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!
Everyone talks about the Dwarf core units like Warriors, Crossies and Thunderers so much I think they've all forgotten about rangers. Yes, they might be expensive and yes, being scouts it's really weird having them as a block unit but actually, they not that bad. Give them Crossbows, GW and HA and you have these guys who do the job of Warriors and Crossbowmen. Although they will be 18 with Xbows, GW and HA, they are scouts, so put them behind a forest when deploying and when they can, fire bolts at the enemy then charge in with S5 GW and a 5+ AS. Thats pretty good.
What do you think???
I think they're damn expensive. I also think that the problem with Rangers is that even if you forward-deploy them, the rest of your army will never arrive to support them. In my experience, Rangers have basically been a sacrificial unit. Perhaps they can take out a few warmachines before they get overwhelmed but they're so slow that by the second turn they are usually outflanked and overrun.
I suppose that a full unit with a full command might have some staying power but then you're talking about 400 points of isolated troops. I'd rather have them in my battle-line.
I think there are probably good uses for the rangers, I just haven't come up with them yet or seen anyone use them all that effectively.
i agree to a certain extent, anyone that uses them in a 1000pt battle has lost me common sense wise, but in a 2,000 pt. battle it can be very surprising, i probably wouldn't buy the models though, just take a box of warriors and convert them to look like rangers somehow(great weapons with crossbows strapped on their back) i dont like the fact that they are so unfluffy:
1. scouts in a dwarf army?
2. why would scouts have great weapons and heavy armour, (not to stealthy)
3. why aren't they in scirmish formation
i think in the next edition GW should really look at that, also i think it wouldn't be wise but just for fun one time i want to use them with trowing axes, throwing axes are cool :cool:
also i think that u could take calvary out with them (not effectively) but u could maybe set up a miner ranger combo trap for their calvary
Last edited by The Pink Panther; June 17th, 2005 at 15:16.
Mr. Burns: Why is everyone being so insolent today?
Smithers: Well sir, it is christmas...
Mr. Burns: I'll decide when its christmas!
Never used them, maybe I'll get round to it but TBH I don't like them. Too expensive when made useful and not worth it otherwise. As you said with an X-Bow they come to what 17 p/m, min size of ten. Too much for an unsupported unit. The X-Bows mean they are a static missile unit, not good if they're facing a charge and if in a wood are all ten going to get to fire? Doubtful.
They're slow, with a march of six they aren't going to be harassing anything in the first turn. IMO they're too costly and shoudl the enemy attack them with a unit of S4+ they the Ranger's aren't saving (Using GWs) or are on a 6+ (w/LA & S). Not much to make me use them tbh.
And as for giving them a full command... why? Why make an already expensive unit even more so - then make them worth an extra 100VPs? (Banner).
Hmmmmm..... yeah, these are dwarves, who are slow so no help will come to the rangers. And they're also they most expensive units in dwarves at 17pts. K, thanks everyone!!!
I always thought it was just a dumb idea. Hey lets march with big clangin' metal stuff at the speed of paint drying out of a forest! Sweet!