Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Before I go on, I wish to explain about me. I have been in the hobby for eleven years, but due to various conditions (ie having no opponents) I have not really played much. Thus I have looked to painting more than gaming. I have one Fantasy army, and that is Dwarfs. I love them and find their background so good, along with the newest range which I felt in many cases have captured the essence of the Dwarf race.
If you have not, I would suggest you listen to this podcast by Podhammer. It is based on dwarfs, and they seem to have come to numerous conclusions.
- They have two main 'working' builds; Anvil or Gunline
- You can never win big with them
- They're just not a good army
The Dwarf book was the one of, if not the, last 6th edition book to be made, but does this make them flawed in the 7th edition era? I know the podcast is biased towards tournaments, but many of their points seem valid. Are the Dwarfs flexible without the Anvil? Yes, we can march now - a much more popular build - but it appears that gamers complain because the Anvil is "broken" or "beardy". The one unit that actually adds a new dimension to the army is the most frowned upon unit now. The other build that works is the gunline, again people complain as you just sit there and use the impressive dwarf missile fire.
I think perhaps the problem is that Dwarfs lack flexibility. There are two units that can get across the board quickly (gyrocopter and miners), but only really the gyros have that flexibility. The anvil adds this extra dimension, allowing movement for the Dwarfs to position stuff. Its sad that this is required. I know its part of their character, but things like rangers and miners could add good flexibility to the army, but the rules fail that.
One of our impressive strengths has always been anti-magic and tough infantry. The anti-magic now days never seems enough. I have seen numerous army builds of VC, WoC, DoC that have so much magic they can easily overpower the Dwarf anti-magic. Can Dwarfs really compete these days with the heavy swathes of magic being thrown around the game now.
I have waffled a lot. So, what do you members think? Are Dwarfs competitive, or should people shelve them until GW get around to the book once more?
It concerns me as well, dwarfs have zero flexibility. Sure they've got the copter but the copter can only go alone, it's a single model. Anvil is critisised as cheesy ( something works with dwarfs, it has to be cheesy ) and can only be used in 2000+ , in 2000 it will even take your only lord choice away.
The dwarf army just misses so many things, and we actually have heroes, blocks and warmachines, and that's it!
- no skirmishers
- 1 scout unit, which is a block ( very handy.... )
- only expensive units
- only 1 model ( and it's a rare choice!! ) with a movement higher than 3! 0.o
- no cavalry
- no chariots
- no swarms
- no omgwtf units like knight units, swordmasters etc. with a truckload of high strenght and high weaponskill attacks.
- 1 unit relatively omgwtf, but has no friking armour to save them from getting shot to a thousand pieces
- no units with 2 attacks per model, except above unit who run around naked
- no charge, ever, ever! Who in his right mind comes into our astounding (!!! ) 6 inch charge... Very handy if our strongest hand-to-hand unit has no armour to take the beating before they strike back..
- no magic ( only anvil of doom, but that's only at 2000+ pts and very expensive )
dwarfs can be a real combat potential army. i make combat dwarf armies and win with succes. the copters march block and slowly killl of a squad or 2. this is the trick with dwarfs you need to bait em or youll never get a charge. so you take a squad of regulers and run when they get charged while your setup units get a charge. oh slayers can have a 5+ wardsave if you give a magic banner (forgot wat called) and keep that squad within 6 inches.
Thats only against shooting btw. Master rune of grungni.
We have a good battleline with a great standard and tough troops, but some of those uberunits that get on your flank will just roll up your entire army. Our buggers are too slow to effectively manouvre on the battlefield and it's hard to get those kinds of charges. Apart from that enemies always have more units. Us dwarfs only have blocks and for those to be even remotely effective they need to be quite large, meaning expensive. If an enemy army just charges towards you in a bloodthirsty frenzy they will get slaughtered or have a load of uber units. People who have never or almost never played against dwarfs will do this, but they won't do it anymore after a few games.
And one of my biggest annoyances is those stupid units that can dance around you. If you make a big strong uber hammerer unit, the enemy will just avoid it like the plague or send some expendable 60 pts unit against it.
We need something that is more manouvrable, ever had a big flying monster landing behind your lines just when you were closing with the enemies units? You are screeheewed then. A big monster that charges a 20 strong block from behind immediately takes 5 static res ( - 3 ranks, + rear ) and your block is just > poof < gone.
If they would give us skirmish rangers ( that can get a rank bonus of 2, like those beastherds, that would be great ) , over half my problems would dissipate like a goblin in front of an organgun. No more screwing around with dancing units, no more trouble with those cheap flying units, for Grimnirs sake, the ability to actually protect my flank from those thrice cursed scout-skirmishers, the ability to truly manouvre and set up awesome flank charges etc etc. At the moment dwarfs only have 3 types of units. Fast armies just run around and bite you in the ass.
I love dwarfs, I really do, but at the moment they just lack flexibility, both in the list, as well as on the table and I find it increasingly difficult to even get close to a draw. Flyers, fastcav and skirmishers screw you over too easy.
As much as I hate to say anything bad about the Dwarfs, I have to agree with the bearded one.
Dwarfs have some of the higest leadership units/characters in the game, and even their standard troops are a cut above the rest with WS4, T4 and a 4+/3+ armor save, but none of those things matter when you're being swarmed from the flank or back because your enemy can outmaneouver you or when they're strong enough to negate your armor completely.
Dwarfs, IMO, have many more negatives than their positives and it doesn't balance out.
Indeed, we have awesome troops, but only in the front. From the flank and rear they negate our static res, and thats what keeps our blocks in place, our warriors on themselfs do not dish out earthshaking damage ( not talking hammerers and ironbreakers, just warriors ) but they stay put with ranks etc. With rear and flank we cant charge and lose 2 or 3 pts.
I've played them with both codexes, and the constant thing about dwarves is this: You will rarely massacre, or get massacred. Dwarves do not have brute strength and crush opponents with deadly charges. Dwarves do not have blazzing speed. Dwarves do not have magic.
What do dwarves have? Rock hard infantry - best point for point. Most effective shooting in the game. Best point for point characters in the game too I would say. Most solid magical defense in the game as well. Best base leadersip for an entire army.
Dwarves are not lacking, they are everything dwarves should be. Hateful of magic, tough as nails and grim in determination.
Saying that dwarf gunlines and anvil armies (bar Thorek) are unfair is plain foolishness. Are undead (Vampires or Tomb kings) cheesy because they always end up with an a strong magic phase? Of course not. That's what the army relies on the perform. Just as dwarves these armies have shortcomings. Magic is the way for undead to transcend it, and so is the anvil or shooting for dwarves.
I am not saying you need to min max your army to win. But you will need to use all the tools handed to you. It takes alot of judgement and restraint to win with dwarves. Many beardlings have fallen due to hasty decisions and eager rushes to combat.
If you set to play for draws with your dwarves, you will upset your opponent to the point where some will eventually do mistakes. Make them pay for those mistakes, and you will do just fine.
There is nothing wrong with this army. In Fact, I find it is the most successful army book out there, as it truely represent the dwarvish mentality.
I like the army, fluffwise, and it's a shame that I have to agree with Jeff Carroll and Podhammer on their points about the army on the table. I would probably be playing dwarves if it wasn't for the way they played.
One of the valid points made in the podcast was that, seemingly regardless of the actual list fielded, if a Dwarf player wins, it's because he's a cheesemonger.
Part of this is just an unsporting nature. No one likes to lose to an army that you not only outnumber but also where the tallest member of said army only comes up to your average soldier's waist.
But another, much more valid part of this is why the term 'cheese' is bandied about: It only ever shows up in blatantly un-balanced armies. If you take a little bit of everything, that's not cheese.
The Dwarfs cannot do this.
If you do Gunline, you'll win, but you're also taking the Anvil and you're rolling a hundred Ballistic Skill checks per turn.
If you do Marching, you'll win, but you also need to take the Anvil and you're also fielding close to two hundred bases.
Either army is markedly unbalanced. If you just try and take a balanced army with a bit of marching, a bit of shooting, some reasonably-kitted characters, a little heavy infantry and a little specialist infantry (Rangers, Miners, et al.) you're going to get swamped. You can't shoot nearly enough to put a dent in the enemy, but your infantry is dramatically outnumbered and way too slow to not become horribly out-maneuvered.
The Anvil is a whole different kettle of fish and I suspect opponents don't like it because it's a.) predictable and b.) makes the Dwarfs less Dwarfish. (i.e. now they can move and now they've got a little bit of magic.)
Now, granted, this is all from the perspective of a tournament player, and I know that when I play and inevitably lose with my balanced list, it's because I've embraced that oldest and noblest Dwarven tradition and I'm pretty well pissed by the time I have to make important tactical decisions.
I think Dwarfs do poorly in tournaments not because of their army's strengths and weaknesses, but because everyone has had several years to get accustomed to the Dwarfs' strengths and weaknesses. The Dwarfs are not particularly dynamic enough an army to be able to list-tweak and easily be able to re-configure for the changing face of the game. (i.e. the Dwarfs anti-magic was sufficient in 6th ed. but is nowhere near enough in the newer more powerful-but-riskier magic of 7th ed.)
It's an old army now and needs to be min-maxed in order to be successful in tournaments. Again, not for cheesiness' sake, but because after so many years, we (Dwarf players) know precisely which models are most points-efficient and our opponents know this as well so anything less than maximal points-efficiency is a weakness that the Dwarfs are not fast enough to prevent their opponents from exploiting.
For tourneys: yeah, min-max and be prepared to soak a lousy army composition score.
For fun: are you kidding? They're Dwarfs, they're tremendous fun!
Last edited by Quick; December 19th, 2008 at 04:11.
WHFB: Dwarfs || WH40k: Imperial Fists, Necrons || WM/H: Trollbloods || BFG: Necrons
This dwarf does not min-max, and made it to the GT more than once. Fielding an anvil does not make it cheese. Fielding Thorek does. Fielding an organ gun a cannon and a bolthrower isn't cheese. Fielding 4 BTs, cannon and 2 organ guns is.
I will agree this army only has a few ways to make it to the top, but it doesn't mean it's pure cheese. The only guys that complain about cheese are generally the ones that show up with the same type of army. This type of mentality never give credit to the army and not the player. Probably the same guy will also tell you that he lost the game because the dice were bad, not because is opponent was a good player.