8th Ed. New Dwarfs? - Have anyone heard anything?

[Pinktaco]

More than speaking about the power of the army (wich I won't say anithing until I have the book in my hands), it is that they were suppoused to fix the army so it isn't boring to play with or against, that is why all the new stuff was expected.
Then instead of giving more mobility they basically removed the anvil, only thing that allowed some board control. Then added a new gyro variant (really nice model but it is used mostly like the older one, so it is not that new gamewise) and the irondrakes (wich look really good on the paper, but I fear they may end up being a bit like jezzails). So only one and a half new units and nothing with a diferent troop ttype than the one they had before, that is the reason of the disapointment

It was expected that the over the top magic defense would be nerfed and the anvil be turned into an innate bound spell thing. But dwarfs are meant to have good magic defenses and now it's kind of mediocre. The runesmiths giving AP makes as much sense as the skink characters restraining the predatory fighters. The spells on the anvil doesn't really seem to be worth the points it costs, specially when you have to cast against the usual level 4 mage using just bound spells.


BTW, I wouldn't say salamanders are really nerfed now, the strength 4 template is a really big improvement. On the other hand the Slann got hit too hard with the nerfhammer, it needs to be a powerful caster, now it's just a mage with many spells.

So there are no other units coming for the short ones? Some people on warseer are still hoping

Anyway the biggest hit on the salamander is the lose of no march and shoot AFAIK. I didn't play last edition. I also think the slann is fine, but if we had access to a skink high priest (level 3) with high magic, beast and heavens it would've been wonderful since currently we have to pay top dollar in order to just get a regular lvl 4 wizard. I with said though I'm not too sure if the slann was hit too hard, maybe they should've let us have our free dicipline? Oh well..

Also, I did however agree on that there should've been *something* more to make dwarfs more interesting to play/player against, but I'm hoping that the players will be creative with what they're getting.

 

[JuQ]

Dwarf players seem to be very happy with the new magic standards and the rune system. They feel as if they were bringing the buff spell on from the start. Maybe they are now the "banner army".


Im digressing but to fix slann they basically had to tone down the casting spell in one die thing that was as abusive as the dwarf magic defense. IMO getting a +1d3 when throwing 2 or more power dice to cast a spell would have been perfect, not OP and a nice reminiscence of the old discipline.

IMO salamander is still broken, moving 6 before shooting is a big deal and the S4 template is devastating. Comparing it o the Skaven warpfire thrower, the salamander wins by a long way and also have nice stats, fear and forgiving misfires.

 

[Pinktaco]

yeah well we'll have to see how things go, they might not be as bad as some make it out to be.

Concerning the salamander you also have to consider that it's the only proper "artillery" we can field. The skavens have a lot of different choices when it comes to artillery and ranged shooting, where we are more limited.. I'm just not sure what a proper "nerf" could've been to our salamanders while still maintaining their efficiency/usefullness.

With that said though there are also times where I'm baffled by the amount of wounds a single template can do. Sometimes I feel sorry for my opponenets when that happen, and then I remember what I've lost to cannons

 

[Sleboda]

I also think the slann is fine, but if we had access to a skink high priest (level 3) with high magic, beast and heavens it would've been wonderful since currently we have to pay top dollar in order to just get a regular lvl 4 wizard.

=> Agreed. Actually, I'd have been happy to just allow a skink access to High Magic. I like that Lore a ton, but have to take a damned frog to get it.

Now that we know dwarfs are still going to have access to many dispel scrolls, I'm feeling even more pushed toward building my army a way I don't want to.

I had really been looking forward to Dwarfs getting more interesting while balancing out certain things and bringing their magic system and magic item system in line with the rest of the armies. Instead it appears they will simply have everything they had before, get more powerful, and have new kits that are pretty much auto-includes, all the while keeping the powerful rune system. Yay.

I'm just not sure what a proper "nerf" could've been to our salamanders while still maintaining their efficiency/usefullness.

=> Take away monster and handlers rules (no skinks) and make them units of 1 only that have a breath weapon (one shot per game). Keep their stats and make them 60 points each. Done.

 

[Scalenex]

I wouldn't got that far. It always bugged me that GW troops were clearly better than Saurus Warriors and Hammer's clearly better than TG yet they cost noticeably cheaper. Now they don't cost less. With more attacks their price goes up more so making giant hordes of hammerer's is less economical. Especially when you pair this with more expensive artillery.

In short, the dread Dwarven Castle will be harder to do. Also the Rune of Balance and Runesmiths in general have been nerfed so there will be fewer magic phases where they have more dispel dice then have power dice.

The Organ Gun not auto-hitting means our skirmishers can actually threaten war machines.

The dreaded castle will not work as well.

I have to look at the book to be sure, but I'm fairly optimistic our stats versus Dwarfs will improve (though they will still remain one of the harder armies to be beat with LM).

 

[Pinktaco]

Hmm I'm just wondering how expensive the hammeres are? One of the things that annoyed me with last edition dwarfs where the huge hordes making a lot of our models useless. I feel with less models on the dwarf side of the board stuff like CORs and kroxigors will have a better chance at being.. well not completely useless <.<

We'll see though. I'm still super excited on my friends behalf no matter the outcome.

 

[Lizardmatt]

I'd actually see it the other way.
Before you needed 30 hammers to get 30 attacks.
Now you need 20.
Sure, they went up a few points, but with 2 attacks in the front rank, you don't need a horde of them to be a threat. A unit of 12 throws out 18 attacks!

I think this might be the MSU book for Dwarves.
Small units of hammers and slayers to pin the opponent, a pair of deep blocks of warriors to break steadfast, and some MSU longbreads to jump into the flank with the Init 2 attacks at WS5 S5.

Add in a cannon or two for monster killing, and a Gyro or two for chaff killing, and you've got a pretty solid minimal shooting dwarf army.

-Matt

 

[Scalenex]

True Dwarves could become a good MSU army. That will still rock the status quo. My friend who plays Dwarves says Dwarves win battles over piles of bodies of their own dead. Now that will be harder. A smaller unit would actual reveal the downside of great weapons: fewer attacks back due to striking last.

 

[Pinktaco]

But I'd love smaller units <.< or maybe it's because I've just been traumatized by big hordes of WS5 and GWs

 

[JuQ]

...and a Gyro or two for chaff killing...

Gyro is not meant to kill chaff, but to lay templates on hordes.

 

[Putzfrau]

I'm just not sure what a proper "nerf" could've been to our salamanders while still maintaining their efficiency/usefullness.

=> Take away monster and handlers rules (no skinks) and make them units of 1 only that have a breath weapon (one shot per game). Keep their stats and make them 60 points each. Done.

no thank you! I would hate that change...

 

[Raymond Caleatry]

I have a copy of the new Dwarf book, and have skimmed over the rules. I think that it is a nice book that has no obviously insane things in it. On the whole, my impression is that most of the infantry are point for point better than all other armies by a small amount, but they have a massive weakness in the magic phase.

In terms of magic defences:

-Army counts as level 2 mage
-Banner can give them +2 to dispel (total of level 4 mage equivalent). It also dispels each ongoing spell on a 3+ during their magic phase.
Rune of balance sucks a power die on a 4+
-one dispel rune talisman
-one dispel and remove spell from game talisman
-Anvil gives +1 dispel and power die
-Runesmiths now channel like casters

That's about it I think.

Ray

 

[Joe]

For the first time in my life, I've decided to collect a second army (1st: LM, 2nd: Dwarfs) and i'm so exited

I already bought my collectors army book (GW fan boy...) but I live in Chile and sadly there is no GW store here, and the only reliable way to order products without paying absurd taxes, is to buy in the GW British online store and use the standard shipping.

So... I'll have to wait a looooooooot

 

[GCPD]

+1 strength on the charge and ward save on defence is a pretty big kick in the balls compared to crappy Predatory Fighter. .. all Saurus would be much more competent melee units with this. And not only do Dwarves not have to roll for it but there's no disadvantage either!

And they have a 1/3 chance for army wide hatred, which is still better than the chances of PF!

Sigh

 

[Raymond Caleatry]

+1 Strength on the charge is very situational for dwarves. Yes for us it can be very good, but for movement 3 troops, it will force them to play more aggressively, and even then they probably will not get it.

I like the rule as it will make people try to make less shooty lists. Also remember that they will not be able to shut down magic like they used to.

Ray

 

[GCPD]

Exactly. It's a situational bonus that rewards good play for overcoming a significant weakness. Getting a charge with m3 is a challenge and it's there as a nice bonus for when you do. Positive reinforcement. Equally, with the ward bonus it forces a tactical decision - charge or hold? This works both ways and it's something for the opponent to consider too. Deciding when to do which is going to form a large part of figuring out new dwarves.

This is good rules writing: not a bonus that's so marginal itst inconsequential except where it shouldn't be (making scar vets better) and ANOTHER weakness on units which already have plenty.


Look at it this way: dwarves don't charge much so they get a bonus to try to encourage more aggression. Saurus aren't too popular, so they got a rule which makes them worse and which benefits something which is auti include anyway. Further evidence that the Lizardmen book is a shambles.

 

[Sleboda]

...they have a massive weakness in the magic phase.

In terms of magic defences:

-Army counts as level 2 mage
-Banner can give them +2 to dispel (total of level 4 mage equivalent). It also dispels each ongoing spell on a 3+ during their magic phase.
Rune of balance sucks a power die on a 4+
-one dispel rune talisman
-one dispel and remove spell from game talisman
-Anvil gives +1 dispel and power die
-Runesmiths now channel like casters

=> Thanks for sharing. Gotta say, though, that your idea of a "massive weakness in the magic phase" leaves me wide-eyed.

A L4 without having and actual L4 to worry about keeping alive?
Still can steal dice?
Still can get more from channeling?
Multiple dispel scrolls?

Yikes!



As to the idea that dwarfs will be encouraged to reduce shooting, I don't see it. I'll hold final judgement until I have the book, but I don't see anything in the rumors that tells me a gunline is not the best way to go (with added gyros to kill from all new angles with more shooting).

 

[JuQ]

=> Thanks for sharing. Gotta say, though, that your idea of a "massive weakness in the magic phase" leaves me wide-eyed.

A L4 without having and actual L4 to worry about keeping alive?
Still can steal dice?
Still can get more from channeling?
Multiple dispel scrolls?

Yikes!

They have to spend their BSB on it that rune and keep him alive, AFAIK, and it doesn't represent any other threat to the enemy.
It's only one die and half of the turns, it isn't that bad. The problem is when on top of that they had an additional die for each Runesmith without having to roll to channel.
Taking in consideration the purpose of the runesmiths is magic defense, briging a guy that would only bring a single dispell die during the battle on a random turn, it's really lame. Now they also give melee Armor Piercing and Magic Resistance (1) to the unit he is in, wich is also poor comparing to the Empire Warrior Priests (channel, hatred to unit, innate bound spells), but those guys are insanely good.
Still fewer dispell scrolls than before.

So yeah, it is a big hit on their magic resistance.

 

[Raymond Caleatry]

OK, so when I said weakness I meant that they do not have really any offensive magic. No power spells like dwellers, pit, etc. Technically they can have nearly unlimited dispel scrolls, but only one per rune priest. I remember before that you could stack dispel runes on items. This is no longer, so it essentially costs them 85+ points per scroll. This is much like regular armies except that the runesmiths can't cast magic, instead providing armour piercing to any unit they join. I may see two rune smiths in a 2400 point game, but I suspect that 3 will be rare.

That said, I predict that there will be a lot of rage, saying that they have broken runes, etc. I do think that they are powerful, and at face value the runes offer massive flexibility. However, you have to pay for it. Looking over the runes, I can quickly see costs spiralling out of control.

Ray

 

[Tecuani]

Exactly. It's a situational bonus that rewards good play for overcoming a significant weakness. Getting a charge with m3 is a challenge and it's there as a nice bonus for when you do. Positive reinforcement. Equally, with the ward bonus it forces a tactical decision - charge or hold? This works both ways and it's something for the opponent to consider too. Deciding when to do which is going to form a large part of figuring out new dwarves.

This is good rules writing: not a bonus that's so marginal itst inconsequential except where it shouldn't be (making scar vets better) and ANOTHER weakness on units which already have plenty.


Look at it this way: dwarves don't charge much so they get a bonus to try to encourage more aggression. Saurus aren't too popular, so they got a rule which makes them worse and which benefits something which is auti include anyway. Further evidence that the Lizardmen book is a shambles.

Problem is, it isn't encouraging them to play aggressively, it's encouraging them to charge. Not quite the same thing, and in this case movement three infantry don't get the charge against faster opponents by marching straight forward into their superior charge range. They get the charge my making the enemy come to them, and hope to either roll well on the turn he enters charge range, or else trick him into leaving himself exposed. In short, through defensive tactics.
More importantly, the factors which currently straight-jacket dwarves into a defensive playing style are still there. There are still a lot of opponents they can only deal with shooting, and they're still an army composed of M3 infantry and artillery. In fact, with the removal of the anvil of doom and the master rune of challenge, and the movement of rangers from core to rare, the new book is if anything more limited in its movement options.
With the organ gun rolling to hit and thunderers losing their bonus, chameleon skinks might become a real pain for dwarves to deal with, but they'll have to be wary of gyrocopters, and the occasional dwarf character wielding a flaming breath weapon.