Warhammer Dwarfs, discussion/hype thread

[Burnsaber]

Originally Posted by kianduatha

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Calchet

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."

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.

Originally Posted by Calchet

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.

Sounds good and thematic, thanks for pointing that out.

Originally Posted by Calchet

Finally, "Dwarfs", while perhaps a bit more rare, is no less grammatically correct than "Dwarves", unless my English knowledge fails me.

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.

[Stavis_L]

Originally Posted by Burnsaber

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.

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".

[Calchet]

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?)