montegue wrote:Been busy, so have not been able to reply.
First, my misunderstanding of the Stubborn rule was largely responsible for my response to the (still in my opinion terrible) change to steadfast. That makes it a bit easier to swallow as a dwarf player, but it's a big mistake for the game as a whole.
No, I haven't played it out on the table, but I'm not a "beardling" as mentioned above. I know what I'm doing, I know what good players are capable of, and I know that the change to steadfast is probably going to be the final nail in the coffin for ranked infantry. Dwarfs will have to commit to Stubborn (representing a pretty hefty per model tax in a unit) to stay on the board. That's fine in it's own way (it's fluffy, at least), but I don't know that it's a good idea overall. But, that's a discussion for the other overall thread, not here.
The problem with Dwarfs is the stigma that's been laid at their feet by the community. They're boring to play against, they only gunline, blah blah blah. If this reworking of the army has one goal, it should be to change the army such that those complaints are no longer valid. The army needs to be updated so that it's more fun to play and more fun to play against. You can't do that by adhering to the old, stifling frame that GW put around the dwarfs for years.
- There's no reason a Goblin or Gnoblar should be any faster than a dwarf. Both the same size, and dwarfs are strong and rugged. Just update to M4. It's the most elegant solution and should have been done a long time ago by GW. It's a stupid penalty that gives players an incentive to not move at all lest they expose their flanks.
- Add one or two good movement-based units that fit the theme of the army. Some sort of heavy cavalry would be good. Irondrakes with pistols on Badgers would be pretty cool. Monstrous cavalry on bears - also good. You need something *real* for Dwarf players to choose to play that will be fun for them to play, paint, and model, but also push them towards an army build that involves the sort of play their opponents will enjoy. They don't have to be great at movement (Cavalry at M7/6(heavy armor), etc). You can add a monster (Gronti Duraz - ancestor statues) or a steam tank like creation. You can add monstrous infantry in the form of dwarfs piloting steam exoskeletons - there's a lot of options out there to give players new options.
- Magic is an essential part of the game, and dwarfs need it. A real magic phase, with real casters. Runsemiths can be expensive like Chaos Dwarf casters, have access to Fire, Metal, and a special rune lore. Done and done.
Do these things, and you have an army that's unique to itself, with runic items instead of magic items, a wide diversity of units, and can compete in every phase. Watch how fast Dwarf players build aggressive, fun lists to play and play against.
If you stick to "how dwarfs ought to be" you'll never undo the stigma, you'll never undo the animosity towards the armies and the people who play it, and you'll never be able to truly balance it against other armies because they play in twice as many phases as Dwarfs do.
I agree with or would accept much of what the above poster has said with particular exception to giving them magic. That does not sit well with me. My gaming and army composition is heavily fluff orientated and dwarfs (not just in warhammer but all fantasy depictions I've seen) do not do magic! I know nothing of the Furion stuff noted in his comments, though bound spells from runes or magic items (depending on how it is orchestrated) would be acceptable in limited form but dwarfs should definitely not have a magic phase shoe-horned into any new army book.
I'm sure based on your work so far that a solution can be reached to counter opponents magic phases without fundamentally changing this aspect of established dwarf lore.