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 mates, just ave a quick question for all of you Dwarf players concerning our core CC units. Got into a debate today with a number of players on whenever Dwarf Longbeards or Dwarf Warriors are the better core unit, and the best way to run them effectively. In short, all I am asking for is:

* Which do you prefer.

*Why do you prefer that unit over the other.

*How do you run them (Weapon choice, Unit Size, ect).

*Characters attached to them.

Pretty simple and straightforward for the most part. Just trying to get a general idea where my fellow Dwarf players stand on which Core unit they find the most effective, as well get some tactical knowledge on how it is best to run them wither there new book in this edition. But, I know there are a number of Dwarf players who prefer to use other units then Dwarf Warriors or Longbeards, and if so please tell us what you like to run, how you run them and why. And even if you don't play Dwarfs, share with what you have seen and what unit you have the hardest time dealing with.. As for me, I prefer:

*Longbeards

*WS5, S4, Immune to Psychology base, along with the Old Grumblers special rule, and allows me to fill out my core requirements quickly.

*HW and Shield, as they are too expensive for GW but form an impressive anvil unit. And I run 28x of them in a 7x4 formation, or 30x in a 6x5.

* I attach a Runesmith to them to give them Armor Piercing attacks.

Look forward to hear everyone's opinions on this and thanks mates!

For a gunline list, I'd take neither. Instead, I'd take 45 great weapon Quarrellers for the Core in a 2500 point list.

For a run-up-and-hit-'em army, I'd prefer Warriors because I can get about 35% more warm bodies (assuming both are armed with Great Weapons). I figure the Hammerers are far better to play the role of Hammer unit, and Ironbreakers are far better to play the role of Anvil unit (for two more points, have one better armor and one better parry).

Longbeards. The models for longbeards are AMAZING! Would have them in my army for that alone. I haven't picked up the rules for dwarfs yet but the vibe i'm picking up is that while Dwarf warriors are a servicable core choice, longbeards have more of a special feel which is probably more usefull unless your going for a anti-steadfast block.

For my current list, 3k points, I am going to run longbeards with gw. 2 units of 39, at the moment, in horde formation. However, my warriors have treated me well over the years and I'll need a few games under my belt to solidify my choice.

Longbeards, shields, 24 + runepriest. Might give them a runic standard.
Problem with great weapons is too many die too quickly with just heavy armor. Need to make them stubborn to deal with it.

The main reason I lean away from Longbeards is that the Special selection has plenty of options with the Longbeard statline that, IMHO, do the job better. Longbeards pretty much die just as fast as Warriors (they die slightly less quickly to a narrow band of opponents). I worry about having enough bodies on the board to absorb the wounds my opponent puts out.

Saldiven wrote:
The main reason I lean away from Longbeards is that the Special selection has plenty of options with the Longbeard statline that, IMHO, do the job better. Longbeards pretty much die just as fast as Warriors (they die slightly less quickly to a narrow band of opponents). I worry about having enough bodies on the board to absorb the wounds my opponent puts out.

That's always a fear with Dwarfs, I can agree. Its a big rason why I am considering down the road getting a horde of 40x Warriors w/GW's, but will be using the new Longbeard models for them as to be frank, that's what Dwarfs should look like going to battle . Longbeards have been treating me well so far however, as not many armies units can do much against WS5, T4 Infantry.

I am going to just jump in here and say that real-world cost is going to factor in given the price of the new Longbeard models. Given that I have about 80 old Warriors from the starter game, I am going to say that I will probably stick with my Warriors with HW and Shield--very durable, and can be really hard to move in a Horde formation.

(As a side note, @Saldiven, how expensive and hard is it to make a unit that big of Great Weapon Quarrellers? I have like 10 of them that I made and have used as Scouts in the past, but again real-world cost and work springs to mind when I imagine completely re-tooling my already extensive Dwarf army)

Here's another tweak to the original question: With the Old Grumblers rule, doesn't it make sense to pair Warriors and Longbeards to take advantage of this? Otherwise you are wasting that benefit from the Longbeards?

 pantheralegionnaire wrote:
I am going to just jump in here and say that real-world cost is going to factor in given the price of the new Longbeard models. Given that I have about 80 old Warriors from the starter game, I am going to say that I will probably stick with my Warriors with HW and Shield--very durable, and can be really hard to move in a Horde formation.

(As a side note, @Saldiven, how expensive and hard is it to make a unit that big of Great Weapon Quarrellers? I have like 10 of them that I made and have used as Scouts in the past, but again real-world cost and work springs to mind when I imagine completely re-tooling my already extensive Dwarf army)

Here's another tweak to the original question: With the Old Grumblers rule, doesn't it make sense to pair Warriors and Longbeards to take advantage of this? Otherwise you are wasting that benefit from the Longbeards?

I believe that rule benefits Hammerers, Ironbreakers, and other Dwarf Infantry Regiments, not just the Warriors as it doesn't say that the rule is only meant for Warriors.

@Rommel, Cool. Then maybe I just always interpreted it as only applying to Warriors (sort of like the old Orc rules about panic) or maybe it's a tweak in the new book? I still haven't seen it....one of the down sides of living where there are no GW stores.

Thanks for the clarification. In that case, the Old Grumblers rule is beneficial for sure--I would definitely think about having a Horde of them right in the middle, with the BSB, to bolster my battle line.

Hand weapon, shield, Runesmith and Oathstone Thane.

Unit that can take a beating and still hit back hard.
Not as durable as Ironbreakers, but they have the advantage of being Immune to Psychology, and the anti-panic bubble. Plus they're core.

On a real-world cost note, I'm currently converting my longbeards. I have a large unit with 2-handed weapons made from the warrior kit, with the metal face masks. I wanted to change them to hand weapon and shield.
Having built some of the new Irondrakes, I had shields and hand weapons spare that are meant for Ironbreakers. Those shields just look amazing! And the weapon arms fit the older models perfectly. The unit is starting to look great.

With the new miniatures I much prefer longbeards even if its because of an aesthetic stand point because i love the way they look much more heavily armored now, enough so to make the normal dwarf warriors look like their wearing light armor in comparison.