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.

Everyone by now has listed the "please nerf" offenders we all know about, so I will just say I sincerely hope Dwarf/Duardin/Dispossessed see almost across-the-board price drops, and significant ones at that.

They're my much loved, for-fun, army, but I feel like they're constantly fighting at a deficit with a desire to field good supporting infantry of several kinds, and in decent numbers, but they cost so, so very much more than they should.

In a game where mobility is proving to be THE decisive strategy/tactic/asset, Dwarves are comically under-achieving. Outside of Bugman's Rangers (who then have abysmal output AND cost too much), you're forced to turtle up with artillery, and hope your opponent misplays.

They're awful, if i'm being honest. :-p

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We don't want defensive scenarios, especially with random initiative, because they cater to gun-line armies. The problem with Duradin isn't mobility (Nurgle does fine after all) it's that their infantry (the mainstay of the army) simply cost too much in an environment where infantry are already sub-par.

This. If you could clog your deployment with a slow-moving, but reasonably reliable wall of models, you could "push" forward, in proper Dwarfy fashion. As it stands, that infantry is slow as mud AND costs almost twice as much as I believe it should.

Longbeards... in theory should have value as a force-multiplier... but who the hell is fielding Dwarf close-combat infantry to benefit?

Yeah, Ironbreakers, Hammerers, Longbeards, and Irondrakes are on my short list of worst-priced units in the entirety of Age of Sigmar at the moment. I suspect they'll see price-drops, but I worry GW will be afraid to go as far as they need to to make them even remotely competitive. I don't even mean GOOD... I just mean not terrible. :-p

Oh and forget how salty I am over things like Thunderers. If you're going to force an army into one play-style, IE shooting... how about making their core shooter at least as good, and with as much access to super buffs as the simple Freeguild Pistolier.... in all their broken gun-line-iness. :-p

Touche'. I mean, i'd like a comparable level of skill for a unit that is supposedly specialized in that one area. :-p

 Hulksmash wrote:
I don't want broken. But I do want units that aren't price similar to comparable 2 wound models when they only have a single wound. I am ok with Ghouls at 100pts (still a little high) and Skellies at 80pts as they replenish so in essence I'm paying for more than just the 10 wounds. With chaos you've got marauders that are similar at 60pts and Gor that are 80pts but have a better CC save, faster, and can run and charge (for a 20% discount vs. Warriors).

If they wanted dwarves to be more elite they needed to reflect it in their stats. As it is they are horde level rules wise but priced like elites.

So much this. I actually just retired my TK, because they weren't "fun" in a meta that is locally just playing armies they enjoy for relaxed play.... and yet even in this quite casual environment Dwarves struggle to do anything. My wife's Saurus Guard, even beyond much greater access to much better buffs and supports, are overwhelmingly better "elite infantry" than literally anything I can field from Dwarves, at any point cost. As stated, you can totally price reasonable units that read, and perform as "elite".

In my mind, if priced accordingly, I imagine Dwarves to have devastating "toys" IE artillery, shooting in general, war-engines, etc... backed up by a costly, but ultra durable wall of guys tasked with working around their inherent slowness, by being a wall against attacks. At this point you still have competitive challenges in tournament scenarios tasking players with higher mobility, BUT at least their is a tactical/racial internal logic to how said army performs.

As it stands we have artillery being the only decent option (albeit still pricey and with only a couple of the options being worthwhile, and insta gimped if you take out one squishy support model), and everything else being some of the worst priced, performing models in all of AoS. :-p

Edit: Incidentally, as others suggest, slashing Dwarf points almost by half, instantly rectifies things, and at least fits them into the aforementioned internal logic.

My group is all about General's Handbook, and isn't up for comps, even well made ones. So yes, even though our tournaments aren't full blood-thirsty, there's definitely a large swathe of "no chance" armies. :-p