Nugget of info gleaned.

  • Fnarrr wrote:



    The stubborn is interesting, but very abusable! Charging chaff congalines?
    The same effect can be achieved with CR bonuses, however those also help offensively in the right circumstance.
    I had the same idea as Salgar (Stubborn Charge), and I think it has a lot of utility which can balance the loss of +1S, if tested for unintended play. I quite like the thought, even if Seekers seem to miss out on its use (apart from ignoring negative combat score to a combat reform discipline test.)

    More expendable units would become chaffy roadblocks, but as mentioned toying with unit sizes and such is sure to help. Or attach the Stubborn charge to a minimum number of ranks, etc. Congalines are easily prevented by tying the rule to ranks, like the KoE Grails who no longer gain all their rules if not at least three models wide. (more supporting attacks, me thinks?)

    A proposal like this interests me, because it trades a unit for a turn of mobility. Unit goes in and holds up the enemy until your next charge phase (hopefully), allowing you to position your other troops. To an army that does not have a lot of mobility, this is great and I like the fact it must be gained through your actions in the game.

    "What are you beards doing? The fights is this way! Bah, we'll hold 'em off till ye're done slacking!"
    Painting stuff: Sabious' Crafts - Painting, terrain, etc.
    Offsite complete collection sabiousblog.wordpress.com/
  • TC affects all units that have it from S3 to S6, from skirmishing or 10 models units or even single model units to units of 30 or more models. Each army contains units with T5 or more or with 3+ Sv or better (or both). So potentially every DH unit can get some profit from this rule no matter their size, Strenght, who are they playing against or if it's part of more offensive oriented or gunline or avoidance list. Sometimes bigger, sometimes less, but potentially always you can find use of this rule.

    So when thinking about replacing it please have in mind so that the new buff will affect our units on every field that current TC does such as those that i have listed above.

    Giving our units straight TC (battle focus) could be a little to much in some cases (Slayers with hatred for example). But in the same way as Orcs have their +1S in first turn and in next they have conditions to make to maintain this buff we could think of something simmilar. We can't relay on most of conditions that many of you stated before because not all units will have a chance to fulfill such requirement sometimes due to their Armybook limitations and sometimes because the way we construct our lists. Let this rule be something added to our units, not something that will force us to build our lists around it. Where our strenght is in my opinion and what all our units have, no matter the size, Strenght, unit composition or what we are playing against is our Discipline. In the same manner as orcs fight in big units and can punch really hard it is quite easy for them to maintain their buff our units could have condition that if they pass Discipline test at the start of the combat thay can maintain their Battle Focus for next round. Of course bigger units with more attacks will get bigger profit from this but we have the same situation now with +1S/AP and smaller units even though have much less attacks still can find themselves in situations when this rule could get handy playing with most of armies.

    In this situation instead of +1S/AP in charge which gives our unit quite big advantage but only turn 1 we would get weaker buff but based on our strong side (Discipline which is representing our stubborness) that will make our units more "grindy"
  • The idea of devastating charge (stubborn) with a good hatred, not being the same thing, makes me feel like butterflies in my stomach. He feels very short and very active. Do not dismiss this idea too quickly, there are ways to limit it. I don't think that to have rows is a good limit, precisely the fewer dwarves there are left, the more stubborn they should be, mail that with front of 5 to activate is enough, and increase the minimums at least the basic ones. Warriors at 15 or 20 and beard 15.
  • Dude no, you can start pinning units in place with frontal charges with 200pt warrior darts, we are going to have to go through so many hoops and clarifications to make sure this isn't abuseable that it becomes a massive mess.

    The suicidal dwarfs already can become seekers and pull this stuff off; they are priced accordingly.

    On top of that, this does nothing to encourage you to initiate a combat that is borderline, which is what the design purpose of Sturdy is.
    Even with suicide chaff, you can just sit in front of the unit instead of running into it and being stubborn.

    "What will make me charge rather than sit and take the charge from the same unit after shooting it"

    ^ this is the brief guys. This is why a charge bonus exists. Anything that doesn't fulfill it is just a bonus that goes against ASAW without having a real purpose, and is therefore automatically a bad idea.
    Hristo Nikolov
  • lets assume hatred from grudge stays as is.

    does battle focus (for one round )weaker than TC? Yes
    does conditional battle focus for all combat if unit charged is conparable to TC? I think it is, as its weaker for one turn but its more about army grinding power.
    Also it is something that synergises with hatred (and dwarf rune magic), so thats my previous assumption. Both rules are in book for different reasons but both afect one another. Replacing both should be followed by addition of two synergised rules as well.



    One more Word about some rules being dwarfy or not. For example hatred and poison. When you look at names of abilities hatred seem so dwarfy while poison doesnt. But If you look at skills resolution, one may say oposite, judging by how dwarfs should be about grinding.
    So, when suggesting solutions I would be more focused about skills properties, not their names.
    If fight was fair, you have planned something wrong
  • New

    I wouldn't worry about Rune Magic and synergies.

    We aren't going to change Sturdy for the current book; this is brainstorming for the eventual update.

    And the design order would mean the AWSRs come pretty early on.
    Details, like the exact spells, come much later.

    So, for example (and I'm not saying this is what would happen, or that its a good idea):

    Lets say +1S/+1Ap is replaced by getting Distracting on the charge.
    Lets say Hatred for Grudges is replaced by rerolling hits all the time.

    Clearly, at that point the Runes which provide these effects are no longer a good spell to have, because they don't synnergise.
    So, we change the runes!
    We can have the reroll hits Spell be +1S / +1 AP.
    We can have the Distracting spell be some completely different defensive buff, like +1 armour and +1 aegis. Or, if the army AWSRs are more defensive now, we can focus our spell deck on having more offensive buffs, like +1 to hit & divine attacks.


    I don't know if those examples are suitable and they are probably not balanced; the point I was after is that AWSRs are one of the first things to be looked at for the army, so they will be dictating the details rather than the other way around; so don't let those hamstring your creativity :)
    Hristo Nikolov
  • New

    +1 to AS for DH is a damn must have in the future full book and I will do my best to see it happen or you will no longer call me DH ACS :charge2:
    Northern Dwarfs Armybook in the Homebrew Section.

    Northern Dwarfs ADT

    The King in the North

    Furthermore, I consider that Carthage Norther Dwarfs Armybook must be destroyed made official! - Vitnar Ironbeard
  • New

    Fnarrr wrote:

    'm pretty opposed to that, 2+ Save infantry units are just a pain to price, and will most likely end up too expensive for anyone's taste

    I think bringing in a plate-armoured unit into core is something that can be on the table though, for those people who want a heavily-armoured dwarf army with 3+ save across the board.
    3+ save which ignores the 1st level of AP ? better than "mundane" 3+ but worst than straight 2+.
  • New

    It suddenly dawned on me after reading all the posts from everyone talking about wanting the dwarves to be more grindy...... why not give them a special grind attack. For each rank in a dwarven unit do a single grind attack at the unit strength at Agility step 0. This represents them just wading into the enemy with abandon. I am not sure this really will make people want to charge ... but it makes sense from a fluff perspective.

    Another idea to replace grudges is make grudges so that we know that enemy unit so well that nothing they do surprises us. We have studied them to get revenge so we gain 2 OS and 2 DS verse that unit.

    Not sure how great these ideas are but maybe they will spark something creative from you all.
  • New

    Grinding ability to work as grinding army strength? Get out with that logic of yours cracken :D

    Honestly, I like that notion quite a bit :)
    Northern Dwarfs Armybook in the Homebrew Section.

    Northern Dwarfs ADT

    The King in the North

    Furthermore, I consider that Carthage Norther Dwarfs Armybook must be destroyed made official! - Vitnar Ironbeard
  • New

    As a fairly new dwarf player but a longtime fantasy and gaming nerd I feel that the combination of Sturdy and Shieldwall is both thematically correct and makes sense ruleswise. Sure, I can stand here and get a 5++ save if the enemy charges me OR I can risk getting myself baited, surrounded and multicharged by attempting a charge but if I do make that charge I will get +1 S & AP. Movement 3 is a great equalizer. :) Especially since you very rarely will attack before something else anyways.

    As for the S7 issue, sure, that is quite powerful but it is very circumstantial and unreliable. As mentioned, HBE can get the same thing. Anything with Pyromancy or Shamanism can easily get similar (or better) effects. :/

    And more importantly, I don't see why there is a need to get rid of it. Is there a huge problem with DH always winning due to successful charges?
  • New

    Through a spell buddy. Right now with -1 to wound, we have potentially, conditionally T5 or T6 units and it seems to work.

    EoS has 3+ AS imperial guard and you can buff their armour thorough metallurgy, that also somehow is allowed.

    Nothing fits more thematically than Dwarfs having uber armour.
    Northern Dwarfs Armybook in the Homebrew Section.

    Northern Dwarfs ADT

    The King in the North

    Furthermore, I consider that Carthage Norther Dwarfs Armybook must be destroyed made official! - Vitnar Ironbeard

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Vitnar ().

  • New

    FYI the main reason there isn't an armour buff spell is because +1 armour is too poor compared to the other 2 defensive spells, but +2 armour is too good. Rerolls was too poor. +1 Armour and rerolls would be too good.

    I think +1 armour and +1 Aegis might be on par, someone fancy mathing this out?

    Then you could slap it on a Banner of Wisdom on a Deep Watch unit and get 2+/4++ DW. Imagine how happy Kroms will be.
    Hristo Nikolov