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.

I'm looking into a dwarf army and I've been going over the possible lord choices as I aim to go for around a 2500 point list.
I'll be using a lot of the new miniatures because I really like how they look now and so I think it will be fairly melee oriented, a large unit of hammerers, ironbreakers because I just love them.

But I haven't got a clue what to put on the lord as I'm a little out of touch with how current fantasy plays out.



Running shield bearers is a no brainer if the points are available extra wounds and +to save being a big bonus. I'm fond of the idea of running Rune of Iron (2) and rune of warding (3) giving the 4+ward and a total wounds and toughness of 6.
Curious of running the master rune of swiftness but I can't remember if thats applied to a great weapon if always strikes last and always strikes first merely cancel out and reduces him to fighting in initiative order in which case, its probably best to get something else. But after those two runes I'm only left with 35pts.


Alternatively dropping the ward and going for more attack oriented runes, given that in a unit of hammerers because of kings guard you don't have to worry about ever accepting a challenge really.

The toughness 10 rune is also pretty cool looking. Add that to a rune of stone and you've got a 1+ toughness 10 lord with 20pts spare. So many options I just don't know!

Weapon runes are garbage with the easy access to Great weapon along the 1+ save
If you have the points (otherwise don't bother with a Lord), go Shieldbearers, RoStone, RoIron (2), Great Weapon. Then slap on RoWarding(x) as necessary

It's pricey, but you have 1+/4++, S6, T6, W6. It's pretty ridiculous

rthats pretty much what I was going for.

Rune of iron 2
rune of stone
Rune of warding 3

30pts remaining and hats s6, t6, w6 1+/4++.

I was just wondering if its worth trying to use those last 30 points on a weapon rune, perhaps cleaving for a 5atk 6 on the charge profile and piercing for an extra 10pts

Can probably pull off rune of fury and rune of cleaving at the cost of the rune of stone.

Finishing with...

Shield bearers, Roiron(2), Rowarding(3), Rocleaving(1), Rofury(1). great weapon

Str6, t6, w6, atck 5 armor piercing 2+/4++


Its impossible for him to really die in close combat, with the hammerers being able to accept challenges for him, all 30 of them.

The real question with the weapon runes is "why pay a lot to get a few minor bonuses when you can have a great weapon for cheap?"
He's Init4 anyway, so he's really not fast, and you can easily get AP from the excellent runesmiths
At least in the old book you ahd the MRoKragg for runic great weapons, but now .... nope, runic weapons suck !

This is off topic, and maybe not directly addressing what you're looking for, but at 2500 points, I'd strongly suggest not fielding a Lord at all.

You're probably already considering a Thane BSB and 1 or 2 Runesmiths; you don't absolutely need another character at all. A Lord is 300 points of one model. You could field two runed-up artillery pieces, three gyrocopters (two with Vanguard), or a unit of Hammerers for those points.

Saldiven wrote:
This is off topic, and maybe not directly addressing what you're looking for, but at 2500 points, I'd strongly suggest not fielding a Lord at all.

You're probably already considering a Thane BSB and 1 or 2 Runesmiths; you don't absolutely need another character at all. A Lord is 300 points of one model. You could field two runed-up artillery pieces, three gyrocopters (two with Vanguard), or a unit of Hammerers for those points.

This is the exact problem I've been struggling with for dwarves right now, I don't feel they get a Killy / solid enough combat character, for the reasonable points, and I rarely can justify fitting a lord into any lists over another unit of elite infantry or some such

TanKoL wrote:
Weapon runes are garbage with the easy access to Great weapon along the 1+ save

Weapon runes aren't garbage. And I4 is infinitely faster than ASL. With the crazy amount of weapon runes Dorfs can get, they can really do some wild stuff on offense. Sure, they can do some wild stuff on defense too. They're wild. But maybe half, or a little less, of the combat heroes you face will be slower or the same speed. More importantly, more than half of the rank and file you face will be slower, but NOT if you get ASL. And while RNF isn't super scary to a combat Dworf it's still something.

Also, it does make it magic. Which is only bad if you're facing a cheese HE.

But I think the real question is what unit is he in and what's his purpose when it comes to how do you equip him.

 Arthas367 wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
This is off topic, and maybe not directly addressing what you're looking for, but at 2500 points, I'd strongly suggest not fielding a Lord at all.

You're probably already considering a Thane BSB and 1 or 2 Runesmiths; you don't absolutely need another character at all. A Lord is 300 points of one model. You could field two runed-up artillery pieces, three gyrocopters (two with Vanguard), or a unit of Hammerers for those points.

This is the exact problem I've been struggling with for dwarves right now, I don't feel they get a Killy / solid enough combat character, for the reasonable points, and I rarely can justify fitting a lord into any lists over another unit of elite infantry or some such

However, the Lord described in this thread--the one with massive toughness, multiple wounds, high strength etc.--is the Dwarf Army book equivalent of a Monster. So, if you are going to face Monsters, or want to create a nigh-unkillable Character (a la the Nurgle Daemon Prince), then I think it is worth the points. There is something about having your General not die that is very satisfying, even if he's not an awesome power house in combat.

It depends on your Meta. My meta is ripe with killing blow - which blows balls when you have a nigh unkillable lord. So my solution is exactly described as above with the addition of the 2+ save to killing blow (assassins btw )

If i didn't need that, it would be 3 runes of iron for toughness 7 because why the hell not haha

 pantheralegionnaire wrote:

 Arthas367 wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
This is off topic, and maybe not directly addressing what you're looking for, but at 2500 points, I'd strongly suggest not fielding a Lord at all.

You're probably already considering a Thane BSB and 1 or 2 Runesmiths; you don't absolutely need another character at all. A Lord is 300 points of one model. You could field two runed-up artillery pieces, three gyrocopters (two with Vanguard), or a unit of Hammerers for those points.

This is the exact problem I've been struggling with for dwarves right now, I don't feel they get a Killy / solid enough combat character, for the reasonable points, and I rarely can justify fitting a lord into any lists over another unit of elite infantry or some such

However, the Lord described in this thread--the one with massive toughness, multiple wounds, high strength etc.--is the Dwarf Army book equivalent of a Monster. So, if you are going to face Monsters, or want to create a nigh-unkillable Character (a la the Nurgle Daemon Prince), then I think it is worth the points. There is something about having your General not die that is very satisfying, even if he's not an awesome power house in combat.

Another Dwarf Lord build to consider:

Lord
Shield
Shieldbearers
Weapon: -1 to be hit, double S and D3 wounds vs T5+
Talisman: 4++

It has one fewer T and W, but has better armor save vs Strength values 4-8.

He is slightly less survivable than the lord in the OP, but his increased offensive output against the scarier other characters out there (Vampre Blender Lord, Nurgle DP, WOC Lord, Ogre Lord, etc.) means that he'll actually win combat fairly consistently and should kill those bigger opponents long before he, himself, is killed. Also, against typical R&F infantry (S3-4), this lord is superior in survivability because of the -1 to be hit and better armor save.

There's no reason -ever- to not give rune of stone to characters that are going to see combat (or a shield in this build of course)
I'm amazed by the number of Runesmiths / Lords that I see without a RoStone

@TanKoL:

I suggest you actually run the numbers of the build I suggest against the build you suggest. In the build I suggest, the Rune of Stone costs more than the Shield for the exact same benefit.

In my build, the Lord takes the same or fewer wounds from S3-S4 models than your build, but does fewer wounds. Against tougher models, it takes fewer wounds than your build, but does far more damage.

Edit:

I just went and started checking my numbers.

Assuming WS 4-7 models, ignoring re-roll effects for simplicity, my suggested build takes fewer wounds against S3, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10 attacks, and the same number against S4.

The figures should remain largely the same for lower or higher WS figures because the -1 to hit from Rune of Parrying keys after determining the to-hit roll. Even when S values get so high that the save modifier removes all armor saves, the -1 to hit still provides a benefit.

Grudge Rune. Take a few in the army, and mark the enemy monsters and combat characters.
At the start of the game, your opponent no longer wants to go into combat with your lord, and that's a pretty good deal for 25 points.

With M3, general an opponent will only let the dwarf lord see combat if he wants him to see combat. So, might as well make him not want to see combat. After all, he doesn't know the lord doesn't have any other weapon runes. The give him 4+ ward or +1T and 5+ ward. With shield and shield bearers, the lord is plenty survivable and a good distraction to keep hardcore characters away from his unit.

I suggest you actually run the numbers of the build I suggest against the build you suggest. In the build I suggest, the Rune of Stone costs more than the Shield for the exact same benefit.

I specifically said that the shield is fine in your build
I agree that weapon runes can be good, but they're really expensive and if you're not facing something with high toughness but good armour save, you're very easily stuck
Take the high king or Belegar, they're prime examples of guys that seem super awesome but are just S4, even if they can wound on 2+ or whatever
The upside of the Great weapon is that you will have a -3/-4 to the opponent's AS, meaning it's more reliable, especially against troops instead of characters
I see a lot of good armour save characters with only T3/4 in my meta (Elves, Empire, Brets, WoC, VC ...) so it might be why I don't fancy the otherwise nice rune of killyness against T5+

A good runic weapon is expensive too, while a RoS + great weapon is what, 10-ish points?

I ended up going for

Great wep
RoMight

Shield Bearer
RoIron(2)
RoWarding(3)
RoStone

Thats str 6, strikes last but doubles strength against toughness 5 or more making it strength 10 against stronger units.

Killing blow is mitigated by having a unit 30 strong that each one can offer to accept a challenge in the lords place.

T6, W6 1+ Save, 4++ ward

Putting a rune on a greatweapon negates its greatweapon bonuses and penalties and turns it into a (magic) handweapon.

Unless the new book has omitted that rule. Which I doubt.
But they should have, given that apparently there are now no runes that let you punch through armour anymore. Which is stupid, as it makes the greatweapon, already a very good choice, easily outclass any runic axe you can put together, especially for the cost, but that's GW games design for ya.

Again, you're overlooking you're going from I4 to ASL. That's not a slam dunk.

If your only concern ever is punching through armor and Strength, then yes, it's worse--for cost. But if those are your only concerns ever, then HE and other ASF and high I units are worthless, and that's clearly not the case.

As for GW negation, it's the same. It works like any magic item as far as I know. You really aren't "enchanting" an item. You're buying a magic weapon. And you always have to use a magic weapon over mundane (and it says it at the top of the weapon runes section).

And check out if you get a triple rune of fire on a weapon. S4 flaming breath weapon with D3 wounds. If you pop that in CC, that's average 7 auto hits that do D3 wounds.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Again, you're overlooking you're going from I4 to ASL. That's not a slam dunk.

If your only concern ever is punching through armor and Strength, then yes, it's worse--for cost. But if those are your only concerns ever, then HE and other ASF and high I units are worthless, and that's clearly not the case.

As for GW negation, it's the same. It works like any magic item as far as I know. You really aren't "enchanting" an item. You're buying a magic weapon. And you always have to use a magic weapon over mundane (and it says it at the top of the weapon runes section).

And check out if you get a triple rune of fire on a weapon. S4 flaming breath weapon with D3 wounds. If you pop that in CC, that's average 7 auto hits that do D3 wounds.

Agree with all of this, though I go for the ring over rune of fire as it's cheaper (albeit without the D3 wounds part which pretty much obliterates anything without 1+ reroll, if expensive). Doesn't make a huge difference though. On top of that, you can buy a faux mark of nurgle in the form of rune of parrying. Someone over at Bugmans did an interesting comparison between:

Dwarf Lord, Shield Bearers, Shield, Master rune of Snorri Spanglehelm, Rune of Parrying, Rune of Might, x3 Rune of Warding (308 points)
and
Dwarf Lord, Shield Bearers, x2 Rune of Iron, Rune of Fortitude, x3 Rune of Warding, Great Weapon (316 points)

The former grants (1+ v shooting) 2+ 4++, T5 W5 S4(8), the latter (and most common build IMO) grants 2+ 4++, T7 W6 S6. It looks as though the "normal" set up should be better, but actually in combat, it's not - that -1 to hit really helps. Now, you suffer a fair amount VS T3/4 characters with high armour save, but those tend not to be combat characters anyway. If the enemy is T5+, you're faster (I4 is still pretty decent), harder to hit, stronger at S8 (basically ignoring all but 1+ saves) instead of S6 (where 2+=5+), more likely to hit (always 2+). I definitely think weapon runes are being overlooked when frankly, I think this build is far stronger than the great weapon one.

What I do like about the dwarf book is the high amount of options. (Even if it will get out of sync with the BRB.)

I'm curious how the arms race at tourneys will pan out but I think you'll see a higher use of ignores armor saves, KB, auto-wound, and stuff like that. And ultimately, you'll end up with Dwarfs who want to be more generalized.

Of course, older books that don't have the options of getting those things are out in the lurch. Which is why we need a new magic item table in the BRB at least.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Again, you're overlooking you're going from I4 to ASL. That's not a slam dunk.

If your only concern ever is punching through armor and Strength, then yes, it's worse--for cost. But if those are your only concerns ever, then HE and other ASF and high I units are worthless, and that's clearly not the case.

As for GW negation, it's the same. It works like any magic item as far as I know. You really aren't "enchanting" an item. You're buying a magic weapon. And you always have to use a magic weapon over mundane (and it says it at the top of the weapon runes section).

And check out if you get a triple rune of fire on a weapon. S4 flaming breath weapon with D3 wounds. If you pop that in CC, that's average 7 auto hits that do D3 wounds.

ASF and/or high I *is* worthless - on its own. With my dwarves, I am completely unafraid of pretty much any number of HE spearmen. Swordmasters and White Lions (and what have you), on the other hand, do concern me because they combine their ASF/high I with high strength (and, for swordmasters, multiple attacks) for wounding and punching through armour.
And I4 is nowhere near high enough for me to get excited about keeping it. In previous editions, when casualties before your Init step actually reduced the number of return attacks, I would've fully agreed with you (and indeed, my favorite lord was equipped with MRO swiftness, RO fury & RO cleaving in a unit hammerers - Chaos knights bounced off them...), but this edition everyone in the first few ranks ranks gets to strike back anyway, making it much more important for dwarves that their relatively few attacks (excepting hammerers) actually count for something than that they hit faster but count for less.
Although I would sometimes equip him with the MRO Kragg the Grimm and a RO Might and (points permitting) a RO fury. Sadly, that's no longer an option.
The defensive runic weapon described later on is much more compelling, but while I'm sure it increases the Lord's survivability by a margin, I'm not sure I like a dwarf lord who can't punch his way out of a wet paper bag.

In any case, I'm planning to put my Lord in a good-size unit of ironbreakers to be my Anvil, as the Ironbreakers are the one unit tough enough to withstand just about any charge, but since they only have S4, will not be able to punch through anyone who's armoured, in which case the Lord's 4 S6 attacks come in very handy to knock a few of those knights off their saddles. I don't yet know what runic load-out I will give him, but with a dearth of decent, affordable runes to punch through armour, the trusty old GW is a good bet.

I do like how dwarfs can build very very killy or very very tank lords.

But if playing to win, I would build a tank lord and send him at the killyest unit your opponent has.

Rune of Fort + Rune of Iron (2) / Rune of Warding (3) + Shieldbearers + Great Weapon (an Axe ofc) then just deny the opponent that big kill unit getting through your lines. Take out the rest of there amy. Even better if they have there General in the kill unit and get him in a challenge. You might go last but with WS7 Str 6 T7 W6 A4 1+/4++ plus the two shieldbearers attacks your going to stick around for a long long time and deny them points

I kind of feel like the tank lord really can benefit from a nearby MR of Groth One Eye. What's better than a really hard to kill Dwarf Lord? One who is stubborn.

This combined with the benefits of charging dwarves could make for some ferocious counter-charges.

As for builds- I kind of like this:

Beetlebrow armor, shieldbearers, rune of the furnace, 2 x rune of luck

You actually have 30 points to spare (though nowhere to really spend them unless you replace the greatweapon or trade one of the talismanic runes). In my last outing with the old book, I took a lord with 2 runes of luck and really liked them. They let you adapt to what you needed- a little help on your survivability, or re-rolling the dreaded ones to wound when you were hitting an almost-dead something that needed to die NOW.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Putting a rune on a greatweapon negates its greatweapon bonuses and penalties and turns it into a (magic) handweapon.

Unless the new book has omitted that rule. Which I doubt.
But they should have, given that apparently there are now no runes that let you punch through armour anymore. Which is stupid, as it makes the greatweapon, already a very good choice, easily outclass any runic axe you can put together, especially for the cost, but that's GW games design for ya.

Why would it do that @.@ that makes no sense.
Ugh I just noticed that weapon runes may only be applied to a hand weapon. That kinda sucks I was really wanting that rune of might.

 Red_Zeke wrote:


Beetlebrow armor, shieldbearers, rune of the furnace, 2 x rune of luck.

Sorry but i dont Think you can actually take more than one of those anymore, and i think that goes for all runes that doesnt have multiples.

Whoa! Red_Zeke, big cheater! Good spot, sir. I just went and looked, and it specifically says that multiples have no further effect.

Well, in your defence, the rune section are missing some critical rules.

 Sasa0mg wrote:

Why would it do that @.@ that makes no sense.
Ugh I just noticed that weapon runes may only be applied to a hand weapon. That kinda sucks I was really wanting that rune of might.

It doesn't, but that's the way it's been since all the way back to 4th edition. And yeah, it does suck. The rune of might is still good if you know you're going up against a lot of T5+ models, or can reasonably expect to.
But I think it really sucks that you can't build a decent weapon for all-comers without greatly compromising your defensive capabilities. Well, outside of a greatweapon, anyway.

Agree with all of this, though I go for the ring over rune of fire as it's cheaper (albeit without the D3 wounds part which pretty much obliterates anything without 1+ reroll, if expensive). Doesn't make a huge difference though. On top of that, you can buy a faux mark of nurgle in the form of rune of parrying. Someone over at Bugmans did an interesting comparison between:

Dwarf Lord, Shield Bearers, Shield, Master rune of Snorri Spanglehelm, Rune of Parrying, Rune of Might, x3 Rune of Warding (308 points)
and
Dwarf Lord, Shield Bearers, x2 Rune of Iron, Rune of Fortitude, x3 Rune of Warding, Great Weapon (316 points)

The former grants (1+ v shooting) 2+ 4++, T5 W5 S4(8), the latter (and most common build IMO) grants 2+ 4++, T7 W6 S6. It looks as though the "normal" set up should be better, but actually in combat, it's not - that -1 to hit really helps. Now, you suffer a fair amount VS T3/4 characters with high armour save, but those tend not to be combat characters anyway. If the enemy is T5+, you're faster (I4 is still pretty decent), harder to hit, stronger at S8 (basically ignoring all but 1+ saves) instead of S6 (where 2+=5+), more likely to hit (always 2+). I definitely think weapon runes are being overlooked when frankly, I think this build is far stronger than the great weapon one.

I really like the former build. Im just a little confused as to how you got the numbers you did. Would it not be 1+/4++? gromril + shield + shieldbearers? why the bonus from shooting? Also Im fairly new to WHFB so I was wondering...do the runes of warding increase the 6+ parry to a 3+? or do they not stack thus making a 6+ default and only 1 rune of warding worthless. Also that -1 to hit...at WS7 the best they can hope for it hitting on a 4+ which becomes a 5+ if im reading that rune correctly. thats a HUGE deal. The number of times I see my opponents roll those 4's needing 4's. Hitting on 2's instead of 4's or at best 3's is pretty awesome too.

I ended up going with

Rune of warding 3
Rune of iron 3
shieldbearers and a great weapon.

Coming in at 306 points, in a unit of hammerers that can accept challenges in his place the likely hood of fighting a champion that would kill him is greatly reduced and if he does, and they don't have killing blow your looking at

Toughness 6, wounds 6, 2+/4++ and a 5+ regeneration. Not including the effects of the banner his with and striking back with a great weapon at strength 6. Making him incredibly hard to kill and most likely thanks to the banner, stubborn as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am curious if rune of warding stacks with parry though, if so I will probably need a re-think.

 Sasa0mg wrote:
I am curious if rune of warding stacks with parry though, if so I will probably need a re-think.

No it doesn't.
Warding gives you a ward save, it doesn't improve an existing one.
So you simply have 2 different Ward saves, so must pick the best.