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

Hey guys, basically the story is i have always been interested in dwarves after people telling me about them and basically how cool they look! I have always put this off but recently i have made a purchase online of 65 dwarf warriors making like 3 squads or sumthin only because they were cheap (like £11) and seen as i want to get into them it would be cool for some of the experienced dwarf players to share a little info about them about their strengths, weaknesses, background etc.

I realise a google search would have fulfilled this desire for knowledge but i thought it would be cool to have a mate to have regular chats, questions about stuff like this ;D

Dwarf are good. And you sound like you got a bargain! Handweapon and shield can do a respectable job but greatweapons can be amazing. The main strength the army has are strong/tough infantry and characters. magic defense and lots of shooting. Using a few decent sized infantry blocks complimented with well equipped lords and heros and backed up by artllery seems to work for a balanced approach to dwarfs that can let your army deal well with a lot of whats thrown at you. Though I'm not a fan of it static gunlines made of missile troops and artillery units can be outright deadly also.

Their main weaknesses are lower speed, higher than average unit points costs and lack of actual magic bar an anvil of doom. Overall though I think the pros outweigh the cons. They can stand a good chance to knock the snot out of pretty much any foe they meet.

Yeh it was the only reason why i got them and i think i got them cheap because they were listed as orks, lol. From what you have told me dwarves look very promising and i didnt actually think missile troops would be a strong area of a dwarf army so thanks for that!

I would strongly suggest picking up the Army Book next. That will help guide future purchases. Also check out bugman's brewery (just google it) That is sort of the mecca of all things Dwarven.

Um I would highly suggest getting some warmachines, mainly things like cannons, organ guns and grudge throwers. All 3 are acclaimed dwarven technology and will easily make your opponent uneasy at the sight of them! The organ guns are especially good as they can re-roll the arty die if you don't like the result(unless its a miss fire) and auto hit, so they are very effective in the watch tower scenario. The grudge thrower is also quite good but i would suggest adding the rune of accuracy and 1 or more runes of penetration on it as this will really buff it up and let you get the biggest bang for your buck! Finally I just wanted to say that the dwarfs have been nerfed a little at combat with the new edition but they are still quite effective, good luck with your new army

Here are the units i have been talking about... ive done a little work on them e.g. stripping and respaying etc. + on the second close up image i am unsure about what this model is called as i have about 8 of them and just want to find out ;D

That is just a warrior with hand weapon and shield, on the sprue there is multiple body pieces with that head. (they come with legs+back, and another piece that is front+face)

Another new Dwarf player with a question...

I've heard a lot about using GW instead of HW+S. The general logic is, your Dwarves are going to hit last anyway, you might as well have them hit hard when they finally get around to swinging. However, this overlooks the loss of the extra point of armor save from the shield, AND the loss of the parry save which is good no matter how hard the other guy hits. It seems to me that GW dwarves would loose combat more often just through simple attrittion and ACR.

And, for that matter, does the difference between the two change when you get to the troops in light armor? I'd kinda like to use Quarellers as Rangers (which requires them to have GW), but is this a bad idea given that they only have light armor?

So... does the increase in striking power offset the loss of protection?

Here is the thing. Lets say you are facing basic troops: WS3 S3 T3 Light Armor. GW will be wounding T3 characters on a 2+ rather then a 4+. So your horded warriors throw at 30 attacks against WS3 mobs so about 15 hit, then about 12.5 wound since they are at -2 AS that's 12.5 wounds. Meanwhile with hand weapons 30 attacks so 15 hit, 7.5 wound and they get their full armor saves so 1-2 save. See the difference we're talking 12-13 wounds versus 5-6. In 8th edition it's all about winning combat forcing your opponent to flee and chasing them down and chopping them to bits or off the board. There are no partial points you must decimate the enemy units. Go strong or go home. If you want a block of shield warriors to use as an anvil go for it but the great weapons will win you combats.

Not just that against higher toughness enemies the GWs get even better.
Lets take saurus for example:
Assuming FC and that the dwarves go 7 wide and the saurus 6 (assumed by many as the optimum witdht for non horde units of 20 mm and 25 mm base units respectively).
With GWs saurus hit 1st and cause ~3,96 wounds while the dwarves hitting last make an impresive 4,63, thus standing a better chance of winning combat and thus wiping the enemy.
With HW&Shield dwarves hit 1st cause a paltry 1,39 wounds and then suffer 2,64 wounds back, as you can see the increase in survivability severely hampers their chances of actually winning combat, that said theyre cheaper and more likely to be steadfast making for an ok tarpit (10 pts is still a bit much for pitting).

Against warriors of chaos (shield and TZ) the dwarves with GW's suffer 5,28 wounds and hit back for 2,22, here the warrior's protection proves too much for even the GWs but considering the price difference you stand a goot chance of having steadfast and surviving to get support.
With HW&Shield the warriors still hit first but cause only 3,51 wounds while the dwarves only manage 0,55, while you still loose combat HW&Shield is better here as WoC are best pitted until flanked (prefferably by GW warriors/hammerers/miners).

So having a unit of both in your list would be the best approach giving you an anvil and a hammer unit.

i agree with Hover boy, run both. use your shields for defensive combat. and flank with your GW unit.

i am a WHFB noob and the dwarves are staring me in the eye. however i got a Battle for Skull Pass from a co-worker for free. i am missing some command pieces from a couple units in the Nite Goblin and Dwarf armies. but i will get them and maybe play the game occaisionally.

Well thats quite the achievement cuz dwarfs stare most people in the crotch

HoverBoy wrote:Well thats quite the achievement cuz dwarfs stare most people in the crotch

Well, that way when we hit ya, it hurts more!

ratch wrote:i agree with Hover boy, run both. use your shields for defensive combat. and flank with your GW unit.

i am a WHFB noob and the dwarves are staring me in the eye. however i got a Battle for Skull Pass from a co-worker for free. i am missing some command pieces from a couple units in the Nite Goblin and Dwarf armies. but i will get them and maybe play the game occaisionally.

The only problem with this approach is we are often out numbered in a world of 3 pt clanrats and 2 point slaves, let alone 4 pt mauraders that can stand toe to toe with our warriors. That unit of flankers it likely being tarpitted

Okay, GW hit harder and help you win the combat. HW+S is used for anvil units to pin the other guy down long enough for your hammer units to smash them.

I would think, then, that Ironbreakers would be the perfect anvil unit. Having seen Chaos Warriors in action, I know darn well how much punishment T4 AS 3+ (and parry) troops can take. Or... is the added cost going to make it too expensive to get a big enough unit to work? Taking special points is unlikely to be much of an issue - I have yet to max out my special points in any army - between manditory core, characters, and rares, there is never 50% of my army points left for special.

HW+S Warriors, on the other hand, would come out of said mandatory core points, and give bigger units too. Are the Ironbreakers enough tougher to crack than HW+S warriors to accept the smaller unit size per point allocation?

And on a related subject, do Hammerers hit hard enough over GW warriors to again accept the smaller unit sizes? (Aside from a minimum unit of 10ish to back the Lordpedo, that is )

Vulcan wrote:Okay, GW hit harder and help you win the combat. HW+S is used for anvil units to pin the other guy down long enough for your hammer units to smash them.

I would think, then, that Ironbreakers would be the perfect anvil unit. Having seen Chaos Warriors in action, I know darn well how much punishment T4 AS 3+ (and parry) troops can take. Or... is the added cost going to make it too expensive to get a big enough unit to work? Taking special points is unlikely to be much of an issue - I have yet to max out my special points in any army - between manditory core, characters, and rares, there is never 50% of my army points left for special.

HW+S Warriors, on the other hand, would come out of said mandatory core points, and give bigger units too. Are the Ironbreakers enough tougher to crack than HW+S warriors to accept the smaller unit size per point allocation?

And on a related subject, do Hammerers hit hard enough over GW warriors to again accept the smaller unit sizes? (Aside from a minimum unit of 10ish to back the Lordpedo, that is )

Ironbreakers are indeed made to be an anvil. They do cost a bit more but the better save, higher WS and S make them pretty cost effective. In short if you are considering using anything as an anvil this is the way to go in my opinion. Hammerers also deliver a big bang for the points. Like Ironbreakers their improved stat line will likely pay off. In both cases though I wouldn't field a unit of just 10. 20 is the lowest I would personally go (more in bigger games of course). Some may disagree with that or suggest that you go even higher as a minimum but whenever I've fielded a unit that size it tends to get chewed up and spit out as a bloody, bearded mess.

The hammerers backing the Lordpedo are just there to give him Stubborn. They never see combat at all, being in two files behind him. They might take some shooting casualties, though... I agree it's pretty beardy though.

But better stats do make better troops. And is the consensus then that the Special choices (Ironbreakers and Hammerers) better enough to justify the smaller unit sizes I'd have to accept?



Back from the other thread...

So, light-armored Dwarves should generally leave the GW at home then, and depend on the heavies to deliver the smackdown in close combat? I can handle that.

On to Rangers then. I've always considered Scouts without ranged weapons to be pretty useless... but then, I've never used Scouts that weren't also Skirmishers. Skrimishers need to be able to shoot, because they accomplish so little in close combat. Rangers, on the other hand, are ranked infantry with greatswords, that you deploy right in the enemy's face!

So... would Quareller Rangers be suboptimal, then? Or do they just work like traditional scouts (i.e. a shooting platform) with the benefit of being ranked infantry? I'd really love to hear from someone who has used both, because I do wonder which of the two are more effective.

I like the concept of the Ambush list, too. Using Bugman and his rangers, the normal 0-1 Ranger upgrade, and a unit of Miners means the typical dwarf battleline gains some real maneuver control. On the down side, this takes quite a few points and doesn't leave much of a battleline. Would one be better off just using shooting troops for the line in that case, or would you want more heavy infantry to sandwich the other guy?

I believe that the quality of troop is worth taking a slightly smaller force if need be, but if you go too much smaller the advantages they offer won't be worth much because they will be overwhelmed. It is a balancing act that you'll get a feel for. As for rangers, I like them but haven't ran them enough to comment. In theory, though, they could be very effective. I like the idea of having the utility of quarrelers in the backfield over strictly close combat troops. You never know what the boys will get themselves into wandering about.

i really want to start warhammer fantasy, and i think that dwarves are my best bet, but they look too easy to build....

jack_bolter1 wrote:i really want to start warhammer fantasy, and i think that dwarves are my best bet, but they look too easy to build....

They are easy to build but you also have many options for conversions. Try making your own hammerers out of the plastic kits or use greenstuff and different parts to make unique characters.