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.

Makumba wrote:
Ok so you want dwarfs to have no runes , and they don't have mages .

Use your head. Why on earth do you think they are going to change a significant part of the book and leave others completely unaffected? The entire Dwarf army book is out of synch with every other book in the game and the BRB. They would and should change whatever has to be changed to bring them in line and made them a fun army to play and play against. Right now they are neither.

Some dwarf players are merely arguing that they want more stuff and want everything else to remain the same. But you're ignoring the fact that other armies don't like to play vs. dwarfs because it's boring. If it gets any worse people simply won't play against them at all. I'm not talking the competitive level where they will be forced to, but if you got 3 hours of your life to choose a game, you're going to choose one that is the most fun. If someone asks me, "hey, would you like to play a really boring game with your limited free time?" I'm going to say no. I don't go to the dentist on my free time when I don't have an appointment either.

Duke you need to find some new friends who aren't power gaming to high hell. They are not boring to play as or against as long as the Dwarf player is not castling which I know you will say everyone does but you are wrong they do not. Here is a copy and paste of my last army if you don't believe me:

Runelord
Master rune of Balance
Rune of Spellbreaking
Master rune of Gromril
Rune of Brotherhood
Great Weapon

Bugman

35 Longbeard Rangers
Great Weapons
Throwing Axes
Command

35 Longbeard Rangers
Great Weapons
Throwing Axes
Command

20 Miners
Standard Bearer

If you are going to say that that is boring to play against you are delusional.

Also you say they are boring to play against as if nobody else is. I hate beyond belief playing against WoC. I find them to be far superior in combat, Hellcannons are mental and Warshrines are unkillable. Don't even get me started on the 1+ armour 3+ ward rerolling 1s sorcerer lord. But that is just the type of army they are and you have to find different tactics against them. Counter charge the warriors, never go near a hellcannon, don't waste a cannon shot on a warshrine and as long as you get enough ranks against the sorcerer he will run and if we catch end of his game.

So just because you don't like them just investigate how to beat them. If they are castling in a corner try to have many distraction units, get units that are resilient to war machines (eg. ironcurse icon, any magic resist as many are magical) Don't just complain they are broken and get GW to change it.

FullFatMayo wrote:
If you are going to say that that is boring to play against you are delusional.

I don't think you've read this thread. Or these forums. Or any forums. This isn't the Duke Theory of Dwarfs. People don't want to play vs. a mega gunline sit in corner and shut down magic army. It's not fun.

Make a new thread and submit a poll if you don't believe me.

Can you read. You say that it is no fun to play against a mega gunline in a corner. But if you had taken it upon yourself to read my army list then you will realise all my ranged weapons are 6 inch range so hardly a gunline. No warmachines at all and all of my units either come in from any table edge or scout so I don't really sit in corners either.

Shhh....Don't feed him.

He thinks chess is broken because white always goes first.

FullFatMayo wrote:
read my army list

But that's not dwarfs.

It's cute you managed to make a non-dwarfy dwarf list that doesn't make use of the army's overwhelming advantages. You can make a non-ogre ogre army too. And a non-elite WoC list. But 99% of the armies you fight won't be that.

For the 2nd time, if you really don't believe me ask the question if current dwarf meta is fun to fight against. BTW, you don't define the meta for the planet. But I can assure you it bears no resemblance your list. It might be fun as hell to run an all snotling army, but you're going to see one as often as a 4 leaf clover so using that as the determination of O&G is spurious.

Why on earth do you think they are going to change a significant part of the book and leave others completely unaffected?

See I play w40k too , so is this a trick question ? But they made more then a few army books for that that sucked . What if they have the crazy idea that dwarfs are supposr to be a mass wall of steel and unupgraded machines with no magic , in a magic dominated enviroment and suddenly I have an army which got "cool" units that don't make my army better ,the good thing got worse and becuase of fluff they don't give me magic on the same level as other armies .
And the army book is all about "cool" , the gyros for example .Why would I want a pegasus type of unit when my army is not going to win the manuver game what ever I play with them or not . That is not counting the cost of a box of them .

I don't think you've read this thread. Or these forums. Or any forums. This isn't the Duke Theory of Dwarfs. People don't want to play vs. a mega gunline sit in corner and shut down magic army. It's not fun.

Because from a dwarf player perspective being forced in to playing like armies with normal movment , without magic and with weaker machines is the epitome of fun . In fact why not remove the machines at all. The dwarfs are a dieing out race and cannons are hard to transport around the mountains . Maybe dwarfs should have the options to buy them only , if they fight near the gates of a Karak .

If you are going to say that that is boring to play against you are delusional.

Well it is different , problem with it is that it is based around the use of a special character , and those are offten banned . So while the build is technicly there , it is a lot like FW , almost never seen actualy played .

Actually Duke that is Dwarf's. The main compositions of any Dwarf tournament army is either:

1. Castling

OR

2. An ambush list

Ambush lists work and are used at tournaments and last time I checked they are still counted as Dwarf's.


As for whether my army is actually used at tournaments I doubt is as it is far from optimal and as you say special characters are banned quite often. But it doesn't entirely rely on Bugman,don't get me wrong he helps but, you can just take more miners and an Anvil of Doom for the movement in the shooting phase.

hmm duke your on a roll here mate, as i also use a dwarf combat army.

Thorek or Runelord with anvil

Thane with banner and rune of whatever i feel like useing at the time

Combat thane

Combat thane

30 warriors

30 warriors

30 warriors

30 longbeards

30 rangers

Ironbreakers.

Wow look at the horrible horrible gunli... oh

What makes dwarfs a good book is the variety, i love that most of my army is core and when the 8th brb came out i had to chnage very little, i also play variations on this list with a tooled up super dwarf lord of you cant kill me, i love taking on deamon and dragons with this little fella

Im hoping that when the new book is out that slayers become the bain of monsters like they should be

FullFatMayo wrote:
Actually Duke that is Dwarf's. The main compositions of any Dwarf tournament army is either:

1. Castling

OR

2. An ambush list

Ambush lists work and are used at tournaments and last time I checked they are still counted as Dwarf's.


As for whether my army is actually used at tournaments I doubt is as it is far from optimal and as you say special characters are banned quite often. But it doesn't entirely rely on Bugman,don't get me wrong he helps but, you can just take more miners and an Anvil of Doom for the movement in the shooting phase.

I'd hate to burst your bubble, but outside of fluff gaming, that second list is naught more than a myth. I REALLY hate saying this, but Duke is right. Beyond, altering war machines and the runic system to something completely different(I.E. Non-stackable dispel runes. No MRoChallenge. No million rerollable laser guided templates) , you won't get a standard dwarf army that's fun to play.

what you and duke apear to be saying is that its not fun to play an army list that isnt competative at a tournament, thats nonsense, I enjoy my walking dwarfs and like taking the battle to the enemy, oddly i ended up playing an ork gunline at a local tournament with my go and get em dwarfs, that was bloody awsome.

 Formosa wrote:
what you and duke apear to be saying is that its not fun to play an army list that isnt competative at a tournament, thats nonsense, I enjoy my walking dwarfs and like taking the battle to the enemy, oddly i ended up playing an ork gunline at a local tournament with my go and get em dwarfs, that was bloody awsome.

Orc gunline? But...they don't have guns

Orc Arrow line?

yeah it was lots of goblins with arrows and bolt throwers and rock lobbers and a doom diver, it looked pretty cool haha, we actually got a impromptu prize for "best game" as even the tourny organisor was "Huh", point still remains that i love my foot dwarfs without having to take any guns, not everyone is a tourney playing WAAC player and its plenty fun to run this and run a gun line, besides if dwarf gunlines were so bad they would win all the tourneys right?

 captain collius wrote:
Orc Arrow line?

Orc Arrer Line

Let's get these things right

I know you may say that a dwarf ambush doesn't work and you may be right at tourneys (still think your wrong as they pop up on bugmans brewery a bit) but in casual play when not everyone is being a power gamer then it does work. I recently drew top in a 4 way triumph and treachery game with my army listed above.

I think the key is to take things less seriously. Recently the people I play with and I are taking things less seriously and we are having much more fun because of it. If you are a die hard tournament player then it should still be fine as dwarf's win hardly any tournaments anyway.

 Formosa wrote:
what you and duke apear to be saying is that its not fun to play an army list that isnt competative at a tournament, thats nonsense, I enjoy my walking dwarfs and like taking the battle to the enemy, oddly i ended up playing an ork gunline at a local tournament with my go and get em dwarfs, that was bloody awsome.

What I'm saying, is that the majority of dwarf armies, the 99.9%, if you will, are the worst armies in the entire game. The book has so little variation due to the meta. Combat dwarves, against the current Top books, will lose 9/10 times, adn the 1 game they win will probably be due to freak rolling. That's due to the meta shifting to high initiative and strength models, which are fast moving.

FullFatMayo wrote:
I know you may say that a dwarf ambush doesn't work and you may be right at tourneys (still think your wrong as they pop up on bugmans brewery a bit) but in casual play when not everyone is being a power gamer then it does work. I recently drew top in a 4 way triumph and treachery game with my army listed above.

I think the key is to take things less seriously. Recently the people I play with and I are taking things less seriously and we are having much more fun because of it. If you are a die hard tournament player then it should still be fine as dwarf's win hardly any tournaments anyway.

How does your dwarf ambush list fair against the most common tournament armies? The answer is not very well due to the current meta. The only answer to this that the dwarf book has is the artillery. And even in casual play, the book has so little variety, it's painful. Either you go for slow moving troop A, or slow moving troop B. And using T&T as an example for a conventional list is like using a steak as an example of a vegetarian diet. It doesn't work. T&T has far too many variables which make it too difficult to gauge an army's effectiveness. However, in casual gaming, dwarves have a little more variety than competitive. But even the wood elf book makes them pale in comparison. Unless the rune system and the artillery get reworked.

Over the last eight months, due to several reasons, I've laid off the warhammer wagon, and having returned to a very different meta, and a new book, the only thing that disheartens me is the prospect of dwarves not changing.

The flaw with dwarves is this, the most powerful list writes itself, and it presents a rock paper scissors game where you can predict the result by the dwarf player's second turn in most cases. And that isn't how you have a good, fun game.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
what you and duke apear to be saying is that its not fun to play an army list that isnt competative at a tournament, thats nonsense, I enjoy my walking dwarfs and like taking the battle to the enemy, oddly i ended up playing an ork gunline at a local tournament with my go and get em dwarfs, that was bloody awsome.

What I'm saying, is that the majority of dwarf armies, the 99.9%, if you will, are the worst armies in the entire game. The book has so little variation due to the meta. Combat dwarves, against the current Top books, will lose 9/10 times, adn the 1 game they win will probably be due to freak rolling. That's due to the meta shifting to high initiative and strength models, which are fast moving.

FullFatMayo wrote:
I know you may say that a dwarf ambush doesn't work and you may be right at tourneys (still think your wrong as they pop up on bugmans brewery a bit) but in casual play when not everyone is being a power gamer then it does work. I recently drew top in a 4 way triumph and treachery game with my army listed above.

I think the key is to take things less seriously. Recently the people I play with and I are taking things less seriously and we are having much more fun because of it. If you are a die hard tournament player then it should still be fine as dwarf's win hardly any tournaments anyway.

How does your dwarf ambush list fair against the most common tournament armies? The answer is not very well due to the current meta. The only answer to this that the dwarf book has is the artillery. And even in casual play, the book has so little variety, it's painful. Either you go for slow moving troop A, or slow moving troop B. And using T&T as an example for a conventional list is like using a steak as an example of a vegetarian diet. It doesn't work. T&T has far too many variables which make it too difficult to gauge an army's effectiveness. However, in casual gaming, dwarves have a little more variety than competitive. But even the wood elf book makes them pale in comparison. Unless the rune system and the artillery get reworked.

Over the last eight months, due to several reasons, I've laid off the warhammer wagon, and having returned to a very different meta, and a new book, the only thing that disheartens me is the prospect of dwarves not changing.

The flaw with dwarves is this, the most powerful list writes itself, and it presents a rock paper scissors game where you can predict the result by the dwarf player's second turn in most cases. And that isn't how you have a good, fun game.

I think your missing the point me and mayo are making, who bloody cares about tournaments, GW doesnt, we dont, if tourney players want to create that all powerful list that will roflstomp Dwarfs let them, more power to them its how they want to play the game, we and that other 99% of dwarf players and well...players in general, dont give 2 hoots about if it does well in a tourney and loses 9/10 games, so long as we can play games with our mates and have fun doing it, in a standard game vs vamps, Elves or empire whatever with a normal list will result in a good game, if we all power game or build tourney lists... well more fool us for thinking its a ballanced enough game to begin with

what you and duke apear to be saying

Stop trying to put words in ppls' mouths and respond to what they are actually saying. It's a logical fallacy.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
What I'm saying, is that the majority of dwarf armies, the 99.9%, if you will, are the worst armies in the entire game. The book has so little variation due to the meta.

^this is what we have literally been saying. And it's not just us, but everyone on these forums.

You have yet to post the question to the players of the forums asking the very simple question, "is it fun to play vs. dwarfs." You don't have to qualify it with tournament only or fluffy only or anything only. Just dwarfs. People know what they play and will answer. You're just not going to like the response. Third time I've asked now. Are you scared to post it? You've posted everything else under the sun telling us what we're saying....

 DukeRustfield wrote:

what you and duke apear to be saying

Stop trying to put words in ppls' mouths and respond to what they are actually saying. It's a logical fallacy.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
What I'm saying, is that the majority of dwarf armies, the 99.9%, if you will, are the worst armies in the entire game. The book has so little variation due to the meta.

^this is what we have literally been saying. And it's not just us, but everyone on these forums.

You have yet to post the question to the players of the forums asking the very simple question, "is it fun to play vs. dwarfs." You don't have to qualify it with tournament only or fluffy only or anything only. Just dwarfs. People know what they play and will answer. You're just not going to like the response. Third time I've asked now. Are you scared to post it? You've posted everything else under the sun telling us what we're saying....

Fun isn't really measurable, though. Some people might find it unfun to play against deathstars that they have to avoid all game. Some people might find it unfun to use their main unit to a single spell that they couldn't block because it IF'd. Some people might find it unfun to face an army that is entirely monsters or cavalry.

Point is, "Fun" is a subjective and poor measurement. You do have a point in that having an army with only one playstyle is likely to be incredibly dull from a game design stand point (and is basically why everyone hates Dwarves in Bloodbowl, because almost every single game is inevitably a 2-1 grind), but it's bad because of this, not because of some nebulous "unfun" factor.

The most important thing for me in the next book is that Dwarfs are supposed to be the finest infantry in the world.
Their rules should reflect this. There are currently far too many units who slice through dwarfs like they aren't there.

Anyone who charges a block of dwarf elites in the front unsupported should get their asses handed to them, and currently that just doesn't happen; instead the dwarfs loose. Usually slowly until they're eventually killed to a man, but that's not the image I get when I hear "finest infantry in the world."

ChrisAsmadi wrote:
Fun isn't really measurable, though.

Of course it is. Watch:


IS IT FUN TO PLAY AGAINST DWARFS AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE IN YOUR EXPERIENCE?

Listen at the end of the day the book is not released. None of you have any idea at what they are doing with dwarfs so just calm down, sit back, and wait for the beginning of February. Then we can talk about the dwarf meta

You know what fidel, your right, have an exalt

Bran Dawri wrote:
The most important thing for me in the next book is that Dwarfs are supposed to be the finest infantry in the world.
Their rules should reflect this. There are currently far too many units who slice through dwarfs like they aren't there.

Anyone who charges a block of dwarf elites in the front unsupported should get their asses handed to them, and currently that just doesn't happen; instead the dwarfs loose. Usually slowly until they're eventually killed to a man, but that's not the image I get when I hear "finest infantry in the world."

I'm not so sure the dwarfs are the finest infantry. They are the most disciplined and very resilient. One on one a chaos warrior or a swordmaster would probably beat a hammerer. But they would not be easy fights.
Dwarfs have that grim resolve - they win fights not necessarily through skill at arms (though they do have that in spades) but they grind their enemy down, out last them, weather the storm, then hit them with the counter.
They shouldn't be able to charge a unit and crush them in a turn.

As far as the tabletop goes, they should be able to make their blows count, but not wipe out units at a time. THey should also be hard to kill and harder to break

 DukeRustfield wrote:

ChrisAsmadi wrote:
Fun isn't really measurable, though.

Of course it is. Watch:


IS IT FUN TO PLAY AGAINST DWARFS AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE IN YOUR EXPERIENCE?

since when being fun to playing against was ever important. Demons were borderline unfun to play against , specialy by those armies that couldn't build an anti demon army . Yet for demon players they were very fun . H elf player had ton of fun playing Teclis , yes it did end with specials getting banned from play , but the fun was there. Why should dwarf player lose the way they played for years , just that other have fun ? where is the fun for dwarf players there . Dwarfs were and are about "runes , magic resistance and laser guided machines" , making them without those 3 would be like making HE without high I and powerful mages .

Makumba wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:

ChrisAsmadi wrote:
Fun isn't really measurable, though.

Of course it is. Watch:


IS IT FUN TO PLAY AGAINST DWARFS AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE IN YOUR EXPERIENCE?

since when being fun to playing against was ever important. Demons were borderline unfun to play against , specialy by those armies that couldn't build an anti demon army . Yet for demon players they were very fun . H elf player had ton of fun playing Teclis , yes it did end with specials getting banned from play , but the fun was there. Why should dwarf player lose the way they played for years , just that other have fun ? where is the fun for dwarf players there . Dwarfs were and are about "runes , magic resistance and laser guided machines" , making them without those 3 would be like making HE without high I and powerful mages .

First off, Demons/Teclis HE and dwarves are completely different. Old HE and Demons had multiple builds that work, but those two builds were just way ahead of the rest. Whereas Dwarf lists build themselves. Which is the mark of a flawed book. The list that the book presents you with also presents a rock paper scissors matchup that is not, and will never be, a good game. As it ends with the opponent castling out of range of all the dwarf war machines. I've had games end in twenty minutes against dwarves.

As for the Taking them away, I don't want it, but the book needs stuff that discourages them from being spammed. Or at least add choices that discourage dwarf players from building that list in particular.

since when being fun to playing against was ever important.

Since WHFB was sold as part of a business. I.e., always.

Like I said, if it becomes a point when no one wants to play vs. them, Dwarfs will be de facto non-existent. And that goes for any army. You have the choice of playing someone or not.

Whereas Dwarf lists build themselves. Which is the mark of a flawed book

and demons did or HE didn't? take teclics , take unit for him to hide ,add magic banner. List just not build itself .

As for the Taking them away, I don't want it, but the book needs stuff that discourages them from being spammed. Or at least add choices that discourage dwarf players from building that list in particular.

To do that dwarfs would have to be able to play the manuver game like every other WFB army . This means either , table wide nerf to movment of opposing army Which is not going to happen. Dwarfs with M4 . Not going to happen either . Dwarf magic that is reliable , as in can't be countered, that allows the whole dwarf army to move faster ,ala old Dance Macaber. That is not going to happen either . Powerful fast moving units and Mcavalery that can tie up whole opposing armies long enough for the slow dwarfs to get in to range .
So yeah , if all the other armies out there take 2 turns to get to the tower objective and dwarfs take 3 , dwarfs will have to either play gunlines or play lists that don't work and lose.

Like I said, if it becomes a point when no one wants to play vs. them, Dwarfs will be de facto non-existent. And that goes for any army. You have the choice of playing someone or not.

And when they are going to be non-dwarfs dwarfs with nerfed game play , and stats totaly not made to be played in a manuver game , people are going to flock to play with them and they will exist . Right got it

Makumba wrote:

Whereas Dwarf lists build themselves. Which is the mark of a flawed book

and demons did or HE didn't? take teclics , take unit for him to hide ,add magic banner. List just not build itself .

As for the Taking them away, I don't want it, but the book needs stuff that discourages them from being spammed. Or at least add choices that discourage dwarf players from building that list in particular.

To do that dwarfs would have to be able to play the manuver game like every other WFB army . This means either , table wide nerf to movment of opposing army Which is not going to happen. Dwarfs with M4 . Not going to happen either . Dwarf magic that is reliable , as in can't be countered, that allows the whole dwarf army to move faster ,ala old Dance Macaber. That is not going to happen either . Powerful fast moving units and Mcavalery that can tie up whole opposing armies long enough for the slow dwarfs to get in to range .
So yeah , if all the other armies out there take 2 turns to get to the tower objective and dwarfs take 3 , dwarfs will have to either play gunlines or play lists that don't work and lose.

Like I said, if it becomes a point when no one wants to play vs. them, Dwarfs will be de facto non-existent. And that goes for any army. You have the choice of playing someone or not.

And when they are going to be non-dwarfs dwarfs with nerfed game play , and stats totaly not made to be played in a manuver game , people are going to flock to play with them and they will exist . Right got it

Demons did have a choice. Just because the 90 Bloodletter lists exist, does not mean that the rest of the choices didn't work. The same goes for the Herald list, or the LD-Bomb list. And those three lists prove my point. Demons don't build themselves. They just had ridiculously good choices.

The same went for High Elves. The shadow-book list worked well. As did the RAF. As did the double lionhorde. You had a scope for creativity due to access to all the rulebook lores and effective specials. Once more, just because they have a single choice that got banned doesn't make the book flawed. Whereas, a combat dwarf army will lose to any other combat army. Due to the lack of chaff, rerolls and armour that the book provides/

As for the altering of the rune system, that doesn't make them have to be able to participate in the movement game. IT just means that they have to have sensible limits. Like limiting the magic deniability, and limiting the grudge throwers/organ guns. Those things are in 99.99% of lists. Which results in Duke being proven right. Dwarves are not fun to play. To the point where they ruine the hobby for the rest of us.

With regards to the watchtower, that scenario you listed is a non-event in most games as most sensible people don't garrison it anyway. Rather move into it on the last turn.