Ho, Dwarves! Lend me your ears and minds for a while!

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Squigkikka wrote:

    The problem as I see it is that fluff players aren't as engaged in the process as tournament players are, just because they are more carefree about the game- or that's my theory, anyway.


    So when a unit in the armybook goes by unused by a lot of players on the forums or in the places I play, what's a designer to do? I don't think I've ever seen someone come onto the forums and say "Hello, I really really like Hold Guardians despite them not being very good" or "I've built up an entire campaign around a band of Forge Wardens, changing them would destroy everything!".
    Certainly not at this point of the project. At Bugman's Brewery, we used to have lots of people doing just that - making lists around their favourite unit for the heck of it, adamantly refusing to use black powder weapons for fluff reasons, maintaining detailed books of grudges, etc.

    Those players were very engaged and very vocal whenever a new edition came out and did something they didn't like, and especially during End Times :D

    But you're right, they're not world builders, nor are they balance tweakers. I speculate that we might not see so many of them here because I doubt they have the stomach to see how the sausage is being made, where nothing is sacred and everything is subject to change if the data supports it.

    On the one hand, we need the FAB to come out in order to draw these people back in. But on the other hand, any changes to the FAB, for balance reasons or otherwise, would risk driving them away again just as fast; a premature FAB that doesn't quite hit the mark could easily do more harm than good.

    Sounds like another one of them Catch 22 thingies to me.
  • I've had word that the Dwarven Holds Armybook is more or less fully FAB worthy, with very little to nothing left to do. I think the only unit left that I'd like to do something with is the Engineer, as I've mentioned before- I want to move the warmachine boost part to a WM individual upgrade so it can be priced correctly, and I'd like to rework the Engineer so he has more terrain/battlefield manipulation as power. Like a Sapper, of some kind.

    Other than that, the DH armybook could in theory fairly safely be set in stone. DH isn't up next on the chopping block for the full rework, although I'm certainly doing the best I can (read: arewethereyetarewethereyetarewethereyet) to not-so-subtly hint I'd love the full thing :P
  • Squigkikka wrote:

    I've had word that the Dwarven Holds Armybook is more or less fully FAB worthy, with very little to nothing left to do. I think the only unit left that I'd like to do something with is the Engineer, as I've mentioned before- I want to move the warmachine boost part to a WM individual upgrade so it can be priced correctly, and I'd like to rework the Engineer so he has more terrain/battlefield manipulation as power. Like a Sapper, of some kind.

    Other than that, the DH armybook could in theory fairly safely be set in stone. DH isn't up next on the chopping block for the full rework, although I'm certainly doing the best I can (read: arewethereyetarewethereyetarewethereyet) to not-so-subtly hint I'd love the full thing :P
    I could be misinterpreting what you're saying here, but does this mean that not all books will necessarily go through changes as radical as the WDG book went through?
    Probably the Least Useless Player in the World - International Herminard Poll 2018
  • youngseward wrote:

    I could be misinterpreting what you're saying here, but does this mean that not all books will necessarily go through changes as radical as the WDG book went through?
    Well, we're pretty much where we should be according to ASAW and the book is quite well balanced both internally and externally. There's uniqueness in the way it works (Bound magic, infantry based to the point of obstinacy etc) and it doesn't rely as much as say, WODG on concepts that can be tied to WHFB.

    So yeah! I mean, Sylvan Elves got a bloody armybook and they're way more messy than we are! :P
  • It doesn't differ from what T9A has stated, it's just that the DH book has evolved through the years until it indeed is a very different book from where we began :)

    Current DH fits the 9th Age idea of how Dwarves should be, almost to a tee!

    Not all books are quite there yet. All I know is I want the ridiculously talented background + art team to draw us some of the sickest Dwarves seen yet so I can get really hyped :x
  • Squigkikka wrote:

    It doesn't differ from what T9A has stated, it's just that the DH book has evolved through the years until it indeed is a very different book from where we began :)

    Current DH fits the 9th Age idea of how Dwarves should be, almost to a tee!

    Not all books are quite there yet. All I know is I want the ridiculously talented background + art team to draw us some of the sickest Dwarves seen yet so I can get really hyped :x
    So, the DH book will only bring us background + art and some minor changes.
    Any option to new cool units?
  • Kreln wrote:

    I' with Berti, I hate using magic and I'm only forced to use the stupid bound spells when I want to play compettitive... Friendly games is no magic for me!
    I don't think you're forced to use magic in competitive games, DH has a great toolbox even without it! I don't fault people for bringing it though, missing out on a whole phase of the game isn't usually that much fun!

    gerardo9 wrote:

    Squigkikka wrote:

    It doesn't differ from what T9A has stated, it's just that the DH book has evolved through the years until it indeed is a very different book from where we began :)

    Current DH fits the 9th Age idea of how Dwarves should be, almost to a tee!

    Not all books are quite there yet. All I know is I want the ridiculously talented background + art team to draw us some of the sickest Dwarves seen yet so I can get really hyped :x
    So, the DH book will only bring us background + art and some minor changes.Any option to new cool units?
    That's not what I said, man! There's still stuff that's likely going to be tweaked, it's just no overhaul. New cool units? I seriously doubt that, we've already added three new units under the course of 9th! Vengeance Seeker, Hold Guardians and Grudge Busters are all new inventions- DH has received the most influx of new stuff out of all armybooks :)

    I think you'll have to look for auxiliary and supplement armies for new unit types! Just like Åsklanders is a whole new spin on WODG, so there could be thematically different Dwarven armies that may cater to particular unit types such as cavalry and so on in the future!
  • Kreln wrote:

    I' with Berti, I hate using magic and I'm only forced to use the stupid bound spells when I want to play compettitive... Friendly games is no magic for me!
    But we should wait to the full DH bpok to see the background of 9th age dwarves.

    For example for me, dwarves are a stubborn, resilance and grudgeprone race of miners, smiths, engineers and beerdrinkers. In this definition full magic phase is wellcome as other taboo adition like monsters, cavalry, ...
  • Squigkikka wrote:

    I don't think you're forced to use magic in competitive games, DH has a great toolbox even without it! I don't fault people for bringing it though, missing out on a whole phase of the game isn't usually that much fun!
    However, to play dwarves as "anti-magic" you need to bring dwarven magic, as the anti-magic is baked into one of the battle runes, and the MR of the magic casting smith, along with the spell nom-nom rune. With bound spells as they are, that anti-magic bound spell only really works when you have the threat of other magic, so it's a catch-22.

    gerardo9 wrote:

    But we should wait to the full DH bpok to see the background of 9th age dwarves.
    For example for me, dwarves are a stubborn, resilance and grudgeprone race of miners, smiths, engineers and beerdrinkers. In this definition full magic phase is wellcome as other taboo adition like monsters, cavalry, ...
    True, direction could go anywhere, but then the game as a whole would have every army participating in magic. Should VC get archers so they can participate in the shooting phase? After all they are dead, shambling, vampires, and spooky, nothing about that fits the no shooting taboo. If every army has a little bit of everything, then making 16 unique armies becomes a whole lot harder. Some may see phase exclusion for army uniqueness as design laziness, perhaps they are right, I personally like that approach.
  • The Beninator wrote:

    However, to play dwarves as "anti-magic" you need to bring dwarven magic, as the anti-magic is baked into one of the battle runes, and the MR of the magic casting smith, along with the spell nom-nom rune. With bound spells as they are, that anti-magic bound spell only really works when you have the threat of other magic, so it's a catch-22.
    I can't say I agree with that one bit! HooM is given to us for 'free'. Rune of Denial can be brought on any character. Runic Smiths do not inherently pay for their Battle Runes, unlike other wizards, which lets you bring one solely for the MR1, +AP1 and access to the exclusive anti-magic Runes they have.

    There's plenty of anti-magic you be had without going for the Rune of Revocation. Between a Smith and another character, you can load up on:

    - Rune of Denial
    - Rune of Devouring
    - Rune of Grounding/Harnessing

    That's pretty damn nasty for saying "Not today" to enemy magic :P Without as much as touching a Dwarven magic phase! You're free to invest in BRoRevocation if you'd like, but I'd hardly call that one mandatory for our anti-magic.

    Kreln wrote:

    IMO you need magic/bound spells for boosts.. and I don't know why if we 'have' magic phase w don't have even one offensive spell??? I'd rather we didn't have magic at all or have a full magic phase. btw I prefer not to have one.
    Because Dwarves as racial/fluff thing aren't magically inclined the way other factions are, and instead bind their magic in Runes that give them new properties which I think makes them suitably unique and less reliant on magic to provide certain tools. That's why we've tried to make sure a magic-less army has all the tools it needs to deal with enemies- when Anvil spells were lost, we sought to provide the chaff/skirmish hunting through Forge Wardens instead.

    Personally I think DH are one of the factions most capable of not including a magic phase into our armies, not in the least because our magic phase is weaker and more toned down than others.
  • Hrmmm,
    Good point. You win this time @Squigkikka

    On the point of not inherently paying for Runes, is that really true? I mean, most bound spells cost more than 20 pts in other books. I have a suspicion that there is a subsidy for the runes in the RS. But that's a pretty minor point (maybe 20-30 points at most) and is probably not worth any meaningful effort to adjust. The RS buffs are hard as heck to price, so comparing to a thane is apples and oranges I guess.

    I personally don't take any of that rubbish. I take the pain of the opponents magic phase like a man dwarf. Therefore my opinion is null.
  • Yes, Dwarf Bound Spells are a little bit cheaper and a little bit more powerful (5/8) than your average Bound Spell stuff! The reason for that is the entire DH Magic Phase is built around Bound Spells and thus weaker, while other Bound Spells are taken in support of a lore-based Magic Phase and thus more powerful in comparison.

    We're looking to make Dwarf Magic a little bit more exciting and involved though, but I'm trying to keep my lips sealed on that until I know more (and have gotten RTs thumbs up on the proposal we've made).