Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Proposed Race Expansion #1: The Dwarfs

24

Comments

  • MikobotMikobot Registered Users Posts: 500
    Rheingold said:

    Realistically whats possible and what I would like to see:

    Grimm LL
    Mal LH
    Josef FLC
    Engineer lord with gyro mount

    Decent hero in combat so either Demon or dragon slayer.
    Deathroller
    Thunderbarge
    Thunderers with longer range.
    Hammerers and miners buffed.
    Ironbreakers with gold shields.
    Bardins mini gun making an appearance somehow.
    Regular cannon range needs to be equivalent to other artillery otherwise dawi have a major issue.
    That or buff gyro's.

    No shard dragons.

    Personally I don't want any golems but I can't deny that it would solve the main issues with dawi.

    If they don't buff miners (which they should) I would love to see a unit called "Prospectors" named after the captain unit for Miner teams. These guys can be fully fledged melee units with vanguard deploy, as opposed to the **** tier chaff unit Miners currently are (despite being extremely capable melee units in tabletop).

    So TLDR of what I would want at minimum:

    Grimm as LL
    Josef FLC
    don't care about any other LHs or LLs, add or don't add more.

    Daemon Slayer lord type.

    Dragon Slayer hero type.

    Thunderbarge
    Prospectors
    Prospectors (Steam Drill)
    Irondrakes (Drakefire Pistols)
    Doomseekers
    Rune Guardian [note: I think Rune Guardians would be more loreful than Golems, so they're my preference]

    Hammerers buffed. [note: don't care if this means they need to be more expensive]
    Ironbreakers buffed (gold shields). [note: don't care if this means they need to be more expensive]
    New Master Engineer upgrades that allow swapping to a Grudgeraker or Crank Gun.
    Pass over current LLs to reflect how their preferred unit types were added onto or buffed.


    If we were to extend the list into any additional things, probably Goblin Hewer.

    Some imos:
    1. Grudgerakers should be reserved for named characters, giving them to normal Dawi units would be bad call considering CD are likely to have close range gunpowder but no rifles.
    2. Shard Dragons aren't needed, Dawi shouldn't have such a big and mobile murder bot styled SEM. Talking practically for a DLC, Thunderbarges and Rune Guardians/Golems would already be the centerpiece units... and really good ones at that. With four infantry tagging along (and maybe one more machine) that's a well packed DLC for CA standards.
  • Maidros98Maidros98 IranRegistered Users Posts: 550
    I think that's the best way to do future DLCs. Give us a big DLC for one faction that adds all the missing stuff.
  • Rheingold#6691Rheingold#6691 Registered Users Posts: 1,599
    Ben1990 said:

    Rheingold said:

    Realistically whats possible and what I would like to see:

    Grimm LL
    Mal LH
    Josef FLC
    Engineer lord with gyro mount

    Decent hero in combat so either Demon or dragon slayer.
    Deathroller
    Thunderbarge
    Thunderers with longer range.
    Hammerers and miners buffed.
    Ironbreakers with gold shields.
    Bardins mini gun making an appearance somehow.
    Regular cannon range needs to be equivalent to other artillery otherwise dawi have a major issue.
    That or buff gyro's.

    No shard dragons.

    Personally I don't want any golems but I can't deny that it would solve the main issues with dawi.

    There is literally nothing said that Dwarfs can't have Shard Dragons. And I checked all the books and other Warhammer media. As long as the unreliable is made reliable, Dwarfs will use it.
    Not going to get into an argument about whether dawi could use Shard dragons... the answer is CA could easily do it.
    I don't want them though. No monsters for dwarfs. Keep asymetric balance as much as possible instead of giving each faction everything.
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231
    Wow @Wyvax you managed to put all the things I don't want to see the dwarfs get in one post, and those things comprise about 80% of what you posted.
  • Wyvax#7456Wyvax#7456 Registered Users Posts: 6,255
    Personally I feel the Shard Dragon lore for the dwarfs is pretty creative and sound, (turning a massive headache problem animal that you cannot kill safely into an uno reverse card for all the skaven and night goblins under your holds is devious and pragmatic in equal measures, right up the clever dawi's alley). But the only piece of art we have for the creature clashes horribly with the dwarf aesthetic, it's far to needley, crystalline and thin (like a fookin' elgi!!!). To match it needs to be a bit more stout-bodied like the dwarfs themselves, stonier in appeareance and it's spikes should be broader resembling stalagmites more than shards of glass. Basically just modify the rig for the Razordon and model it off of a draconic armadillo lizard (witness their cuteness!!!!) like below. They'd fit right in design wise after that.


    There's a lot of different permutations to things like a big tank/steamroller for the dwarfs or Rune Golems vs Rune Guardians, and I just didn't want to bloat the thread with presenting every variation I could think of, as such units could be done in quite a few different ways (Thunder Roller with a Flame Cannon attachment perhaps!?!? Been playing too much Elden Ring, there's an enemy like that in there, lol!) I thought about a big SEM version of the Rune Golems but concluded that would be way to similar to the Rogue Idol and linebacker Monstrous Infantry would mesh with their style much better.
  • Wyvax#7456Wyvax#7456 Registered Users Posts: 6,255
    OdTengri said:

    Wow @Wyvax you managed to put all the things I don't want to see the dwarfs get in one post, and those things comprise about 80% of what you posted.

    Yes, new achievement!!!
  • Wyvax#7456Wyvax#7456 Registered Users Posts: 6,255
    To be real though, it was inevitable that this first entry on the dwarfs would be somewhat controversial. They just aren't missing much that's on the conservative side, most potential new units are highly exotic additions to the roster, those Doom Seekers for example raise my eyebrows by quite a lot, (I feel the same way for those End TImes Khorne warriors with the chain hammers).

    As an aside though it's interesting to see the psychological manifestation of some dwarf fans is that of hide bound traditionalism, as opposed to say skaven fans that want ever new toys lol. Just and observation. ;)
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,031
    Mattock said:

    I like the idea. would prefer rune guardians over golems (small change but more of a collab between engineers and rune preists) and I probably would avoid shard dragons. I like them but there are Dawii purists that dont like the idea of a minster in the dwarf army.

    Purists are a cancer here. If CA added stuff like Silverin Guard and Eshin Triad, then there is nothing stopping them adding everything every faction has in lore. In case of Dwarfs it's also the Shard Dragon. And again. There is literally nothing said that Dwarfs can't have monsters in their armies. Especially one with a runic collar to control its actions.
  • Heretical_Cactus#7598Heretical_Cactus#7598 Registered Users Posts: 3,034
    Wyvax said:

    To be real though, it was inevitable that this first entry on the dwarfs would be somewhat controversial. They just aren't missing much that's on the conservative side, most potential new units are highly exotic additions to the roster, those Doom Seekers for example raise my eyebrows by quite a lot, (I feel the same way for those End TImes Khorne warriors with the chain hammers).

    As an aside though it's interesting to see the psychological manifestation of some dwarf fans is that of hide bound traditionalism, as opposed to say skaven fans that want ever new toys lol. Just and observation. ;)

    The Doomseeker doesn't raise an Eyebrow, they are quite accepted, though we don't really know how they are going to appear, either like the Night Gobbo Fanatic or as some sort of Monstrous Infantry
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,031
    Rheingold said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Rheingold said:

    Realistically whats possible and what I would like to see:

    Grimm LL
    Mal LH
    Josef FLC
    Engineer lord with gyro mount

    Decent hero in combat so either Demon or dragon slayer.
    Deathroller
    Thunderbarge
    Thunderers with longer range.
    Hammerers and miners buffed.
    Ironbreakers with gold shields.
    Bardins mini gun making an appearance somehow.
    Regular cannon range needs to be equivalent to other artillery otherwise dawi have a major issue.
    That or buff gyro's.

    No shard dragons.

    Personally I don't want any golems but I can't deny that it would solve the main issues with dawi.

    There is literally nothing said that Dwarfs can't have Shard Dragons. And I checked all the books and other Warhammer media. As long as the unreliable is made reliable, Dwarfs will use it.
    Not going to get into an argument about whether dawi could use Shard dragons... the answer is CA could easily do it.
    I don't want them though. No monsters for dwarfs. Keep asymetric balance as much as possible instead of giving each faction everything.
    Nothing is asymmetrical or symmetrical. One monster doesn't make them symmetrical because it's literally one monster. Meanwhile every other faction has a gamut of monsters, monstrous mounts and more while the Shard Dragon is just that. One monster.
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231
    Ben1990 said:

    Rheingold said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Rheingold said:

    Realistically whats possible and what I would like to see:

    Grimm LL
    Mal LH
    Josef FLC
    Engineer lord with gyro mount

    Decent hero in combat so either Demon or dragon slayer.
    Deathroller
    Thunderbarge
    Thunderers with longer range.
    Hammerers and miners buffed.
    Ironbreakers with gold shields.
    Bardins mini gun making an appearance somehow.
    Regular cannon range needs to be equivalent to other artillery otherwise dawi have a major issue.
    That or buff gyro's.

    No shard dragons.

    Personally I don't want any golems but I can't deny that it would solve the main issues with dawi.

    There is literally nothing said that Dwarfs can't have Shard Dragons. And I checked all the books and other Warhammer media. As long as the unreliable is made reliable, Dwarfs will use it.
    Not going to get into an argument about whether dawi could use Shard dragons... the answer is CA could easily do it.
    I don't want them though. No monsters for dwarfs. Keep asymetric balance as much as possible instead of giving each faction everything.
    Nothing is asymmetrical or symmetrical. One monster doesn't make them symmetrical because it's literally one monster. Meanwhile every other faction has a gamut of monsters, monstrous mounts and more while the Shard Dragon is just that. One monster.
    One Vs Zero is one hell of a huge change... I'm sorry but it completely alters their potential battle doctrines.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,031
    Wyvax said:

    Personally I feel the Shard Dragon lore for the dwarfs is pretty creative and sound, (turning a massive headache problem animal that you cannot kill safely into an uno reverse card for all the skaven and night goblins under your holds is devious and pragmatic in equal measures, right up the clever dawi's alley). But the only piece of art we have for the creature clashes horribly with the dwarf aesthetic, it's far to needley, crystalline and thin (like a fookin' elgi!!!). To match it needs to be a bit more stout-bodied like the dwarfs themselves, stonier in appeareance and it's spikes should be broader resembling stalagmites more than shards of glass. Basically just modify the rig for the Razordon and model it off of a draconic armadillo lizard (witness their cuteness!!!!) like below. They'd fit right in design wise after that.


    There's a lot of different permutations to things like a big tank/steamroller for the dwarfs or Rune Golems vs Rune Guardians, and I just didn't want to bloat the thread with presenting every variation I could think of, as such units could be done in quite a few different ways (Thunder Roller with a Flame Cannon attachment perhaps!?!? Been playing too much Elden Ring, there's an enemy like that in there, lol!) I thought about a big SEM version of the Rune Golems but concluded that would be way to similar to the Rogue Idol and linebacker Monstrous Infantry would mesh with their style much better.

    Kinda agreed. Though they are supposed to be serpentine, but they could be beefed a bit to boa constrictor levels. And also agreed that they need more spikes and they should look also somewhat like a moloch lizard. The skull of a Shard Dragon has some badass spike horns, but there could be more everywhere.
    In case of Rune Guardians and Rune Golems I'd like to have both. Rune Guardians are Ogre-sized, but the Rune Golems could be made to Rogue Idol sizes (which means tabletop-wise they'd be Largest of Monsters, AKA: so big they can stomp on other monsters and the Shard Dragon doesn't have this).
  • Wyvax#7456Wyvax#7456 Registered Users Posts: 6,255
    OdTengri said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Rheingold said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Rheingold said:

    Realistically whats possible and what I would like to see:

    Grimm LL
    Mal LH
    Josef FLC
    Engineer lord with gyro mount

    Decent hero in combat so either Demon or dragon slayer.
    Deathroller
    Thunderbarge
    Thunderers with longer range.
    Hammerers and miners buffed.
    Ironbreakers with gold shields.
    Bardins mini gun making an appearance somehow.
    Regular cannon range needs to be equivalent to other artillery otherwise dawi have a major issue.
    That or buff gyro's.

    No shard dragons.

    Personally I don't want any golems but I can't deny that it would solve the main issues with dawi.

    There is literally nothing said that Dwarfs can't have Shard Dragons. And I checked all the books and other Warhammer media. As long as the unreliable is made reliable, Dwarfs will use it.
    Not going to get into an argument about whether dawi could use Shard dragons... the answer is CA could easily do it.
    I don't want them though. No monsters for dwarfs. Keep asymetric balance as much as possible instead of giving each faction everything.
    Nothing is asymmetrical or symmetrical. One monster doesn't make them symmetrical because it's literally one monster. Meanwhile every other faction has a gamut of monsters, monstrous mounts and more while the Shard Dragon is just that. One monster.
    One Vs Zero is one hell of a huge change... I'm sorry but it completely alters their potential battle doctrines.
    I respectfully disagree. Unless a player is doomstacking in campaign, which is an issue unto itself really, a Shard dragon in a dwarfen army won't shake up the dwarf playstyle. While it's not particularly fast for a single entity monster, the rest of the army certainly won't be able to keep up with it once it charges, so it doesn't change them into a rush army. What it does provide however is a massive, big scary distraction carnifex. So an opponent has to make the tactical choice to either deal with the monster chewing up their front lines, or to focus on the dwarfen artillery and gunlines that are taking full advantage of the situation. It adds a capability to the dawi playbook that just wasn't possible before, without changing their identity in battle.
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231
    Wyvax said:

    OdTengri said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Rheingold said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Rheingold said:

    Realistically whats possible and what I would like to see:

    Grimm LL
    Mal LH
    Josef FLC
    Engineer lord with gyro mount

    Decent hero in combat so either Demon or dragon slayer.
    Deathroller
    Thunderbarge
    Thunderers with longer range.
    Hammerers and miners buffed.
    Ironbreakers with gold shields.
    Bardins mini gun making an appearance somehow.
    Regular cannon range needs to be equivalent to other artillery otherwise dawi have a major issue.
    That or buff gyro's.

    No shard dragons.

    Personally I don't want any golems but I can't deny that it would solve the main issues with dawi.

    There is literally nothing said that Dwarfs can't have Shard Dragons. And I checked all the books and other Warhammer media. As long as the unreliable is made reliable, Dwarfs will use it.
    Not going to get into an argument about whether dawi could use Shard dragons... the answer is CA could easily do it.
    I don't want them though. No monsters for dwarfs. Keep asymetric balance as much as possible instead of giving each faction everything.
    Nothing is asymmetrical or symmetrical. One monster doesn't make them symmetrical because it's literally one monster. Meanwhile every other faction has a gamut of monsters, monstrous mounts and more while the Shard Dragon is just that. One monster.
    One Vs Zero is one hell of a huge change... I'm sorry but it completely alters their potential battle doctrines.
    I respectfully disagree... ....It adds a capability to the dawi playbook that just wasn't possible before
    Disagree... then concludes with exactly with what I said.

    Just respect that your position is that IT's OK for the playstyle of the Dawi to be altered by providing tactical options not before available to them.

    Otherwise your just a liar and using a lot of words to misdirect me, the audience, and quite possibly yourself.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,031
    Wyvax said:

    OdTengri said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Rheingold said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Rheingold said:

    Realistically whats possible and what I would like to see:

    Grimm LL
    Mal LH
    Josef FLC
    Engineer lord with gyro mount

    Decent hero in combat so either Demon or dragon slayer.
    Deathroller
    Thunderbarge
    Thunderers with longer range.
    Hammerers and miners buffed.
    Ironbreakers with gold shields.
    Bardins mini gun making an appearance somehow.
    Regular cannon range needs to be equivalent to other artillery otherwise dawi have a major issue.
    That or buff gyro's.

    No shard dragons.

    Personally I don't want any golems but I can't deny that it would solve the main issues with dawi.

    There is literally nothing said that Dwarfs can't have Shard Dragons. And I checked all the books and other Warhammer media. As long as the unreliable is made reliable, Dwarfs will use it.
    Not going to get into an argument about whether dawi could use Shard dragons... the answer is CA could easily do it.
    I don't want them though. No monsters for dwarfs. Keep asymetric balance as much as possible instead of giving each faction everything.
    Nothing is asymmetrical or symmetrical. One monster doesn't make them symmetrical because it's literally one monster. Meanwhile every other faction has a gamut of monsters, monstrous mounts and more while the Shard Dragon is just that. One monster.
    One Vs Zero is one hell of a huge change... I'm sorry but it completely alters their potential battle doctrines.
    I respectfully disagree. Unless a player is doomstacking in campaign, which is an issue unto itself really, a Shard dragon in a dwarfen army won't shake up the dwarf playstyle. While it's not particularly fast for a single entity monster, the rest of the army certainly won't be able to keep up with it once it charges, so it doesn't change them into a rush army. What it does provide however is a massive, big scary distraction carnifex. So an opponent has to make the tactical choice to either deal with the monster chewing up their front lines, or to focus on the dwarfen artillery and gunlines that are taking full advantage of the situation. It adds a capability to the dawi playbook that just wasn't possible before, without changing their identity in battle.
    Yep. But it's still a powerful monster when compared to the likes of the Star Dragon if not a tad more powerful (but not on the same level as a Toad Dragon that beats the Shard Dragon in sheer tankiness or the Magma Dragon that beats every monster except the Khemric Titan or Rogue Idol in terms of sheer destructive capabilities). And in order to not upstage the playstyle of the Dwarfs, if CA includes it along with the Rune Guardians and Rune Golems, then those three should be hard-capped and assigned to the Smithy building line. You build the Armory, you get +1 to Rune Guardians cap. You build a Gromlir Forge, you get +2 to Rune Guardians cap. Now you build the Runeforge and you get: +3 to Rune Guardians cap, +1 to Rune Golem cap and +1 to Shard Dragon cap. And to make the runic units more of a investment that is powerful and efficient = expensive yet worth it, then make it so that they also need to cost oathgold in upkeep (and make sure the AI also pays it).
    Thus if the Dwarfs control 20 Provinces then they get 20 Shard Dragons, but by that time they'd already be controlling half the map and probably already achieved total victory a long time ago. Not to mention that is if they did build in every single capital province a Smithy building and upgraded them up to Runeforges which are tier 5 buildings. And by that time they'd have a ton of money to recruit a ton of armies with their other units.
  • Wyvax#7456Wyvax#7456 Registered Users Posts: 6,255
    OdTengri said:

    Wyvax said:

    OdTengri said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Rheingold said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Rheingold said:

    Realistically whats possible and what I would like to see:

    Grimm LL
    Mal LH
    Josef FLC
    Engineer lord with gyro mount

    Decent hero in combat so either Demon or dragon slayer.
    Deathroller
    Thunderbarge
    Thunderers with longer range.
    Hammerers and miners buffed.
    Ironbreakers with gold shields.
    Bardins mini gun making an appearance somehow.
    Regular cannon range needs to be equivalent to other artillery otherwise dawi have a major issue.
    That or buff gyro's.

    No shard dragons.

    Personally I don't want any golems but I can't deny that it would solve the main issues with dawi.

    There is literally nothing said that Dwarfs can't have Shard Dragons. And I checked all the books and other Warhammer media. As long as the unreliable is made reliable, Dwarfs will use it.
    Not going to get into an argument about whether dawi could use Shard dragons... the answer is CA could easily do it.
    I don't want them though. No monsters for dwarfs. Keep asymetric balance as much as possible instead of giving each faction everything.
    Nothing is asymmetrical or symmetrical. One monster doesn't make them symmetrical because it's literally one monster. Meanwhile every other faction has a gamut of monsters, monstrous mounts and more while the Shard Dragon is just that. One monster.
    One Vs Zero is one hell of a huge change... I'm sorry but it completely alters their potential battle doctrines.
    I respectfully disagree... ....It adds a capability to the dawi playbook that just wasn't possible before
    Disagree... then concludes with exactly with what I said.

    Just respect that your position is that IT's OK for the playstyle of the Dawi to be altered by providing tactical options not before available to them.

    Otherwise your just a liar and using a lot of words to misdirect me, the audience, and quite possibly yourself.
    I don't consider new tactical options to be equivalent to completely altering their battle doctrine. If I was against new tactical options then I'd be against most of the units in every LP so far added into the game.

    What I do think is that you are using ad hominem and deliberately moving the goal posts however. Provide a counterargument please.
  • damon40000#7640damon40000#7640 Registered Users Posts: 1,922

    Personally, I find the war balloons more interesting as a unit for the dwarves than the dragons.
    Otherwise I think at the rest Gimme :-D.

    Sorry for my disastrous English.

    Cathay have them and they are, well, bad. Also dawi have more complex flying tools then just baloons since game one.
    BsFG dwarf
  • Passthechips#4366Passthechips#4366 Registered Users Posts: 1,521
    I can imagine many or even most of these suggestions won’t make it. Regardless of what the tabletop had, there is clearly a vision/playstyle CA has for each faction, and I don’t think the Shard Dragon or maybe even Rune Golems fit into that vision. Much like I don’t think we’ll ever see the Vampire Counts getting an archer-style unit.
  • Wyvax#7456Wyvax#7456 Registered Users Posts: 6,255

    I can imagine many or even most of these suggestions won’t make it. Regardless of what the tabletop had, there is clearly a vision/playstyle CA has for each faction, and I don’t think the Shard Dragon or maybe even Rune Golems fit into that vision. Much like I don’t think we’ll ever see the Vampire Counts getting an archer-style unit.

    I think this is the most likely case as well. Come right down to it and I believe that the WH2 races and WH3 races will be in a really good spot when development for the trilogy is said and done and WH1 and expansion races will be permanently left behind with comparatively little development and the occasional added scraps. I don't like that, but I think it's the case. :/
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,031
    OdTengri said:

    Wyvax said:

    OdTengri said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Rheingold said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Rheingold said:

    Realistically whats possible and what I would like to see:

    Grimm LL
    Mal LH
    Josef FLC
    Engineer lord with gyro mount

    Decent hero in combat so either Demon or dragon slayer.
    Deathroller
    Thunderbarge
    Thunderers with longer range.
    Hammerers and miners buffed.
    Ironbreakers with gold shields.
    Bardins mini gun making an appearance somehow.
    Regular cannon range needs to be equivalent to other artillery otherwise dawi have a major issue.
    That or buff gyro's.

    No shard dragons.

    Personally I don't want any golems but I can't deny that it would solve the main issues with dawi.

    There is literally nothing said that Dwarfs can't have Shard Dragons. And I checked all the books and other Warhammer media. As long as the unreliable is made reliable, Dwarfs will use it.
    Not going to get into an argument about whether dawi could use Shard dragons... the answer is CA could easily do it.
    I don't want them though. No monsters for dwarfs. Keep asymetric balance as much as possible instead of giving each faction everything.
    Nothing is asymmetrical or symmetrical. One monster doesn't make them symmetrical because it's literally one monster. Meanwhile every other faction has a gamut of monsters, monstrous mounts and more while the Shard Dragon is just that. One monster.
    One Vs Zero is one hell of a huge change... I'm sorry but it completely alters their potential battle doctrines.
    I respectfully disagree... ....It adds a capability to the dawi playbook that just wasn't possible before
    Disagree... then concludes with exactly with what I said.

    Just respect that your position is that IT's OK for the playstyle of the Dawi to be altered by providing tactical options not before available to them.

    Otherwise your just a liar and using a lot of words to misdirect me, the audience, and quite possibly yourself.
    The Shard Dragon doesn't alter their combat potential to radical levels. They can still use their artillery and such, but now they have something that can distract the enemy and allow them to execute legit hammer and anvil tactics. In the former case it would force the enemy to choose: either they go up against a horde of angry Dawi advancing towards a vital point, or go and intercept a murder ferret that is about to charge their artillery. In the latter case the Shard Dragon would be used to charge into an expensive unit after quickly flanking it and charging from behind while another Dwarf unit keeps the regiment locked down.
    Also like I mentioned before, the Shard Dragon could be hard-capped along with the Rune Guardians and Rune Golems. And no. One monster, yet alone one monster and two constructs don't change the Dwarfs radically. Only opens new combinations. It's not a huge change. Or at least not that big and not a radical one to boot.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,031
    Wyvax said:

    I can imagine many or even most of these suggestions won’t make it. Regardless of what the tabletop had, there is clearly a vision/playstyle CA has for each faction, and I don’t think the Shard Dragon or maybe even Rune Golems fit into that vision. Much like I don’t think we’ll ever see the Vampire Counts getting an archer-style unit.

    I think this is the most likely case as well. Come right down to it and I believe that the WH2 races and WH3 races will be in a really good spot when development for the trilogy is said and done and WH1 and expansion races will be permanently left behind with comparatively little development and the occasional added scraps. I don't like that, but I think it's the case. :/
    Who knows? Time will tell.
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231
    Monsters completely change options for how to play every bit as much as adding cavalry or chariots to the dwarfs.

    Monsters can push through lines and disrupt formations that few other units can, also units like the Shard Dragon would likely be quite quick and be capable of working as a psudeo cavalry replacement.

    Either you @Ben1990 and @Wyvax either have a very weak understanding of this game or your being disingenuous.

    I think both of you want to change the dwarf playstyle and dislike how they currently play.

    As for Caps, or just don't Doom Stack... that has no effect on MP or even all that much of how it will be fighting against AI dwarfs in SP for that matter.
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 1,572
    The problem the with the Shard Dragon is that it's not a dwarf unit. There is an insignificant lore detail about the dwarf's rune collars being a precursor to binding scrolls and that's it. Shard Dragons come from a book full of monster that any army can take. Shard Dragons are as much a dwarf unit as regular dragons are a Skaven or tomb kings unit.

    You also go down the route of bound monster being an acceptable inclusion in any roster, and like the Monster Arcanum says, (the book where Shard Dragons are from) any monster can be taken by literally any race.
    "Daemons are abroad again, and the servants of the foul gods march south with the storm at their backs. But as the winds of magic stir, other powers rise to contest it.
    I have seen the Lady, my brothers. She came to me from the waters and told me of the trials to come. This is why I call you here, so that Her summons may be answered. I call Errantry, a crusade to strike at the heart of the new darkness"


    -- The Lionhearted
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,031
    OdTengri said:

    Monsters completely change options for how to play every bit as much as adding cavalry or chariots to the dwarfs.

    Monsters can push through lines and disrupt formations that few other units can, also units like the Shard Dragon would likely be quite quick and be capable of working as a psudeo cavalry replacement.

    Either you @Ben1990 and @Wyvax either have a very weak understanding of this game or your being disingenuous.

    I think both of you want to change the dwarf playstyle and dislike how they currently play.

    As for Caps, or just don't Doom Stack... that has no effect on MP or even all that much of how it will be fighting against AI dwarfs in SP for that matter.

    Some units are also hard-capped in multi. And each faction has the right tools to deal with something like a Shard Dragon or a Dread Saurian...or the Magma Dragon if Chaos Dwarfs will get it.
    Also mutliplayer is multiplayer. Single is single.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,031
    User_Clue said:

    The problem the with the Shard Dragon is that it's not a dwarf unit. There is an insignificant lore detail about the dwarf's rune collars being a precursor to binding scrolls and that's it. Shard Dragons come from a book full of monster that any army can take. Shard Dragons are as much a dwarf unit as regular dragons are a Skaven or tomb kings unit.

    You also go down the route of bound monster being an acceptable inclusion in any roster, and like the Monster Arcanum says, (the book where Shard Dragons are from) any monster can be taken by literally any race.

    All that's said in the lore section of it is that the Dwarf ancestors came up with the runic collars (if they meant by ancestors the Ancestor Gods or the literally first Dwarfs that were around the time the Ancestor Gods were, or both) to shackle the Shard Dragons. Though honestly that part should be more expanded (though if it's runic, then I bet Thungni had a hand in it).
  • Nyxilis#3646Nyxilis#3646 Registered Users Posts: 7,726
    I ultimately have to agree with OddTengri here. The whole 'content denier' thing needs to be checked sometimes because we could also add elves to the Dwarf roster. That would be content!

    There are themes to stick with each race, aesthetically, mechanically, and lore wise. In that for example we really don't expect a mainstay elven unit for dwarfs. They've got history, it's bad.

    In that vein I'm not as hip on the shard dragon because it does effectively alter their playstyle like Odd has said. You break lines with these things. You mow down paths, if it can fly it does a whole line of other things, it harasses back lines and deals with other SEMs in a real way.

    Where as the Thunderbarge is ideal because it would not be super fast, it would be more about what the dwarves do. Pew pew. It would not be skirmishing with other SEMs as a primary function, or breaking lines by plowing into them.

    This changes this theme in SP before we even talk about MP.

    Particularly when something like a Shard Dragon would eat up a lot of resources when there are plenty of other things to be added that could be wedged in.
  • Heretical_Cactus#7598Heretical_Cactus#7598 Registered Users Posts: 3,034
    Nyxilis said:

    I ultimately have to agree with OddTengri here. The whole 'content denier' thing needs to be checked sometimes because we could also add elves to the Dwarf roster. That would be content!

    There are themes to stick with each race, aesthetically, mechanically, and lore wise. In that for example we really don't expect a mainstay elven unit for dwarfs. They've got history, it's bad.

    In that vein I'm not as hip on the shard dragon because it does effectively alter their playstyle like Odd has said. You break lines with these things. You mow down paths, if it can fly it does a whole line of other things, it harasses back lines and deals with other SEMs in a real way.

    Where as the Thunderbarge is ideal because it would not be super fast, it would be more about what the dwarves do. Pew pew. It would not be skirmishing with other SEMs as a primary function, or breaking lines by plowing into them.

    This changes this theme in SP before we even talk about MP.

    Particularly when something like a Shard Dragon would eat up a lot of resources when there are plenty of other things to be added that could be wedged in.

    But like there is no lore reason that elf would be added to the Dwarf, while there is for the Shard Dragon, like it or not
  • Wyvax#7456Wyvax#7456 Registered Users Posts: 6,255
    Nyxilis said:

    I ultimately have to agree with OddTengri here. The whole 'content denier' thing needs to be checked sometimes because we could also add elves to the Dwarf roster. That would be content!

    There are themes to stick with each race, aesthetically, mechanically, and lore wise. In that for example we really don't expect a mainstay elven unit for dwarfs. They've got history, it's bad.

    In that vein I'm not as hip on the shard dragon because it does effectively alter their playstyle like Odd has said. You break lines with these things. You mow down paths, if it can fly it does a whole line of other things, it harasses back lines and deals with other SEMs in a real way.

    Where as the Thunderbarge is ideal because it would not be super fast, it would be more about what the dwarves do. Pew pew. It would not be skirmishing with other SEMs as a primary function, or breaking lines by plowing into them.

    This changes this theme in SP before we even talk about MP.

    Particularly when something like a Shard Dragon would eat up a lot of resources when there are plenty of other things to be added that could be wedged in.

    Shard Dragons are flightless. They have no wings, I don't know why people bring that up so much, (you aren't the first my friend), but it indicates to me that many just haven't read up on them.

    But onto the more important question here. What is wrong with the dwarfs having a unit that can break through a line??? Every roster in the game has at least one unit that has that ability, whether living or mechanical, land bound or flying. Having that capacity doesn't upset the dwarfs integral capacity of holding the line themselves.
  • Passthechips#4366Passthechips#4366 Registered Users Posts: 1,521
    Sometimes it’s cool that some factions are defined by what they can’t do. It makes them a more unique experience compared to other factions and gives them the challenge of trying to adapt to that deficiency.
  • Nyxilis#3646Nyxilis#3646 Registered Users Posts: 7,726
    Wyvax said:

    Nyxilis said:

    I ultimately have to agree with OddTengri here. The whole 'content denier' thing needs to be checked sometimes because we could also add elves to the Dwarf roster. That would be content!

    There are themes to stick with each race, aesthetically, mechanically, and lore wise. In that for example we really don't expect a mainstay elven unit for dwarfs. They've got history, it's bad.

    In that vein I'm not as hip on the shard dragon because it does effectively alter their playstyle like Odd has said. You break lines with these things. You mow down paths, if it can fly it does a whole line of other things, it harasses back lines and deals with other SEMs in a real way.

    Where as the Thunderbarge is ideal because it would not be super fast, it would be more about what the dwarves do. Pew pew. It would not be skirmishing with other SEMs as a primary function, or breaking lines by plowing into them.

    This changes this theme in SP before we even talk about MP.

    Particularly when something like a Shard Dragon would eat up a lot of resources when there are plenty of other things to be added that could be wedged in.

    Shard Dragons are flightless. They have no wings, I don't know why people bring that up so much, (you aren't the first my friend), but it indicates to me that many just haven't read up on them.

    But onto the more important question here. What is wrong with the dwarfs having a unit that can break through a line??? Every roster in the game has at least one unit that has that ability, whether living or mechanical, land bound or flying. Having that capacity doesn't upset the dwarfs integral capacity of holding the line themselves.
    Point taken on the flight, the rest remain, and I was aware they were subterranean and were in the book of grudges and are extremely belligerent but otherwise never moved to field one.

    What's wrong is the way the roster functions. Just like giving them cavalry would change their fundamental uniqueness and works towards making them more bland rather than what they are. Which is why I'm against ranged units for the VCounts, their identity as a roster is they don't have that. The only way they currently get by with a few is that they are in fact hard capped on the ones that they can get.

    Shard Dragons, would fundamentally alter the function unless you're talking about hard capping to an extremely limited point and even that still gnaws at the identity pushing it towards monster users who can break lines with giant SEMs. Justl like if you gave the VCounts a regular ranged unit it would break their roster identity and uniqueness.

    It slowly just pushes each race to just the Empire with variables a lil higher or lower for each type of unit.

    In other words, the push to add Shard Dragons to the Dwarves doesn't make them more unique or more wow. It in fact makes them more generic. I did not approve the later push to 'smush a dragon into everyone' and still do not.
Sign In or Register to comment.