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.

Hobgoblin raiders are cheap yes but animosity makes them unreliable when 12" away from a CD, where they are likely to be operating. Hobgoblin khans on wolves are a better choice here but they eat into the hero allowance. Only one chaos dwarf war machine can take a slave ogre: the dread quake mortar which is by far the least taken war machine. Iron demons can be tied down with chaff cavalry as they negate the stomping.

Ok the gunline list is a problem a lot of LoA players don't find it fun at all, but you always get tfg that takes those kind of lists. The LoA can be a really fun list to play both for and against. I'll point it out that they're actually 3+/6++ dwarfs with shields though .

The lore has got its nastiness I agree with you there, however it is somewhat mitigated by the fact that it is only available to Lords which when properly equipped come in at between 350-400 points a piece. This tends to mean that in all likelihood you are only facing 4 Hashut spells with no way of guaranteeing you get the best two.

It is a good list and yes there is room for some abuse there maybe more so than some other armies. However it is in the best interests of the chaos dwarf community, that have kept going throughout the long dark years without any GW support or acknowledgement, to not play cheese lists because we want to encourage the support of the gaming community. CD players finally have a list that can bring their armies back into the game and most of them don't want to abuse that. Please head over to www.chaos-dwarfs.com and check out the community there, on the whole it's a bunch of really good players who don't want LoA ostracised by calls of cheese.

 Ugly Green Trog wrote:
Hobgoblin raiders are cheap yes but animosity makes them unreliable when 12" away from a CD, where they are likely to be operating. Hobgoblin khans on wolves are a better choice here but they eat into the hero allowance. Only one chaos dwarf war machine can take a slave ogre: the dread quake mortar which is by far the least taken war machine. Iron demons can be tied down with chaff cavalry as they negate the stomping.

Ok the gunline list is a problem a lot of LoA players don't find it fun at all, but you always get tfg that takes those kind of lists. The LoA can be a really fun list to play both for and against. I'll point it out that they're actually 3+/6++ dwarfs with shields though .

The lore has got its nastiness I agree with you there, however it is somewhat mitigated by the fact that it is only available to Lords which when properly equipped come in at between 350-400 points a piece. This tends to mean that in all likelihood you are only facing 4 Hashut spells with no way of guaranteeing you get the best two.

It is a good list and yes there is room for some abuse there maybe more so than some other armies. However it is in the best interests of the chaos dwarf community, that have kept going throughout the long dark years without any GW support or acknowledgement, to not play cheese lists because we want to encourage the support of the gaming community. CD players finally have a list that can bring their armies back into the game and most of them don't want to abuse that. Please head over to www.chaos-dwarfs.com and check out the community there, on the whole it's a bunch of really good players who don't want LoA ostracised by calls of cheese.

Let me get this straight, you're saying that a gunline army list can be played as something other than a gunline? The fact that the book's only decent combat unit is the destroyer attests to that.

As for lore of Hashut, you've got the level 4, and it's kind of like death. No matter what you roll, you get bent spells. And if you don't want to take that lore, you can go lore of death with the chalice. And deny your opponents the ability to dispel.

When you say there is room for abuse, the entire special and rare section of the army book is abuse. If you want the support of the gaming community, stop living in denial and trying to say that it's a balanced book. For a start.

Ok I never said it was balanced I just said it was counterable. I play LoA and I only take 2 war machines and no fireglaives or blunderbusses so therefore yes I can play LoA without using a gunline.

Believe it or not plenty of people are capable of playing warhammer for fun rather than beating their opponents over the head with their huge metaphorical penises.

I believe sir that you have fallen into the trap of believing that everybody plays warhammer the way that you do.

Edit: All I've done is offered counters and drawbacks to some of the units that have been suggested as being too good or open to abuse. All I've had back so far is complaining and whinging. As someone who doesn't abuse the list I DO feel entitled to comment on it from my perspective.

 Ugly Green Trog wrote:
As someone who doesn't abuse the list I DO feel entitled to comment on it from my perspective.

Which is fair. The problem is that you're the microcosm of chaos dwarf players if that's the case. Around here there's two guys that play it, and they openly admit to playing the army because of its power gaming benefits. It's also, rightly or wrongly, labeled as the "buy to win" army. I don't necessarily agree with that, as i think there's a healthy dose of hyperbole, but the army is not anything approaching well balanced. And full grain of salt disclosure ; we're talking about GW and their affiliates. Internal / External balance is not exactly their strong suit (and i'm a GW fan).

Thanks Haight for the well reasoned points there. The reason I directed people towards the chaos dwarf online community was to highlight that most of the buy to win crowd are not the chaos dwarf community that have been active since the Dawi Zharr disappeared from GW stores. I myself am a newer player to CD who was too young to collect them the first time round and was drawn in by the infernal guard models when FW previewed them. However I have never been a power player and am not interested in building the sickest net list I can find.

I'm not saying the list is balanced but it isn't nearly as obscene as the word on the net says it is. At least people should check the list and talk to the player rather than crying cheese at the first sight of a red leather-effect book. As it stands if I lose Its because I suck and if I win it's because I play a cheese army in spite of the fact that I'm not actually running a cheese list.

I definitely don't disagree on any particular point... i have similar reactions in any game system when i hear anyone on the net or in person cry "cheese" or "beardy" or "OP", "borked" , "broken" or any of the other reactionary monikers for something powerful in any game.

I always think "is it REALLY that over powerful, or is it that this person can't really figure out how to beat it or wont change their static tactics / list construction to compensate"? A lot of the time it's the latter, However, sometimes its the former.

Full disclosure: i have only played against chaos dwarves once, and it was a team game, and i barely was on the receiving end of the army's brutality. I do remember being impressed and having at least a couple "What ? That' can't work like that, can i see the rule please.... ooooookay i guess it does work like that.... carry on!" moments.

So i'll use an example i know well: Teclis from last edition (last softbound army book, not current hardbound). BROKEN. Beyond belief. Needed to be changed desperately.


I think Chaos dwarves have a small handful of things in the category that honestly are "broken" - ash storm is one, but there are others in that category or straddling the line between "really really good" and "OP". Most of the rest is just really good, and its an army most people don't play often, so it can be hard to adapt to on the fly if you're not familiar with it.

The problem is that all the broken / borderline broken stuff is hard to justify not taking, and just so happens to really complement one another in direct or indirect ways, and just about none of it is mutually exclusive.


*shrug* It's tough. I like to encourage the use of FW stuff, but i can see why some people get annoyed at the army.

 Haight wrote:

 Ugly Green Trog wrote:
As someone who doesn't abuse the list I DO feel entitled to comment on it from my perspective.

Which is fair. The problem is that you're the microcosm of chaos dwarf players if that's the case. Around here there's two guys that play it, and they openly admit to playing the army because of its power gaming benefits. It's also, rightly or wrongly, labeled as the "buy to win" army. I don't necessarily agree with that, as i think there's a healthy dose of hyperbole, but the army is not anything approaching well balanced. And full grain of salt disclosure ; we're talking about GW and their affiliates. Internal / External balance is not exactly their strong suit (and i'm a GW fan).

They are just dwarves really, I don't know why you'd play CD just for gunlining when Dwarves do it better and cheaper with runed up artillery.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Haight wrote:

 Ugly Green Trog wrote:
As someone who doesn't abuse the list I DO feel entitled to comment on it from my perspective.

Which is fair. The problem is that you're the microcosm of chaos dwarf players if that's the case. Around here there's two guys that play it, and they openly admit to playing the army because of its power gaming benefits. It's also, rightly or wrongly, labeled as the "buy to win" army. I don't necessarily agree with that, as i think there's a healthy dose of hyperbole, but the army is not anything approaching well balanced. And full grain of salt disclosure ; we're talking about GW and their affiliates. Internal / External balance is not exactly their strong suit (and i'm a GW fan).

They are just dwarves really, I don't know why you'd play CD just for gunlining when Dwarves do it better and cheaper with runed up artillery.

Honest question: Have you ever seen the rules for Chaos Dwarves, their lore access, and all their rules and such ?

I'm not trying to be a dick i swear. I just can't reconcile how you factually try to say that Chaos dwarves are just like regular dwarves.


-- Haight

Chaos Dwarves are not OP, anyone saying so really either needs to change up their tactics or just get more practice a them. They do have some good magic spells but nothing so crazy that cant be already found in the standard Magic Lores.

 Haight wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Haight wrote:

 Ugly Green Trog wrote:
As someone who doesn't abuse the list I DO feel entitled to comment on it from my perspective.

Which is fair. The problem is that you're the microcosm of chaos dwarf players if that's the case. Around here there's two guys that play it, and they openly admit to playing the army because of its power gaming benefits. It's also, rightly or wrongly, labeled as the "buy to win" army. I don't necessarily agree with that, as i think there's a healthy dose of hyperbole, but the army is not anything approaching well balanced. And full grain of salt disclosure ; we're talking about GW and their affiliates. Internal / External balance is not exactly their strong suit (and i'm a GW fan).

They are just dwarves really, I don't know why you'd play CD just for gunlining when Dwarves do it better and cheaper with runed up artillery.

Honest question: Have you ever seen the rules for Chaos Dwarves, their lore access, and all their rules and such ?

I'm not trying to be a dick i swear. I just can't reconcile how you factually try to say that Chaos dwarves are just like regular dwarves.
-- Haight

Yes I have the Tamurkhan book, they have some specific key differences that make them different from each other and all that including differences in unit access.

Generally, from the armies I've faced of them, typically I see the typical lord (Sorcerer prophet) with Hashut, with Daemonsmith sorcerer and Castellen bannerman, though sometimes I'll see Khan's or Taur'uks, typical core is a few thicker sized Infernal guards with base or great weapons, with a few hobgoblins to block flanks.

Haven't really seen much Ironsworn, but I see Bull centaurs up the flanks once in a while, though sometimes replaced by wolf raiders (though they haven't really been that effective without a khan). Special I see at least one Magma cannon, with random on whatever else comes, rare has K'daai of course, with maybe a hellcannon.

Hashut is nasty, but really aside from Ash I don't fear it as much as some of the core lores at times, I fear Pit of Shades more honestly. Typically they just play like Dwarves with Magic, with a grinding/blocking core with most of their damage occurring through artillery, yes there's differences but it's the same as how I regard High Elves/Dark Elves, you'll face different things but generally the principle is the same.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Haight wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Haight wrote:

 Ugly Green Trog wrote:
As someone who doesn't abuse the list I DO feel entitled to comment on it from my perspective.

Which is fair. The problem is that you're the microcosm of chaos dwarf players if that's the case. Around here there's two guys that play it, and they openly admit to playing the army because of its power gaming benefits. It's also, rightly or wrongly, labeled as the "buy to win" army. I don't necessarily agree with that, as i think there's a healthy dose of hyperbole, but the army is not anything approaching well balanced. And full grain of salt disclosure ; we're talking about GW and their affiliates. Internal / External balance is not exactly their strong suit (and i'm a GW fan).

They are just dwarves really, I don't know why you'd play CD just for gunlining when Dwarves do it better and cheaper with runed up artillery.

Honest question: Have you ever seen the rules for Chaos Dwarves, their lore access, and all their rules and such ?

I'm not trying to be a dick i swear. I just can't reconcile how you factually try to say that Chaos dwarves are just like regular dwarves.
-- Haight

Yes I have the Tamurkhan book, they have some specific key differences that make them different from each other and all that including differences in unit access.

Generally, from the armies I've faced of them, typically I see the typical lord (Sorcerer prophet) with Hashut, with Daemonsmith sorcerer and Castellen bannerman, though sometimes I'll see Khan's or Taur'uks, typical core is a few thicker sized Infernal guards with base or great weapons, with a few hobgoblins to block flanks.

Haven't really seen much Ironsworn, but I see Bull centaurs up the flanks once in a while, though sometimes replaced by wolf raiders (though they haven't really been that effective without a khan). Special I see at least one Magma cannon, with random on whatever else comes, rare has K'daai of course, with maybe a hellcannon.

Hashut is nasty, but really aside from Ash I don't fear it as much as some of the core lores at times, I fear Pit of Shades more honestly. Typically they just play like Dwarves with Magic, with a grinding/blocking core with most of their damage occurring through artillery, yes there's differences but it's the same as how I regard High Elves/Dark Elves, you'll face different things but generally the principle is the same.

Fair enough. LIke i said it was an honest question. We don't agree on this, but i at least respect your opinion on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gmaleron wrote:
Chaos Dwarves are not OP, anyone saying so really either needs to change up their tactics or just get more practice a them. They do have some good magic spells but nothing so crazy that cant be already found in the standard Magic Lores.

I don't think they're OP, i think they have a couple things that are pretty out of balance.... the problem is that none of them are mutually exclusive, which makes taking some or all of them pretty easy. That's a balance issue.

I don't think they're OP, i think they have a couple things that are pretty out of balance.... the problem is that none of them are mutually exclusive, which makes taking some or all of them pretty easy. That's a balance issue.

Most armies typically have that issue, some units are feh, and then you have things like Dark Elf Doomriders.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I don't think they're OP, i think they have a couple things that are pretty out of balance.... the problem is that none of them are mutually exclusive, which makes taking some or all of them pretty easy. That's a balance issue.

Most armies typically have that issue, some units are feh, and then you have things like Dark Elf Doomriders.

Do you mean the warlocks or dark riders (i can't tell, you're sorta smooshing them together) ? I am assuming the warlocks which are fething amazing.


Comparing anything to Doomfire warlocks and saying "its balanced next to those" is like taking a flame thrower and hosing down someone who says "it's a little chilly in here".

 Haight wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I don't think they're OP, i think they have a couple things that are pretty out of balance.... the problem is that none of them are mutually exclusive, which makes taking some or all of them pretty easy. That's a balance issue.

Most armies typically have that issue, some units are feh, and then you have things like Dark Elf Doomriders.

Do you mean the warlocks or dark riders (i can't tell, you're sorta smooshing them together) ? I am assuming the warlocks which are fething amazing.


Comparing anything to Doomfire warlocks and saying "its balanced next to those" is like taking a flame thrower and hosing down someone who says "it's a little chilly in here".

Doomfire right, I mean they bring the doom and I've never seen a DE list without them. I just kept thinking of them as Doom Riders.

I don’t think anyone is really arguing that a min-maxed Chaos Dwarf list is very powerful. However, I don’t see it any more powerful than some of the other top min-maxed lists (Dark Elves come to mind).
I can understand the gripes about Ashstorm. In my opinion, that is really the only glaring issue when it comes down to LoA.

 Sasori wrote:
I don’t think anyone is really arguing that a min-maxed Chaos Dwarf list is very powerful. However, I don’t see it any more powerful than some of the other top min-maxed lists (Dark Elves come to mind).
I can understand the gripes about Ashstorm. In my opinion, that is really the only glaring issue when it comes down to LoA.

So, a spell that causes a toughness test or die, and if you pass it, you automatically take D6 wounds is ok?

A movement 9 monster with a 4+ ward that forces you to reroll all successful wounds is ok?

The Chalice of blood and darkness isn't bent?

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I don’t think anyone is really arguing that a min-maxed Chaos Dwarf list is very powerful. However, I don’t see it any more powerful than some of the other top min-maxed lists (Dark Elves come to mind).
I can understand the gripes about Ashstorm. In my opinion, that is really the only glaring issue when it comes down to LoA.

So, a spell that causes a toughness test or die, and if you pass it, you automatically take D6 wounds is ok?

A movement 9 monster with a 4+ ward that forces you to reroll all successful wounds is ok?

The Chalice of blood and darkness isn't bent?

It's S6 hits, and the only toughness test is ONE MODEL under the hole itself at the end path. It's basically a slightly stronger Stone Thrower, I'd rather get hit by this then Pit of Shades, not to mention it's cost is far higher then said PoS.

It's strong, but it's no worse then things like doomfire warlocks, it's strong and has it's own issues and can be kited with frenzy, and still have a 1/6 chance of taking D3 wounds per turn, and if you have someone with the 2+ ward against flaming attacks, you'll tie it up pretty well.

...You really are complaining about an Arcane Wargear that costs 25 skaven slaves, and weakens both sides Magic by D3? (with chance of gaining or losing a wound respectively), this is what you call out as OP?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I don’t think anyone is really arguing that a min-maxed Chaos Dwarf list is very powerful. However, I don’t see it any more powerful than some of the other top min-maxed lists (Dark Elves come to mind).
I can understand the gripes about Ashstorm. In my opinion, that is really the only glaring issue when it comes down to LoA.

So, a spell that causes a toughness test or die, and if you pass it, you automatically take D6 wounds is ok?

A movement 9 monster with a 4+ ward that forces you to reroll all successful wounds is ok?

The Chalice of blood and darkness isn't bent?

It's S6 hits, and the only toughness test is ONE MODEL under the hole itself at the end path. It's basically a slightly stronger Stone Thrower, I'd rather get hit by this then Pit of Shades, not to mention it's cost is far higher then said PoS.

It's strong, but it's no worse then things like doomfire warlocks, it's strong and has it's own issues and can be kited with frenzy, and still have a 1/6 chance of taking D3 wounds per turn, and if you have someone with the 2+ ward against flaming attacks, you'll tie it up pretty well.

...You really are complaining about an Arcane Wargear that costs 25 skaven slaves, and weakens both sides Magic by D3? (with chance of gaining or losing a wound respectively), this is what you call out as OP?

Okay. Flames isn't as bent as I thought, but it still gives you TWO ways to kill something like a Keeper in a single spell. No army should have that. Ever. Especially a gunline army.

You want to compare Warlocks to a Destroyer? That's just flat out idiocy. Yes, they're both good, but the warlocks aren't even in the same league as a destroyer. Is there an army in the game that forces me to keep a destroyer out of the game? No. Does the Destroyer have to flee everything that comes near it? No. Can you killing blow a Destroyer? No. And finally, the most important one, Is a destroyer T3 and terrible in combat? No. The destroyer is one of the best pieces in the game for it's cost. And whilst warlocks are good, some might even say bent, they're nowhere near as good as a destroyer. And the only advantage they have is the double flee and casting ability. But even then, they're still INCREDIBLY fragile and you have to be careful with them.

As for the Chalice, you clearly don't know how to use it. Yes, you can use it at the start of a phase. But the rules for it are far worse. You use it in between castings to take away any chance they have of dispelling. Sure you lose D3 dice, which is why you hope you roll a 1 or a 2 for yourself.

Can Warlocks be negated by a 5 point item? Almost all of the super powered stuff in the LoA list can be negated by the Wards vs Fire.

Chalice is the only really unfriendly thing in there.

Okay. Flames isn't as bent as I thought, but it still gives you TWO ways to kill something like a Keeper in a single spell. No army should have that. Ever. Especially a gunline army.

That doesn't make sense by any means.

You want to compare Warlocks to a Destroyer? That's just flat out idiocy. Yes, they're both good, but the warlocks aren't even in the same league as a destroyer. Is there an army in the game that forces me to keep a destroyer out of the game? No. Does the Destroyer have to flee everything that comes near it? No. Can you killing blow a Destroyer? No. And finally, the most important one, Is a destroyer T3 and terrible in combat? No. The destroyer is one of the best pieces in the game for it's cost. And whilst warlocks are good, some might even say bent, they're nowhere near as good as a destroyer. And the only advantage they have is the double flee and casting ability. But even then, they're still INCREDIBLY fragile and you have to be careful with them.

Terrible in combat... What, are you serious? You are saying a unit whose casting -1S/1T, S4/Poison/ASF/I5/A2/Fast cav/4++ are going to be dictating any combat they really want and still do pretty well. They are in every single Dark Elf list that is competitive, several units often depending on points, they are one of THE models up there.

The destroyer still fears heavy cannon armies, 4++ is good but cannon heavy Empire/Dwarf armies will still pretty much take it down before it does anything, It's a monster that wants to be tied up into units so it can be effective, it can't really flee due to frenzy anyways, and if your really thinking a 300+ point model should be KB'ed by something like executioners you have no idea of balance.

As for the Chalice, you clearly don't know how to use it. Yes, you can use it at the start of a phase. But the rules for it are far worse. You use it in between castings to take away any chance they have of dispelling. Sure you lose D3 dice, which is why you hope you roll a 1 or a 2 for yourself.

Considering most people take Dispel Scrolls, I'm not really that impressed by that chance, it's a strong item to be sure, but it's no Book of Hoath.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
I don’t think anyone is really arguing that a min-maxed Chaos Dwarf list is very powerful. However, I don’t see it any more powerful than some of the other top min-maxed lists (Dark Elves come to mind).
I can understand the gripes about Ashstorm. In my opinion, that is really the only glaring issue when it comes down to LoA.

So, a spell that causes a toughness test or die, and if you pass it, you automatically take D6 wounds is ok?

A movement 9 monster with a 4+ ward that forces you to reroll all successful wounds is ok?

The Chalice of blood and darkness isn't bent?

As it's been pointed out, Flames is really not that bad. Certainly no where what you thought it was.

The K'daii destroyer is very good. Honestly, when it first came out, I would have considered it broken. However, most every armybook has ways of dealing with it now, compared to when it came out. Several monsters (While not as combat strong) also are on the same level as the K'daii when it comes to usefulness to the army.

The Chalice of blood is good. But it's also expensive and it has a drawback associated with it. It's not bent, and once again is not near as bad as you make it out.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Okay. Flames isn't as bent as I thought, but it still gives you TWO ways to kill something like a Keeper in a single spell. No army should have that. Ever. Especially a gunline army.

That doesn't make sense by any means.

So, doing D6 S6 hits, if you fail a Toughness test or die providing two methods of killing a monster like a keeper of secrets doesn't make sense? Especially in an army that will shoot everything off.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

You want to compare Warlocks to a Destroyer? That's just flat out idiocy. Yes, they're both good, but the warlocks aren't even in the same league as a destroyer. Is there an army in the game that forces me to keep a destroyer out of the game? No. Does the Destroyer have to flee everything that comes near it? No. Can you killing blow a Destroyer? No. And finally, the most important one, Is a destroyer T3 and terrible in combat? No. The destroyer is one of the best pieces in the game for it's cost. And whilst warlocks are good, some might even say bent, they're nowhere near as good as a destroyer. And the only advantage they have is the double flee and casting ability. But even then, they're still INCREDIBLY fragile and you have to be careful with them.

Terrible in combat... What, are you serious? You are saying a unit whose casting -1S/1T, S4/Poison/ASF/I5/A2/Fast cav/4++ are going to be dictating any combat they really want and still do pretty well. They are in every single Dark Elf list that is competitive, several units often depending on points, they are one of THE models up there.

Yes. They're not a combat unit. The only time they're in any form of a combat block is when they don't fight. The reason that they're good is because they provide a second soulblight to the army. If they fight, they die.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

The destroyer still fears heavy cannon armies, 4++ is good but cannon heavy Empire/Dwarf armies will still pretty much take it down before it does anything, It's a monster that wants to be tied up into units so it can be effective, it can't really flee due to frenzy anyways, and if your really thinking a 300+ point model should be KB'ed by something like executioners you have no idea of balance.

I never said that the Destroyer should be KB'd. I said that it has all the strengths of a monster, and none of the weaknesses. And the reason I brought Killing Blow up, is because warlocks are incredibly vulnerable to Killing Blow. As for being tied up into units, that's what all monsters want. And a monster with a 4+ ward is still far better than any other monsters in the game. It has all the strengths of other monsters, and none of the weaknesses.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

As for the Chalice, you clearly don't know how to use it. Yes, you can use it at the start of a phase. But the rules for it are far worse. You use it in between castings to take away any chance they have of dispelling. Sure you lose D3 dice, which is why you hope you roll a 1 or a 2 for yourself.

Considering most people take Dispel Scrolls, I'm not really that impressed by that chance, it's a strong item to be sure, but it's no Book of Hoath.

Please, reconsider, especially when you realise that the opponent will cast flames/ash storm, which you will stop, and then they will lose 2~ dice, and you will have no dispel dice left.

I never said that the Destroyer should be KB'd. I said that it has all the strengths of a monster, and none of the weaknesses. And the reason I brought Killing Blow up, is because warlocks are incredibly vulnerable to Killing Blow. As for being tied up into units, that's what all monsters want. And a monster with a 4+ ward is still far better than any other monsters in the game. It has all the strengths of other monsters, and none of the weaknesses.

Considering that most monsters are awful in 8th edition due to Cannons and ability to wound on 6 regardless of toughness, that's not exactly a far mark, most monsters will never see the light of day short of the ones that are actually good.

Also Warlocks have 1 wound and a ward save, they aren't any more vulnerable to KB then a Brettonia Peasant.

So, doing D6 S6 hits, if you fail a Toughness test or die providing two methods of killing a monster like a keeper of secrets doesn't make sense? Especially in an army that will shoot everything off.

It's like saying "An army that is incredibly good at fighting in combat doesn't deserve Occam's" or "An army that is incredibly fast shouldn't be able to use lore of light" it's nonsensical. Also trying to kill a KoS with that would be a strong shot in the dark considering the scatter.

Yes. They're not a combat unit. The only time they're in any form of a combat block is when they don't fight. The reason that they're good is because they provide a second soulblight to the army. If they fight, they die.

You are fighting some poor DE then if that's all they are using it for.

Please, reconsider, especially when you realise that the opponent will cast flames/ash storm, which you will stop, and then they will lose 2~ dice, and you will have no dispel dice left.

And you've already poked out their strongest spells and they've already lost 2~ more casting as well, the rest of the lore is more of a glorified Fire lore, so what is the issue here?

Due to laziness, I'm not going to multiquote.

A) Most monsters never see the light of day? I'll tell that to Frosthearts, Chimerae, Daemon Princes, Mortarchs, Nagash, The Glottkin, The Maggoth Lords and Karl Franz Ascendant. (Here's a hint, 3 of those have any form of ward )

B) It's not like that. It's like saying Pit of Shades should do D6 s6 hits if you pass the initiative check. Because then, the spells would do the EXACT SAME THING.

C) If you think warlocks are a combat unit, then you should stop playing. They're only ever put into combat as either A) A bus with a front rank of 1+ save characters with lances, or B) A chaff block to save a unit that is worth more points.

D) You are aware that only one of those will be stopped, right? That is how the chalice works. You will only ever be able to stop one spell, short of the Chaos Dwarf player rolling a twelve or eleven dice phase. And even then, it's iffy.

A) Most monsters never see the light of day? I'll tell that to Frosthearts, Chimerae, Daemon Princes, Mortarchs, Nagash, The Glottkin, The Maggoth Lords and Karl Franz Ascendant. (Here's a hint, 3 of those have any form of ward )

People actually use Chimera? News to me, but I haven't really played much with the Book Glottkin. Also notice how before the End times, there's only three you've mentioned, two from the same book infact. Though I'm not so sure about Glott, I mean he's I1..Practically instant Pit of Shades bait, not to mention most of those literally came out and nobody has a clear idea on their effectiveness.

B) It's not like that. It's like saying Pit of Shades should do D6 s6 hits if you pass the initiative check. Because then, the spells would do the EXACT SAME THING.

Once again do read the spell, it's S6 hit for all those the template passes out, with an additional toughness check against the one in the center. Pit of Shades rolls over and forces an instant death check with the whole template, as I said it's comparable to a stone thrower.

C) If you think warlocks are a combat unit, then you should stop playing. They're only ever put into combat as either A) A bus with a front rank of 1+ save characters with lances, or B) A chaff block to save a unit that is worth more points.

Heh, I'll let you believe what you will buddy.

D) You are aware that only one of those will be stopped, right? That is how the chalice works. You will only ever be able to stop one spell, short of the Chaos Dwarf player rolling a twelve or eleven dice phase. And even then, it's iffy.

So lets see, you are trying to get off a 12+ cast, and an 18 + cast right after each other while having drained D3 of your own magic after trying to get off the first one, and assuming that they don't have any other precautions in their army aside from Dispel Dice... Yeah good luck with that.

Chimeras are quite common in competitive Chaos Warrior armies. Almost all of them feature 1, many 2.

 Still Standing wrote:
Chimeras are quite common in competitive Chaos Warrior armies. Almost all of them feature 1, many 2.

Really? Hmm, news to me as I said, I don't know many people who play WoC, I knew about the Daemon Prince but not the Chimera.

Your normal tournament Warrior army is something like

Nurgle Daemon Prince lvl 4, Scaly Skin, Charmed Shield, Flight

Tzeentch BSB, Talismen of Preservation, Third Eye of Tzeentch, Ogre Blade, Daemonic Mount

2/3 Chariots
2x 3 Juggernauts
2 Chimera

 thedarkavenger wrote:


B) It's not like that. It's like saying Pit of Shades should do D6 s6 hits if you pass the initiative check. Because then, the spells would do the EXACT SAME THING.

You're still ignoring the fact that it's a cm diameter hole in the middle of a 3" template which scatters. Therefore it is unlikely to be an effective monster or character sniping tool. The model under the hole is at the centre of the spell so it suffers the most from its effects. Only one model takes a test unlike dwellers, shades or purple sun. Chances are that one model is going to be nothing or some poor innocent core infantryman.

Just an interesting note from the fluff point of view, there's a small reference to Chaos Dwarfs in End Times II: Glottkin
One of the Empire units that is highlighted in an OOB is said to have shone during fights against evil stuff and whatnot, including a Chaos Dwarf Sorcerer and his lava monsters (or something like that)