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.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
Look. It is fine if he believes playing against Dwarfs or playing Dwarfs is not interesting, tedious, predictable, whatever. But making the claim that the majority of the people that play dwarfs or against them feel that way is ridiculous. The forums here and everywhere else are a very small percentage of the population of people that play these games. And out of all of the people that come on to these forums, even a smaller portion of those ever bother to even post anything.

I can speak for the majority of the ENTIRE UK TOURNAMENT SCENE, when I say that Dwarves are not fun to play.

No, no you can't. You can speak for yourself and that's about it. No more than someone else can tell you what you think is boring.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So what you're saying is, "Don't play an interesting army, that is well balanced, and fun to play, because dwarves are the least well written book in warhammer and rely on a single trick to do well?" Remind me to never play against you.

Single trick? Yeah, because they've been forced into a box without any other escape. You hate dwarfs, fine, but don't pretend it's more than just you or that they're this hugely dominant force - they aren't and your opinion is yours alone, not the entire scenes. Dwarf cannons are good against monsters because NOTHING ELSE IN THE BOOK IS. I mean, seriously. Just stop taking a game so seriously that you will let your blind hatred stop you doing something you enjoy. You don't even know how the new book plays yet for crying out loud.

Eyjio wrote:

Single trick? Yeah, because they've been forced into a box without any other escape.

But the problem is, people here are arguing:

a) they have TONS of options
b) even if they don't, their single trick should stay because That's Dwarfs, So Tough Luck
c) a third thing

Were you beaten by Dwarves a few times or what?

d) we must hate dwarfs and/or were beaten by them to ever question their meta

 Thunderfrog wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
Look. It is fine if he believes playing against Dwarfs or playing Dwarfs is not interesting, tedious, predictable, whatever. But making the claim that the majority of the people that play dwarfs or against them feel that way is ridiculous. The forums here and everywhere else are a very small percentage of the population of people that play these games. And out of all of the people that come on to these forums, even a smaller portion of those ever bother to even post anything.

I can speak for the majority of the ENTIRE UK TOURNAMENT SCENE, when I say that Dwarves are not fun to play.

No, no you can't. You can speak for yourself and that's about it. No more than someone else can tell you what you think is boring.

Yes, I can. Because, I've been playing Warhammer since 2007, and been competitive for over two years. And when I say that everyone, bar the few dwarf players on the scene, hates dwarves, it's from hearing it from them, or from seeing it on twitter/hearing it on podcasts.

Like I said, it's a commonly agreed thing overhere that you should only ever play 1 dwarf player per six game event. Why would that be, if people didn't dislike them?

Eyjio wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So what you're saying is, "Don't play an interesting army, that is well balanced, and fun to play, because dwarves are the least well written book in warhammer and rely on a single trick to do well?" Remind me to never play against you.

Single trick? Yeah, because they've been forced into a box without any other escape. You hate dwarfs, fine, but don't pretend it's more than just you or that they're this hugely dominant force - they aren't and your opinion is yours alone, not the entire scenes. Dwarf cannons are good against monsters because NOTHING ELSE IN THE BOOK IS. I mean, seriously. Just stop taking a game so seriously that you will let your blind hatred stop you doing something you enjoy. You don't even know how the new book plays yet for crying out loud.

See my previous statement about the scene's opinion. As for cannons, it isn't just them. It's the two cannons, two stone throwers and an organ gun you see in 99.9999999% of all lists. It gets better! Those cannons are magical, and those stone throwers never miss. It's like Duke pointed out. 6th spells are not only challenging to cast, they have multiple ways that they can go wrong. It's why the earthing rod is so important. War machine misfire charts are 1- Bad. 2- Nothing. 3- Nothing. 4- Nothing. 5- Nothing. 6- Something that looks bad, but overall does nothing. Which allows dwarves to sit back, and ruin people's hobbies.

As I've said, Dwarves NEED to be changed to have multiple options beyond "Short hitty person A backed up by war machines" or "Short hitty person B, with a gun, backed up by war machines."

The runic system needs to be altered. Stackable dispel scrolls, Spell Eaters, and MRoChallenge especially need to go.

Which allows dwarves to sit back, and ruin people's hobbies.

As I've said, Dwarves NEED to be changed to have multiple options beyond "Short hitty person A backed up by war machines" or "Short hitty person B, with a gun, backed up by war machines."

The runic system needs to be altered. Stackable dispel scrolls, Spell Eaters, and MRoChallenge especially need to go.

Ok , then let us say those things are removed . Dwarf machines are now like imperial machines , only with lower stats and dwarf anti magic is like khorn anti magic . The dwarf army no longer can gunline . What would have to happen to make them good ?
Because they are slower then any other army and have no magic . Bound spell runes won't help them , because those can be easily dispeled by armies that run 2-3 casters . If anvil is , again , made the dwarf movment cruch then without being stuck in a unit and movable it becomes very vunerable and what are dwarfs suppose to do , if anvil gets stoped . It also wouldn't help dwarf be less monobuild , as every dwarf army no matter at how many points would need to have an anvil . If there were any points range where dwarfs wouldn't be able to take an anvil it would automaticly make them unplayable at those points.

So what is left ? ambush style armies with miners and now rare rangers with let us hope no Bugman forced on people ?

Makumba wrote:

Which allows dwarves to sit back, and ruin people's hobbies.

As I've said, Dwarves NEED to be changed to have multiple options beyond "Short hitty person A backed up by war machines" or "Short hitty person B, with a gun, backed up by war machines."

The runic system needs to be altered. Stackable dispel scrolls, Spell Eaters, and MRoChallenge especially need to go.

Ok , then let us say those things are removed . Dwarf machines are now like imperial machines , only with lower stats and dwarf anti magic is like khorn anti magic . The dwarf army no longer can gunline . What would have to happen to make them good ?
Because they are slower then any other army and have no magic . Bound spell runes won't help them , because those can be easily dispeled by armies that run 2-3 casters . If anvil is , again , made the dwarf movment cruch then without being stuck in a unit and movable it becomes very vunerable and what are dwarfs suppose to do , if anvil gets stoped . It also wouldn't help dwarf be less monobuild , as every dwarf army no matter at how many points would need to have an anvil . If there were any points range where dwarfs wouldn't be able to take an anvil it would automaticly make them unplayable at those points.

So what is left ? ambush style armies with miners and now rare rangers with let us hope no Bugman forced on people ?

Again, people are missing the point entirely. Take the dark elf book, what makes it good? Variety. Warriors? Variety. High elves? Variety. Ogres? Variety.

Do you get it yet? Those books are mostly fun to play as and against. Because they have what dwarves don't. Variety.

Case in point all of those books can run an MSU, MMU, and MLU list. Elves and ogres can run shooty and combat lists. Warriors have marks.

Dwarves have tough hitty troops and war machines.

Makumba wrote:
What would have to happen to make them good ?

Whatever the game designers come up with. I'm not a game designer, I just pretend I'm one. But I know what is boring and what isn't in my personal view (and the largely-echoed voices by nearly all non-dwarf players who have responded).

LOTR Dwarf meta is pretty dull stuff. They got warriors and warriors. I mean, you can even see that in GW's Hobbit game. WHFB is a tactical game, however. So you need to fill tactical roles and give options. I was playing the World of Tanks online game and they have all the countries in WWII. But of course, some countries had suck tanks or no tanks in WWII, so they cheated and grabbed stuff that existed on blueprint or came in later years. Dwarfs are whatever they say they are. If they say they are wine-drinking nancy boys, then they are--in this game.

Again, people are missing the point entirely. Take the dark elf book, what makes it good? Variety. Warriors? Variety. High elves? Variety. Ogres? Variety.

Do you get it yet? Those books are mostly fun to play as and against. Because they have what dwarves don't. Variety.

Case in point all of those books can run an MSU, MMU, and MLU list. Elves and ogres can run shooty and combat lists. Warriors have marks.

Dwarves have tough hitty troops and war machines.

But they can play those different list , because their units can get in to melee or they can use magic and machines or they have good monsters.
Dwarfs don't have monsters and they are slow . It is cool to have "oh that unit takes the charge well" when you have something like mindrazor in support to turn that "takes charge well" unit in to a destroyer of worlds . Dwarfs if they try to do melee are like a slower WoC army , with weaker stats.
Dwarfs don't have chaff , they don't have good scout units , nor fast cavalery . The whole movement game of luring someone in , side charges etc is not doable by dwarfs ,unless they somehow slow the opponent down to their own speed.

Whatever the game designers come up with. I'm not a game designer, I just pretend I'm one. But I know what is boring and what isn't in my personal view (and the largely-echoed voices by nearly all non-dwarf players who have responded).

But you did not start to play the game a week ago . You did see the codex in this edition , was there ever one that made an army much faster then it was before ?

As the non-dwarf players goes. I play dwarfs . I want dwarfs to be good , so I can have fun playing with the models I paid for . The idea that others should have even more fun , by removing my faction or nerfing it to the ground , is not one I can accept , unless GWr refunds me the dwarf models I bought.

Makumba wrote:

Again, people are missing the point entirely. Take the dark elf book, what makes it good? Variety. Warriors? Variety. High elves? Variety. Ogres? Variety.

Do you get it yet? Those books are mostly fun to play as and against. Because they have what dwarves don't. Variety.

Case in point all of those books can run an MSU, MMU, and MLU list. Elves and ogres can run shooty and combat lists. Warriors have marks.

Dwarves have tough hitty troops and war machines.

But they can play those different list , because their units can get in to melee or they can use magic and machines or they have good monsters.
Dwarfs don't have monsters and they are slow . It is cool to have "oh that unit takes the charge well" when you have something like mindrazor in support to turn that "takes charge well" unit in to a destroyer of worlds . Dwarfs if they try to do melee are like a slower WoC army , with weaker stats.
Dwarfs don't have chaff , they don't have good scout units , nor fast cavalery . The whole movement game of luring someone in , side charges etc is not doable by dwarfs ,unless they somehow slow the opponent down to their own speed.

Whatever the game designers come up with. I'm not a game designer, I just pretend I'm one. But I know what is boring and what isn't in my personal view (and the largely-echoed voices by nearly all non-dwarf players who have responded).

But you did not start to play the game a week ago . You did see the codex in this edition , was there ever one that made an army much faster then it was before ?

As the non-dwarf players goes. I play dwarfs . I want dwarfs to be good , so I can have fun playing with the models I paid for . The idea that others should have even more fun , by removing my faction or nerfing it to the ground , is not one I can accept , unless GWr refunds me the dwarf models I bought.

Can you even read? I said that Dwarves need variety. In fact, they need it like a person needs a pulse. Dwarves aren't a weaker warriors army. 40 Dwarves with Great Weapons beat 18 Warriors with halberds.

You know what works for chaff? Minimum squads of troops. I do it with Dark Elves. Ogre players do it with bulls. Just because you don't have cheap chaff, doesn't mean you don't have chaff. Fast cavalry? Gyrocopters. You have flying drops that can redirect. And you have scouting rangers. With Great weapons. Some of the best scouts in the game, because they can shoot and fight.

You want dwarves to be good so you can have fun playing them? Does you opponent's fun enter that equation? Because current dwarves don't cater for that.

You keep going on about making dwarves faster. Do Saurus have high Initiative? Do Ogres have high Initiative? Do TK have high Initiative? Do VC have high initiative? And three of those move 1" faster than dwarves. You don't hear complaints about those armies because they're fun armies.

Dwarfs are not going to be faster, but I do expect them to remain with the ability to march whenever they want, so basically they will be to march 6 inches all the time. As for the Dwarfs themselves, they are an army built around strong infantry and war-machines, and I don't expect that to change as that's what the Dwarfs are good at, so people need to stop whining about it. Dwarfs NEED that to be competitive in this edition as the have no magic whatsoever, so people need to stop complaining.

That being said, this is what I expect from Dwarfs after looking at all of the information I was able to gather and all of the rumors out there at the moment:

* All Dwarfs will benefit from the Resolution Rule for the +1 Strength on the charge, which will also make Dwarfs players be more aggressive, but on the same note, Dwarfs will benefit from the Shield-Wall special rule, which gives Dwarf's +1 to there parry save.

*Longbeards and Rangers will be there own unit choices, however I can see Rangers moving to a special slot as fluff-wise they aren't very common in the Dwarf Holds.

*Organ Gun will lose the Auto-Hit ability, but I can see them giving the Organ Gun something to make for that such as longer range or BS4 base.

*Slayers will still be awesome, as they are one of the fluffiest units in the game, and if the Slayer King is a new character in the book, then that makes them even better.

*I can see Thunderers going down in points, but losing the +1 to hit. But since they are Dwarfs and if this rumor is true, both Quarrelers and Thunderers will benefit from ignoring the -1 modifier for stand and shoot. I can see this happening. Plus I still expect them to remain solid Core units, as Dwarf Missile troops can still form effective fighting blocks of standard Warriors when given shields.

*War-Machines will still be effective, as they are a big part of the Dwarf army, and I can see some increasing in price while others are lowered in price.

*Gyrocopters will become special slots, as since they are Dwarfs version of monstrous cavalry, makes no since to keep them rare.

*Hammerer's will either get stat increases or a change in some special rules to make them worth there points, while Ironbreakers will become a much more alluring choice for people to take.

* Dwarfs will keep there Rune Magic for Weapons, Armor, etc. But I can see it possible for them to get some ancient heirlooms like other armies.

That's just some quick thoughts that I have on them at the moment, but the fact remains is that Dwarfs are an army built around Strong Infantry and Solid War-Machines and Anti-Magic defense. Always have been, always will be so stop whining about it.

Just a quick point. Got myself the new hammerers and they are quite a bit bigger than the old dwarf line. While this is rubbish as it means I want to replace all my dwarfs with the new ones, they are the exact same height/build as the avatars of war slayers! So i'm hoping slayers will get a boost, as I already have loads!

BlessMyBeard wrote:
Just a quick point. Got myself the new hammerers and they are quite a bit bigger than the old dwarf line. While this is rubbish as it means I want to replace all my dwarfs with the new ones, they are the exact same height/build as the avatars of war slayers! So i'm hoping slayers will get a boost, as I already have loads!

Why do you have to replace all of your models with the new ones? There's nothing wrong in using older models, as long as they have the same base size as the current ones.

 Rommel44 wrote:
Dwarfs are not going to be faster, but I do expect them to remain with the ability to march whenever they want, so basically they will be to march 6 inches all the time. As for the Dwarfs themselves, they are an army built around strong infantry and war-machines, and I don't expect that to change as that's what the Dwarfs are good at, so people need to stop whining about it. Dwarfs NEED that to be competitive in this edition as the have no magic whatsoever, so people need to stop complaining.

That being said, this is what I expect from Dwarfs after looking at all of the information I was able to gather and all of the rumors out there at the moment:

* All Dwarfs will benefit from the Resolution Rule for the +1 Strength on the charge, which will also make Dwarfs players be more aggressive, but on the same note, Dwarfs will benefit from the Shield-Wall special rule, which gives Dwarf's +1 to there parry save.

*Longbeards and Rangers will be there own unit choices, however I can see Rangers moving to a special slot as fluff-wise they aren't very common in the Dwarf Holds.

*Organ Gun will lose the Auto-Hit ability, but I can see them giving the Organ Gun something to make for that such as longer range or BS4 base.

*Slayers will still be awesome, as they are one of the fluffiest units in the game, and if the Slayer King is a new character in the book, then that makes them even better.

*I can see Thunderers going down in points, but losing the +1 to hit. But since they are Dwarfs and if this rumor is true, both Quarrelers and Thunderers will benefit from ignoring the -1 modifier for stand and shoot. I can see this happening. Plus I still expect them to remain solid Core units, as Dwarf Missile troops can still form effective fighting blocks of standard Warriors when given shields.

*War-Machines will still be effective, as they are a big part of the Dwarf army, and I can see some increasing in price while others are lowered in price.

*Gyrocopters will become special slots, as since they are Dwarfs version of monstrous cavalry, makes no since to keep them rare.

*Hammerer's will either get stat increases or a change in some special rules to make them worth there points, while Ironbreakers will become a much more alluring choice for people to take.

* Dwarfs will keep there Rune Magic for Weapons, Armor, etc. But I can see it possible for them to get some ancient heirlooms like other armies.

That's just some quick thoughts that I have on them at the moment, but the fact remains is that Dwarfs are an army built around Strong Infantry and Solid War-Machines and Anti-Magic defense. Always have been, always will be so stop whining about it.

That's the problem. They're built like that for a completely different edition. They need an overhaul like I need oxygen.

No they don't. You just want them changed because you have a huge bias against them for some reason. Dwarfs have no magic at all so it's already impossible to be like every other army, so you need to stop complaining about it.

 Rommel44 wrote:
No they don't. You just want them changed because you have a huge bias against them for some reason. Dwarfs have no magic at all so it's already impossible to be like every other army, so you need to stop complaining about it.

Yeah, because that's what I've been saying. Not that I've been saying that Dwarves lack dimension. Which inherently makes them unfun to play against, as every game against them results in the same thing. When you can predict a game result by turn two, it means something is flawed with one of the armies. Next you'll be telling me every army other than dwarves is at fault.

I'm not saying that Dwarves need to be like every other army. They just need an overhaul to bring them up to date. The book was written for an edition completely different from the current one. It just so happens that their strengths in that edition are amplified to a ridiculous level in the current one. Which results in them being a rock paper scissors matchup. Which is not good for a tactical game.

Well some stuff got nerfed , some got changed . At least most of the runes are intact . No idea why they made anvil the way they did , bound spells are good in armies like empire when you can either use them to drain the dispel dice pool or cast them after all have been used up on your normal magic. With dwarfs who don't have magic , when opposing armies are build to deal with multiple mages the anvil won't see much use.
I like how they handled machines both the new bombers/gyros and the old ones . I may actualy buy a second organ gun . Ironbreaker are full of cool and nice rules , but they seem to cost a lot . Sure they are resilient and all , but not shield wall is going to protect them from passing I based tests .

A minute of silence for the rangers bugman ambush list .

You know what works for chaff? Minimum squads of troops. I do it with Dark Elves. Ogre players do it with bulls. Just because you don't have cheap chaff, doesn't mean you don't have chaff. Fast cavalry? Gyrocopters. You have flying drops that can redirect. And you have scouting rangers. With Great weapons. Some of the best scouts in the game, because they can shoot and fight.

we are talking old or new dex. because in the old one gyros are rare and to get ambushing scouts you need to run a special , and specials are generaly banned from any games . And yes I do know what chaff is . There is only the slight difference of using a saber tiger in ogers to do it or a unit of elyrians etc which are all cheap and three times as fast as a unit of warriors. Unless you want dwarf chaff to work in tandem with the anvil , yeah , then we have one brutal combo.

And if we are talking about the new dex then gyros are fragil as hell and rangers on the other hand are rare .

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Thunderfrog wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
Look. It is fine if he believes playing against Dwarfs or playing Dwarfs is not interesting, tedious, predictable, whatever. But making the claim that the majority of the people that play dwarfs or against them feel that way is ridiculous. The forums here and everywhere else are a very small percentage of the population of people that play these games. And out of all of the people that come on to these forums, even a smaller portion of those ever bother to even post anything.

I can speak for the majority of the ENTIRE UK TOURNAMENT SCENE, when I say that Dwarves are not fun to play.

No, no you can't. You can speak for yourself and that's about it. No more than someone else can tell you what you think is boring.

Yes, I can. Because, I've been playing Warhammer since 2007, and been competitive for over two years. And when I say that everyone, bar the few dwarf players on the scene, hates dwarves, it's from hearing it from them, or from seeing it on twitter/hearing it on podcasts.

Like I said, it's a commonly agreed thing overhere that you should only ever play 1 dwarf player per six game event. Why would that be, if people didn't dislike them?

Eyjio wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So what you're saying is, "Don't play an interesting army, that is well balanced, and fun to play, because dwarves are the least well written book in warhammer and rely on a single trick to do well?" Remind me to never play against you.

Single trick? Yeah, because they've been forced into a box without any other escape. You hate dwarfs, fine, but don't pretend it's more than just you or that they're this hugely dominant force - they aren't and your opinion is yours alone, not the entire scenes. Dwarf cannons are good against monsters because NOTHING ELSE IN THE BOOK IS. I mean, seriously. Just stop taking a game so seriously that you will let your blind hatred stop you doing something you enjoy. You don't even know how the new book plays yet for crying out loud.

See my previous statement about the scene's opinion. As for cannons, it isn't just them. It's the two cannons, two stone throwers and an organ gun you see in 99.9999999% of all lists. It gets better! Those cannons are magical, and those stone throwers never miss. It's like Duke pointed out. 6th spells are not only challenging to cast, they have multiple ways that they can go wrong. It's why the earthing rod is so important. War machine misfire charts are 1- Bad. 2- Nothing. 3- Nothing. 4- Nothing. 5- Nothing. 6- Something that looks bad, but overall does nothing. Which allows dwarves to sit back, and ruin people's hobbies.

As I've said, Dwarves NEED to be changed to have multiple options beyond "Short hitty person A backed up by war machines" or "Short hitty person B, with a gun, backed up by war machines."

The runic system needs to be altered. Stackable dispel scrolls, Spell Eaters, and MRoChallenge especially need to go.

Im from the UK, I go to tourneys, I like playing Dwarfs and as Dwarfs, you dont speak for me or anyone else and its very arrogant to think that you do.

" As for cannons, it isn't just them. It's the two cannons, two stone throwers and an organ gun you see in 99.9999999% of all lists"

Caveat, TOURNAMENT LISTS, of which make up .00000000000000000000000000000000001% of dwarf lists btw 87.34% of statistics are made up on the spot.

!"Those cannons are magical, and those stone throwers never miss."

Caveat, if you pay the points for the engineer and the runes on the cannon/stone thrower. agreed that misfires are rare though.

"6th spells are not only challenging to cast, they have multiple ways that they can go wrong"

Caveat, 6th spells are not challenging at all to cast if you throw enough dice at them, this does increase chances of a miscast, which is what some armies rely on or used to abuse, also dwarfs have no access to this at all.

"Which allows dwarves to sit back, and ruin people's hobbies."

Major caveat, "everyones hobbies" means tourny players alone, no possible way to account for other player

"The runic system needs to be altered. Stackable dispel scrolls, Spell Eaters, and MRoChallenge especially need to go"

Runes are fine as they are, stackable dispel i agree does need to go and more than likely will, spell eaters are also fine as its a very situational thing but should be 1 only as per the dispel scroll stack i just said, MRoChallenge is also purely based on what the enemy army has and immune to psy forces are not affected as far as i know, it is also not a great choice to me as its a master rune and expensive for a 1 use item.

From what I've seen of the new book, i like that all the war machines are basicly written as "acts as per [machine type] in the Warhammer Fantasy rulebook, with the following exceptions:" because it allows for possible changes to the way war machines (particularly cannons) work when we change edition. Even the flame cannon, with its extra special overcharge attack thing, is written in terms so as to allow for this stuff.

Makumba wrote:
The idea that others should have even more fun , by removing my faction or nerfing it to the ground , is not one I can accept , unless GWr refunds me the dwarf models I bought.

Remember the rage when WoC marauders were nerfed? There are still people saying WoC are unviable when IMHO they are one of the strongest armies in the game. One unit got nerfed hard and people cried--and still cry. No one got refunds either. That's what happens when a game keeps releasing new editions.

My friend is a huge Blood Bowl fan and he's on the opposite end of the spectrum. NO official support. No changes. Only the community coming together and making tweaks. Of course, all their armies cost a lot less. But still, I think it's a whole lot better to have a vibrant, official updating than nothing. Even if it means nerfs.

 Micky wrote:
From what I've seen of the new book, i like that all the war machines are basicly written as "acts as per [machine type] in the Warhammer Fantasy rulebook, with the following exceptions:" because it allows for possible changes to the way war machines (particularly cannons) work when we change edition. Even the flame cannon, with its extra special overcharge attack thing, is written in terms so as to allow for this stuff.

I agree, I read the new book and I am pretty excited about what I saw. Means that I can run 3x S7 Bolt throwers thanks to the runes to go w/my 2x Grudge Throwers . But I am tempted to try the new Organ Gun. Granted it's no longer an Auto-Hit weapon. it's now a 30 inch range which makes it more of a threat to opponents. Bugmans Rangers though are now really expensive, he is still worth it as it can still be effective to have 20x+ BS4 Crossbow Rangers appearing on the flank, as well as the fact that they also have throwing axes included in there kit, making them very versatile in short to long range situations. I am mainly just stoked about how much stronger our Infantry has gotten, particularly the Longbeards. Longbeards w/Shields are now a very good unit being WS5 and S4 base, especially when you include the new Resolution and Shieldwall rules. Plus, Thunderers and Quarrelers are still a solid choice, as if you give them shields they can still be a solid Core choice for any Dwarfs army, but I am still debating on whenever if I should go with Hammerers or Ironbreakers for my special Unit, as well as Slayers. Unit of Slayers with the Slayer King in them sounds like a fun, fluffy option to me in my opinion, especially with the 5+ ward save banner.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

BlessMyBeard wrote:
Just a quick point. Got myself the new hammerers and they are quite a bit bigger than the old dwarf line. While this is rubbish as it means I want to replace all my dwarfs with the new ones, they are the exact same height/build as the avatars of war slayers! So i'm hoping slayers will get a boost, as I already have loads!

Why do you have to replace all of your models with the new ones? There's nothing wrong in using older models, as long as they have the same base size as the current ones.

I think he means because of aesthetics. I'm like that too. The old monkey clanrats will never be seen in my army of modern clanrats.

I played against Dwarfs at the weekend (old book). It was dreadful. I think I managed to kill three of his dudes in combat.

His war machines peppered away at my units until there was eff all left.

A dull yet frustrating game, but quick due to reduced magic.

However, I love the new look the Dwarfs have, and reckon I'll be picking the new book up when it's released.

 Micky wrote:
From what I've seen of the new book, i like that all the war machines are basicly written as "acts as per [machine type] in the Warhammer Fantasy rulebook, with the following exceptions:" because it allows for possible changes to the way war machines (particularly cannons) work when we change edition. Even the flame cannon, with its extra special overcharge attack thing, is written in terms so as to allow for this stuff.

the change to the flame cannon is realy nice , it was always sad that such a cheap model is bad , when chaos dwarfs version of the flame cannon was three times better. Now it got fixed , so it will be possible to play cannon /cannon /flamer/ lobber/organ gun and we won't have to stack burning on cannons like it was with the last codex .

All in all a fine codex. Some stuff got changed , some bad stuff got better , but the core of the dwarf army is there . good machines , runes and defensive infantry . Sad about the anvil and I hoped against hope that the gyrobomber will have an option to kamizkaze using and apocalyptical sized template , but one can't get it all when your not an elf.

That's one thing I have wondered about. So in re-guards to the Flame Cannon, does that mean we can shoot the flame cannon up to 12 inches, then place the flame template where we want? Because if that's the case that might make it more appealing then what it once was.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Yes, I can. Because, I've been playing Warhammer since 2007, and been competitive for over two years.

You do realize that this is an absolutely microscopic sample size, right?

For example, I've been playing WHFB since 1988 and playing in tournaments since 2000. My experience differs from yours.

Saldiven wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Yes, I can. Because, I've been playing Warhammer since 2007, and been competitive for over two years.

You do realize that this is an absolutely microscopic sample size, right?

For example, I've been playing WHFB since 1988 and playing in tournaments since 2000. My experience differs from yours.

Ah 88 warhammer, such a different game back then eh?

So, hey, rather than join in this e-peen contest, I figured I'd post something interesting I noticed.

You know how the Dwarves went on sale this weekend? Their limited edition codices are almost gone, and probably are by now. They had 1000, and were down to just 60 when I checked this morning.

That's impressive. That's the fastest I think any LE codex has sold for WHFB or 40k this edition. Well, I guess Space Marines sold faster because they had 500 of 5 different books rather than just 1000 books, but still. People are hyped about dwarves.

Thanks for the info dude