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.

Hello,
I have been playing 40k for a few years now and I have just delved into Warhammer fantasy after watching The Hobbit so it was either Orcs and Goblins OR Dwarfs, i chose Dwarfs because who doesnt like beards.
I dont have a clue how to play but i can always learn, But i want to know what are good and what are bad within the game. So could one or multiple people help me on what to do, What units are good/bad, Equip them with, what to bring ect or even redirect me to a thread that has that information.

Thanks

Good units:
Warriors with greatweapons.
Hammerers with great weapons.
Quarrelers with great weapons.
Cannons with the flaming rune.
Grudgethrowers, especially with the +1S rune.

Bad units:
Ironbreakers.
Flame cannons (the flamethrower things, different from flaming cannons).

I'd point you here http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/470806.page as it is supposed to be a quick and easy way to deal with all these new player threads that pop up but it appears dwarves haven't gotten much love there.

If you plan to make a competitive Dwarf list, you should know you don't have too many options. A good Dwarf list will have a couple combat blocks, usually a big unit of Hammerers or Ironbreakers. Then a few units of Dwarf Thunderers/Quarrelers with Great Weapons. You also wil have the Anvil of Doom. Then you have as many cannons, organ guns, and grudge throwers as you can fit in the list.


A game against Dwarves usually consists of Turn 1: shoot the enemy. Turn 2: shoot the enemy. Turn 3: shoot the enemy. Turn 4: charge into melee/get charged.

Depending on how good your shooting went, you either win the game or lose it. If you failed to do enough damage you lose. If you did do enough damage you win.


As a result, many people don't like playing against dwarves because their one competitive build is boring to play.

One thing to note is they don't use magic. They stop enemy magic, and they do it harshly. Dwarves get tons of extra dispel dice and such that they almost always have the maximum 12. They also get Runes of Spellbreaking that function like D-scrolls. So unless the enemy gets spells off with IF the spell will generally fail.

One positive to fighting Dwarfs is you can always forego magic yourself and he would have wasted any points he spent on anti magic :O) This of course does not offset their hatred of all greenskins for me

Dwarfs have very powerful infantry, and despite their slower movement, I believe the new rules make it easier for them to charge.

They have some Runes that are totally broken.

They are faster in 8th than in editions past, but so is everybody else.

Generally I play with a good 30-50 Warriors w Hand Weapon and Shield or have two 20 core of Dwarfs w/2HW
backed up by them is as many machines as I can cram in, as well as a small unit of Miners (I love Underground Advance) and Slayers (Tough as hell to kill in combat and deliver quite a nasty blow).
I generally think of Hammerers and Ironbreakers as a waste, but others may not agree with me.
For leaders (Laughs Evilly) let's see the suckers try to kill a Daemon Slayer w/ Rune of Alaric the Mad, Rune of Fury x2
Backed up by a Lord in the hoard/smaller army w/ Rune of Gromril and Multiple Wounds rule, with again Rune of Fury.
This is what I generally run with, but as Grey Templar said, destroy them with shooting, and then laugh as your opponents face drops as the bare backed psychos slaughter their way through monsters and hoards alike while the warriors protecting the guns crush anything getting through and characters are brought down by a blasting Charge and picks buried into their eye-sockets.

That's my tactic and only twice out of four years of gaming has it failed me (VC Blood Knights are a :censored: to kill and what can one man do when three abominations rip into a hoard of Warriors and Skaven Magic destroys the cannons and turns the Slayers into rats )
Take my advice or leave it, either way it works for me against anything.

I cannot recommend playing Dwarfs. Hear me out.

Dwarfs are a very strong army. They are efficient at what they to and you will easily net success.

Why I do not recommend playing dwarfs is because they are the most bland army in the game. Dwarfs, when played right, basically have a single tactic: shoot everything at sight, then go into melee in case you have not won already.

It's similar with their units - a lot of them look very similar to each other and have similar roles.

Yes, you can play without war machines, but you end up shoving your troops straight forward which is just as much as fun. Other armies allow for more different play styles and are more interesting to play.

If you really want to, you can push things and make them a little more interesting. Dragonslayers, small units of shield warriors, ironbreakers, or miners make serviceable chaff.

Gyrocopters are very fun (if rather expensive) mobile pieces. The anvil and the Master Rune of Challenge help create interesting things in the movement phases.

Certainly making Dwarves mobile is a bit like pushing water uphill at times, but I think there's some overlooked potential there.

The only truly, truly awful unit in the book is the flame cannon. Pretty much irredeemable after the FAQ inexplicably stripped it of its range.

In my opinion, Dwarfs have the hardest time with death stars. Difficult to get out of the way, and none of the uber-spells that can often serve as a counter to those builds.

Furthermore, the lack of magic is almost less about the inability to fire off uber-spells and more about the inability to flexibly apply combat buffs or hexes. The enemy almost always has a real good idea exactly where your cards lie as a dwarf player.

@baxter123: You may be the first player I've seen in a long, long time to trumpet a tooled up Daemon slayer as an effective tool.

 Red_Zeke wrote:

@baxter123: You may be the first player I've seen in a long, long time to trumpet a tooled up Daemon slayer as an effective tool.

Well I've played many an opponent who just laughs when faced with a Daemon Slayer or a Dragon Slayer and say 'Shouldn't even worry about that puny thing' and then their proven wrong when their famed monster is decapitated or that really tough elite unit turned to a bloody pulp right before their own eyes.
I love Slayers
Slayers are more than tools Red_Zeke, their a secret weapon.

Oh, believe me, I'm somewhat an advocate for the solo dragonslayer. And I think regular slayers are probably overlooked on the whole. But I find Daemonslayers tend to take 2 or 3 wounds off of a monster and then get thunderstomped into oblivion. Which is fine if you're only 50 points, but not so much when you're pushing 200.

Dwarfes are a tad... I will not use the word booring (I just did :-/ ) but they have very little mobilaty once the game starts witch can be dull, and they have a dull magic phase. Your oponents magic phase is funn as you have a tonn of dispell but yours not so mutch. I do not like playing armies with few options once the game starts. Dwarfs can make up for it in other ways.

I was excited to play a heavy melee dwarf army for 8th ed when I heard about the variable charge ranges. I hate them, to be sure, but they DO allow dwarves to compete better on the charge than they used to, being only 1-2" behind other armies on the charge, as opposed to 2-4" in previous editions.

Then I found out that units no longer strike first the turn they charge, and it didn't really matter if I got to you first or not. In fact I was just better off giving myself another round to shoot warmachines than charge, ensuring that NEXT turn the game was wrapped up.

That said, I remain very fond of Miners and many players have been sad to learn that their rear is exposed to drunk and dusty beardos hungry to balance the ledger in their Lord's Book of Grudges.

I think miners are a great way to threaten war machines and other rear elements. Opponents often forget about miners.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I cannot recommend playing Dwarfs. Hear me out.

Dwarfs are a very strong army. They are efficient at what they to and you will easily net success.

Why I do not recommend playing dwarfs is because they are the most bland army in the game. Dwarfs, when played right, basically have a single tactic: shoot everything at sight, then go into melee in case you have not won already.

It's similar with their units - a lot of them look very similar to each other and have similar roles.

Yes, you can play without war machines, but you end up shoving your troops straight forward which is just as much as fun. Other armies allow for more different play styles and are more interesting to play.

What armies would you recommend to new players instead? Are there other armies that are one-sided like the Dwarfs?

I would say that what you are looking for is a diverse army that is also easy. Many of the new armybooks score quite well in the diverse part, but not in the easy part.

The best starting army for a person hands down is Ogers. They are good, they are fast, they have a very limited model choise meaning you do not end up bying "the wrong unit".

They are fast (move 6, 12" move first turn, charge the second or 3rd) Impact hits, stomp, fear...funn funn funn. There are not that many dificult special rules to memorice.

Also, it is a cheap army money wice and it is easy to paint and not that many models. If you like warhammer and wnat another army later on you can do this sooner (but my last army is not even painted?) and you will have a good grasp on the rules so you know what models to buy in your next army.

TK has a steep learning curve.
Vampier counts also a bit dificult, but less so.
Orks and goblins are funn...but dificult to master and hard to paint model vice.
Empier has a big model count and demans a good understanding of making models work together. do not know hard they are.

Warriors of chaos would be another good choise as they have many of the same streanghs of ogers. Also they get a new army book soon.

PS: If you like bears then ogers have quite good mustaches.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If you plan to make a competitive Dwarf list, you should know you don't have too many options. A good Dwarf list will have a couple combat blocks, usually a big unit of Hammerers or Ironbreakers. Then a few units of Dwarf Thunderers/Quarrelers with Great Weapons. You also wil have the Anvil of Doom. Then you have as many cannons, organ guns, and grudge throwers as you can fit in the list.


A game against Dwarves usually consists of Turn 1: shoot the enemy. Turn 2: shoot the enemy. Turn 3: shoot the enemy. Turn 4: charge into melee/get charged.

Depending on how good your shooting went, you either win the game or lose it. If you failed to do enough damage you lose. If you did do enough damage you win.


As a result, many people don't like playing against dwarves because their one competitive build is boring to play.

One thing to note is they don't use magic. They stop enemy magic, and they do it harshly. Dwarves get tons of extra dispel dice and such that they almost always have the maximum 12. They also get Runes of Spellbreaking that function like D-scrolls. So unless the enemy gets spells off with IF the spell will generally fail.

I have always wanted to play a Dwarfs army, but this quote sums up why I never have.

If they released an 8th Dwarfs book which actually added some new units and options where they could play in several different ways and could actually have some dynamic elements to the army I'd be back in a heartbeat.

Yes do not play dwarfes. Unless you really really really like it a lott I think they will give you a bad impression of warhammer fantasy battle.

You are shut down by movement and lack of magic, two of the most interesting things in warhammer.

As I mentioned before- it is possible to actually do some things in the move phase with Dwarfs.

Rangers, miners, gyrocopters, master rune of challenge, anvil of doom (of course), and dragonslayers or small 5 man units all add a lot more maneuver and interesting things to do than just shoot, shoot, shoot.

People often fall into that easy gunline mode, but there's more than one way to play them. The maneuver way's just a lot harder.

Thjan wrote:

What armies would you recommend to new players instead? Are there other armies that are one-sided like the Dwarfs?

It really depends, man. I mean, this game is expensive. Unless you've got a lot of money to blow, I would hate to spend multiple hundreds of dollars on models that are "good for a starting player" only to find out that I'm more attracted to other models or other playstyles.

So, what's important to you? Is the playstyle of the army the most important thing? Or is how the army looks or the fluff more important? I know a lot of people who don't care what the models look like - they only care about how the army feels on the tabletop and what it's good at. I also know a lot of people who don't care at all how the army plays - they only care about modelling, painting, and playing with giant monsters, or vampires, or the most evil guys, or whatever.

I wouldn't want to tell you that Brittonians are great for beginners, have you dump a couple hundred on the models, and then find out that you hate cavalry, fast troops, King Arthur, and horses.

 Tangent wrote:

Thjan wrote:

What armies would you recommend to new players instead? Are there other armies that are one-sided like the Dwarfs?

It really depends, man. I mean, this game is expensive. Unless you've got a lot of money to blow, I would hate to spend multiple hundreds of dollars on models that are "good for a starting player" only to find out that I'm more attracted to other models or other playstyles.

So, what's important to you? Is the playstyle of the army the most important thing? Or is how the army looks or the fluff more important? I know a lot of people who don't care what the models look like - they only care about how the army feels on the tabletop and what it's good at. I also know a lot of people who don't care at all how the army plays - they only care about modelling, painting, and playing with giant monsters, or vampires, or the most evil guys, or whatever.

I wouldn't want to tell you that Brittonians are great for beginners, have you dump a couple hundred on the models, and then find out that you hate cavalry, fast troops, King Arthur, and horses.

This man speaks the truth.

When selecting armies, you want to look at the fluff, the models, and the playstyles. Ignore everyone's opinion of things and only focus on the facts, then make your decision. If you don't like something about the army, imagine feeling that way and painting 100+ of it's miniatures, all because someone convinced you they were an easy army to play, or whatever. Just go with what looks cool to you. Just because an army plays best a certain way doesn't mean you can't try it another way and still have fun and win.

Yeah, I always feel like the label of "good for a starting player" equates to "boring." The assumption being that a beginner won't be able to grasp the subtle nuances of the rules required to play certain armies well, and this means that armies with less nuance will be "easier" for people with no experience. But the paradox (which is not the word I'm looking for) is that once you learn the game with an "easy" army, you start looking for more tactically complex stuff... but you already spent a few hundred bucks on a tactically SIMPLE army.

There's only two solutions to this, in my opinion. One, good "beginner" armies are armies that have both simple mechanics at low point values AND subtle nuance at greater values, which means you can learn the game with that army's simple tactics and then expand into greater complexity when you feel ready. The problem with this solution is that either every single army in WHFB meets this requirement, or NONE of them do. In either case, it doesn't matter what you play.

And two, the other solution is to not care about playstyle and only care about the models, in which case you don't care about tactical feel on the tabletop at all, and will be satisfied playing Lizardmen because you love dinosaurs. I probably fall into this camp, by the way. I love gothic horror so much that Vampire Counts could play like Wood Elves and I wouldn't mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thjan wrote:
Are there other armies that are one-sided like the Dwarfs?

As an aside, yes, there are other armies that are one-sided like Dwarves, in the sense that they don't have a lot of different viable stategies that will lead to success, and lots of the model options from the armybook are basically useless. Though, this has less to do with that army in particular, and more to do with the fact that their armybooks are really, really old. Dwarves, Wood Elves, Brittonians, High Elves to a degree. (Sorry - I know that HE are good, but it seems like there's only one way to make them good.)

 Tangent wrote:
(Sorry - I know that HE are good, but it seems like there's only one way to make them good.)

That isn't true. High elves work well with multiple small, medium and large units. And you have several good lists with them. You have the Book lists. You have the combat prince+dragon princes. You have the shadow magic+shooting. And then you have Teclis and friends.

Just because most people run one type of list. It isn't the only good option available to that army. The same goes for dwarves. Dwarves are in fact an easy army to get the hang of. Due to the fact that they participate in two aspects of the game. Shooting, and stopping magic. And they are the best at what they do.

Dwarves are a good army to get to know the game. They don't have that many unique rules, nor do they overload you with options.

Fair enough, but whatever - that wasn't the meat of my post. Dwarves are a great army to get to know the game, because they're boring.

 Tangent wrote:
Fair enough, but whatever - that wasn't the meat of my post. Dwarves are a great army to get to know the game, because they're boring.

I know. I was correcting what you said about HE. And the dwarf thing was to explain that the misconception that the only way to play dwarves is to castle in the corner is wrong.

Ok, but the point I'm trying to make, sorta, is that if anyone ever says that a given army is great for beginners, it's probably NOT great for beginners because its boring (based on what people normally mean when they say "good for beginners," which is that the army is "easy").

Yeah, I would pick the models or background you like the most. In WFB you're always going to be painting a whole ton of guys, so make sure you like them beforehand.

I also think that "beginner" armies should operate in all phases of the game and have a wide variety of unit types. So Elves of various stripes, Empire and Orcs and Goblins are reasonably good in that regard.
Ogres have a heavy combat focus and are heavily skewed towards monstous infantry. This does mean a lower model count, of course.
Vampires rely heavily on magic and unbreakable fear causing troops. They lack shooting and they are slow moving.
Same goes for Tomb Kings but with added shooting.
Daemons are reasonably all-rounderish but don't play like anyone else, ignoring many of the core rules.
Bretonnians have a heavy focus on cavalry and no elite infantry.
Warriors of Chaos and Beasts of Chaos are both close combat with very limited shooting.
Lizardmen tend to rely heavily on magic, aside from this they are a decent all rounder army.
Dwarves are perhaps the most limited, lacking cavalry and magic, and relying heavily on elite infantry (no hordes) and war machines. Their magic item system is also unusual.

I play O&G, WoC, Dwarves and Undead. I have to say that out of these, 2 I collect for the models (orcs and undead) and 1 for the fluff (dwarves) and 1 for the playstyle (WoC).