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

I'm getting started with Dwarves, but before I start assembling models I want to get some advice from the experts.

I keep hearing about how Dwarves should always use Great Weapons. The general line of logic is that since they strike after virtually everything else, you might as well give them GW so they maximize their impact when they do swing. But it seems to me that this ignores the other half of the equation: how many extra casualties will be taken because of the lack of defense given by the shield?

Against S3 attacks, heavy armor + shield takes 25% less wounds than heavy armor alone. S5, takes 20% less; S6 takes 16% less. And across the board (S1-S10), there is a further 16% reduction in casualties from the parry save. Does strking with two higher strength really offset that much lost defense?

A separate question is, how does the balance of offense vs. defense change when one looks at the light-armored dwarves - Quarrelers and Thunderers.

So... how does this work, guys?


EDIT: Ah, I found where I asked this in another thread, and it has already been answered. Thanks anyway!

ok so i have been browsing on dwarves myself.

i have found that yes there will be more casualties with GW, your wounds go up alot. so the best really is run both. have some HW+Shield and GW units. maybe like 10-20 HW+Shield and then like 30 GW. depending on your points. the HW+Shield can tank for you and then flank with the GW unit. once i get my list i intend on having some Longbeards with HW+Shield and then Warriors with GW. i think that will be a nice selection. Longbeards have a better survival with HW and Shields. however that i have only heard don't quote me lol.

Personally I go all great weapons. Only thing you really got to worry about losing too is Chaos Warriors, though I haven't played against any of the more elite great weapon wielding elves yet, though at T3 your GT should diminish their numbers so they are not a threat by the time you get into combat. Orcs and Savage Orcs you get the advantage on with hatred. Blood letters can be a pain but again T3, ward save sucks but I actually dropped 18 of my buddies before he made it to my lines. Beastmen can pose a threat with buffs and miasma spam.

The objective of 8th is to win combat and hand weapon and shield is not going to win combat, if you want an anvil shield could be viable though as ratch mentioned.

I like 1 block with hand weapon and shield, that my dwarf lord joins. He brings the killing power, they limit combat res I give up. That's the tip of the spear. On both sides I run great weapons blocks, sweeping away anything that the dwarf lord holds up.

-Matt

What is their initiative? If they're likely to be going last anyway, give them Great Weapons.

A whopping 2

Hargus56 wrote:A whopping 2

...beats my saurus...

Hargus56 wrote:A whopping 2

Great Weapons it is then.

Gotta gree with breotan. Your going last anyway, so you might as well just go last and hit really hard

Okay, I put this in the other thread but I'll ask here too.

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 )


EDIT: No one has answered my other question - about the light-armored troops - yet...

I would use both just for the variety. Dwarfs already lack in that department so having 4 units of gw dwarfs wouldn't appeal to me. The last list I was working on had 4 units of 30 longbeard shields, gw warriors, ironbreakers, and hammerers. I was planning on switching my dwarf lord to a runelord so I could drop my runesmith for a grudge thrower, but never got around to playing with that list. The longbeards and ironbreakers still hit at strength 4 with a 4+ AS (longbeards), 3+ AS (ironbreakers), and a 6+ parry for both; not too shabby for sticking around. The other two units hit at str. 5 or 6. I think I also had the points to make the gw warriors into rangers, but like I said I never got to play that list. I always saw it as having two anvil units and two hammer units.

I saw someone else suggest using a unit of 15 shield warriors as a flanking unit. They were small enough to be ignored but strong enough to disrupt after combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The problem with ironbreakers is they only have one attack back and usually end up losing combat and without being stubborn, there is a chance of them running. The nice thing about the hammerers is they are stubborn and depending on your opponents str. 6 can be very useful.

As for the light armor question, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. What kind of a dwarf would ever wear light armor, come on ? I have always been pleasantly surprised with the survivable my ranged units are toughness 4, 5+ AS, and 6+ parry along with a high ws and ld make them stick around longer than I figure they would. It also helps they shoot everything that comes at them.

Great weapons are, on their own, basically always better. Just in raw stats, and also because outlasting your opponent while you grind them down is inherently extremely tough to do in 8th. A shield boosts your durability by ~30%, or ~15% at S6 and up. A great weapon increases your killing power by ~30%, up until T7. The only way to survive in 8th is to out-kill your opponent.

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?

Great weapon quarrellers are fine with the light armor, sure they miss out on the extra armor save but they still dish out the damage. In my ambush list I usually leave the war machines at home as you won't be able to target anything since they will be in combat so early. Anvil is nice protected by an Organ Gun and maybe a Dragon Slayer just to hold up skinks or gutter runners for even a turn. Also some nice things are a Thane with RoBrotherhood and Challenge, Throwing Axes and RoSlowness Banner. I enjoy the Ambush list because action happens quick 1st or 2nd turn and the WTF moment for the opponent. And since you will be deploying 2-3 units for normal deployment you should get the +1 for the roll to see who goes first.

(I had a comment but realized it was redundant so just ignore this post.)

Breotan wrote:

Hargus56 wrote:A whopping 2

Great Weapons it is then.

+1

Though I've used both Warrior versions in the past, I've now switched to having HW and Shield Longbeards and GW Warriors.

GWs bring the pain and Dwarves are almost always swinging last anyways.

GW Warriors vs WS3 S3 T3 AS5/6:
5 wide kills 5, takes 1 casualty.
HW/S Warriors vs WS3 S3 T3 AS5/6:
Dwarves kill 1, take about 2/3s wound

GW Warriors vs DE/HE in the first round:
Dwarves kill 4, take 2 2/3s vs DE, 3 1/2 vs HE
HW/S Warriors vs DE/HE
Dwarves kill about 1 1/2, take 1 vs DE, 2 vs HE

I can go on, including various armor types and increased toughnesses, but I can pretty much guarantee that in nearly every instance, GW outperform HW/S It is unfortunate, but true.

On a semi related note: once you factor in your enemies having S4AP or S5 attacks, light armor and Heavy Armor perform exactly the same. They don't. If you give your whole army GW, you won't be disappointed. Iron Breakers MIGHT do all right, and they alone can stand against certain builds, but otherwise they are too expensive. They desperately need a lower cost or 2 attacks.

The initiative of the dwarves is irrelevant in 8th ed, because whenever you're looking at decent sized infantry blocks you're looking at enough support ranks to ensure step up for every guy that dies. By the time one side or the other starts running out of troops the increased killing power of great weapons will have made a lot more difference.

It's only with small units and some odd circumstances that initiative makes much difference.

So really, the question is 'do you want +1 AS and parry, or do you want +2 Str?' and this is the same for every army, regardless of initiative. The answer, for the most part, is for great weapons. Sometimes it isn't, when it's more important for a unit to survive than it is to dish out punishment (likely because you want an anvil with hammer units look to flank).

Vulcan wrote: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 have had some luck with a unit of quarreler rangers, a small unit of 10, but I have also found myself in a dilemma of sitting back and shooting with them or trying to make it into combat. It looks good on paper that I had the chance to flank charge someone with a unit of gw, but I ended up spending most of my turns shooting with them so not moving and then was too far away to charge when it was a good time. Since they were a small unit, it wasn't too much of a waste and they still contributed or earned their points back. I only tried a longbeard ranger block once and that didn't go so well, but that was all my fault. If you want to see an ambush list in action there is a battle report about ninja dwarfs.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/370840.page

I think Quarrellers really use their shooting mostly for finishing off monsters and weakened targets with little wounds left near the end of the game. Until then you may get a shot or 2 (possibly stand and shoot) before you get into combat.

Yeah, that's a good point; crossbows are move-or-shoot so my usual shade/gutter runner tactics aren't gonna work for them...

Okay. So my Rangers should be melee troops with the goal of engaging stuff early, while the rest of my battleline closes in. Basically I pin down a vital flank guard and make their army either hold and risk me smashing it and roll up their line, or they advance away and risk my advancing army flanking them instead, right?

Miners, of course, come in wherever is worst for the other guy - be it on a flank, behind his warmachines, etc.

I assume that if you are running Bugman's Longbeard Rangers, Warriors will do fine for the second unit of Rangers. What if you are just running one unit of Rangers; should they be Warriors or Longbeards?


I hope the questions aren't getting too annoying. I'm trying to get a good idea of what I want for my Dwarf army before I start buying/assembling stuff. I've blown WAY too much money on my other armies just covering all the options... only to discover that half the options are pretty much crap.