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.

So my question is above. Some in my play group believe that Stubborn dwarves is tantamount to Hatred on Dark Elves, and others disagree. Since Hatred helps you win combat, and Stubborn merely ameliorates a loss, I disagree. Trying to put one or two ideas together for a Dwarf update for my local player base.

not going with anything but the characteristics of the race I'd say yes but then again it might be broken.

When compared to DE Hatred or HE ASF (even with GD great weapons) I don't see the problem. Our high leadership helps, but would it be worth sacraficing 1 pt of leadership for this across the board rule? Elves do sacrafice with their low low toughness across the board.

Whoa, I voted Yes. A dwarf player took second best overall at the last GT I went to. They can be good... and don't need stubborn across the board. That'd be a huge boost...

RiTides wrote:Whoa, I voted Yes. A dwarf player took second best overall at the last GT I went to. They can be good... and don't need stubborn across the board. That'd be a huge boost...

Behind what? Demons, WoC or Skaven?

Dwarves are an old book. I haven't seen one person that says they are broken. They do fine. Stubborn, while it's a nice dwarfy word, is a very powerful ability. Regardless of if it sounds right (if anyone deserves Hatred it's daemons), they balanced the race on what they have. And I certainly haven't heard of anyone crying about Dwarves break and retreat too easily.

Dwarves are already very high leadership and low cost. If someone beats them down enough they lose steadfast, they should lose steadfast.

And not losing is the same as winning. If they don't run that's points not lost, it's more damage inflicted as they keep attacking, etc. It's not like they're standing there polishing their helmets.

I mean the question is, why should they have it? Forgetting the roleplaying aspect of Dark Elves and the word itself. Pretend the Stubborn special rule is called "Shazbot." Why do you think Dwarves are so weak that they across the board should have Shazbot?

Because orcs with 5+ ward saves make a mockery of war machines and Green Skin hatred on a regular basis, up to and including when the Horde gets charged in the flank. Because there are units in the game with such egregious blending ability that it doesn't matter if your are fielding your unit 1 wide and 30 deep, you will lose 10 ranks.

And those units and situations are commonplace in 8e. Skaven get stubborn cheaply. Dwarves are 4x the cost, but hardly 4x the power and will be outnumbered regularly by almost every enemy they face (short of a Warriors only WOC army, which no one seems to play anyway).

And because Dwarves are stubborn and rarely run from a fight due to their implacable nature. The "Shazbot" rule works on the battlefield the way one might expect a stubborn race to act. Dwarves may not be Shazbot, but they are implacable. So the rule is close enough. Much as Cold Ones aren't really that stupid, they are just stubborn and unruly and vicious, and likely to kill their riders.

In fluff terms this works. In game terms, it would be completely out of control.

It would make dwarfs, with rerollable LD10 stubborn, completely impossible to shift without killing every single one, which is very hard to do through their armor and weapon skill and toughness. A dwarf army with 3-4 large infantry blocks and a battle standard would become the most powerful army in the metagame, and one of the most boring to play against, manufacturing draw after draw after draw.

There has to be a better way to express this idea without giving them such an outrageous advantage over everyone. Look at how much everyone used to b*tch about daemons being unbreakable, and they even have instability! Dwarfs would be worse with higher toughness and no chance to evaporate. No, no, NO

I think as well as being flavourful, it'd help to make the Dwarves a unique army beyond their present approach of 'stand still and shoot until the enemy reach us, then grind out combats'. I don't think it'd work if it were just plunked onto the current book, but as the core element of a redesign I think it'd be a great start to making dwarves play in an interesting way that still felt very dwarven.

Imagine small units of dwarves, coming out of tunnels to charge the flanks of the enemy, knowing their stubborn ability will keep them in the fight, holding that enemy unit up for a crucial couple of turns before reaching the main lines of the enemy. Consider how much an army might change if their missile troops weren't just there to fire, but could reliably hold an enemy unit in combat, thanks to their stubborn ability.

I think you'd could produce a gunline army that is a lot more fun to play than what we see presently.

Dwarves are a good candidate for having more than one Stubborn unit (Iron Breakers), but having it across the board seems too good.

Something that they really need is a rule to make shield walls good again. Ever since 8th hit I haven't seen any Dwarf players pick shields over great weapons. Perhaps add+2 armor instead of +1? Or Dwarves with shields can count as defending an obstacle if they haven't moved for a turn?

Nagashek wrote:Because orcs with 5+ ward saves make a mockery of war machines and Green Skin hatred on a regular basis, up to and including when the Horde gets charged in the flank. Because there are units in the game with such egregious blending ability that it doesn't matter if your are fielding your unit 1 wide and 30 deep, you will lose 10 ranks.

And those units and situations are commonplace in 8e. Skaven get stubborn cheaply. Dwarves are 4x the cost, but hardly 4x the power and will be outnumbered regularly by almost every enemy they face (short of a Warriors only WOC army, which no one seems to play anyway).

And because Dwarves are stubborn and rarely run from a fight due to their implacable nature. The "Shazbot" rule works on the battlefield the way one might expect a stubborn race to act. Dwarves may not be Shazbot, but they are implacable. So the rule is close enough. Much as Cold Ones aren't really that stupid, they are just stubborn and unruly and vicious, and likely to kill their riders.

Orcs get a 6+ ward with warpaint. It doesn't stack with a shield. That just gives them a 6+ armor save. Which compared to a 4+ armor save is pretty suck. In addition savage orcs got animosity. And cost the same as dwarves, who have the opposite of animosity and 7 LD. No orcs are making a mockery of war machines unless someone is playing the rules wrong.

Whatever Orcs can field Dwarfs can, at least vs savage orcs if you're complaining about warpaint. Same cost. Skaven indeed get stubborn cheap. Cuz they don't have LD9 and run away if you sneeze on them.

Let's browse who dwarves outnumber:
-Lizardmen
-Daemons
-Ogres
-Brets usually

About even with:
-Beastmen
-Empire (depends on core)
-VC (depends on core)
-Dwarves, obviously

Outnumbered by:
-Skaven
-Orcs (unless savage)
-Tomb Kings

I don't know elves, cuz they're sissy. But, you know, of those first 2 groups, other than Lizardmen, you're sporting about the least breaking, most steadfast chance, and you outnumber Liz.

So I just don't know what the problem is. I think it would equally be bad if all Empire was steadfast. You seem to trying to debate fluff. Forget the word. It's not Shazbot anymore it's the Idiot special rule. Units who have it are too stupid to count. Obviously dwarves shouldn't have that, they're smart. Not only that, they aren't hurting so bad they require it--not that I've seen.

Post some games and see what's breaking down.

Fighting to the last is dwarfy.
Do you want to represent that by Ld9 on basic troops, or some other rule?
How stubborn works is just too good for an Ld9 or Ld10 army.

Savage orc big un with extra chop is 11 points.
Dwarf long beard with shield is 12 points.
Elf infantry is pretty expensive, outside of dark elf spearmen (who are very squishy).

-Matt

Nagashek wrote:

RiTides wrote:Whoa, I voted Yes. A dwarf player took second best overall at the last GT I went to. They can be good... and don't need stubborn across the board. That'd be a huge boost...

Behind what? Demons, WoC or Skaven?

O&G night goblin spam... warmachines, fanatics, mangler squigs, etc... it's amazing in the right hands

@Duke: Savages with the Shrunken Head are a 5+ ward. T4 with a 5+ ward where your opponant regularly hits them 50% of the time or better = mockery of War machines.

And a 4+ save is GREAT. But I never get that. My Meta is full of S4 AP and S5 attacks, so my HA never matters, and I'd need to run shields in order to have a save. Which usually (read: always) means that I am not making any kills, but am instead trying to deny my opponant kills, which never works. This means that I have lost more models than my opponant, often to the point where I am losing Steadfast (because my core models are too expensive) and then running off the board due to the snake eyes I need, very often in my General's unit.

Other rules I would like to see in Dwarves include the Lord having a Book of Grudges (Hatred for the unit he joins) and automatically making HIS unit stubborn. Perhaps Stubborn in the BSB/Inspiring Presence radius would be more balanced...

Nagashek wrote:@Duke: Savages with the Shrunken Head are a 5+ ward. T4 with a 5+ ward where your opponant regularly hits them 50% of the time or better = mockery of War machines.

And a 4+ save is GREAT. But I never get that. My Meta is full of S4 AP and S5 attacks, so my HA never matters, and I'd need to run shields in order to have a save.

Look, it's either one or the other. Either everyone in the world is a savage ork + shaman + 50pt item (which can only be 1 unit) or they got super armor piercing str4. Cuz savage orks are only str 3. Your basic dwarf warrior save vs. those super buffed ward save savage orks...is exactly the same. Except you didn't blow a minimum of +120 pts getting it.

It isn't the same vs. war machines or other high str stuff, admittedly. But for that extra 120 pts you can get another war machine and then some.

because my core models are too expensive

That makes no sense. Your core units are cheaper than those listed.


You're picking and choosing the highest values in any enemy army and saying somehow that makes Dwarves invalid. Yes, Orcs can have one unit with a highish ward--until that shaman dies. And you can have ironbreakers with a 3+/6+ save who would trash them. At unit sizes of 20-25 they are about the same cost. More than that and the Orcs are cheaper per unit, but they'll still get smeared because of the huge armor gap, not to mention WS and STR.

You need to post a game or three of what's going on and people will respond.

It would suit the fluff by having stubbon across the bored but it would make dwarfs to strong. Your forgetting the good parts of dwarves:
lowest toughness for dwarfs is 4
lowest leadership is 9
very good war machines
can shut down the magic phase
Runes can make some of the war machines better.
range units are good in CC
warmachine crew are good in CC

Simply too powerful in game terms. I don't think it would be all that interesting to play *with* either. Too easy to use/abuse to hold up enemy units forever.

There's a reason why hammerers are considered so near mandatory...

Funny thing about that shrunken head.
The guy packing it is usually T4 with 2 wounds and only a 5+ ward.
A cheap dwarf hero (init 3) has a good shot at killing the hero, and knocking out that ward save, before the rest of the dwarf unit swings.
Killing the hero not only nets you 120+ points, but also greatly reduces the survivability of the savage horde.

If the savage horde is a problem, take some slayers. Put champ(s) up front, and limit your losses. The savage horde is a lot less scary the 2nd round and on of combat.


-Matt

Yeah. If only it was merely a 5+ save. He's just ridiculously lucky and hits that save over 50% of the time.

@Duke: He is running a horde of Savage Orc Bigguns (S5 on the first turn) That means if I face him with a Horde he is getting 50 S5 attacks, which vs

Horde of GW Warriors is ~16 kills, 10 kills in return (if I still have 30 warriors left)

Horde of HW/Sh Warriors is ~11 kills, 5 kills in return.

5 wide HW/Sh Warriors (to minimize enemy attacks) is 6, 1 kill in return.

Horde of GW Hammerers (LBs have the same statline but are prohibitively expensive) is ~16 kills, ~14 kills in return (better odds, but still losing)

The best situation i can manage to minimize kills cheaply and still retain steadfast is the HW/Sh warrior combo at only 5 wide. However, this means this unit, with only AVERAGE kills on the part of the Ork Player (who is running 40 models in the Horde in this exercise) needs to start out with 35 models (ish. at minimum 31) just to be Steadfast after the first round of slaughter. The points total for this clocks in at about 340 pts. I believe that is a bit less than the Horde (345 pts for 40 models and FC. yay! Add in the character to make it survivable and yeah, this is expensive) But my points merely slow it down for a turn. And only if I then add in my General at LD 10 and BSB near by. And of course I need a counter assault unit to ACTUALLY beat them (not just slow them down for one turn) And said Counter Assault unit needs to be positioned well enough to get around the wide frontage of the unit and flank it in order to destroy it.

Also, in order to kill the Ork Savage Shaman (always a Lord) I need to have a character without a great weapon specifically tooled to deal with it so that the rest of my unit can wound more easily. If I am flanking, my opponant simply switches the sides that the Shaman is on to keep it alive (if i have also used the narrow configuration previously mentioned) and out of the fight. To capture it, I would of course need to hit the unit with 3 of mine.

Which means outnumbering orcs.

Which I can't do.

So yes, it seems that more Stubborn would be a great answer to this, and may help with Skaven Slave armies and Chosen Stars that are far too common in 8e.

@Matt: Slayers are being strongly considered, but still are being taken merely to mitigate my loss rather than playing to win.

And though i know I am giving you absolute numbers that do not reflect Warmachine Losses, I always run my numbers thusly because I figure equal losses from his army to my warmachines and losses to my army from his WM and invariably IF'd Foot of Gork that hits 8+ times. And fanatics. And Mangler Squiggs.

As an additional compromise, I was contemplating Dwarves getting Steadfast if their ranks EQUALLED the enemy, instead of exceeding.

You're off on the cost of the savages.
He's dumping 475 points into the unit, and another 220 or more for the lord with the shrunken head.

Sounds like the problem is your throwing a 350 point unit at a 700 point unit.

You want a 700 point counter?
Take ~30 dwarves with full command and great weapons, and add 4 Thanes (3 with runes of stone, rune of re-roll armor, and then two have another cheap rune to not break the duplicate rule), the 4th thane has great weapon and re-rollable 1+ armor.

Go into bus formation. Charge/take charge. 4 heroes make way, displacing everything except the unit champ.

He gets 30 S5 attacks, but he can't hit rank and file.
He's swinging on T5 dwarves with 2+ re-rollable saves (and parry), and a T5 1+ re-rollable.
On average, he's doing less than 2 wounds; you are doing ~10 wounding hits (6 kills).
You've got more ranks and should be winning by 4-5. He loses frenzy, and is at great risk of breaking.


You could also anvil the snot out of that unit and shoot it up as it slowly approaches.

I'm seeing:

Savages kill: 1(wound)
HW Thanes kill: 2 2/3
GW Thane kills: 1 13/27
The GW Warriors kill: 2 1/3

Very interesting. Very interesting indeed. I suppose that is a more reliable set up than my King, BSB, and Rune Smith situation. :sigh: Hate having to give up my King, but I'll need anti magic.

HawaiiMatt wrote:You're off on the cost of the savages.
He's dumping 475 points into the unit, and another 220 or more for the lord with the shrunken head.

Sounds like the problem is your throwing a 350 point unit at a 700 point unit.

^this. He's basically using a horde of Specials +hero + items vs. your horde of vanilla Core. I should hope you'd lose.

I'm no dorf expert, or even an orc expert, but I'm sure others got a lot of great suggestions. Moar points, is probably a good start. Not a rewriting of the rules so your vastly out-matched forces can beat him.

Stubborn, while it would fit the fluff, would be too much of a boost without a recosting of the entire army list.

Dwarf units would practically never break and this would be massivly overpowered.


I think it would be good for them to have some sort of bonus. Maybe they ignore the first 2 ponts they lose combat by or something. they would lose, but wouldn't take Ld penelties till they lost by 3 or more.

Grey Templar wrote:Stubborn, while it would fit the fluff, would be too much of a boost without a recosting of the entire army list.

Thing is, I kind of think that not just recosting, but re-imagining the whole of the Dwarf army book would kind of be a good thing. They are basically a pretty dull army in a whole lot of ways.

Ogres were boring too. And Tomb Kings. The new books did wonders. Hopefully they'll get the same treatment. But it will be through the addition of units, not simply plastering on a global ability.

The Dwarves are pretty strategically inflexible at the moment. I hope that they play up the unhinged Engineer's Guild in the next book.

DukeRustfield wrote:Ogres were boring too. And Tomb Kings. The new books did wonders. Hopefully they'll get the same treatment. But it will be through the addition of units, not simply plastering on a global ability.

Ogres fit into WHFB as the fast, hard hitting army that's a little bit squishy, classic bullies and the new book didn't do anything to change that up, it just gave them more ways to work within that concept. Tomb Kings are the mass of crappy troops that are easy to replenish, supported by big monsters, something the new book again didn't change.

There's a difference between an army lacking toys that really play with it's tactical niche, and a simply boring tactical niche. You can add toys to the former to grow the list, but with the latter you either need to really work on exploring how to change the basic concepts of the race. Just adding toys is lazy, and will inevitably either leave them as boring as they were before, or would give them extra options outside their niche - at which point they would stop feeling 'dwarven'.

The problem is tactical niche for the Dwarves is big blocks of tough, disciplined troops who stand there, waiting for the enemy to charge them while they fire off warmachines. This is, essentially, a pretty dull way to play and it's very hard for the Dwarves to break out of it. To give every unit stubborn might not solve anything, but it would open the door for a MSU approach, with smaller units of dwarves operating ahead of the main line to delay big enemy units.

I think Dwarves could do with some monster equivilents Ala Steamtank.

Have some more interesting Engineer inventions. like a dwarven version of the Stank, some sort of mechanical monster, maybe an Airship, a moving cannon platform...

sebster wrote:Ogres fit into WHFB as the fast, hard hitting army that's a little bit squishy, classic bullies and the new book didn't do anything to change that up, it just gave them more ways to work within that concept. Tomb Kings are the mass of crappy troops that are easy to replenish, supported by big monsters, something the new book again didn't change.

Wait a minute. You're saying each race is different?!? Each race has a flavor!?! And you even go on to explain it!!! Wow. All this time I thought Lizardmen were exactly the same as Dwarfs in every way.

Go and count the number of units in the old edition books and new edition books, excluding the units that were absolute garbage, and then come back. Yes, they have more ways to work in the concept of their army. They have many many times more viable armies. Thus, they are no longer boring. Whereas they were. Vastly moreso than Dwarfs. Which is why Dwarfs are like 5th down (at least) on the totem pole to be updated.

DukeRustfield wrote:Wait a minute. You're saying each race is different?!? Each race has a flavor!?! And you even go on to explain it!!! Wow. All this time I thought Lizardmen were exactly the same as Dwarfs in every way.

No, I said something quite different to that. You just failed to read it, out of laziness, incompetence or a combination of the two. I'll type it more slowly for you, if that'll help.

The races have, as you say, a flavour. Core abilities and weaknesses that make them, as you say, different. Where that flavour basically represents an interesting way to play, then improving it basically involves inventing cool new units and writing them up. But if that basic playstyle is really damn boring, then new units can only reinforce that boring playstyle, or contravene it. In this situation, it makes sense to examine that army's flavour and consider how to make it more interesting before you just start making up new units.

Please read it more carefully this time. If you have to, please read it twice.