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!
My Avatar and Sig may scream "40K Player!!!", but I'm actually a very old Fantasy Dwarf guy who got started in '89, with the REALLY old models (Bugmans '85, Prince Ulther's Imperial Dwarves) to prove it. I didn't get into 40K until '98 or so when I couldn't find many other Fantasy players in my area. The last WFB game I played was back in '03.
Anyhow, what I want to know is this: Are Dwarves a competitive army right now? My Imperial Guard troops are enjoying the honor of having a hot, competitive codex for once, after years of only being a so-so choice in terms of competitiveness. So I'm curious how the Dwarves are doing in Fantasy-Land.
Are Dwarves like the Guard or the Space Wolves, enjoying top-tier status? Or are they like the Eldar or Tau, who have some good builds, but aren't usually considered top-tier. Or are they like the Necrons who are generally laughed at in competitive circles as being almost impossible to win tourneys with?
All I can remember is losing horribly most of the time to armies with more mobility than I had.
i have been playing with dwarfs for about 6 months every week. And all i can say is we are not at top tier (Vampire, Demons). even not tier 2. But better than BoC, O&G and some others.
The game is about movement and dwarfs lack in that area, and dwarfs lack in diffrerent troop choice options.
However we have good machines and stable infantry.
In nearly every game i play, the result is decided if i can manage to protect my flanks and/or my warmachines.
If i can, i usually get solid, minor victory, draw. (it is really hard to get a massacre, blame the short legs.).
So if the last thing someone laughs at dwarfs will see is 2 armored foot, and a longbeard above his head.
Competitive? Errr.. no.
We're one of the half dozen armybooks in need of an update. Our armybook is better off than others though, like beasts of chaos and ogre kingdoms.
Your basic dwarf army will be about 50% missile, hard to get around that. And the point with dwarfs these days is to blow away the flankers and those deathstar units with your warmachines, dwarf blocks can easily take care of the rest. Dwarfs don't really do that much damage in combat though, they are just good at soaking it up and enduring on combat res, with a thane in the unit to swing combat in your favour. That's why dwarfs can't hold when flanked, dwarfs can't get those lost combat res. back by killing the flankers, you'll kill maybe one or two.
And Kgoreham said it; in a game based on movement ( more than 40K ) dwarfs are the slowest in the entire game with M3, then again we can always march, so our M is basically 6, always.
We also lack in choices for our army. We have a list consisting of: heroes - blocks - warmachines. Nothing else besides those ( yes, gyro and anvil are warmachines ).
But lets be positive
Dwarfs are a reliable army, their artillery won't misfire often, Master engineers can make them even more reliable and effective, dwarfs have no magic so at least we can't miscast and we can get cheap magic defense.
All of our troops are very tough, obviously, and we have high weapon skill, T4/T5 and lot's of armour except for slayers. Even our warmachine crews have armour And above all we have overall the highest leadership of all armies. I don't think there is another army with ld 9 core units and crews.
O, and we can build our own magic items :- )
Need to kill masses? Extra attacks. Need to kill knights? No armoursaves allowed. Need to get those dancing skirmishers to bloody come to you?! Masterrune of challenge.
But secretly I'm hoping for an armybook update within a year or so.
Dwarves could certainly do with some additional more mobile forces. Maybe one or two M8 units, perhaps Dwarves with no armour?
Regardless, Dwarves remain an outstanding army, whilst not tope tier as stated, because of two factors - high toughness blocks and immense firepoqer. Against undead, a Dwarven army can decminate a single unit each turn, leaving undead players with fewer activations or to supplement their lines with zombies, who die in droves to Dwarven WS and armour, providing easier CR. Where Dwarves TRULY lack is that they are poor at two whole phases - movement and magic. The magic phase for Dwarves is pointless whilst the movement phase is a little dicey as well...
Join the LO army system! http://www.librarium-online.com/foru...t&uniqueid=910
Things were better if I got the charge, but that almost never happened.
With the 7th edition of WFB there is some more focus on infantry blocks. So unless those chaos or dark elf knights roll ridiculously well ( which they often do.. ) half a unit of knights can't destroy a solid dwarf block and will go down to combat resolution. 20 dwarf warriors with banner will get 3 ranks, a banner and an outnumber bonus against the knights, who will only have a banner maybe.
I'd say dwarfs are "in the middle" when it comes to "tier-ing" it up. Trumps some armies but is in trouble with others.
If you want to win, play daemons... though dwarfs do have a good chance against them, more than some other races....
P.S. IT'S "DWARFS" NOT "DWARVES"
are you guys nuts? Dwarven gun lines with an anvil still rock the zaba. (dont even get me started on thorek.)
I'd say yes the list is still competetive, if your are basing it on games vs the top 3 armies then it is less competetive against those lists but i see those as the exception to the normal army power levels (every other army struggles against those lists too but pit dwarfs against an army that isn't in the top 3 and they usually seem to come out ok)