The most up-to-date preview picture:

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3...rfpreview4.png

--Stats for the weakest unit, the Clansdwarf (aka a template of sorts).
Hp - 13 (Smaller than humans, but much tougher)
Prot - 3 (tough little sods)
str - 11 (dwarfs are clearly strong given their weapons/armour)
att - 11/12 (all skilled fighters)
def - 10 (skilled, but lower initiative)
ap - 8 (with the armour, this makes them a very slow army)
mr - 13 (dwarfs are famed for resisting magic)
mor - 14 (They have the best morale in Warhammer)
gcost - 15 (Clearly higher than regular troops and dwarves are quite few in number)
prec - 10/11 (dwarfs like ranged combat almost as much as melee)
mapmove - 2 (although slow in battle, they have great endurance and tunnel systems)
enc - 2 (dwarfs don't tire easily)
size - 2 (though short, dwarfs have quite high mass and do not swarm)

Other abilities

Darkvision 50%
Mountain Survival
Shockres 50%
Siegebonus 2 (All dwarfs have knowledge of siege warfare, also allows them to break fortresses with fever numbers)
Castledef 3 (dwarfs are experts in defensive tactics)


THE NATION SHOULD

Emphasise defence and patient warfare - good PD and forts
Not outnumber most enemies or win through numbers
Be powerful both at range and in melee
Have top notch forging but not battlemagic
Have superior equipment and a strong emphasis on resources
Be relatively capital centric
Not take losses lightly
Be totally drain immune


UNITS

Clansdwarf (medium armour, shield, dwarf axe)
Heavy Clansdwarf (heavy armour, shield, dwarf axe)
Clansdwarf Crossbow (light armour, dwarf crossbow, dwarf axe)
Heavy Clansdwarf Crossbow (medium armour, dwarf arbalest, dwarf axe)
Longbeard (heavy armour, shield, dwarf axe - superb morale, standard effect, good stats, but are borderline old age.)
Ironbreaker (very heavy armour, shield, dwarf warhammer - resists various nasty things)
Ranger (medium armour, Dwarf Greataxe, 2x Dwarf throwing axe - stealth, forest survival)
Miner (heavy armour, dwarf pickaxe - stealth, siegebonus, mapmove 3)
Slayer (no armour, slayer axe + slayer axe - morale 30, berserk, high str, weapons that deal extra damage to larger foes)
Hammerer (heavy armour, two-handed hammer) - Elite, nearly unbreakable with insane morale, but only mapmove 1 (they are home guards)
Rune Guard (very heavy armour, shield, runeaxe - elite, sacred, mapmove 1, cap only)


LEADERS

Ranger Champion - scout with 40 leadership to lead stealthy rangers.
Prospector - Stealthy, map move 3, calls some miners to the edges of the battlefield in each combat.
Thane (great leader)
Giant Slayer (poor leader, good thug)
King (sacred, superb leader, starts with magic gear, thuggish, standard, cap only)
Journeyman Runesmith (Sacred, E2H1, forge 10, drain immune)
Runesmith (sacred, E2H2, 100% E/F/S random, 10% A/E/F/W random, forge 20, high casting encumberance, mapmove 1, drain immune)
Rune Lord (sacred, cap only, expensive, E3F1H2, 100% E/F/S random, 10% A/E/F/W random, forge 30, drain immune, mapmove 1)
Engineer (E1A1F1, Massive siegebonus and castledef, uses "dwarven arbalest", making him a quite of an sniper, very expensive in resources, not drain immune like rune smiths)

Summons:

Daemon Slayer Thaumathurgy level 5 S2H3- Thug incarnate, perhaps even SC with the right gear
Anvil of Doom Enchantment level 7 E6H3- Summons a Runelord, using a great runic artefact. He's a magic caster that does not get penalties in combat, very high and diverse magic (F2E2A2W2S3H4), expensive as hell to summon. Immobile (but able to Teleport/ Cloud Trapeze).
Last Anvil of the Dwarrows Enchantment level 9 E7H3 - Summons Thorek Ironbrow and along with the most ancient anvil of doom. Unique summon, very expensive, but has F3E3A3W3S4D2H4. Immobile (but able to Teleport/ Cloud Trapeze).
Distill Thunder Alteration level 4, 1A1E - Summons a dwarf armed with "Thunder Staff", works much like thunder throwing of Storm Daemons.
Distill Flame Alteration level 4, 1F1A - A dwarf armed with a runic "Dragon Staff", low range, but accurate and powerful. The staff can also be used in melee as a flaming weapon.

Spells:

Rune of Grimnir* Thaumathurgy level 3 - E1H2 - Berserks and hastes and str boosts some allied troops around the caster, including him, modded to be only casted on command
Rune of Valaya** Enchantment level 3 E1H2 - Heals troops and boosts morale
Rune of Grungni*** Construction level 3 E1H2 - Basically Legions of Steel that is easer to cast. Rarely gives armour piercing weapons (as an mr negates easily effect)
Grudgestone Evocation level 3 E1H1- Throws a big boulder on enemies. Survivors will be cursed.
Rune of Fire Enchantment level 7 F2H4- nasty combat evocation, intended for the anvils
Rune of Earth Enchantment level 7 E2H4 - Causes curse of stones and earth meld ,intended for the anvils
Rune of Water Enchantment level 7 W2H4 - Rusts armor and slimes, intended for the anvils
Rune of Thunder Enchantment level 7 A2H4 -nasty combat evocation, intended for the anvils
Rune of Doom Enchantment level 9 D2H4 - Casts Darkness, curses all opponens and calls worth ghosts of Dwarrow Ancestors to fight in the battle.

*Dwarven god of war and grudges
**Dwarven female god of home and family
***Dwarven god of craftmanship

Pretenders:
-Mother of All ("Valaya") 50pt base, medicore combat stats, dom 4, S1E1 base, healing 100%, nobadevents 25, castledef 25, pathcost 30.
-Father of Runes ("Grungi") 50pt base, dom 3, ok combat stats, pre-equipped with heavy gear, E2 base, forgebonus 50, pathcost 50.
-Grudgebearer ("Grimnir") 50pt base, good combat stats, dom 2, fear 0, grudgelore, slayer axes, no armor slot, E1F1 base magic, pathcost 80.
-Master Alchemist As in vanilla
-Monolith As in vanilla

Heroes:
-Dwarf High King Thorgrim (general badass and holds the Book of Grudges, filling the dwarfs in his army with vengeance and fighting spirit. He will also be able to curse foes)
-Dwarf Runelord Krag the Grim (Runelord hero with E4S2F2H3, but old age)
-Dwarf Slayer King of Karak Kadrin, Ungrim Ironfist (This guy will eat giants for breakfast)
-Dwarf Engineer Guildmaster, Burlock Damminson (Engineer hero with a mechanic hand)
-Dragon Slayer, multihero

Re: Warhammer Dwarves, discussion/hype thread
 

I admire your effort, and with luck, this'll spur me into finally finishing up my Chaos Dwarfs to give them something to bear a grudge against...

A few comments:


1. Dwarfs. Not dwarves, or you're likely to eat the wrong end of an axe.

2. Looking at the preliminary graphic, remember that warhammer dwarfs are *very* stout. I'd suggest more width, and perhaps a more splendid beard. (Even regular warriors have some pride!)

3. Dwarf Rangers are marked more by their large weapons than crossbows, from the codex I have access to, and are probably more likely to use throwing axes as secondary armament - having them do so will add some variety to your projectile lineup.

4. "Crossbow" should obviously be "Quarreler".

5. Slayers are skilled with all kinds of axes - not swords. I'd suggest two axes, or possibly a greatweapon.

6. Thunderers are awesome, but I can see why you'd avoid them - that said, it feels a bit odd to have steam-powered gyrocopters and such, and not guns.

7. A 'Grudgestone' evocation that tosses a boulder might be a good replacement for the grudge thrower war machines...

8. Slayers don't really lead troops except for other slayers, so I'd push the Dragon Slayer down to poor leadership.

Re: Warhammer Dwarves, discussion/hype thread
 

Can't wait to see them. As for the Grudge Bearing, I don't think that it's that necessary. Dwarfs have a long list grudges basically against anything that is able to move. I'm pretty sure that there are a few lines about Squirrels stealing picnic foodstuffs in the Book of Grudges.

*shakes fist*
Our meals will be avenged!

Right, this was one of the few cases where being gramatically correct spells "D-O-O-M", my bad.

Remember that most units will be shielded, it adds bulkiness. And because the dwarf graphics are somewhat smaller and have similiar color schemes, I need to save up my tricks on how I can make them look different from one another. The Higher tier units (longbeards, slayers, breakers, hammers, rune guards) will be beefier. As for the beard, it's a bit trickier than it looks - I'm still experimenting with it.

I know of the throwing axe, I'm keeping it as "ace in the sleeve", so to speak. If the playtesting shows that two troops are a bit too similiar, I can give the other throwing axes to compensate, since basically almost any unit expect Hammers and breakers could thematically have it.


Seriously? I don't recall such of an term in the army book. It sounds really lame. Remember that there is nothing comical about dwarves.


True. Fixed

The gyrocopters and the like are there to give diversity to the unit-lineup (explained by rune magic), whereas Thunderers are just hard hitting ranged units (like crossbows). I'm still on the fence if I'll add a "dwarf arbalest" unit to 'compensate'. or should that be "arbalesterer"? :P

True. Dwarfs should be pretty good at stoning their enemies.

...

What?

Just 10 is seriously sucky thought. I'll first see how badass the Slayers become, if they are a considerable force with just 10 guys, then I might lower it.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Woo! Dwarfs!

But the way it's sounding...they're Ulm. But with 2 mapmove and 4 more magic resist. Oh, and stealthy troops. And a better endgame, it sounds.

Baseline these guys sound like they should be maybe 16 or so gold. They have the increased stats and extra abilities of Ice Guards. So their cheapest troops should be the same price. It's not like anyone expects dwarfs to be cheap.

I would love a boulder throw spell.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

As far as the "Quarreler" thing goes, the 7th edition book calls them that, and I'd say it fits the dwarfen spirit rather well.

"Crossbow? Baah, just because some uppity humans finally figured out how to make 'em doesn't mean a thing. They've been quarrelers since the beginning, and we're not going to change it."

(Also, in that same book, Dwarfs are very rarely referred to as 'man', which makes sense to me - for example, I'd reckon Clansdwarf is more in line with their naming sense than Clansman, but these things are clearly up to you. Finally, "Dwarfs", while perhaps a bit more rare, is no less grammatically correct than "Dwarves", unless my English knowledge fails me.)

And with that, back with me to churning out eleventy-five more varieties of greenskin slaves.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

The Ulm comparison is good, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I think that MA Ulm will make a fine measurement stick for balance. The dwarfs will be a lot more better than ulmish infantry, but it will be a lot more expensive too. Dwarfs will also have worse battle magic.

And yeah, the current gold cost for the clandwarf is probably too low, 15 or so sounds a bit more appropiate.

Oh, my experience comes from 6th edition. That explains the difference. Did they get rid of the "Battle Anvil"*, I mean the non-unique Anvil of Doom variant? I don't see the figure in the current GW miniature selection.

But about the name, it just strikes me as silly. Ever since Gimli's performance as the wacky comical sidekick in the LoTR movies, dwarfs have just kept on getting sillier and sillier. I've gotten kind of sick of them being descripted as stupid, stubborn, old alcoholic short men everywhere. This doesn't really fit into my idea of dwarves.

My dwarfs will be tragic, constantly griefing over the loss of their race. Reminiscing of the golden days and how all of that has fallen, feeling inadequate for failing to keep their ancestor's dream alive. They're a depressed, melancholic dying race and it will show. With the coming of the awakening god, the dwarfs have suddenly got a second chance at lost glory. They'll approach this matter with the dedication and focus it deserves. Being a dwarf is a very serious matter.

Sounds good and thematic, thanks for pointing that out.

Really? I remember my english teacher red-penning "thiefs" from an essee of mine and telling me that words that end in f have a plural of "ves" (like elf, elves, thief, thieves). Well, not important in any case.

*sorry can't recall the correct name at the moment.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

I would actually increase the siege to 2 and castledef to 3 on dwarfs. Every dwarf, even a random young warrior, knows more about tunnels and structural engineering than just about anyone (barring specialists). I gave all skaven siegebonus 1 because they can all dig tunnels, but skaven tunnels are dangerous, poorly constructed things and they generally break sieges in the most volatile and crude ways (with poison wind, warpfire and collapsing huge quantities of earth, perferably on 'spent' slaves or rival clans).

Take for example karak eight peaks. There are no more than a couple thousand dwarfs in there and there are countless thousands of greenskins outside and skaven below, but they've held it and sieged/taken it back numerous times.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

essee --> essay.

For every grammatical rule in English, there are exceptions. Don't let your English professor tell you otherwise. In this case, a certain J.R.R. Tolkien (who was a linguist and etymologist) popularized the "dwarves" version, so it has some staying power, but I believe "dwarfs" was more common (although certainly not exclusive) previously. FWIW, Firefox's spellchecker prefers "dwarfs". :)

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Looking at the 7th book, there are multiple Anvils of Doom, belonging to different clans - so, while each throng can field one and only one, either attached to a normal Runelord or included with Thorek Ironbrow of Karak Azal, they are not actually unique as such.

There are even described three different varieties of Anvil of Doom, though they function no differently in mechanical terms:

- Anvil of Doom dedicated to Grimnir, emphasising fury
- Anvil of Doom dedicated to Grungni, emphasising effort
- Anvil of Doom dedicated to Valaya, emphasising loyalty

The possible effects from striking these Anvils, are:

- Rune of Wrath and Ruin - Damages and slows an enemy unit, and prevents it from flying, with an Ancient Power roll dealing additional damage. (Earthmeld + area-of-effect Damage? Perhaps even toss in a Storm?)

- Rune of Hearth and Hold - All friendy Dwarf units may reroll failed Fear or Terror tests until your next shooting phase, with an Ancient Power roll instead granting immunity. (Fanaticism + something?)

- Rune of Oath and Honor - Allows one friendly Dwarf unit (other than gyrocopters) to make a move in the shooting phase, with an Ancient Power roll instead letting 1d3 units do so. (Area-of -effect Quickness with lowish precision?)

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

eh, from wikipedia:

both are good. "dwarfs" seems to be the official warhammer choice, though.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

I´d go for "Dwarrows" if it was my call.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Intresting stuff. Very intresting. I guess that the Anvils could be a non-unique summon then. Since I couldn't find the "basic anvil" miniature anymore, I thought that now the one used Thorek is the only one. I guess Thorek's Anvil could be a special unique summon. He'd be a way too badass as a hero, since even basic anvil will likely be like F2A2W2E2S3H4 (holy forging Batman!) and Thorek will likely have death magic to boot to cast the Rune of Doom.

Dwarrows sound intresting. But I'll stick with the "Dwarfs" for now, since it's the term used in the WH line. Although I'm really tempted to use "Dwarrow" in some context, perhaps as a name or to refer to the dwarf ancestors? The lore suggests that the first dwarfs were really badass, being more like demi-gods than mortals. It'd make sense they were referred by different name.

And thanks for the intresting linguistic conversation, I guess you learn something new every day. I did some graphics yesterday, decided that they're shiny enough to preview.

http://xs843.xs.to/xs843/09386/dwarf_preview_1910.png

From left to right: Clandwarf, Heavy Clandwarf and Crossbow.

The crossbow is still kind of akward, I'll do some more work in it later.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

This sounds really awesome Burnsaber, as always. I like pretty much everything in the first post.

The sprites look nice, but they look a bit like "half-dwarves", i.e. they look too tall to me, and maybe too thin. They look like they would come up at least to the shoulders of human sprites. I'm not quite how tall dwarves are, but I would have thought they'd come up to the chest or slightly below on a human.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

I think that's the most common response to those graphics. They just don't feel squat and thick enough.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

I'll see what I can do. A least on the battlefield they a clearly much shorter and wider than human enemies. The sprites are quite small already and look "crammed" in the recruitment screen. If I make them even smaller, I'll be majorly screwed when it comes to unis that need detail, like the Kings and Runesmiths. All those who have made graphics know that he biggest monsters are the worst. But, in a way, really small sprites even more harder. Like Dr.P once said:

"Those two pixels are totally a hoburg."

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

I like the sprites as they are, don´t make them shorter. They could be slightly fatter to look more like warhammer dwarfs. The heavy armoured elites and commanders will be bulkier I suppose...

Great work Burnsaber!

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

I think dwarf armour, weaponry, beards and helmets allow for reasonable differentiation. Gromil could be coloured fairly brightly for instance.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Well, I probably could differentiate them, but there are other problems. After tweaking around with sprites for a while, I've come to the conclusion that there is no way that I can mime the dimensions in the WH models and make them look good. Miniatures can have detail on detail (like the beard jewelry) but a small sprite can't. There is a point where a shield for example can only have a color as there just isn't room for any symbols. So I'd just have shape of the weapon, color of the beard and the color of the shield to differentiate them. It's doable but it would make the nation look horrible.

So yeah. The sprites will clearly be dwarfs when compared to dom3 humans in and out of the battlefield, but they won't look like WH dwarfs. I just don't have the skill for that. IMHO, it's not that big of a deal, it's just cosmetic thing. These guys will play a lot like the tabletop version and have pretty much the same lore.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

If you don't mind, I think I could pull off a pretty good tabletop dwarf or seven you could work from - I'm thinking something like the attached mockup sprite, though larger. (That one was mostly to see how small I could get it and still have it look dwarfish.)

(That said, it's as previously mentioned still your mod, and you're free to interpret dwarfs as you please - I might make an alternate set of graphics for my own personal use if I ever get around to it, though.)

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

i support the Dwarrow unit.
MAybe for inspiration you should look warcraft mountain king, they got an avatar ability( avatar= incarnation of a god, right?)as warcraft is partly( a lot) inspired on warhammer.
Vote yes on proposal n°Dwarrow

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Okay about the graphics, finally found the dimensions to give them enough detail and make them small enough. I just decided to make them 1 pixeld wider for each pixel I took away from lenght. This allowed me to have some area for details while making them smaller. Gorge your eyes on this:

http://xs343.xs.to/xs343/09392/dwarf_preview_2823.png

1. Clansdwarf Crossbow
2. Clansdwarf Heavy Crossbow
3. Clansdwarf Warrior
4. Longbeard
5. Indy commander for size comparison (size 2)
6. Old dwarf sprite for comparison
7. New Clansdwarf Heavy Warrior
8. Bakemono goblin for size comparison.(size 1)

I also bought the 7th edition army book for just this project (since there is no dwarf sourcebook in WRFP). It's quite a lot of awesome, I must admit. I'm currently pondering on ways to include Oathstones.

Thanks for the spirte, but I'll manage. And yeah, my dwarfs will be a bit different from the WH ones, since WH dwarfs have fallen a bit too deep to the "comical" look I despise with their oversized beards and weaponry (in some cases).

There will be no dwarrow unit. I just liked the sound of the term. It's just a fluff term I'll use to describe the ancestral dwarf race who built the foundations of dwarf society. This way I won't have to repeat "ancestor" all over and over.

The closest thing to a dwarrow unit in this mod will be perhaps the three custom pretenders modeled after Grimnir, Grugni and Valaya.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

That mean i'll have to do it myself.:(

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Excellent work Burn, the new dwarves look great.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Personally I didn't think the original dwarf sprites were that bad. But I agree, these look more like dwarfs and less like short humans.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Wow, those sprites are beautiful!

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Indeed, those are much better, and actually look very dwarfish.

(To offer some sort of constructive critique, I'd suggest lengthening their armour if you want a more tabletop feel to them - dwarf armour usually include metal skirts of sorts that protect the legs and expose only the feet.)

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Agree with Calchet re: longer armour.

Other than that, really big improvement - look very nice now. Especially longbeards.

I'd still give them an extra pixel or two on the axes.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Yeah, I know, I have 7th edition army book now. I'm sort of saving up on the effect of the skirt armor. I'm still not sure if I can make the elites different enough from the basic troops, so I'm being conservative with my tricks (for now). If I manage to make the elites look different without giving the long armour just for them, I'll add it to the basic troops.


This is one thing where I really don't like the GW dwarf miniatures. Some of the weapons are clearly oversized. I know that dwarfs are strong and so forth, but when the blade of your axe is as big as your shield, you are doing something wrong. It's a lot like the clearly oversized beards on the Longbeard miniatures. How can they fight without tripping on those things?

I had them pretty big at one point, but it just looked ridicilious. Like they'd be compensating for something.

On other news, I updated the first post. I decided to include the Dwarf Arbalest unit I was thinking of, since I needed a secondary missile unit for the PD>20. I also scrapped the "Lord" commander, this nation doesn't really need two different national commanders, it will just remove recruitment screen clutter if I make the Thane single, but great commander. This will also make adding the Oathstones* easier.

*Basically, the Thane and King can enter combat on "oathstone mode", which will render them immobile for the battle, but boost their stats and give them ridicilous standard.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

But they are!
useless post, go on

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Sorry to quote this obvious humor post, but they're not. I'm going for "serious dwarfs" not Gimli-esque comic reliefs. Dwarfs are short, and proud of it, since it allows them to easily navigate tunnels and their stocky build gives them unsurpassed balance.

But on completely different terms, new preview pic.

http://xs343.xs.to/xs343/09401/dwarf_preview_3838.png

1. Clansdwarf Crossbow

2. Heavy Crossbow

3. Clansdwarf Warrior

4. Longbeard

5. Hammer

6. Miner

7. Clansdwarf Heavy Warrior

8. Ironbreaker

9. Ranger (I decided to arm them with throwing axes, since having 3 different types of crossbows would just be rebundant)

10. Troll Slayer

11. Dwarf Runeguard (cap. only sacred)

---Commanders

12. Ranger Champion

13. Prospector

14. Thane

15. Thane on Oathstone

16. Giant Slayer - Recruitable thug. (I originally had just 3 different types of Slayers, but these guys were just so much fun to draw that I decided to squeeze these guys in and make Dragon Slayers heroes)

17. Dragon Slayer - Multihero

18. Daemon Slayer - Summon that will kick *** like never seen before.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

They look really good! I hope that the Oathstone's runes light up in the attack sprite:D

Just a couple things:
-the troll slayer's left axe perfectly covers his left arm+shoulder, it actually took a while to understand he was dual-wielding, at the start I thought that he had a metal shoulderpad or something like that.
-the deer antlers on the ranger champion look a bit unappropriate, especially if you're trying to go for the Warhammer Dwarves and not the "grumpy comical" ones.But that's subjective:)

I was also about to suggest an "Howl" style national spell to call miners from the edges of the battlefield(mimicking their WHFB counterparts), but I see that the Miner's commander already does that as #onebattlespell.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

nice pic, some questions
1)why the ranger champiom has a crosbow and not axes?
2)what kind of commander will be the prospector?
3)pic 17/18's right arm/leg have a protection or you forgot to colour them?

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

I agree with Amonchakad's axe/shoulder pad confusion. I quite like the horned helmet though actually, though I can see it's not especially dwarfy.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Thanks for the feedback everyone! Helps me improve.


They will now! :P

Looking at it again, I can see why there would be confusion. I'll just fix the pose to make his right axe like the one in the Giant Slayer sprite. That ought to do it.


Yeah, I know, a lot of it is cause I have to arm them with crossbows instead of throwing axes (scroll below for why), so I decided to go for a "hunter" aspect for them as a thematic justification for the crossbow which is the reason ofr the antlers. I'll describe them as a bit oddball dwarfs, being more in the woods than in their clan dwellings. So the antlers are a trophy, not anything else.

Because leaders with throwing weapons suck balls. They will get close to the enemy, throw their weapons and then likely wade into melee, get killed, routing your army. Since I actually want the player to use these guys for stealthed task forces (usually with just one commander!), they need a ranged weapon with a big range. This is one case where thematic correctness has to give out in the face of gameplay.

See the first post, or this:

But I basically added it because basic miners are stealthy and have mapmove 3 (representing tunnel knowledge), so they need a stealthy mapmove 3 commander to take advantage of these facts.

Neither, it just seems that I forgot to give their legs a proper lookover after making the legs thicker. I can see that they're pretty akward now. Thanks for noticing, I'll fix it for the next preview picture.

Hmm. What are your feelings about the Dragon Slayer (17), which uses a similiar pose? The blue warpaint might give enough contrast in this case, but as a creator, I have a skewed persceptive for these things.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

even if you are right(and you are), after you finished your mod maybe a new weapon "Dwarfish axe" wth long range?but is something so minimal i'll even forget it tomorrow

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

I think 17 is also funny looking and would be better with a 16-style left-hand axe.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

I just sat down to do some graphics before starting school work. I don't know how, but I just got into the "zone", drawing for 6 hours :shock:! Luckily I'm not an deadline and can make the scoolwork tomorrow.

The results can be seen below, I now have enough graphics to start working on the .dm file. I have 6 planned units (Thorek, Gyrocopter, High King Hero, the 3 pretenders) left without graphics, but they can be added in later updates.

If you want to know what these will actually do in the mod, see the first page.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3...rfpreview4.png

1. Clansdwarf Crossbow

2. Heavy Crossbow

3. Clansdwarf Warrior

4. Longbeard

5. Hammer

6. Miner

7. Clansdwarf Heavy Warrior

8. Ironbreaker

9. Ranger

10. Troll Slayer (Now fixed!)

11. Dwarf Runeguard (cap. only sacred)

---Commanders

12. Ranger Champion (I made the antlers smaller, now they should be more serious)

13. Prospector

14. Thane

15. Thane on Oathstone

16. Giant Slayer - Recruitable anti-thuggish guy.

17. Engineer

18. King - Cap only commander.

19. King on oathstone

20. Journeyman Runesmith

21. Runesmith

22. Runelord

-- Summons

23. Daemon Slayer

24. Dwarf Flamethrower -- Engineer summon. I decided against the cannon version, but I liked the idea, so I altered the theme into these. The Dragon Staffs have very low range, but are precise and can be used in melee (Dwarfs won't use a weapon that can easily cause firendly casualties, so a pure 'fire drake blast' is out of the question)

25. Anvil of Doom -- The anvil looks still kind of akward, but I seem to be unable to fix it, if anyone wants to lend a helping hand, I'd appreciate it. Well, even with the akward anvil the thing looks absolutely wicked in the battlefield. You won't believe the attack sprite! :D

-- Heroes

26- Engineer Hero

27- Runelord Hero

28- Dragon Slayer -- multihero

29- Slayer King -- badass, domsummons slayers and causes berserk in battle.

-- Flags??

--- I made two flags because I just wanted to test two ideas out. Now I'm a bit torn on which to add. I'll let democracy sort this out.

30 - I prefer this one, but it's a bit uncovential.

31 - Safe "vanilla" version.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

a)23/28 leg arm is still wrong
b)use 30 as flag, is more "dwarfish" imho
c)great pic the 13, i really liked the lantern. thumb up!
Keep on this mod

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

The Anvil looks gorgeous! Can't wait to see it on the battlefield!

About the alternative flag...hmm. I'd need to see how it relates to the fort picture, I wouldn't want them to blend with eachother too much.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

My vote is definitely for the conventional flag.

Looking good Burn! You're a graphics churning beast!

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

my vote is the unconventional 30 flag. Let's be honest, if a dwarf can carve something from stone that is the route he's gonna take. :D

Awesome job on the sprites as well. Very excited to see how this one turns out, dwarves are only my most favorite Warhammer (or really ANY fantasy)race, with Greenskins a close second.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

I'd like to see the unconventional flag work, but I just don't see it happening. It seems like it would look to strange sitting on a province or above a fort. Maybe you should see what it looks like in game before making a final decision though. If you decide to go with the conventional flag it would be nice if you could work the unconventional one into the mod somehow, it's looks quite nice by itself.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

28 and 29 their axes on the right hand side look backwards to me.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Looks great!

I vote for the conventional flag, but please include both graphics in case I change my mind later. :p

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

I think the conventional flag is the way to go, though I think it could use more work.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Well, to make everyone happy why you don't make the conventional flag as national flag and the unconventional one as a unit with standard bonus?

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Not a big fan of immobile units like totems, stones etc as anything other than powerful summons/pretenders.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

The conventional one seems to have won. I'll polish it up a bit before the final version.

I was thinking of implementing the ston flag graphic as a special unit, "Ancestor Stone" only accessible as a PD 20 commander, casting some sweet onebattlespell and having nice standard bonus.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Oh I just want to add that I think the graphics look great so far and it's very impressive how fast this has all come together. I critique only to improve little things.

Speaking of which - are you going to be doing all the famous dwarf heroes? I can't place any of them with the graphics so far. I liked trying to get relatively close to the models with the heroes for Skaven because there's that extra yay factor about having a digital queek or skrolk model running around. I'd definitely feel the same way about Thorgrim, Alarik, Damsson, Ungrim and co - classic models after all.

Re: Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread
 

Yeah, that's why I post these things, to get comments and use them to improve the pics.

The fastness is simply due to me being very excited for this project.

The heroes a bit problematic. Alarik and Thogrim just overlap too much, besides, Alarik's "thing" in the 6th edition was that he had the book of grudges, but it seems that in 7th edition, Thogrim has the thing. If you remove the Book of Grudges from Alarik, he's just a dwarf king who's too lazy to walk into battle himself. Hence I only have Thogrim in my current hero "line up".

I also likely won't replicate Thogrim like in the graphic, he's a lot like Anvil of Doom in that respect (= too hard for me to draw like the model). I also dislike the palaquin, to me, they are a symbol of decadence not really fitting for dwarfs. My current vision is to have him on large oathstone with a stone table, which will hold the book.

By Ungrim, you mean the Slayer King of Karak Kadrin, right? About him, I just don't know. Why is he wearing armor? What is his backround? (the miniature page isn't too helpful), or to put it simply, who the heck is he? I could add the banner and armour to my graphic and call it this guy, but I'd need to know some lore about Karak Kadrin.

I sort of dislike the "back banners" many of the heroes have, just doesn't feel "dwarvish" to me. That's a pretty big obstacle, since some heroes really only have that to graphically differentiate them from regular units. I tried to hint at Damminson in the current graphic with a metal hand (mechanic hand would be just out of character for my "no-gunpowder" dwarfs). I'll take another stab at the metal hand for the release, to make it stand out more.