# Are dwarfs a weak army?



## Kuffy (Oct 15, 2008)

Before I go on, I wish to explain about me. I have been in the hobby for eleven years, but due to various conditions (ie having no opponents) I have not really played much. Thus I have looked to painting more than gaming. I have one Fantasy army, and that is Dwarfs. I love them and find their background so good, along with the newest range which I felt in many cases have captured the essence of the Dwarf race.

This aside....

If you have not, I would suggest you listen to this podcast by Podhammer. It is based on dwarfs, and they seem to have come to numerous conclusions.


 Dwarfs are not a competitive army. 
 They have two main 'working' builds; Anvil or Gunline
 You can never win big with them
 They're just not a good army


The Dwarf book was the one of, if not the, last 6th edition book to be made, but does this make them flawed in the 7th edition era? I know the podcast is biased towards tournaments, but many of their points seem valid. Are the Dwarfs flexible without the Anvil? Yes, we can march now - a much more popular build - but it appears that gamers complain because the Anvil is "broken" or "beardy". The one unit that actually adds a new dimension to the army is the most frowned upon unit now. The other build that works is the gunline, again people complain as you just sit there and use the impressive dwarf missile fire.

I think perhaps the problem is that Dwarfs lack flexibility. There are two units that can get across the board quickly (gyrocopter and miners), but only really the gyros have that flexibility. The anvil adds this extra dimension, allowing movement for the Dwarfs to position stuff. Its sad that this is required. I know its part of their character, but things like rangers and miners could add good flexibility to the army, but the rules fail that.

One of our impressive strengths has always been anti-magic and tough infantry. The anti-magic now days never seems enough. I have seen numerous army builds of VC, WoC, DoC that have so much magic they can easily overpower the Dwarf anti-magic. Can Dwarfs really compete these days with the heavy swathes of magic being thrown around the game now.

I have waffled a lot. So, what do you members think? Are Dwarfs competitive, or should people shelve them until GW get around to the book once more?


Kuffy


----------



## Othiem (Apr 20, 2008)

The only point I really agree on is number 3, unfortunately that is enough to make them struggle in tournaments. Your basic dwarven warrior is a great unit with a lot of options, and with the longbeard upgrade you get a powerful core unit as well. All of the special melee units are great as well. The flexibility of the rune system means that dwarven options for magic gear is still one of the best. 

Regarding the anvil, the anvil is fine. Looking down on the anvil is like saying no to hydras, the popemobile, elf on a dragon, or many of the other centerpiece units in nearly every army. Thorek on the other hand is an asshole. But a straight up runelord with an anvil, go for it. 

I agree dwarf antimagic isn't what it used to be, but you can remedy this by taking a few more runepriests and come up with an above averge number of dispell dice while still not sacrificing too much in the melee department. It's not just dwarves who get overpowered by the newer armies magic phases, it's most everybody. 

The real problem dwarves have at competitive levels is that scoring not based on win or lose, but by how much you won or lost by. Without any cavalry units and their relentless penalty, dwarves running down fleeing units is really hit or miss. This results in games which often are a tactical massacre for the dwarves, however they are scored as a marginal victory at best.

Unless you are out to build a list to win major tourneys, keep playing the dwarves, they are a fun and competitive army outside of tournament scoring systems.


----------



## Wiccus (Jun 2, 2008)

Dwarves are a damn good army. I have played against them a lot and had my ass handed to me a lot. I do agree that they never really "win big" but I have seen them win much more often than I have seen them lose. I would say keep playing them they are completely valid.


----------



## squeek (Jun 8, 2008)

I would agree with Othiem. Buildwise to deny Dwarf generals the use of anvils or gunlines is absurd, bordering on stupid. A Thorek gunline list is cheese, an anvil or standard gunline is playing Dwarfs to their strengths. Even then, Thorek is legal, so no-one can tell you not to use him, it is just a bit dull to always use him.

You are right about the Dwarf book, they were the very last book in 6th, written as a book for 7th in the nerf era. At one point they were the army to beat. It is likely they will be one of the first books in or around 8th as well, which may go some way to helping against top tier.

Regarding DoC, VC and DE, and to some degree WoC now; they are top tier and their magic can be dominating but, other than DE, their shooting is generally sub-par. DE are glass cannons and even the other lists suffer badly to good cannon sniping. Play to their advantages and they are reasonably competitive, they will struggle against top tier, particularly with scoring as Othiem mentioned, but then most armies struggle against top tier.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

I don't think that Dwarves can be called a weak army by any stretch of the imagination.
Of all the armies I have played (which over 16 years is most of them) Dwarf armies are one of the most resiliant forces in the game and one the the most customisable with their runes and can be set up to destroy any army build.
The main problem with Dwarf armies is the fact that because of their defensive oriented units its difficult to overwhelm an army completely and score big at tournies but they rarely lose big in any type of game.
Seeing how the army books are going at the moment though with the last 4 dominating the top tier by the time the Dwarves are rereleased they should be even more difficult to dislodge.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Kuffy said:


> The Dwarf book was the one of, if not the, last 6th edition book to be made, but does this make them flawed in the 7th edition era?...


No, that this detail would affect is an assumption, and assumption is the mother of all fuck ups.
Dwarves was the last book to be remade yes, but it was made so whilst 7th was play tested. Dwarves was released like 3 months prior to 7th ed was. The book is intended for 7th and aint flawed there. The only thing folks can wrinkle the nose at is the Organ Gun detail(which is at the +side), that Organ Guns currently is the only "auto-hit weapon" in the game(not counting salamanders since nerf bat hits them hard very soon). I do believe that its intended that way tho. Dwarves are supposed to have the best artillery in the game!

If you want a chance of winning big you should take an Anvil yes. That extra move it allows is a *HUGE* boost for dwarves!
Dwarves are static yes, but this simply means that you need to have enough shooting in the army so that the opponent dont want to dabble around alot in his movement phase. If you dont shoot enough then you will get out-manouvred and then end up in hopeless combats. This will ofc lead to the "booring Dwarf gunline" idea but thats how it "need" to be played to work decent, just make sure you include some elite units to win combat for you:good:


----------



## Kuffy (Oct 15, 2008)

Cheers guys, I was just curious after hearing that podcast about how they view Dwarfs as a bad army. I'm never going to stop collecting Dwarfs, as they are my first army and always will be. I just need to play more.

I was really just curious how the Dwarf army holds up against the current competition on the battlefield, especially the newer armies (but I guess as said, all armies suffer against these).

Kuffy


----------



## rob12763 (May 2, 2008)

Slow yes but rock hard against my Orcs and goblins as they are a hated opponet.Rob


----------



## Spot The Grot (Jul 15, 2008)

Dwarves are an overpowered race. High toughness , good WS and a good strength for their special choices.Also they get gunpowder and siege engines.And on top of all this most of their guys especialy warriors are rediculously cheap for what they can pull off.

Their only true drawback is their movement.But due to their playstyle of a stationary gunline their is little need to actualy move.Meaning this drawback is rarely evident.

This is not to say that there are strategies to kill them.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

Dwarves turned me off from WHFB for a long time. I've played something stupid like 150 games against Dwarves, and lost -every- single one. I know it's not me, either, because I could win against any other army.


----------



## Lord Sinkoran (Dec 23, 2006)

Dwarves are a good army but with their slow movement most players have difficulty knowing how to menoeuvre them.


----------



## Ragnar4 (Jan 3, 2009)

The problem for Dwarfs is, has been, and will always be: Movement. M of 6 just isn't that good. Imagine for a moment, an opponent who only uses his shock troops to knock off your gunlines, and render your artillary useless, and then run like the coward he is from the rest of your dead hard units. You can't march fast enough to get to grips.

The best players in the world realize that all of the winning in Warhammer is done in the Movement phase.


----------



## iron panda (Jan 7, 2009)

A while back, I faced a cunning dwarf player with a beastman heavy minotaur army and I got to admit, this gave me a new perspective on them. Originally started with Dwarfs back in the last edition and indeed, their glaring shortcoming is their low movement. However, after facing them, their strengths became more apparent. I felt like I was grinding my units to bits into them! Their rock hard infantry and high leadership can reliably (for the most part) stand their ground. Their artillery units are no slouch either as they can inflict so much damage in the shooting phase. 

All in all, proper deployment is the most important aspect for Dwarfs. It can minimize their weakness while emphasizing their advantages.


----------



## mgtymouze (Dec 7, 2007)

Ragnar4 said:


> The best players in the world realize that all of the winning in Warhammer is done in the Movement phase.





iron panda said:


> All in all, proper deployment is the most important aspect for Dwarfs. It can minimize their weakness while emphasizing their advantages.


Both these points are true IMO. One of the most confusing things I do as a dwarf player is advance. I cannot count the number of times I have heard, "you're moving?" during the first movement phase. If I decide to take an anvil this makes movement and attacking so much easier. With the right combination of runes and luck with my anvil strikes I can have up to 3 units 18" forward in the first movement phase.

Deployment is also key because you want to keep your fields of fire open as your units advance. Castleing is an option, but for me leads to a boring game for both players.

Last years 'ard boys tournament saw my stunties doing extremely well in the first two games. I was outshot and out maneuvered by an empire army in the third game (also was beaten by psychology before third game even started). So I would say NO they are not a weak army: they just require a deliberate playstyle that takes time to master.


----------



## Ancient Tiel' a fier (May 5, 2008)

I completely disagree. Dwarfs are one of the best armies for potential and can definately win big. I took mine to battlefields and they are niether gun line nor do i use an anvil, yet i claimed some shocking VP's tallys. Aside from the obvious applications of dwarfs there are many other army structures available.


----------



## iron panda (Jan 7, 2009)

Ancient Tiel' a fier said:


> I completely disagree. Dwarfs are one of the best armies for potential and can definately win big. I took mine to battlefields and they are niether gun line nor do i use an anvil, yet i claimed some shocking VP's tallys. Aside from the obvious applications of dwarfs there are many other army structures available.



A while back, I fiddled around with an offensive horde type dwarf list composing mostly of dwarf warriors with shields and full command, miners, a gyrocopter and couple of bolt throwers with an engineer and rune of penetrating/rune of burning upgrades. Pretty much surprised my opponent as they stretched across the board and proceeded to advance. It was a battle of attrition and with some lucky break tests, (man, they were close!) managed to save the day. 

Another set up was the detachment style, in which a big block of warriors were supported by a smaller detachment of warriors or quarellers. Only played a couple of games with this tactic, but after managing draws, it shows promise.


All in all, Dwarfs may have the traditional one dimensional defensive-like strategies, but they can be used in other tactics as well.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

I recently fought against a Dwarf army that was set up as a wall that just marched forward 6" each turn with the board edge anchoring 1 side and ironbreakers the vunerable flank. As it just advanced enmass with each unit protecting the next units flanks there wasn't that much outmanuevering or baiting to do and as he had every intention of just steamrollering in 1 straight line across the battlefield he didn't have to worry about catching fleeing troops as they soon ran out of space.


----------

