed them, but was so sickened of the army's rules, play style (if you could call it that), and ridiculous number of bad matchups that I sold my army and just cling to my BL novels and a small set of character models. Let me cover a few things you got right: Gunlines, or just heavy amounts of shooting with a small subset of blocks are the only "non-anvil" way to win, and even that isn't that great. Plus, as you mentioned, it's absolutely boring. The only tactical thought comes during deployment, then it's target selection. Now here's where you went wrong: "In your face" infantry style armies do not work and are not fun. Strollas, Strollas + Anvil, etc just do not work for Dwarfs. Not against any kind of competent opponent with a semi decent optimized army. You end up doing half the work to hang yourself by trying to maneuver M3 blocks into combat positions. And by taking enough infantry to build this kind of army, you don't have the army slots available to dedicate to shooting to force the enemy to try and engage you - which means Fast-Cav and traditional WM hunters become even more of a problem than they already are. Which brings me to why Dwarfs as they are still suck, even with the "shooty army": 5 Furies - 60 Points (Core) 5 Harpies - 55 Points (Core) 5 Dire Wolves - 40 Points (Core) Tomb Scorpion - 85 Points (Special, but can tunnel & charge) 5 Gutter Runners w/ Poison - 70 Points (Special, but can tunnel & charge) 1 Empire Great Cannon - 100 Points (Special, but can kill any Dwarf Warmachine with startling regularity & ease from Turn 1 onward) etc. etc. etc. Most armies have good WM hunters that are cheap & plentiful, meaning they can field just enough units to make sure that you can't shoot them all down before one or two make it through and kill your WM crew. This is why Dwarfs don't do so well at tournaments. You can neutralize their shooting quickly, and then just avoid combats you don't want and get the easy win. Sure you don't massacre, but you can win. I'm going to quote one of the best posts in this thread: Agamemnon2 wrote:Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Perhaps a superhard unit of infantry, sure, but no Cav.
I'm pretty sure you could give Dwarves the hardest infantry unit imaginable and it still wouldn't make one iota of difference. Their army list (and indeed the entire concept of close combat troops with 3" movement) is just fundamentally flawed. I think giving them an extra inch of movement would be by far the least painful option in the long run, precedent be damned.
Dwarfs already HAVE the hardest infantry unit imaginable (Hammerers) without being VC/Daemon levels of slowed powerful. It doesn't matter. Tooled up Dwarf Lord in Hammerers? Good Job, I'll never fight you with anything but a pittance. Maybe if the Rune of Challenge worked like the Siren Song it would be good, but as it is now, you're putting a ton of points into a super hard death unit....that can't project any force whatsoever. Same goes for any dwarf block that is Stubborn, or Immune to Psych, or has Static CR7 and are hard as hell to kill (Ironbreakers), they will just be avoided. Kill the shooters/warmachines, flank the warriors (if there are any or if the previous step wasn't already enough), and you can net yourself an easy win. Most losses you'll incur will be less than the cost of what you kill, and away you go with your merry little (and boring) win. So with all that: Voodoo's Way GW can make Dwarfs not Suck and get him to re-buy a Dwarf army Increase Dwarfs to M4. Gobbos are the same size as Dwarfs and are M4, so are Gnoblars, etc. Dwarfs should not be that slow in a game with the kind of mechanics WHFB has for winning. Give Dwarfs a limited number of hard hitting/faster units. The fact that the Empire gets Steam Tanks and Dwarfs do not is a travesty against any semblance of logic in the WHFB fluff. There are other things that could be done as well. M6-7 Dwarfs riding armored bears = awesome, however if Dwarfs get M4, then this option probably shouldn't appear. The "Steam Tank equivalent in Rare" would suffice. Also, a Dwarf riding a Dragon or some kind of Griffon style mount would be awesome. Chaos Dwarfs getting something along these lines is what makes their Lord choice somewhat interesting. This is a tricky option to be sure. If Dwarfs stay M3 but get some kind of Ogre/Cav speed unit in Special, then you'll see armies with maxed out choices of this and they lose a lot of flavor. And if you give them this in addition to M4 then they become too much like "normal races". Maybe give them this kind of option in Rare only? Probably not a bad idea since once the Organ Gun has to roll to hit it won't be worth taking anymore (See 7th Ed Empire Hellblaster). Give Dwarfs Magic Options. The Anvil becomes a Level 4 equivalent (and still take up a Hero slot). Make their magic more like Tomb Kings (though limit movement spells as anvil-only), everything is a bound spell or some kind or another with a variable casting rate - the ability to unleash the power of runes in the magic phase makes Runesmiths worth taking. Though i would say keep the option of miscasts on a roll of a 1 or double 1 based on the power of the spell, just so that it's more unique and less reliable than TK magic. Rather than paying for a 120+ point Hero whose purpose is to be an M3 Ironbreaker Champion with 2 Wounds, a DD, and some Scrolls. Other armies get scroll caddies that do much the same thing, for much the same cost but can also do magic offensively. I have no problems if you make the Runesmiths cost more points as a result, but Dwarfs already suffer as an army that doesn't get to participate in multiple phases of the game (Movement, Magic). They need something here. Debuffs Obviously with these sorts of abilities added Dwarfs would need to see a reduction in their stats and/or points increases. This is fine, but you should account for the fact that a good number of their choices already suck and shouldn't see much of a debuff to compensate, ala Warriors. Perhaps core units being reduced to LD8 base? I'd definitely accept that for a point of movement increase, though I'd still say that at 9 Points for a Dwarf Warrior w/ Shield is still too expensive, but that is more a reflection of the fact that regular infantry units in general are pretty crappy in the scheme of WHFB's rules, rather than a specific problem with Dwarf Warriors. Still, for a unit whose sole purpose in life is to have Static CR & not die, 250 Points for a unit of 25 w/ Full Command is simply not useful in "Today's Game of WHFB." Caveat I realize that these are drastic changes to Dwarfs, but in the scheme of WHFB, they are a terrible army and most importantly are unfun for anyone who wishes to win a game.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
I like what Voodoo had to say, except the movement 4.
M4 - I see dwarves as being stocky to the point of lumbering. So I feel movement 3 is okay. This ties in with the next point.
Faster Units - Yes! A race that can manufacture trains and helicopters should be able to have a tank. Or even go-carts. Empire engineers make them and they have no need for it as they can ride real horses (being human). But heavens forbid if the race that moves slowly designs something to combat that (just not crappy steam-horse, please).
Lord Mounts - I dislike steam-punk crap, but I have to admit... An Engineer Lord on some kind of mechanical platform would be cool. Not quite warbuggy from 40k, but close.
Magic Options - I like the idea of bound magic. Why just an anvil? Why not make a section of "Runesmith only" runes that hold bound spells? make them cheaper as the runesmith does not generate power dice.
118
Post by: Schepp himself
Even though the dwarfs are somewhat tedious to play against, I dislike most of the changes presented here. The Dwarfs are very, very, veery conservative. Imagine the conservative elderly men in your neighborhood, multiply that guy by 3 and you have a young dwarf. Now let those guys get 300 years old... They don't go out and invent fancy new stuff like tanks and helicopters, they grumble all the time and mow their lawn.
I generally agree that the basic gunner shouldn't be as hard as the ordinary dwarf. Taking away hand to hand options would be the first step. What about introducing a special rule for the dwarfs like "shield wall" or something that increases their AS by 1 in the turn they've been charged. A melee army should consist of units you can rely on, taking a charge from anything and hold the enemy to get charged next turn.
Honestly, I always feared my friends melee armies more than his shooty armies with my skaven. As Vodoo said, the war machines are easily dispatched, but the infantry is dead hard.
I second the "magic" approach for the anvil, though, why making the magic of every race different? The anvil as a bound spell host would be cool. Inscribing as many bound spell runes you like, releasing them every round.
You could cast them with low and high power (lvl 3 or 5) and you must roll a dice afterward. If it's a 1 (for lvl 3) or a 1 and 2 (for lvl 6) the spell is lost for the rest of the game.
Well, some of my thoughts...
Greets
Schepp himself
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Schepp himself wrote:Even though the dwarfs are somewhat tedious to play against, I dislike most of the changes presented here. The Dwarfs are very, very, veery conservative. Imagine the conservative elderly men in your neighborhood, multiply that guy by 3 and you have a young dwarf. Now let those guys get 300 years old... They don't go out and invent fancy new stuff like tanks and helicopters, they grumble all the time and mow their lawn.
I generally agree that the basic gunner shouldn't be as hard as the ordinary dwarf. Taking away hand to hand options would be the first step. What about introducing a special rule for the dwarfs like "shield wall" or something that increases their AS by 1 in the turn they've been charged. A melee army should consist of units you can rely on, taking a charge from anything and hold the enemy to get charged next turn.
Honestly, I always feared my friends melee armies more than his shooty armies with my skaven. As Vodoo said, the war machines are easily dispatched, but the infantry is dead hard.
I second the "magic" approach for the anvil, though, why making the magic of every race different? The anvil as a bound spell host would be cool. Inscribing as many bound spell runes you like, releasing them every round.
You could cast them with low and high power (lvl 3 or 5) and you must roll a dice afterward. If it's a 1 (for lvl 3) or a 1 and 2 (for lvl 6) the spell is lost for the rest of the game.
Well, some of my thoughts...
Greets
Schepp himself
If they can get an Organ Gun, a Gyro Copter, and a Flame Cannon, they can build their bloody tanks.
Hell, in the fluff, they've built them already! As far as a "fluff" argument, it's nonsense that they can't have something along those lines.
And even if it wasn't, change the fluff. The army is terrible now. Without some kind of speed increase and some key maneuverable units, they're doomed as an army because of how bad the fundamental flaw of the entire premise of the army really is.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
Voodoo Boyz wrote:
If they can get an Organ Gun, a Gyro Copter, and a Flame Cannon, they can build their bloody tanks.
Hell, in the fluff, they've built them already! As far as a "fluff" argument, it's nonsense that they can't have something along those lines.
And even if it wasn't, change the fluff. The army is terrible now. Without some kind of speed increase and some key maneuverable units, they're doomed as an army because of how bad the fundamental flaw of the entire premise of the army really is.
Yes, thank you. The fluff for trains and helicopters is already there. Their boats from General's Compendium were Civil War era Ironsides. In the Slayer series of books, Malakai Makaisson has airships (Goodyear Blimps!) and the Goblin-Hewer made it to the lists in the last edition. I do not see a race of slow moving individuals looking at all the calavry that has been kicking their butts for the last 1000 years or so, and just saying... oh well! Dwarf engineers are fanatical! They make all kinds of cool stuff! So far, the dwarf Army Books have only shown the tradional side, but the fluff has so much more to offer.
118
Post by: Schepp himself
Yeah, about these slayer books: They sucked pretty hard balls...
And writing something in bold letters, repeatedly, doesn't make it right.
But enough of that. I know that it's bad for an army not having any fast elements as cavalry, but why must every army have a highly mobile element? It's boring! I don't want the dwarfs to become a technology crazefest book like the skaven army book. It belongs to them. And their stuff blows up. Dwarven stuff doesn't blow up.
It's not like I didn't write some serious suggestions for the dwarfs army concept. What do you say about them?
Greets
Schepp himself
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
I did not realize I was typing in bold...
I liked the Shield wall suggestion as an idea. Not sold on the mechanics of it.
You stated that the gunners should be toned down... what about move that 4 from WS to BS?
I honestly dislike that mutated rats have Gatling guns, but the dwarfs are loaded up with muskets. Based off the fluff, dwarfs are just a little pre-WW1, except for the gyrocopter (1920s). It is not too far a stretch for tanks to make an appearance. And it would be sweet to have a plastic tank kit for fantasy!!!
And Schepp... you are 100% right about the caliber of ball sucking that makes up the Slayer books.
118
Post by: Schepp himself
I agree that a steam tank would make one million times more sense in a dwarf army. Don't quite get why the empire got it. Especially the version with some warriors on an open topped roof. I think the WD rules for the steam tank got that but not the current one in the empire army book.
Greets
Schepp himself
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Schepp himself wrote:
I know that it's bad for an army not having any fast elements as cavalry, but why must every army have a highly mobile element? It's boring! I don't want the dwarfs to become a technology crazefest book like the skaven army book. It belongs to them. And their stuff blows up. Dwarven stuff doesn't blow up.
It's bad enough to take an infantry army. In fact it's near impossible to take an army that is nearly all infantry and actually win, even with M4 units. Only VC can manage that, and that's cause they're undead and have relentless movement magic.
Without faster elements in the army, they are simply #1) Not Fun and #2) Terribly underpowered in a fundamental way.
Seriously, by saying that every army having a highly mobile element is boring, it's like saying every army having infantry units is boring. It simply doesn't make sense.
I'm not saying they should be a technology crazy fest, but they should get elements that give them an ability to play in a game where movement is the determining factor in being successful.
BTW, Dwarf stuff does blow up. I've had a Cannon with the Rune of Forging explode itself on Turn 1 (yes, seriously).
It's not like I didn't write some serious suggestions for the dwarfs army concept. What do you say about them?
I don't think things like making Dwarven armor saves better. Dwarfs generally don't die all that much, save for things that will probably kill them in "enough" amounts to do what they need to do.
Dwarf blocks very rarely die from frontal charges that rely on damage output. Dwarf blocks die due to fear/outnumber or being flanked.
This is why the simple answer to fighting dwarfs is to kill their shooting elements and then avoid blocks you can't flank or fear/outnumber.
As far as their shooters go, making them weaker just makes it easier for fast cav or the light fliers to be able to kill them. IMO, it's rarely worth taking more than 1 or 2 units of them (unless you're doing an Anvil Gunline, which is a whole separate animal from a "regular" gunline). Honestly, I'd rather see them easier to kill and be a bit cheaper as a result. Even if you didn't make them cheaper, it's something I'd gladly give up for say M4 across the board.
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Maybe allow your whole Army to come on via tunnels?
2826
Post by: Blank
Most people who say Dwarfs are  better go  somewhere else...
1) If I use an Anvil, it's not I will agree it is if I use Thorek (sp) it becomes but with a regular RL... It's not that bad, it becomes a Rally Machine, Good Magic Missile, or a Danse - all of which other armies with dedicated spellcasters get off once a turn regardless, and if I roll a 1, I have a good chance of  myself because if I roll another 1, I lose tons of points, or at best I fail to cast at all, meaning I only have 5 more times to hit the Anvil.
2) Dwarfs carry Great Weapons (or HW & SH), have great Armor and are Tough - not some Dwarfs, ALL DWARFS regardless if they carry a x-bow or gun.
3.) Has anyone tried to win a tourney using Dwarfs? Tell me how eazy it was playing vs. a VC, DoC, etc... Go about them.
Why am I even arguing, yes you have to walk across a field and get shot at... and... You know what that Dwarf is going to do? Stand there, yup no suprise. How about you...
1.) Shoot back? I know I know those pesky Dwarfs stole all of your bows, BT's, Cannons, bows, guns, steam tanks, etc...
2.) Screen? Throw stuff you don't mind getting killed in front, use terrain to block LoS.
3.) Use fast cal, things that fly, skirmishers, etc...
4.) Laugh at me as I try to run you down with 2d6-1
I mean, c'mon Dwarfs aren't that powerful, they don't finish at the top of tourneys, what did someone lose to a Dwarf once and said Waaahhh they have guns and a magic spell that makes them move. That's why I lost, not because I (rolled bad, made a bad decision, played to my opponents strength, etc...). Go complain about charging HE in the rear / flank that they still ASF, wait I'll need to wait for a person to lose to HE 1st in that exact way in order to hear about it.
118
Post by: Schepp himself
Blank wrote: Some stuff with orks and cheese in it
I don't think the problem mainly discussed here is that dwarfs are too powerful, it's that the army book only gives you one boring option if you want to play competitive (or overpowered depends on definition and who you ask).
Greets
Schepp himself
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Yup. and any other option isn't really fluffy.
11317
Post by: ginric99
in terms of fluff the other thing to remember is that the dwarfs are a dying race, there runesmiths are not as great as they where back in the day, so it can be believed that there engineers, while at one point where the greatest in the old world, they have now been superseeded by the up and coming race of man. hence the creation of the rocket battery and steam tank by Humans. SO what the dwarfs have is very high quality, but they are unlikly to make anything new. Oh and on the fast atack option. The dwarfs are the only race to have a flying war machine.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
ginric99 wrote:Oh and on the fast atack option. The dwarfs are the only race to have a flying war machine.
True, but it is a rare and inflicts light wounds, crashes, etc. I like it alot (my brother and I talked about making variants) but it does not really help the holes in the Dwarf list all by itself.
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
I do not mind the stats, but it really should cost maybe 1/3 of what it costs now.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
All the WOW players and the fans of steam-punk would be more interested if Dwarfs were to bring out a bit more of the Engineer Guild Toys in the next book. I would like to see Gyrocpters stay Rare, but be 2 for 1 slot like bolt throwers.
8471
Post by: olympia
damnit all..I just picked up the Battle for Skull Pass and a box of Thunderers. You mean to tell me I started collecting a boring ass, one trick pony army? doh!
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
olympia wrote:damnit all..I just picked up the Battle for Skull Pass and a box of Thunderers. You mean to tell me I started collecting a boring ass, one trick pony army? doh!
True... but some of the coolest fluff of any army out there!
10356
Post by: Bran Dawri
I agree that dwarfs are in need of an overhaul. I do not agree that just their shooting should be nerfed - dwarfs are described (almost) everywhere as the finest infantry in the world, perfectly capable of holding and defeating even the most powerful cavalry charges.
Excep that in game terms, with the sudden powerboost cav has been getting (what in blazes were they thinking? Cav was overpowered already...), they can't. They tend to die even to certain other infantry (swordmasters come to mind).
In fact, as it stands, dwarfs are completely helpless in one phase (magic), nearly so in another (movement), and arguably mediocre at best in a third (combat - too few attacks, and too many high strength attacks floating around everywhere).
I know it doesn't really apply to a fantasy game, but historically, cavalry which charged disciplined, capable infantry head-on were committing suicide. IMO, dwarf combat infantry (especially the elites - they're our army's equivalent of heavy cav) should be boosted to where it can, actually, do so. IMO, anyone who charges dwarfs head-on should die horribly, except, possibly, brets or warriors/knights of chaos. In return, yes, the shooting may have to be lessened in power to prevent Grotsnik's nightmare scenario - I will agree that that's no fun to play against.
I rather liked one of the suggestions made earlier, as well. Give dwarfs magic back, in the form of one-use-only (or multiple-use) runes that function as bound spells. Make a bunch of them runelords only, so there's actually an incentive to take them other than the Anvil (and return the Anvil more or less to its 6th edition functionality).
It retains their fluff of distrusting magic and mages, preferring to bind it instead, while giving them the option to be a little more than completely defensive vs magic.
Something like:
Golden Sceptre of Norgrim (anyone remember this one?)
50 pts
bound spell, power level 5
The unit (but not attached characters) gains your choice of +1S, +1 armoursave, or +1 movement until the start of your next magic phase.
Ancestor rune (banner rune) (10 pts)
bound spell, power level 4, one use only
unit is stubborn until the start of your next turn (magic phase w/e).
Rune of passage (banner rune) (5 pts)
bound spell, power level 3 (one use only?)
Remains in play. The unit carrying this rune and using it suffers no movement penalties
Fiery Ring of Thori (25 pts)
bound spell, power level 4, one use only
target a dwarf unit within x inches.
Until the start of your next turn, any enemy model coming into contact with the target unit sustains 1 flaming, S4, no armour saves allowed hit.
That's just off the top of my head, a recap of a couple of favorite runes/items from way back in 5th edition. I'm sure more are easily come up with. I'm equally sure these probably aren't balanced for play.
3486
Post by: Shotgun
Bran Dawri wrote:I agree that dwarfs are in need of an overhaul. I do not agree that just their shooting should be nerfed - dwarfs are described (almost) everywhere as the finest infantry in the world, perfectly capable of holding and defeating even the most powerful cavalry charges.
Every army is described as having the "finest" infantry in the world. No one tends to want to buy infantry described as "rubbish and crap".
Excep that in game terms, with the sudden powerboost cav has been getting (what in blazes were they thinking? Cav was overpowered already...), they can't.
They tend to die even to certain other infantry (swordmasters come to mind).
Imagine that. Someone dying to str 5 A2 ASF greatweapons. It's almost as if those elves were elite swordmasters or something.
I know it doesn't really apply to a fantasy game, but historically, cavalry which charged disciplined, capable infantry head-on were committing suicide.
What history are you looking at? Until the Renaissance and even after, surviving a cav charge was more a matter of position and weaponry rather than just a function of being "infantry". Proper terrain selection, prepared defenses, strong leadership to maintain and sustain your ground. These are the things dwarves should be able to duplicate. Give them a rule similar to the Bret archer rule....allow them to pull it off on the move (for example, forgoe your movement, deploy the barrier)....call it caltrops or something that takes away the charge bonus -and- allows them to fight as if behind a wall on the first turn of a combat.
10356
Post by: Bran Dawri
Yeah. That's where the caveat capable, disciplined came in.
Incapable infantry wouldn't chose the right place or defenses. Disciplined = holds its ground.
And not every infantry is described as the best. Greenskins and skaven certainly aren't. Human (empire) is usually described as capable, and their elites are supposedly "good". Saurus and elves are described as among the best (excepting swordmasters - point conceded there, although I maintain that dwarf elites should be an even match - which they're not).
Dwarfs are described as the finest infantry a commander could wish for. And that's just background.
Without the dwarfs actually having the skills to back up this claim on the tabletop, the only recourse left for them is to castle up and fire at will. Please. Think of poor Will.
5600
Post by: WaltF4
I do not particularly like castling my dwarves to win games.
Unfortunately for all parties involved, my dwarf armies will be castled gun lines until dwarf armies are given an option other than shooting to deal with the fantastical units in the game: dragons, greater demons, tanks, or other random units that do not play the game like blocks of troops. I will spam artillery until I have another way to guaranty that enough artillery will be available to eliminate such fantastical units.
I haven't purchased Thorek yet, but I have not found a compelling reason against fielding him in all games in which it is allowed.
8478
Post by: Alphus
Instead of giving the whole army stubborn or point reductions, why not just make the "more disiplined" units immune to fear? I actually play dwarves.
List as follows:
Dwarf Lord
GW
MR of steel
2xrune of stone
mr of spite
Thane BSB
MR of stromni redbeard (+1 cr to all dwarves within 6")
rune of battle
rune of protection (5+ ward)
Runesmith
MR of balance
rune of spellbreaking
shield
2x (20) longbeards one with rune of courage other with rune of courage and ancestor rune
hw/shlds
1x (10) warriors (veteran only)
gw
3 cannons (1 explody rune)
organ gun
rest of points vary from 5-strong miner unit for quarters to max 15 thunderers no shields
7 BFSP sets for the win. + 1 box of warriors & organ gun.
And with all other dwarf players, as soon as I take any more than the 15 thunderers, . My only problem with the army book (if any) is the fact that these dwarves would rather hack down their foes with an axe but run away because they fear weaksauce units (demons without killing-blow, skeletons). Don't get me wrong here though, dwarf infantry blocks are by far the best bang for the points just by bieng the only T4 models on a small base. Its just I would think that a 250-300 point block of "determined" infantry would be able to stay in combat without having to roll insane courage just because they lost cr by 1 and are outnumbered by a weaker force.
As for bear cav... No thanks.
Anvil definate needs either a nerf or a swap back to the magic phase. Anything to pl 9+ (regular) to pl13+ ( ap) really isn't hard for other armies to deal with. I've never taken one to be honest though. Probably never will.
Hammerers are just fine... leave them be.
Iron-breakers do probably need either a ward save or +1 A. Playtesting them just gets them ran over (they usually are public-enemy number one).
Slayers would be awesome if you could throw them out of units ( cc only for balance) like fanatics, then after initial release become weaksauce solo units.
As for the steampunk theme goes, why not let them have an engineer mount like a prototype dreadnaught or something of the like.
Handgunners and quarrelers probably should swap WS and BS. Taking away the +1 on handguns better give a point redux though.
That about covers it methinks.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
Dwarfs require serious assistance if they're going to become a playable army in terms of WHFB as it is.
M4 would be a great start.
Slayers Skirmishing would be nice.
The ability to take elite infantry without having to give up shooting (ie. Special Slots) would be fantastic. Use the "mainstay" rule or something similar from Skaven or like Longbeards are now.
Something big in Rare (Dwarf Steam Tank) would help a ton.
Give Dwarfs Magic back - Bound spells all over the place on Runesmiths.
721
Post by: BorderCountess
WaltF4 wrote:I do not particularly like castling my dwarves to win games.
Unfortunately for all parties involved, my dwarf armies will be castled gun lines until dwarf armies are given an option other than shooting to deal with the fantastical units in the game: dragons, greater demons, tanks, or other random units that do not play the game like blocks of troops. I will spam artillery until I have another way to guaranty that enough artillery will be available to eliminate such fantastical units.
I haven't purchased Thorek yet, but I have not found a compelling reason against fielding him in all games in which it is allowed.
Waaaaah.
How do you think Empire, Skaven, and O&G armies deal with dragons? I can tell you definitively as an Empire player that it's with cannons, so you're not alone. Dwarves are NOT the only army whose troops are incapable of dealing with most large monsters. In fact, they're better suited to it than most because of higher Toughness, better armor, and Ld9 all around.
Claiming that you're only 'spamming' artillery as a result is really one of two things: Lack of imagination, or lack of tactics. Which is it?
NOTE: Thorek is the ONLY model/unit in Warhammer that I have ever called broken. I played against him exactly one time, and that number is going to remain at one.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Waaaaah.
How do you think Empire, Skaven, and O&G armies deal with dragons? I can tell you definitively as an Empire player that it's with cannons, so you're not alone. Dwarves are NOT the only army whose troops are incapable of dealing with most large monsters. In fact, they're better suited to it than most because of higher Toughness, better armor, and Ld9 all around.
Claiming that you're only 'spamming' artillery as a result is really one of two things: Lack of imagination, or lack of tactics. Which is it?
NOTE: Thorek is the ONLY model/unit in Warhammer that I have ever called broken. I played against him exactly one time, and that number is going to remain at one.
[ Empire has just about everything dwarfs do + Griffins, Knights, Wizards.
Skaven (haven't played against them in the new edition) has superior numbers, rat-ogres (monsters), throw-away units (slaves) and used to have hidden artillery (but not anymore, I think).
O&G have Giants, Trolls, 'knights', etc.
In other words, just about every army has monsters and/or cavalry. Dwarfs have artillery that is also had by most other armies. They just have to take more to counter the extra stuff others take.
5600
Post by: WaltF4
Manfred von Drakken wrote:Claiming that you're only 'spamming' artillery as a result is really one of two things: Lack of imagination, or lack of tactics. Which is it?
Firstly, I never claimed that was the only reason I spam artillery. Secondly, I know there are more then two reasons as to why someone would spam artillery. However, given your options, I would say lack of imagination, as I do not see a unit of Hammerers/Ironbreakers/Slayers being demonstrably superior to a unit of Dwarf Warriors/Long Beards and a unit of artillery.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
I would like to offer up another possible solution. Choas and Vamps have gifts or bloodline abilities. What if Dwarfs had something similar for their Lord? A quick example below ignor the points and such as they are not balanced. But I would say that only the army general has access to these.
Dwarf Lord Values
40 pts Traditional – The dwarf Lord holds true to the Old Ways. May have one more unit of Longbeards than Warriors. May include 1 Bolt-Thrower or Grudge Thrower option as a troop choice that does not count toward the Minimum Core.
40 pts Progressive – The dwarf Lord served in the Engineer Guild in his youth and still holds a fascination for the technological. Organ Guns and Flame Cannons become Special.
35 pts Oathbound – The duty of an old oath sits heavy on this Dwarf Lord’s brow. The Lord and any unit he joins is Unbreakable.
30 pts Lost – This dwarf Lord is wandering, as his Hold was overrun by Skaven, Goblins, or the like. One unit of Warriors is upgraded to Rangers at no cost and may be joined by the Lord.
721
Post by: BorderCountess
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Manfred von Drakken wrote:
Waaaaah.
How do you think Empire, Skaven, and O&G armies deal with dragons? I can tell you definitively as an Empire player that it's with cannons, so you're not alone. Dwarves are NOT the only army whose troops are incapable of dealing with most large monsters. In fact, they're better suited to it than most because of higher Toughness, better armor, and Ld9 all around.
Claiming that you're only 'spamming' artillery as a result is really one of two things: Lack of imagination, or lack of tactics. Which is it?
NOTE: Thorek is the ONLY model/unit in Warhammer that I have ever called broken. I played against him exactly one time, and that number is going to remain at one.
Empire has just about everything dwarfs do + Griffins, Knights, Wizards.
Skaven (haven't played against them in the new edition) has superior numbers, rat-ogres (monsters), throw-away units (slaves) and used to have hidden artillery (but not anymore, I think).
O&G have Giants, Trolls, 'knights', etc.
In other words, just about every army has monsters and/or cavalry. Dwarfs have artillery that is also had by most other armies. They just have to take more to counter the extra stuff others take.
I think you missed my point. My post wasn't about balancing an all-infantry army against one that includes heavy cavalry or monsters. I was pointing out that a claim that a Dwarf gunline is the only viable option because war machines are their only method of dealing with large monsters is bunk. I pointed out three other armies that largely need war machines to deal with large monsters to point out that they can work with other styles.
Interestingly, your post does bring me to the next step. Sure, other armies have different types of units, like cavalry. But where those armies have cavalry, Dwarves have rock-hard infantry; I'm still not all that keen on running even my Inner Circle Knights into most Dwarven infantry. Is it true that Dwarves lack the kind of fast hammer unit that most other armies have? Sure. But how many armies can field T4 infantry with a 2+ save in combat, have several ranks, and Ld9? They might not kill much, but they certainly aren't going anywhere. Hold against the charge, then repel the enemy should be the tactic here.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
Hey Manfred,
Not trying to pick a fight, but your point was kinda off a bit. Those trolls, knight, griffons, etc that I mentioned are good at taking on bigger stuff (being none-too small themselves). Your second point is more on target to my mind. But basically that says that dwarfs are the army of doing nothing, getting charged, and hoping to have a good round to break the enemy. They dont deal the kind of damage needed to relaible break units (Nor should a base dwarf unit do so), so it does take a lucky round. I dislike the idea that I need a lucky round (having already taken the charge) to have a chance at winning. Sure my units survive in combat (only 1 unit in the army has that great save you mentioned) but that means nothing once we reach the slow grind of round after round of losing the combat but making the Ld check. I will end the game with nothing to show for it.
5600
Post by: WaltF4
Manfred von Drakken,
Could you please post an example of your Empire army list and a rough outline of a Dwarf army list that you feel can realistically compete against it as well as common VC, DoC, and Elf army lists without becoming a gun line? The point value, game format, and definition of gun line can be what ever you feel appropriate. Let "realistically compete" mean "50% chance to win a game without unusual luck or blunders by either player."
The question is open to anyone else and their choice of army as well.
12450
Post by: Kadros
Not to nitpick but...
Dwarf Lord
GW
MR of steel
2xrune of stone
mr of spite
Rune of Stone - Multiples of this rune have no further effect
Anyway, i believe that in order for one to do consistently well in WHFB you need to control 2 of the phases and at least put up a good fight in a third phase (I.e. Dominate the moving/ cc phase and put up a fight in the magic phase)
As it currently stands Dwarfs only dominate the shooting phase, and they can put up a fight in either the magic phase or the CC phase (Choosing between an Anvil or a tooled up Lord respectively)
The movement phase, no matter how well you strike your runes on the anvil or strategically use your Strollaz Rune is always lost, especially when facing cavalry/chariots/flyers.
Now i realize that GW cant possibly make every army the #1 competitor but as I see it dwarves are stuck in the middle.
Take for example Chaos Warriors - most people run these 16 points a pop (halberds) and probably Khorne, this makes for a unit that you cant really make any bigger than 15 models but is really awesome in combat (15~16 Attacks, S5, WS5, I5)
Then take a look at units like Orc Boyz most people (i've seen) run these at 7 points a pop (Additional Choppa) you can totally put 25~30 in one unit and swarm them around the board.
The Chaos Warriors are obviously limited in number, but make up for this in pure killing power. The Orcs on the other hand lack real killing power but make up for this because of their number/number of attacks
Then you have the Dwarfs, EVERYONE in the list has 1 attack ( RnF) limiting your number of attacks, which wouldn't be such a big deal but add to that our inability to (practically) make our blocks bigger than 20 because of the steep point cost is another hit to our CC phase
The high cost of our units (And the lore) seems to suggest that a Dwarf should have at least some prowess in close combat, but when it comes down to it you're always attacking last because of the dependence the dwarfs have on great weapons (and realistically if you dont bring an Anvil you're never ever going to get the charge)
Dwarfs with GW's arent exactly hard to kill (5+ AS, S4~5+ is extremely common so your AS is practically gone) so after taking a beating first in every CC phase before you get to attack back with an even further diminished amount of dice
I don't have any clear cut solutions to completely fix this army without completely copying another army, and I dont really think the "fix" is something as simple as an army wide Stubborn, or Gromril armor on everyone but it might very well be a combination of several things people have already named in this thread
(P.S eventho it totally fits with the lore and I don't want to see it removed - the Resolute rule is bullcrap, the amount of times that -1" has screwed me out of a successful pursue is staggering )
6553
Post by: Arion
If you guys hate how the dwarf rules are at this point, why do you play them? I love my dwarfs because of all the reasons you want them changed. I love the gun line, I love the fact that they stick around and i love the fact that they are DIFFERENT! Sure I don't win with them as much as I do with my Elves or my Lizardmen, but heyit's not all about winning.
10698
Post by: Sternguard_rock
There like SM in 40k, they dont live up to fluff.
10356
Post by: Bran Dawri
@ Arion: Because the backgroud for dwarfs is awesome. No other fantasy army appeals to me as much as the dwarfs, and I doubt any ever will.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
Arion wrote:If you guys hate how the dwarf rules are at this point, why do you play them? I love my dwarfs because of all the reasons you want them changed. I love the gun line, I love the fact that they stick around and i love the fact that they are DIFFERENT! Sure I don't win with them as much as I do with my Elves or my Lizardmen, but heyit's not all about winning.
To be honest, I don't hate the rules. I view them as incomplete. I really don’t want to turn the dwarf warrior into a carbon copy of a chaos warrior. I want it to remain mostly the same. What I really want is a few less and a few more options.
For example. In the Special slots I have too many options but all of them are a little screwy. I would like for Hammerers to be un upgrade on Ironbreakers (yes, give the King's Guard Gromil for Pete's sake!). I would like Miners put back in troops as a 0-1. I would like all traditional artillery to be in one Special Choice and not blow up (attached engineer adds +1 to misfire tables). I would like slayers (you know, those lone wanderers who somehow never fight big stuff, just rank up and tie down other ranked units) moved to Rare beefed up and made into a small powerful skirmish unit. I would like the Organ Gun and Flame cannon moved to Special (even if you need to tone them down to do it). Add a steam tank in the Rare options.
So there are a few tweaks, but I like the base rules. I feel it just needs a few additions.
10014
Post by: Gen. Lee Losing
Bran Dawri wrote:@ Arion: Because the backgroud for dwarfs is awesome. No other fantasy army appeals to me as much as the dwarfs, and I doubt any ever will.
Amen, Brother!
[raises hands and dances awkwardly]
12450
Post by: Kadros
Bran Dawri wrote:@ Arion: Because the backgroud for dwarfs is awesome. No other fantasy army appeals to me as much as the dwarfs, and I doubt any ever will.
This 
405
Post by: Antonin
Kadros wrote:Bran Dawri wrote:@ Arion: Because the backgroud for dwarfs is awesome. No other fantasy army appeals to me as much as the dwarfs, and I doubt any ever will.
This
Same here!
6793
Post by: General_K
wait- so people actually *use* Thorek? I mean, I *have" the model...but I remember I never was all that impressed playing against Thorek - he can't move, his guards are nothing - (and I always just cast Vaul's unmaking (I play HE as well) on him and destroyed his stupid armour and weapon so I could kill him no problem.) The only point ot Thorek was striking the anvil to make all dwarves cause fear (admittedly neat, and if playing agianst undead, or daemons, maybe useful, but with Ld9, it's not like I'm going ot be failing leadersihp tests anytime soon). I just don't see the use in Thorek, at all.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
General_K wrote:wait- so people actually *use* Thorek? I mean, I *have" the model...but I remember I never was all that impressed playing against Thorek - he can't move, his guards are nothing - (and I always just cast Vaul's unmaking (I play HE as well) on him and destroyed his stupid armour and weapon so I could kill him no problem.) The only point ot Thorek was striking the anvil to make all dwarves cause fear (admittedly neat, and if playing agianst undead, or daemons, maybe useful, but with Ld9, it's not like I'm going ot be failing leadersihp tests anytime soon). I just don't see the use in Thorek, at all.
If that's what you're thinking about Thorek or have seen him used in that way, THEN YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.
I've played Dwarfs (with and without Anvil) fairly extensively. I've played against Thorek exactly once. It is the most annoying game you could possibly play.
If you were wondering, you deploy him in a wood or behind a hill/building/etc to make him hard (if not impossible) to target with most spells/shooting/charges/etc. Then you hit the "slow stuff down and do 2D6 S4 hits to D3 units" per turn. Maybe, MAYBE, you use him to charge a block, but 99% of the time he's just slowing down stuff, inflicting damage, and then you just keep shooting.
I've had more fun playing against the War Alter + 4 Cannons + 2 Steam Tank lists than I had against playing Thorek.
721
Post by: BorderCountess
General_K wrote:wait- so people actually *use* Thorek? I mean, I *have" the model...but I remember I never was all that impressed playing against Thorek - he can't move, his guards are nothing - (and I always just cast Vaul's unmaking (I play HE as well) on him and destroyed his stupid armour and weapon so I could kill him no problem.) The only point ot Thorek was striking the anvil to make all dwarves cause fear (admittedly neat, and if playing agianst undead, or daemons, maybe useful, but with Ld9, it's not like I'm going ot be failing leadersihp tests anytime soon). I just don't see the use in Thorek, at all.
It's mostly because he can strike Ancient Power on a re-rollable 3+. I, personally, don't like the Anvil at all because it's a pseudo-magical effect that can't be dispelled. No other unit in the game (barring the new Engine of the Gods) has the kind of power the Anvil does. Having the ability to make a unit move, or stop an enemy unit from moving, on a simple 2+ is rather powerful. I much preferred the 6th edition version. But adding Thorek into that equation unbalances things, in my opinion, and as such, I will NOT play against him in the future.
721
Post by: BorderCountess
WaltF4 wrote:Manfred von Drakken,
Could you please post an example of your Empire army list and a rough outline of a Dwarf army list that you feel can realistically compete against it as well as common VC, DoC, and Elf army lists without becoming a gun line? The point value, game format, and definition of gun line can be what ever you feel appropriate. Let "realistically compete" mean "50% chance to win a game without unusual luck or blunders by either player."
The question is open to anyone else and their choice of army as well.
When I say gunline, I'm talking about Runelord (with or without Anvil, but usually with), Runesmiths/Engineers, Thunderers, and war machines.
Here's what I typically field for my Empire:
General
BSB
Priest
Wizard
2 Swordsmen each with 2 FC detachments
2 Handgunners
Knights
Pistoliers
3-4 War machines
Here's a rough draft for a Dwarf list that can up to it:
Lord
BSB
Runesmith
Longbeards
2 Warriors
Thunderers
Gyrocopter
2 Bolt Throwers
Grudge Thrower
min-sized Miners
10-man block of Hammerers
Both sides will be shooting the crap out of each other, but the Dwarf shooting will be a bit more reliable and impactful. Empire will start a mobility advantage, but if the Knights don't break whatever they charge on the first turn, they're done. Once the blocks get into each other, it's pure carnage: the FC might negate ranks, but will get mowed down by superior troops that actually have armor.
As far as dealing with VC and DoC, I don't have a lot of experience with those books (haven't even played against the DoC book yet). But the Dwarves can certainly take adavantage of superior troops and anti-fear/terror runes and rules, plus Runesmiths, to try to shut down VC's; kill the magic and they go down pretty hard.
Elves are a different story, I'll admit. My DE list of late (lots of big monsters) will eat Dwarves. But Elves come in so many varieties that it's hard to say, 'Do this to win'.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
Nothing Dwarfs can really do will shut down a VC Magic Spam list.
They have little to no answer to Wraiths, aside from the Anvil, and D6 S4 per turn isn't going to be enough (they get healed way too fast).
The issue with Wraiths, or other units (bats, dogs), is that they can quickly hunt down Dwarf Warmachines & missile troops.
Kill Dwarf support units, then back off and get table quarters for more points.
Unless of course the Dwarf player dared to take a normal unit of Warriors (who thus can't be immune to Fear & Terror), they can get easily outflanked (yay spammed movement magic) and then auto-break.
8478
Post by: Alphus
Alphus wrote:
Dwarf Lord
GW
MR of steel
2xrune of stone
mr of spite
My bad. prolly will run shieldbearers from now on then. Any ideas as to converting one?
12450
Post by: Kadros
Sorry to go off-topic but;
Use green stuff to make a convex circle (shaping it by using the bottom of a pop can works)
Break the arms of two rank and file troopers and point them upwards (one of them will require some extra work because all of the models in the dwarf army are right handed, so you will have to shape the arm of the left-handed dwarf a little more intricately as to not make it look weird) when you're happy with the result shave down the top of the hands so that they make a flat surface
Cut the convex green stuff into desired size and glue it onto of the flattened out hands
Glue lord on top of the shield (no base of course) and you're done, this is how i made mine and it turned out great!
11824
Post by: He Who Stood
i play a hard infantry force. lots of large solid blocks of warriors and iron breakers., with only a few cannon and handguns sprinkled in, and i have some very fun and rewarding games with them.
dwarfs arent that bad, the army was written well, and is true to the fluff.
the OP wanted to add more guns and technology.
per dwarf fluff, most drawfs, and even many engineers are warry of "newer" tried and true weapons like the organ gun and gyrocopter.
the dwarfs are traditionalists, "what was good for my father is good for me."
thats not to say that they wont build new things, just that they wont be trusted on the battlefield
10842
Post by: djphranq
"Dwarf army closer to fluff" sounds to me like the Dwarf player should have to take 'drunk' tests.
6454
Post by: Cryonicleech
The Dwarf list is fine, IMHO. Though somewhat dependent on the Anvil....
Now Chaos Dwarves were called master engineers. We get 2 war machines. Whoop De! (To get a little off topic)
10660
Post by: baga97
what is the use of BSB sorry i am new
Automatically Appended Next Post:
i am trying a new strategie to protect thorek because when the enemy sees him he is the prime target i during a 3000 pt. match set him in the far back put 15 hammers with him, a dragon slayer, runsmith, and thane the hammers have the master rune of grungi for a 5+ ward save.
10193
Post by: Crazy_Carnifex
Try Putting Him in a Corner and Stretching a Line of Slayers in front of him form table edge to table edge.
If the Dwarves have any problems, it's the fact they are not part of the current power creep.
|
|
