grim1
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by grim1 on Aug 9, 2015 16:24:10 GMT
hi there everyone. I know that dwarfs received a bit of love in their new book.... but some units were pretty much squatted too.
I know that most people don't take the anvil anymore.... shame cause it's a great fluff unit. I know that thunderers aren't as good as quarrellers anymore. They lost their +1 to hit.
Not trying to be contentious but does anyone think that we need to go back to the previous rulebook rules for those units???
please discuss.
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Aug 9, 2015 18:43:00 GMT
I use thunderers all of the time. Don't forget that they inflict a further -1 to the armour save and thunderers with shields can be a pain in any armies backside. As for the Anvil, not many people really used it in my area even before this last book. It has been strictly a fluff piece for certain builds for the past three books imho. Also, changing only a few units to older versions doesn't work. Despite what we may feel, a lot of the balance of a book comes from the interplay that exist between that books unit rules. It isn't as simple as "let's go back for this unit"
|
|
|
Post by dannytee on Aug 9, 2015 23:55:00 GMT
Overall, I really like the current dwarf army book. In regards to the thunderers, I don't feel that quarrelers are necessarily better. Yes thunderers lost the +1 to hit they used to have but they used to be 14 points base and are now 12. I personally use a combo of thunderers and quarrelers in my lists. As for the anvil of doom, I agree that the current version is weak for it points cost. I hardly ever take it.
I have always thought it would be cool (and I feel like it could also work fluff wise) to include some sort of cav unit in a dwarf army. I think that it could be a rare unit and still keep the overall feel of the dwarf army. Bears (which would be monstrous cav I think) or ponies (regular cav) could fit in. Maybe even rams. I also feel like dwarves could have mages in their army list. If these mages were limited to level 2 lore of metal or lore of fire I think this could also stay in line with dwarf fluff. Just my two cents. These items would really be pretty large deviations from past dwarf books but I think they would be interesting.
|
|
Toro_Blanco
New Member
Nobody enjoys a good laugh more than I do.
Posts: 18
|
Post by Toro_Blanco on Aug 11, 2015 19:33:50 GMT
I'm personally very happy with the current dwarf rulebook; it's part of why I was so upset to see AoS come so quickly after!
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Aug 11, 2015 21:38:46 GMT
Same here, toro. I have a hard time choosing between Dwarfs and Ogres as they are both solid and not OP lists.
|
|
|
Post by mottdon on Aug 12, 2015 14:36:32 GMT
I personally like the new book as well, though I thought the Anvil should have kept the spell that gave one unit an extra move. That was really helpful and would make it more viable again.
I also was really, REALLY hoping for a Ancient Golem. They are in all of the Dwarf lore. I could see that even more than a Dwarf Blimp (flying Organ Gun).
The Thunderers seem good to me, but I thought it would be cool if they had a fusillade special rule which allowed them to fire in three ranks and Quarrellers gained the Volley Fire rule.
|
|
|
Post by takenoko on Aug 23, 2015 7:31:46 GMT
The Dwarf book is fine, I think. Given the huge problems that exist with point settings in some of the other Army books (Empire Militia and Flagellants would be a good case in point), not getting +1 to hit with handguns is not a big deal. The Anvil of dDoom may be kind of useless, but on the whole it's a well balanced list.
I really like the current dwarf book, was really tempted to build an army there for a while, before the GW support for the game was scrapped. Now I'll wait and see what survives the restructuring of the range before I make any commitments.
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Dec 23, 2015 2:53:05 GMT
I also really like the new Dwarf book.
I'm actually really happy with it and use thunderers and quarrellers both.
TC is correct that thunderers are no longer better than crossbows but they are no the same points cost rather than more expensive so it balances out.
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Dec 23, 2015 2:54:25 GMT
Anvil is more a fluff unit than before but with 8th removing the broken charge shenanigans from all armies im ok with the change. If you want 'spells' with dwarfs you have to pay a hefty points premium. .. fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Oct 8, 2017 8:22:13 GMT
Anyone here use the 9th Age rules for dwarfs?
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Oct 8, 2017 12:29:07 GMT
Anyone here use the 9th Age rules for dwarfs? We do not touch 9th age, as fits our forum goal. The 8th edition dwarf book fits the 8th edition rules perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Oct 8, 2017 12:33:25 GMT
9th age sucks, but I do like their anvil. Accepting that the Anvil sucks in 8th edition doesn't have to be the case, right?
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Oct 8, 2017 14:49:40 GMT
9th age sucks, but I do like their anvil. Accepting that the Anvil sucks in 8th edition doesn't have to be the case, right? I see your point, but for 1 unit it doesn't make sense to dump a whole book. Also, the Anvil isn't great, but their are lists that can make good use of it. It mostly needs a points adjistment.
|
|
|
Post by DiscoQing on Oct 8, 2017 14:51:14 GMT
That's exactly what I'd do, lower it to 100pts. If that! Haha
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Oct 8, 2017 15:01:25 GMT
That's exactly what I'd do, lower it to 100pts. If that! Haha that's a bit low😊
|
|