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!
what do you prefer vs opponents with higher i? i personally take gw but id like some good arguments
dont know many opponents that have lower I than dwarfs except undead and orcs and most of their units equal it
Here we go...
Generally I prefer axe and shield, it is cheaper and more of an all-rounder. These dudes are very tough, hard to get rid of and your hard troops.
Instead of taking troops with GW I go for Hammerers, since the troops with GW are expensive (in pts) and are immediately shot at since they don't have a shield. Though they are strong, they are specialised and it is likely they will be shot down.
I take a few core shield units and Hammerers with a lord in for the specialised stuff
"Well... that hurt" - Vampire Jon Skellan (Mannfred's right hand man) after being beaten up, falling down an underground waterfall and being impaled by a stalactite.
well the main argument for great weapons is that dwarves will be striking last anyways. I find this terribly flawed. Dwarves don't win combat by killing the enemy. Dwarves win by not dieing.
Dwarves are tough. We are the tough of the tough. We get T4 WS4 LD9 and a 3+ armour save for 9 points. Head on dwarves can face down anything short of a 500-point unit and survive. The key is to exploit this. The ideal set up is 25 dwarves with shields and full command. This is 250 points.
Now you have a 5/5 formation. You need to loose 5 dwarves before you can even start to loose ranks. You have a standard and more often than not you are outnumbering. That gives you a basic combat resolution of 5 before you start to count kills. Generally speaking most units in the game able to cause that much damage to a unit of dwarves will have to be a low number unit. Which generally means few ranks and less static combat res. lets say ogres for examples sake. Now the ogres (bulls in this example) have 3 attacks. Hitting on 4's and wounding on 4's leaving the dwarves with a 4+ save. that means it takes 1 ogre to kill 0.375 of a dwarf with a shield. This also means that it takes 8 attacks from ogres to kill a single dwarf warrior.
(1 death = 2 wounds = 4 hits = 8 attacks)
On the other hand if we go for great weapon dwarves. a single ogre can kill 0.9 dwarves. Rounding up that means a dead dwarf. Compared to the shielded dwarf who survives. this also means that it only takes 4.8 (5) attacks from the ogres to kill a great weapon wielding dwarf.
That a whole ogre difference! it also means that the shielded dwarves have more attacks to make back at the ogres and have a significantly better chance of causing damage and winning the combat.
Assuming that 4 ogres hit the dwarves (impact hits ignored for the moment) the shielded dwarves would loose 1.5 dwarves letting them return 4/5 attacks. the great weapon wielding dwarves on the other hand loose 2.5 dwarves, a whole dwarf difference, and make back 3/4 attacks. on the return attacks the great weapon dwarves have a slight advantage and would on average cause (assuming 4 attacks) 1.8 wounds, equalling out at 2 wounds. the shielded dwarves with their 5 attacks would only cause 1.1 wounds. but have lost one less dwarf meaning they have come off better generally speaking.
if impact hits were to be factored into this however the shielded dwarves come off significantly better.
This of course is only combat. Once you factor in shooting shields become significantly more effective protecting you against ranged fire and letting you protect your ranks.
the only dwarves who should be equipped with great weapons are hammerers (who have no choice but should always have shields equipped) and longbeards who in my opinion should have both weapons. they have the strength to make it count and have the advantage of being tough enough to beat most things that attack them with their shield/hand weapon combo then move to support their fellow dwarves with a flanking move with great weapons.
Shielded dwarves also work out cheaper so are not only more effective but more cost effective.
What I am basically saying is that great weapon dwarves are inferior to shielded dwarves in too many ways to choose otherwise in a competitive level. You can do it for fun if you like but more often than not you will wish for those shields. I learned the hard way.
spambot kill tally: 79
[16:19] <@Alzer> Arky's right though
[16:20] <@Kaiser-> I know he is.
[16:20] <@Kaiser-> He usually is.
[16:20] <@Kaiser-> Sometimes it's intentional.
[00:01] <+zubus> i love you, ya skirt wearin nothern monkey! ^_^
I agree with arclite, I never field dwarves with double handers, they just aren't survivable, 5+ save in combat with +2st or 3+ save, fairly easy choice dontcha think? If you want to give a warriors unit some punch, put a thane with a double handed weapon in it, this gives you 3 S6 attacks and 5 S3s assuming full command, you can expect that to achieve something, the normal dwarves make the occasional kill and get brilliant static combat res, the Thane cleaves his way through and adds some kills.
Thane, ROStone, Great weapon+ 24 Warriors, hand weapons and shield + full command, 315 points
aut viam inveniam aut faciam / I'll either find a way or make one.
If we are speaking of only a single unit then I prefer hw/shield warriors. Ideally I take units of both, large (20+) units of hw/shield warriors to anchor a unit in place and smaller (12ish in a 4x3 formation) gw warriors to get a flank charge on the anchored unit the following turn and almost guarantee that they are broken.
By keeping the gw unit smallish then they aren't that great of a target for opposing ranged units, and I generally protect them by marching them between my larger anchor units, also a bit back.
Games Workshop is the Wal-Mart of hobby products, except for the low prices. The lack of respect and profit mongering is there in spades.
Adding to what has been said, Hammerers should always be given shields. For 1 point you get a very versatile unit, and make them alot harder to take down, and that is what you want.
Plus, why spend 2 point per model for great weapons when your missile fire can cripple any threatening unit your opponent can field? If he's got half a unit when he gets to you, the beardlings will CR crush em' !