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

13

Comments

  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231
    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.

    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.
    Every roster? Then immediately followed up with an "except for the Dwarfs" admission.

    Stop with the double speak stop with the disingenuous lies.
    Wyvax said:

    Having that capacity doesn't upset the dwarfs integral capacity of holding the line themselves.

    And their ability to hold the lines isn't at question, its besides the point, this is another red herring and misdirection.

    Their inability to break lines is what is at question here, and how changing that invariably changes the playstyle of the faction.
  • Wyvax#7456Wyvax#7456 Registered Users Posts: 6,264
    I think there's an interesting and valid conversation to be had on the topic, but...
    OdTengri said:

    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.

    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.
    Stop with the double speak stop with the disingenuous lies, red herring and misdirection.

    ... just with someone else.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,044
    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    In a whole game where most stuff isn't unique? Also again, hard-capping them by having 1 per Runeforge (AKA: the tier 5 Smithy building). This along with the other runic units. Also make it so they also have upkeep in oathgold. Here. Also why is nobody thinking about hard-capping things?
    Also the part with the VCs is also missed here because of the von Carstein regularly using mortal troops in battle. Among those being ranged units.
    von Carstein - Undead + Mortal Auxilia
    Blood Dragons - Unique Melee Vampire units + A lot of Wights
    Strigoi - Ghouls, Monsters and Gypsies
    Lahmia - Subterfuge, unique Mortals and Vampire units
    Necrarch - Necromancy up to 11

    The whole uniqueness argument is false with Warhammer. Most stuff isn't unique since it takes many elements from other sources. And the few things that are unique aren't connected to most factions. Dwarfs are not unique. Them having only artillery doesn't make them unique. Adding the Shard Dragon along the other runic units won't make them less or more unique.
  • Wyvax#7456Wyvax#7456 Registered Users Posts: 6,264
    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    That's a fair take and I understand the ranged comparison in regard to the VC. I just don't personally see how they would alter the dwarfen in such a radical way as say cavalry, garbage chaff meatshields or a flying monster such as our typical generic dragons would. Let me examine the Shard Dragon on the merits of its design itself, using a pdf copy of the Monstrous Arcanum in my possession.

    The creature has a movement that's comparatively low for such a large monster, 5 on the TT. It's lower than the Dread Saurian which means that while it's certainly faster than the dwarfs themselves by a good margin, it's nowhere close to cavalry speed and cannot be used in a similar way for any effective cycle charging, unlike say a feral carnosaur can be used. The creature does however possess the same toughness and wounds as the Dread Saurian on the so it is an incredibly beefy and defensive beast which meshes well with the style of most dwarf stats barring Slayers and Gyros of course. It's weapon skill is mediocre while having better than average strength at 4 and 6 respectively (also lining up with typical dwarf stats of MA and WS respectively in TW), and the thing has an option for ward save due to the rule/add-on "Gromril Hard Scales" and magic resist due to the runic collar. It does however have options for poisonous attacks and a breath weapon, though I fail to see any meaningful difference between the breath weapon of a slow landbound monster and the volley fire of a Dwarfen Flame Cannon, poison could certainly be dropped if it conflicts to much with the dwarfen modus operandi, which I'm fine with. Native rules for the Shard Dragon include what would essentially translate as collision damage (Razor Scales) and a rule similar to the Rogue Idol's crumbling rule, where once the beast is wounded it becomes even more dangerous (Rabid Frenzy). Lastly it of course has the kinship rule with dwarfs alone, all other races are either abhorrent or must use a binding scroll to recruit.

    In short there's not much that the Shard Dragon provides to the dwarfen roster that it doesn't already have other than A: enough mass to push through the enemy frontline and snack on archers and artillery, something that Gyrocopters can already do to a degree (albeit exchanging survivability for speed), and B: provide a big and scary distraction that forces the oppoenent to divide it's attention away from the real killing power of the dawi gunline. The creature doesn't provide something new, it just provides a different way for the dwarfs to do the same strategies in battle. If CA were to add some hypothetical cavalry, say battle rams like in the live action version of The Hobbit, that would completely change how dwarfs could be played, just like archers for the Vampire Counts or tough line holding infantry for the V Coast would. But the Shard Dragon? I don't see it.

    Really the best and most common arguments for not including them are aesthetic based, which I can respect even if I personally don't agree with them. Your last paragraph hits this point dead on. My personal view is that the creature itself is unique (it it was literally just another dragon reskin, just with crystals on it's head I'd roll my eyes and never want it) and the lore for the dwarfs fielding them in battle makes sense and adds to the richness and complexity of the setting. So I like them for that reason. And yes I will fully admit that I have a bias for reptiles, but that doesn't decide it for me!
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,044
    edited April 2022
    Wyvax said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    That's a fair take and I understand the ranged comparison in regard to the VC. I just don't personally see how they would alter the dwarfen in such a radical way as say cavalry, garbage chaff meatshields or a flying monster such as our typical generic dragons would. Let me examine the Shard Dragon on the merits of its design itself, using a pdf copy of the Monstrous Arcanum in my possession.

    The creature has a movement that's comparatively low for such a large monster, 5 on the TT. It's lower than the Dread Saurian which means that while it's certainly faster than the dwarfs themselves by a good margin, it's nowhere close to cavalry speed and cannot be used in a similar way for any effective cycle charging, unlike say a feral carnosaur can be used. The creature does however possess the same toughness and wounds as the Dread Saurian on the so it is an incredibly beefy and defensive beast which meshes well with the style of most dwarf stats barring Slayers and Gyros of course. It's weapon skill is mediocre while having better than average strength at 4 and 6 respectively (also lining up with typical dwarf stats of MA and WS respectively in TW), and the thing has an option for ward save due to the rule/add-on "Gromril Hard Scales" and magic resist due to the runic collar. It does however have options for poisonous attacks and a breath weapon, though I fail to see any meaningful difference between the breath weapon of a slow landbound monster and the volley fire of a Dwarfen Flame Cannon, poison could certainly be dropped if it conflicts to much with the dwarfen modus operandi, which I'm fine with. Native rules for the Shard Dragon include what would essentially translate as collision damage (Razor Scales) and a rule similar to the Rogue Idol's crumbling rule, where once the beast is wounded it becomes even more dangerous (Rabid Frenzy). Lastly it of course has the kinship rule with dwarfs alone, all other races are either abhorrent or must use a binding scroll to recruit.

    In short there's not much that the Shard Dragon provides to the dwarfen roster that it doesn't already have other than A: enough mass to push through the enemy frontline and snack on archers and artillery, something that Gyrocopters can already do to a degree (albeit exchanging survivability for speed), and B: provide a big and scary distraction that forces the oppoenent to divide it's attention away from the real killing power of the dawi gunline. The creature doesn't provide something new, it just provides a different way for the dwarfs to do the same strategies in battle. If CA were to add some hypothetical cavalry, say battle rams like in the live action version of The Hobbit, that would completely change how dwarfs could be played, just like archers for the Vampire Counts or tough line holding infantry for the V Coast would. But the Shard Dragon? I don't see it.

    Really the best and most common arguments for not including them are aesthetic based, which I can respect even if I personally don't agree with them. Your last paragraph hits this point dead on. My personal view is that the creature itself is unique (it it was literally just another dragon reskin, just with crystals on it's head I'd roll my eyes and never want it) and the lore for the dwarfs fielding them in battle makes sense and adds to the richness and complexity of the setting. So I like them for that reason. And yes I will fully admit that I have a bias for reptiles, but that doesn't decide it for me!
    That's a good argument. Though the Shard Dragon has two points of movement more, it is a tanky beast (not as tanky as the Toad Dragon, but tanky), that's just tabletop stuff since in the Dwarf Army Book the Gyro machines have...1 point of movement (thus much slower than the Dwarfs themselves). But this being a game based off the tabletop, it's all far different since here the Gyro machines are faster than the infantry (and faster than dragons on land), so yeah, this barely changes anything.
    In case of looks I can agree. The Shard Dragon should have elements of the armadillo lizard which pic you posted, but also elements of a moloch lizard while still looking like the scary serpentine murder ferrets they are.
    Edit: Also add in some armor bits, chains and the runic collars themselves to make the Shard Dragon look even more uniquely.
    Post edited by Ben1990#8909 on
  • Wyvax#7456Wyvax#7456 Registered Users Posts: 6,264
    Ben1990 said:

    Wyvax said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    That's a fair take and I understand the ranged comparison in regard to the VC. I just don't personally see how they would alter the dwarfen in such a radical way as say cavalry, garbage chaff meatshields or a flying monster such as our typical generic dragons would. Let me examine the Shard Dragon on the merits of its design itself, using a pdf copy of the Monstrous Arcanum in my possession.

    The creature has a movement that's comparatively low for such a large monster, 5 on the TT. It's lower than the Dread Saurian which means that while it's certainly faster than the dwarfs themselves by a good margin, it's nowhere close to cavalry speed and cannot be used in a similar way for any effective cycle charging, unlike say a feral carnosaur can be used. The creature does however possess the same toughness and wounds as the Dread Saurian on the so it is an incredibly beefy and defensive beast which meshes well with the style of most dwarf stats barring Slayers and Gyros of course. It's weapon skill is mediocre while having better than average strength at 4 and 6 respectively (also lining up with typical dwarf stats of MA and WS respectively in TW), and the thing has an option for ward save due to the rule/add-on "Gromril Hard Scales" and magic resist due to the runic collar. It does however have options for poisonous attacks and a breath weapon, though I fail to see any meaningful difference between the breath weapon of a slow landbound monster and the volley fire of a Dwarfen Flame Cannon, poison could certainly be dropped if it conflicts to much with the dwarfen modus operandi, which I'm fine with. Native rules for the Shard Dragon include what would essentially translate as collision damage (Razor Scales) and a rule similar to the Rogue Idol's crumbling rule, where once the beast is wounded it becomes even more dangerous (Rabid Frenzy). Lastly it of course has the kinship rule with dwarfs alone, all other races are either abhorrent or must use a binding scroll to recruit.

    In short there's not much that the Shard Dragon provides to the dwarfen roster that it doesn't already have other than A: enough mass to push through the enemy frontline and snack on archers and artillery, something that Gyrocopters can already do to a degree (albeit exchanging survivability for speed), and B: provide a big and scary distraction that forces the oppoenent to divide it's attention away from the real killing power of the dawi gunline. The creature doesn't provide something new, it just provides a different way for the dwarfs to do the same strategies in battle. If CA were to add some hypothetical cavalry, say battle rams like in the live action version of The Hobbit, that would completely change how dwarfs could be played, just like archers for the Vampire Counts or tough line holding infantry for the V Coast would. But the Shard Dragon? I don't see it.

    Really the best and most common arguments for not including them are aesthetic based, which I can respect even if I personally don't agree with them. Your last paragraph hits this point dead on. My personal view is that the creature itself is unique (it it was literally just another dragon reskin, just with crystals on it's head I'd roll my eyes and never want it) and the lore for the dwarfs fielding them in battle makes sense and adds to the richness and complexity of the setting. So I like them for that reason. And yes I will fully admit that I have a bias for reptiles, but that doesn't decide it for me!
    That's a good argument. Though the Shard Dragon has two points of movement more, it is a tanky beast (not as tanky as the Toad Dragon, but tanky), that's just tabletop stuff since in the Dwarf Army Book the Gyro machines have...1 point of movement (thus much slower than the Dwarfs themselves). But this being a game based off the tabletop, it's all far different since here the Gyro machines are faster than the infantry (and faster than dragons on land), so yeah, this barely changes anything.
    In case of looks I can agree. The Shard Dragon should have elements of the armadillo lizard which pic you posted, but also elements of a moloch lizard while still looking like the scary serpentine murder ferrets they are.
    Edit: Also add in some armor bits, chains and the runic collars themselves to make the Shard Dragon look even more uniquely.
    Yeah, I noticed that the Arcane Phoenix had a movement of 2 when looking through the book and the Warpfire Dragon was similarly low. Haven't played the TT, but it became pretty obvious that flying units had a special rule separate from their base movement speed.
  • ROMOBOY#7812ROMOBOY#7812 Registered Users Posts: 4,823
    Let’s not forget irondrakes with pistols (although that can easily be a flc)
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

    Cathay > Chaos Dwarfs = Pain

  • TheMadTypistTheMadTypist Registered Users Posts: 596
    The drill miners would be a great addition if they worked like the scaven drills, AOE damage or snare backing up dwarven battle lines would be a fun alternative to relying on arty or ranged for damage.

    The balloons we already have in game three set the precedent for similar dwarven units, I would love a thunder barge even if only as a mount for an engineer lord.

    I’d love some ground constructs like the rune golems or thunder rollers. The current dwarf lineup is pretty limited in how it operates and these would open up some fun alternatives that pair well with the existing roster units.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,044
    ROMOBOY said:

    Let’s not forget irondrakes with pistols (although that can easily be a flc)

    Heard the modding frame in game 3 is superior. So hopefully as time passes people will add in stuff if CA doesn't add them.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,044
    Wyvax said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Wyvax said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    That's a fair take and I understand the ranged comparison in regard to the VC. I just don't personally see how they would alter the dwarfen in such a radical way as say cavalry, garbage chaff meatshields or a flying monster such as our typical generic dragons would. Let me examine the Shard Dragon on the merits of its design itself, using a pdf copy of the Monstrous Arcanum in my possession.

    The creature has a movement that's comparatively low for such a large monster, 5 on the TT. It's lower than the Dread Saurian which means that while it's certainly faster than the dwarfs themselves by a good margin, it's nowhere close to cavalry speed and cannot be used in a similar way for any effective cycle charging, unlike say a feral carnosaur can be used. The creature does however possess the same toughness and wounds as the Dread Saurian on the so it is an incredibly beefy and defensive beast which meshes well with the style of most dwarf stats barring Slayers and Gyros of course. It's weapon skill is mediocre while having better than average strength at 4 and 6 respectively (also lining up with typical dwarf stats of MA and WS respectively in TW), and the thing has an option for ward save due to the rule/add-on "Gromril Hard Scales" and magic resist due to the runic collar. It does however have options for poisonous attacks and a breath weapon, though I fail to see any meaningful difference between the breath weapon of a slow landbound monster and the volley fire of a Dwarfen Flame Cannon, poison could certainly be dropped if it conflicts to much with the dwarfen modus operandi, which I'm fine with. Native rules for the Shard Dragon include what would essentially translate as collision damage (Razor Scales) and a rule similar to the Rogue Idol's crumbling rule, where once the beast is wounded it becomes even more dangerous (Rabid Frenzy). Lastly it of course has the kinship rule with dwarfs alone, all other races are either abhorrent or must use a binding scroll to recruit.

    In short there's not much that the Shard Dragon provides to the dwarfen roster that it doesn't already have other than A: enough mass to push through the enemy frontline and snack on archers and artillery, something that Gyrocopters can already do to a degree (albeit exchanging survivability for speed), and B: provide a big and scary distraction that forces the oppoenent to divide it's attention away from the real killing power of the dawi gunline. The creature doesn't provide something new, it just provides a different way for the dwarfs to do the same strategies in battle. If CA were to add some hypothetical cavalry, say battle rams like in the live action version of The Hobbit, that would completely change how dwarfs could be played, just like archers for the Vampire Counts or tough line holding infantry for the V Coast would. But the Shard Dragon? I don't see it.

    Really the best and most common arguments for not including them are aesthetic based, which I can respect even if I personally don't agree with them. Your last paragraph hits this point dead on. My personal view is that the creature itself is unique (it it was literally just another dragon reskin, just with crystals on it's head I'd roll my eyes and never want it) and the lore for the dwarfs fielding them in battle makes sense and adds to the richness and complexity of the setting. So I like them for that reason. And yes I will fully admit that I have a bias for reptiles, but that doesn't decide it for me!
    That's a good argument. Though the Shard Dragon has two points of movement more, it is a tanky beast (not as tanky as the Toad Dragon, but tanky), that's just tabletop stuff since in the Dwarf Army Book the Gyro machines have...1 point of movement (thus much slower than the Dwarfs themselves). But this being a game based off the tabletop, it's all far different since here the Gyro machines are faster than the infantry (and faster than dragons on land), so yeah, this barely changes anything.
    In case of looks I can agree. The Shard Dragon should have elements of the armadillo lizard which pic you posted, but also elements of a moloch lizard while still looking like the scary serpentine murder ferrets they are.
    Edit: Also add in some armor bits, chains and the runic collars themselves to make the Shard Dragon look even more uniquely.
    Yeah, I noticed that the Arcane Phoenix had a movement of 2 when looking through the book and the Warpfire Dragon was similarly low. Haven't played the TT, but it became pretty obvious that flying units had a special rule separate from their base movement speed.
    Oh right. Forgot about that part.
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231
    This is what I want to see the dwarfs get more of... guns... more guns.









    image

  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231
  • Nyxilis#3646Nyxilis#3646 Registered Users Posts: 7,729
    Ben1990 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    In a whole game where most stuff isn't unique? Also again, hard-capping them by having 1 per Runeforge (AKA: the tier 5 Smithy building). This along with the other runic units. Also make it so they also have upkeep in oathgold. Here. Also why is nobody thinking about hard-capping things?
    Also the part with the VCs is also missed here because of the von Carstein regularly using mortal troops in battle. Among those being ranged units.
    von Carstein - Undead + Mortal Auxilia
    Blood Dragons - Unique Melee Vampire units + A lot of Wights
    Strigoi - Ghouls, Monsters and Gypsies
    Lahmia - Subterfuge, unique Mortals and Vampire units
    Necrarch - Necromancy up to 11

    The whole uniqueness argument is false with Warhammer. Most stuff isn't unique since it takes many elements from other sources. And the few things that are unique aren't connected to most factions. Dwarfs are not unique. Them having only artillery doesn't make them unique. Adding the Shard Dragon along the other runic units won't make them less or more unique.
    And did you notice how immediately controversial they were? Quite a few people were immediately out because adding ranged damages identity. Now it is loreful for them to use mortal units but not now or ever have they ever been the mainstay of the army and so they hard cap them to very minor rolls in very few of your armies and deliberately do not take center place. And even then they remain controversial in that vein. I do not want any more.

    Another thing is, we're talking about a large massive SEM center dish unit. If dwarves get even one more I'd significantly would rather it be the Thunderbarge.
    Wyvax said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    That's a fair take and I understand the ranged comparison in regard to the VC. I just don't personally see how they would alter the dwarfen in such a radical way as say cavalry, garbage chaff meatshields or a flying monster such as our typical generic dragons would. Let me examine the Shard Dragon on the merits of its design itself, using a pdf copy of the Monstrous Arcanum in my possession.

    The creature has a movement that's comparatively low for such a large monster, 5 on the TT. It's lower than the Dread Saurian which means that while it's certainly faster than the dwarfs themselves by a good margin, it's nowhere close to cavalry speed and cannot be used in a similar way for any effective cycle charging, unlike say a feral carnosaur can be used. The creature does however possess the same toughness and wounds as the Dread Saurian on the so it is an incredibly beefy and defensive beast which meshes well with the style of most dwarf stats barring Slayers and Gyros of course. It's weapon skill is mediocre while having better than average strength at 4 and 6 respectively (also lining up with typical dwarf stats of MA and WS respectively in TW), and the thing has an option for ward save due to the rule/add-on "Gromril Hard Scales" and magic resist due to the runic collar. It does however have options for poisonous attacks and a breath weapon, though I fail to see any meaningful difference between the breath weapon of a slow landbound monster and the volley fire of a Dwarfen Flame Cannon, poison could certainly be dropped if it conflicts to much with the dwarfen modus operandi, which I'm fine with. Native rules for the Shard Dragon include what would essentially translate as collision damage (Razor Scales) and a rule similar to the Rogue Idol's crumbling rule, where once the beast is wounded it becomes even more dangerous (Rabid Frenzy). Lastly it of course has the kinship rule with dwarfs alone, all other races are either abhorrent or must use a binding scroll to recruit.

    In short there's not much that the Shard Dragon provides to the dwarfen roster that it doesn't already have other than A: enough mass to push through the enemy frontline and snack on archers and artillery, something that Gyrocopters can already do to a degree (albeit exchanging survivability for speed), and B: provide a big and scary distraction that forces the oppoenent to divide it's attention away from the real killing power of the dawi gunline. The creature doesn't provide something new, it just provides a different way for the dwarfs to do the same strategies in battle. If CA were to add some hypothetical cavalry, say battle rams like in the live action version of The Hobbit, that would completely change how dwarfs could be played, just like archers for the Vampire Counts or tough line holding infantry for the V Coast would. But the Shard Dragon? I don't see it.

    Really the best and most common arguments for not including them are aesthetic based, which I can respect even if I personally don't agree with them. Your last paragraph hits this point dead on. My personal view is that the creature itself is unique (it it was literally just another dragon reskin, just with crystals on it's head I'd roll my eyes and never want it) and the lore for the dwarfs fielding them in battle makes sense and adds to the richness and complexity of the setting. So I like them for that reason. And yes I will fully admit that I have a bias for reptiles, but that doesn't decide it for me!
    Meatshields, flying monsters, and cavalry would be also dwarves don't bash into lines they chew them apart. This is where a large SEM really has the potential of changing that a bit. Less grind, more chomp though it is perhaps the least offender when it comes to something like cavalry. And the effects upon a front line are the primary area I'm concern about it with. It would effectively need to not shatter lines.

    But as the aesthetics go, yes it just doesn't fit. Dwarves are not animal masters, gives more of a Dark Elf vibe to be enslaving some monster. And what does it do? Poison fumes that kill with fear, feels Skaven. And the thing rampages when it gets damaged. Does this sound like a dwarven unit so far?

    I get dragons are cool, it's a cool creature but I've always felt it worked better in some other factions that already deal with big dump rampage induced SEMs.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,044
    Nyxilis said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    In a whole game where most stuff isn't unique? Also again, hard-capping them by having 1 per Runeforge (AKA: the tier 5 Smithy building). This along with the other runic units. Also make it so they also have upkeep in oathgold. Here. Also why is nobody thinking about hard-capping things?
    Also the part with the VCs is also missed here because of the von Carstein regularly using mortal troops in battle. Among those being ranged units.
    von Carstein - Undead + Mortal Auxilia
    Blood Dragons - Unique Melee Vampire units + A lot of Wights
    Strigoi - Ghouls, Monsters and Gypsies
    Lahmia - Subterfuge, unique Mortals and Vampire units
    Necrarch - Necromancy up to 11

    The whole uniqueness argument is false with Warhammer. Most stuff isn't unique since it takes many elements from other sources. And the few things that are unique aren't connected to most factions. Dwarfs are not unique. Them having only artillery doesn't make them unique. Adding the Shard Dragon along the other runic units won't make them less or more unique.
    And did you notice how immediately controversial they were? Quite a few people were immediately out because adding ranged damages identity. Now it is loreful for them to use mortal units but not now or ever have they ever been the mainstay of the army and so they hard cap them to very minor rolls in very few of your armies and deliberately do not take center place. And even then they remain controversial in that vein. I do not want any more.

    Another thing is, we're talking about a large massive SEM center dish unit. If dwarves get even one more I'd significantly would rather it be the Thunderbarge.
    Wyvax said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    That's a fair take and I understand the ranged comparison in regard to the VC. I just don't personally see how they would alter the dwarfen in such a radical way as say cavalry, garbage chaff meatshields or a flying monster such as our typical generic dragons would. Let me examine the Shard Dragon on the merits of its design itself, using a pdf copy of the Monstrous Arcanum in my possession.

    The creature has a movement that's comparatively low for such a large monster, 5 on the TT. It's lower than the Dread Saurian which means that while it's certainly faster than the dwarfs themselves by a good margin, it's nowhere close to cavalry speed and cannot be used in a similar way for any effective cycle charging, unlike say a feral carnosaur can be used. The creature does however possess the same toughness and wounds as the Dread Saurian on the so it is an incredibly beefy and defensive beast which meshes well with the style of most dwarf stats barring Slayers and Gyros of course. It's weapon skill is mediocre while having better than average strength at 4 and 6 respectively (also lining up with typical dwarf stats of MA and WS respectively in TW), and the thing has an option for ward save due to the rule/add-on "Gromril Hard Scales" and magic resist due to the runic collar. It does however have options for poisonous attacks and a breath weapon, though I fail to see any meaningful difference between the breath weapon of a slow landbound monster and the volley fire of a Dwarfen Flame Cannon, poison could certainly be dropped if it conflicts to much with the dwarfen modus operandi, which I'm fine with. Native rules for the Shard Dragon include what would essentially translate as collision damage (Razor Scales) and a rule similar to the Rogue Idol's crumbling rule, where once the beast is wounded it becomes even more dangerous (Rabid Frenzy). Lastly it of course has the kinship rule with dwarfs alone, all other races are either abhorrent or must use a binding scroll to recruit.

    In short there's not much that the Shard Dragon provides to the dwarfen roster that it doesn't already have other than A: enough mass to push through the enemy frontline and snack on archers and artillery, something that Gyrocopters can already do to a degree (albeit exchanging survivability for speed), and B: provide a big and scary distraction that forces the oppoenent to divide it's attention away from the real killing power of the dawi gunline. The creature doesn't provide something new, it just provides a different way for the dwarfs to do the same strategies in battle. If CA were to add some hypothetical cavalry, say battle rams like in the live action version of The Hobbit, that would completely change how dwarfs could be played, just like archers for the Vampire Counts or tough line holding infantry for the V Coast would. But the Shard Dragon? I don't see it.

    Really the best and most common arguments for not including them are aesthetic based, which I can respect even if I personally don't agree with them. Your last paragraph hits this point dead on. My personal view is that the creature itself is unique (it it was literally just another dragon reskin, just with crystals on it's head I'd roll my eyes and never want it) and the lore for the dwarfs fielding them in battle makes sense and adds to the richness and complexity of the setting. So I like them for that reason. And yes I will fully admit that I have a bias for reptiles, but that doesn't decide it for me!
    Meatshields, flying monsters, and cavalry would be also dwarves don't bash into lines they chew them apart. This is where a large SEM really has the potential of changing that a bit. Less grind, more chomp though it is perhaps the least offender when it comes to something like cavalry. And the effects upon a front line are the primary area I'm concern about it with. It would effectively need to not shatter lines.

    But as the aesthetics go, yes it just doesn't fit. Dwarves are not animal masters, gives more of a Dark Elf vibe to be enslaving some monster. And what does it do? Poison fumes that kill with fear, feels Skaven. And the thing rampages when it gets damaged. Does this sound like a dwarven unit so far?

    I get dragons are cool, it's a cool creature but I've always felt it worked better in some other factions that already deal with big dump rampage induced SEMs.
    No, no, no. Rabid Frenzy is not Rampage, people should damn stop mixing up those things. Rampage is that you don't have control over it. Rabid Frenzy is like Frenzy, but on steroids (the moment it gets wounded it gets Frenzy and can dish out double the attacks than it used to...FOR THE REST OF THE GAME, so you want the enemy to wound it). Thus you can control it even when it's **** off. Not to mention that the Runelords control the Shard Dragons through the Runic Collars. It's not about taming but shackling and using a giant monster as a living, expendable land-cruising missile because MUH GRUDGES. Taming is for Dark Elves (yes, they tame by breaking the monsters) and Dwarfs don't play this way (they could, but don't need to in case of giant monsters).
    The Shard Dragon is a Distraction Carnifex. It's a scary monster that is the bane of existence of everything that has low leadership in the form of the Breathe of Nightmares (forces models to use their base leadership instead of toughness and it's S10, meaning Skaven will die in the thousands immediately as well as any unit that doesn't have high enough LD). The Breathe of Nightmares isn't a poison. It' a hallucinogenic gaseous breathe that makes people hallucinate stuff so scary they die from a heart attack.
    It's scary monster that would force the enemy to divert his focus away from the rest of the Dwarf army (which is the actual threat) and instead focus on the murder ferret. The murder ferret also has the Razor Scales that deal damage to anyone who misses it in melee, a Ward Save (via the Gromlir Scales upgrade which makes it more resilient and unique because not many monsters have a ward save), increased magic resistance via the Runic Collar and Rock Biter (a venom that is so damn corrosive that it both gives Shard Dragons Poisoned Attacks as well as superior Impact Damage [AKA: it charges harder into the enemy and with more force]). Apart of this the standard rules that dragons have (except for Fly) and Stubborn (would see it that the murder ferret has much higher LD compared to a normal dragon since there ain't any equivalent to it in game 3). Also it had the Wall Crawler rule that allowed it to climb them over, but in the game it would have Siege Attacker instead.
    Also the aesthetics of the Shard Dragon is that it represents the fears and dangers of the underground and the Dwarfs shackling them means that they overcame said fears and dangers...but it needs a visual beef-up.
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231
    Ben1990 said:

    Not to mention that the Runelords control the Shard Dragons through the Runic Collars. It's not about taming but shackling and using a giant monster as a living, expendable land-cruising missile because MUH GRUDGES.

    This idea never made any sense in the Lore, Dwarfs kill Dragons because Dragons kill Dwarfs, that's how MUH GRUDGES are settled an Eye for an Eye, not mercifully making a pet out of the beast. The idea that dwarfs would peruse and subdue a Dragon probably loosing many more Dwarf lives in the processes and not kill that Dragon is entirely out of Character for Dwarfs. That's something Dark Elves or Dawi Zhar would do, not proper Dwarfs.
  • #62422#62422 Registered Users Posts: 366
    I have to ask at this point. Why do you guys keep calling shard dragons murder ferrets?
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231

    I have to ask at this point. Why do you guys keep calling shard dragons murder ferrets?

    Seems odd aren't all ferrets murder ferrets... the entire Mustelidae have some of the highest caloric intake per weight requirements of any mammal, and they're all carnivores.
  • damon40000#7640damon40000#7640 Registered Users Posts: 1,935
    cause its cool
    BsFG dwarf
  • Commissar_G#7535Commissar_G#7535 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 15,866
    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.

    Giving Hammerers a shielded variant like on TT would go a long way to improving their usability.
    MarcusLivius: You are indeed a lord of entitlement.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,044
    OdTengri said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Not to mention that the Runelords control the Shard Dragons through the Runic Collars. It's not about taming but shackling and using a giant monster as a living, expendable land-cruising missile because MUH GRUDGES.

    This idea never made any sense in the Lore, Dwarfs kill Dragons because Dragons kill Dwarfs, that's how MUH GRUDGES are settled an Eye for an Eye, not mercifully making a pet out of the beast. The idea that dwarfs would peruse and subdue a Dragon probably loosing many more Dwarf lives in the processes and not kill that Dragon is entirely out of Character for Dwarfs. That's something Dark Elves or Dawi Zhar would do, not proper Dwarfs.
    No because Dwarfs don't actively go out to kill monsters unless those monsters got a place in the book. And even when they do then those are individuals or a group of them. Not a whole species from the get-go...unless those are Slayers, but these guys do it in order to die a glorious death while doing a favor to the rest of the world.
    Shard Dragons, despite their name, are not true dragons. A draconic offshoot descended from mutant dragons that crawled underground. When Dwarfs go to hunt dragons, then either for loot (because dragons hoard stuff), either the dragon did something that earned him a place in the book and thus a target of retribution, or for Slayers to slay something because a Troll and a Giant weren't enough for them. Shard Dragons don't hoard anything. Shard Dragons travel the underground to look for prey to devour.
    In the lore entry for it, the runic collars were created by the ancestors of the Dawi in order to shackle them to the will of the Dwarfs. It doesn't say which ancestors (the Ancestor Gods or the Ancestors as in the first Dwarfs that came with the Ancestor Gods), but considering the runic collars are runic then one can bet that Thungni had a hand in it either before or after he created the first Rune Golem.
    Also mercy? Please. I would call this pragmatism and a creative way of settling a grudge. And Dwarfs wouldn't shackle them without a plan how to do so because the damn beasts don't have the same intellect as true dragons and closer to an animal, thus they know perfectly well how to deal with it without even a loss of a single Dwarf life. And the whole shackling thing was thus made for a purpose by their ancestors. Probably because they saw merit in the power of a Shard Dragon and instead the whole shackling is, as I said, a perfect way of settling a grudge.
    Dwarfs shackle the damn things, control them, send them before the throng towards the enemy like some giant attack dogs, the murder ferrets engage while the rest of the throng follows and depending on the situation they don't need to fight anything because the Shard Dragons killed everyone or the stragglers somehow survived and they simply need to clean up.
    If the Shard Dragons survive, then they will be used for more fights. If the Shard Dragons died, then shackle more and send them to the fields too. And unlike the other races like the Lizardmen whose Slann need complex magic incantations and telepathy to constantly control the Dread Saurians, or the Chaos Dwarfs who don't have runic magic and use traditional magic to bind monsters like the Magma Dragons, both being actually vulnerable to dispelling because unlike the runic collars (that I need to remind they give the Shard Dragons additional spell resistance). And Dark Elves don't tame monsters. They break their wills until they are obedient. This is not traditional taming. And Dwarfs don't have time for either and instead slap the collars on the murder ferrets.
    And for your information Dwarfs, in their first army book no less, could take all and every monster there was in the game and after researching all their army books there is literally no reason for them to have Shard Dragons. The reason why the monster list was removed from later army books is probably because none of the monsters fit with the Dwarfs the way they should and GW didn't knew what monsters would fit in the end until the Shard Dragon came. And FW wanted to add more monsters to other factions but this didn't pan out because due to the fact that there was more 40K initiative and the End Times happened. And not to mention they almost got Rune Golems too.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,044
    OdTengri said:

    I have to ask at this point. Why do you guys keep calling shard dragons murder ferrets?

    Seems odd aren't all ferrets murder ferrets... the entire Mustelidae have some of the highest caloric intake per weight requirements of any mammal, and they're all carnivores.
    The thing is that ferrets, unlike the Shard Dragon, don't go so far as to attack whole settlement and armies in order to gorge themselves on meat. ALL THE MEAT. And after that to leave and then find more meat to eat.
  • OdTengri#8235OdTengri#8235 Registered Users Posts: 10,231
    Ben1990 said:

    And for your information Dwarfs, in their first army book no less, could take all and every monster there was in the game

    Everyone could take damn near everything in early editions of the game gnomes and half orcs existed in early editions of the game.

    This isn't an argument in your favor is pointless red hearing that makes it look like you don't understand the Warhammer Fantasy franchise and its evolution.

    Things like this just make it look like you aren't even discussing in good faith.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,044
    OdTengri said:

    Ben1990 said:

    And for your information Dwarfs, in their first army book no less, could take all and every monster there was in the game

    Everyone could take damn near everything in early editions of the game gnomes and half orcs existed in early editions of the game.

    This isn't an argument in your favor is pointless red hearing that makes it look like you don't understand the Warhammer Fantasy franchise and its evolution.

    Things like this just make it look like you aren't even discussing in good faith.
    And then please do tell me why they could take without any damn consequences? And they could either via goading (which is less probable) or magic (in this case it would be runic magic and thus more probable). Not to mention the fact that they too can take any monster from both the Storm of Magic and Monstrous Arcanum ALSO WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES and get away with it.
    Because if they are so NO MONSTERS ALLOWED, then GW wouldn't have made them have even remote access to both of those books in the first place.
  • Nyxilis#3646Nyxilis#3646 Registered Users Posts: 7,729
    Ben1990 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    In a whole game where most stuff isn't unique? Also again, hard-capping them by having 1 per Runeforge (AKA: the tier 5 Smithy building). This along with the other runic units. Also make it so they also have upkeep in oathgold. Here. Also why is nobody thinking about hard-capping things?
    Also the part with the VCs is also missed here because of the von Carstein regularly using mortal troops in battle. Among those being ranged units.
    von Carstein - Undead + Mortal Auxilia
    Blood Dragons - Unique Melee Vampire units + A lot of Wights
    Strigoi - Ghouls, Monsters and Gypsies
    Lahmia - Subterfuge, unique Mortals and Vampire units
    Necrarch - Necromancy up to 11

    The whole uniqueness argument is false with Warhammer. Most stuff isn't unique since it takes many elements from other sources. And the few things that are unique aren't connected to most factions. Dwarfs are not unique. Them having only artillery doesn't make them unique. Adding the Shard Dragon along the other runic units won't make them less or more unique.
    And did you notice how immediately controversial they were? Quite a few people were immediately out because adding ranged damages identity. Now it is loreful for them to use mortal units but not now or ever have they ever been the mainstay of the army and so they hard cap them to very minor rolls in very few of your armies and deliberately do not take center place. And even then they remain controversial in that vein. I do not want any more.

    Another thing is, we're talking about a large massive SEM center dish unit. If dwarves get even one more I'd significantly would rather it be the Thunderbarge.
    Wyvax said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    That's a fair take and I understand the ranged comparison in regard to the VC. I just don't personally see how they would alter the dwarfen in such a radical way as say cavalry, garbage chaff meatshields or a flying monster such as our typical generic dragons would. Let me examine the Shard Dragon on the merits of its design itself, using a pdf copy of the Monstrous Arcanum in my possession.

    The creature has a movement that's comparatively low for such a large monster, 5 on the TT. It's lower than the Dread Saurian which means that while it's certainly faster than the dwarfs themselves by a good margin, it's nowhere close to cavalry speed and cannot be used in a similar way for any effective cycle charging, unlike say a feral carnosaur can be used. The creature does however possess the same toughness and wounds as the Dread Saurian on the so it is an incredibly beefy and defensive beast which meshes well with the style of most dwarf stats barring Slayers and Gyros of course. It's weapon skill is mediocre while having better than average strength at 4 and 6 respectively (also lining up with typical dwarf stats of MA and WS respectively in TW), and the thing has an option for ward save due to the rule/add-on "Gromril Hard Scales" and magic resist due to the runic collar. It does however have options for poisonous attacks and a breath weapon, though I fail to see any meaningful difference between the breath weapon of a slow landbound monster and the volley fire of a Dwarfen Flame Cannon, poison could certainly be dropped if it conflicts to much with the dwarfen modus operandi, which I'm fine with. Native rules for the Shard Dragon include what would essentially translate as collision damage (Razor Scales) and a rule similar to the Rogue Idol's crumbling rule, where once the beast is wounded it becomes even more dangerous (Rabid Frenzy). Lastly it of course has the kinship rule with dwarfs alone, all other races are either abhorrent or must use a binding scroll to recruit.

    In short there's not much that the Shard Dragon provides to the dwarfen roster that it doesn't already have other than A: enough mass to push through the enemy frontline and snack on archers and artillery, something that Gyrocopters can already do to a degree (albeit exchanging survivability for speed), and B: provide a big and scary distraction that forces the oppoenent to divide it's attention away from the real killing power of the dawi gunline. The creature doesn't provide something new, it just provides a different way for the dwarfs to do the same strategies in battle. If CA were to add some hypothetical cavalry, say battle rams like in the live action version of The Hobbit, that would completely change how dwarfs could be played, just like archers for the Vampire Counts or tough line holding infantry for the V Coast would. But the Shard Dragon? I don't see it.

    Really the best and most common arguments for not including them are aesthetic based, which I can respect even if I personally don't agree with them. Your last paragraph hits this point dead on. My personal view is that the creature itself is unique (it it was literally just another dragon reskin, just with crystals on it's head I'd roll my eyes and never want it) and the lore for the dwarfs fielding them in battle makes sense and adds to the richness and complexity of the setting. So I like them for that reason. And yes I will fully admit that I have a bias for reptiles, but that doesn't decide it for me!
    Meatshields, flying monsters, and cavalry would be also dwarves don't bash into lines they chew them apart. This is where a large SEM really has the potential of changing that a bit. Less grind, more chomp though it is perhaps the least offender when it comes to something like cavalry. And the effects upon a front line are the primary area I'm concern about it with. It would effectively need to not shatter lines.

    But as the aesthetics go, yes it just doesn't fit. Dwarves are not animal masters, gives more of a Dark Elf vibe to be enslaving some monster. And what does it do? Poison fumes that kill with fear, feels Skaven. And the thing rampages when it gets damaged. Does this sound like a dwarven unit so far?

    I get dragons are cool, it's a cool creature but I've always felt it worked better in some other factions that already deal with big dump rampage induced SEMs.
    No, no, no. Rabid Frenzy is not Rampage, people should damn stop mixing up those things. Rampage is that you don't have control over it. Rabid Frenzy is like Frenzy, but on steroids (the moment it gets wounded it gets Frenzy and can dish out double the attacks than it used to...FOR THE REST OF THE GAME, so you want the enemy to wound it). Thus you can control it even when it's **** off. Not to mention that the Runelords control the Shard Dragons through the Runic Collars. It's not about taming but shackling and using a giant monster as a living, expendable land-cruising missile because MUH GRUDGES. Taming is for Dark Elves (yes, they tame by breaking the monsters) and Dwarfs don't play this way (they could, but don't need to in case of giant monsters).
    The Shard Dragon is a Distraction Carnifex. It's a scary monster that is the bane of existence of everything that has low leadership in the form of the Breathe of Nightmares (forces models to use their base leadership instead of toughness and it's S10, meaning Skaven will die in the thousands immediately as well as any unit that doesn't have high enough LD). The Breathe of Nightmares isn't a poison. It' a hallucinogenic gaseous breathe that makes people hallucinate stuff so scary they die from a heart attack.
    It's scary monster that would force the enemy to divert his focus away from the rest of the Dwarf army (which is the actual threat) and instead focus on the murder ferret. The murder ferret also has the Razor Scales that deal damage to anyone who misses it in melee, a Ward Save (via the Gromlir Scales upgrade which makes it more resilient and unique because not many monsters have a ward save), increased magic resistance via the Runic Collar and Rock Biter (a venom that is so damn corrosive that it both gives Shard Dragons Poisoned Attacks as well as superior Impact Damage [AKA: it charges harder into the enemy and with more force]). Apart of this the standard rules that dragons have (except for Fly) and Stubborn (would see it that the murder ferret has much higher LD compared to a normal dragon since there ain't any equivalent to it in game 3). Also it had the Wall Crawler rule that allowed it to climb them over, but in the game it would have Siege Attacker instead.
    Also the aesthetics of the Shard Dragon is that it represents the fears and dangers of the underground and the Dwarfs shackling them means that they overcame said fears and dangers...but it needs a visual beef-up.
    Everything you're describing is not Dwarven tactics, not dwarven feel. Having some gigantic rage beast of any variety is something Chaos, BM, or Dark Elves bust out. You know, those defined by monster identity and rage. Not the dwarves.

    And hate to break it to you, taming by whip, collar, or magic is something the DE do. They practice every single variety over there, and none are really better. Restraining or beating something to throw at your enemy is not a dwarven tactic, and throwing life at things as a living cruise missile is definitely not dwarven.

    In fact, every description you've given so far is a gigantic red flag of why it is ill fitting for the dwarves. Up to including the poisonous gas that causes you to die by fear. That's still poison, a chemical attack. Once more befitting the DE or Skaven in horrid fashion.

    This is not the dwarven way, it does not fit grudges, it does not fit their culture, it does not really fit how they view other things should die. It's just ill fitting and everything above you describe so well basically screams, not dwarven.

    So congrats, you've convinced me even harder this thing does not belong in the roster.

  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,044
    Nyxilis said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    In a whole game where most stuff isn't unique? Also again, hard-capping them by having 1 per Runeforge (AKA: the tier 5 Smithy building). This along with the other runic units. Also make it so they also have upkeep in oathgold. Here. Also why is nobody thinking about hard-capping things?
    Also the part with the VCs is also missed here because of the von Carstein regularly using mortal troops in battle. Among those being ranged units.
    von Carstein - Undead + Mortal Auxilia
    Blood Dragons - Unique Melee Vampire units + A lot of Wights
    Strigoi - Ghouls, Monsters and Gypsies
    Lahmia - Subterfuge, unique Mortals and Vampire units
    Necrarch - Necromancy up to 11

    The whole uniqueness argument is false with Warhammer. Most stuff isn't unique since it takes many elements from other sources. And the few things that are unique aren't connected to most factions. Dwarfs are not unique. Them having only artillery doesn't make them unique. Adding the Shard Dragon along the other runic units won't make them less or more unique.
    And did you notice how immediately controversial they were? Quite a few people were immediately out because adding ranged damages identity. Now it is loreful for them to use mortal units but not now or ever have they ever been the mainstay of the army and so they hard cap them to very minor rolls in very few of your armies and deliberately do not take center place. And even then they remain controversial in that vein. I do not want any more.

    Another thing is, we're talking about a large massive SEM center dish unit. If dwarves get even one more I'd significantly would rather it be the Thunderbarge.
    Wyvax said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    That's a fair take and I understand the ranged comparison in regard to the VC. I just don't personally see how they would alter the dwarfen in such a radical way as say cavalry, garbage chaff meatshields or a flying monster such as our typical generic dragons would. Let me examine the Shard Dragon on the merits of its design itself, using a pdf copy of the Monstrous Arcanum in my possession.

    The creature has a movement that's comparatively low for such a large monster, 5 on the TT. It's lower than the Dread Saurian which means that while it's certainly faster than the dwarfs themselves by a good margin, it's nowhere close to cavalry speed and cannot be used in a similar way for any effective cycle charging, unlike say a feral carnosaur can be used. The creature does however possess the same toughness and wounds as the Dread Saurian on the so it is an incredibly beefy and defensive beast which meshes well with the style of most dwarf stats barring Slayers and Gyros of course. It's weapon skill is mediocre while having better than average strength at 4 and 6 respectively (also lining up with typical dwarf stats of MA and WS respectively in TW), and the thing has an option for ward save due to the rule/add-on "Gromril Hard Scales" and magic resist due to the runic collar. It does however have options for poisonous attacks and a breath weapon, though I fail to see any meaningful difference between the breath weapon of a slow landbound monster and the volley fire of a Dwarfen Flame Cannon, poison could certainly be dropped if it conflicts to much with the dwarfen modus operandi, which I'm fine with. Native rules for the Shard Dragon include what would essentially translate as collision damage (Razor Scales) and a rule similar to the Rogue Idol's crumbling rule, where once the beast is wounded it becomes even more dangerous (Rabid Frenzy). Lastly it of course has the kinship rule with dwarfs alone, all other races are either abhorrent or must use a binding scroll to recruit.

    In short there's not much that the Shard Dragon provides to the dwarfen roster that it doesn't already have other than A: enough mass to push through the enemy frontline and snack on archers and artillery, something that Gyrocopters can already do to a degree (albeit exchanging survivability for speed), and B: provide a big and scary distraction that forces the oppoenent to divide it's attention away from the real killing power of the dawi gunline. The creature doesn't provide something new, it just provides a different way for the dwarfs to do the same strategies in battle. If CA were to add some hypothetical cavalry, say battle rams like in the live action version of The Hobbit, that would completely change how dwarfs could be played, just like archers for the Vampire Counts or tough line holding infantry for the V Coast would. But the Shard Dragon? I don't see it.

    Really the best and most common arguments for not including them are aesthetic based, which I can respect even if I personally don't agree with them. Your last paragraph hits this point dead on. My personal view is that the creature itself is unique (it it was literally just another dragon reskin, just with crystals on it's head I'd roll my eyes and never want it) and the lore for the dwarfs fielding them in battle makes sense and adds to the richness and complexity of the setting. So I like them for that reason. And yes I will fully admit that I have a bias for reptiles, but that doesn't decide it for me!
    Meatshields, flying monsters, and cavalry would be also dwarves don't bash into lines they chew them apart. This is where a large SEM really has the potential of changing that a bit. Less grind, more chomp though it is perhaps the least offender when it comes to something like cavalry. And the effects upon a front line are the primary area I'm concern about it with. It would effectively need to not shatter lines.

    But as the aesthetics go, yes it just doesn't fit. Dwarves are not animal masters, gives more of a Dark Elf vibe to be enslaving some monster. And what does it do? Poison fumes that kill with fear, feels Skaven. And the thing rampages when it gets damaged. Does this sound like a dwarven unit so far?

    I get dragons are cool, it's a cool creature but I've always felt it worked better in some other factions that already deal with big dump rampage induced SEMs.
    No, no, no. Rabid Frenzy is not Rampage, people should damn stop mixing up those things. Rampage is that you don't have control over it. Rabid Frenzy is like Frenzy, but on steroids (the moment it gets wounded it gets Frenzy and can dish out double the attacks than it used to...FOR THE REST OF THE GAME, so you want the enemy to wound it). Thus you can control it even when it's **** off. Not to mention that the Runelords control the Shard Dragons through the Runic Collars. It's not about taming but shackling and using a giant monster as a living, expendable land-cruising missile because MUH GRUDGES. Taming is for Dark Elves (yes, they tame by breaking the monsters) and Dwarfs don't play this way (they could, but don't need to in case of giant monsters).
    The Shard Dragon is a Distraction Carnifex. It's a scary monster that is the bane of existence of everything that has low leadership in the form of the Breathe of Nightmares (forces models to use their base leadership instead of toughness and it's S10, meaning Skaven will die in the thousands immediately as well as any unit that doesn't have high enough LD). The Breathe of Nightmares isn't a poison. It' a hallucinogenic gaseous breathe that makes people hallucinate stuff so scary they die from a heart attack.
    It's scary monster that would force the enemy to divert his focus away from the rest of the Dwarf army (which is the actual threat) and instead focus on the murder ferret. The murder ferret also has the Razor Scales that deal damage to anyone who misses it in melee, a Ward Save (via the Gromlir Scales upgrade which makes it more resilient and unique because not many monsters have a ward save), increased magic resistance via the Runic Collar and Rock Biter (a venom that is so damn corrosive that it both gives Shard Dragons Poisoned Attacks as well as superior Impact Damage [AKA: it charges harder into the enemy and with more force]). Apart of this the standard rules that dragons have (except for Fly) and Stubborn (would see it that the murder ferret has much higher LD compared to a normal dragon since there ain't any equivalent to it in game 3). Also it had the Wall Crawler rule that allowed it to climb them over, but in the game it would have Siege Attacker instead.
    Also the aesthetics of the Shard Dragon is that it represents the fears and dangers of the underground and the Dwarfs shackling them means that they overcame said fears and dangers...but it needs a visual beef-up.
    Everything you're describing is not Dwarven tactics, not dwarven feel. Having some gigantic rage beast of any variety is something Chaos, BM, or Dark Elves bust out. You know, those defined by monster identity and rage. Not the dwarves.

    And hate to break it to you, taming by whip, collar, or magic is something the DE do. They practice every single variety over there, and none are really better. Restraining or beating something to throw at your enemy is not a dwarven tactic, and throwing life at things as a living cruise missile is definitely not dwarven.

    In fact, every description you've given so far is a gigantic red flag of why it is ill fitting for the dwarves. Up to including the poisonous gas that causes you to die by fear. That's still poison, a chemical attack. Once more befitting the DE or Skaven in horrid fashion.

    This is not the dwarven way, it does not fit grudges, it does not fit their culture, it does not really fit how they view other things should die. It's just ill fitting and everything above you describe so well basically screams, not dwarven.

    So congrats, you've convinced me even harder this thing does not belong in the roster.

    How the hell a hallucinogen can be poisonous? Hallucinogens are not poisons.
    Also no. It's as slow as any ground monster, is tanky, it's a creative way of settling grudges and unlike Dark Elves Dwarfs don't needlessly torture it. Also their ancestors shackled them, thus they saw merit in the murder ferrets. Look up the post further above yours for an explanation.
  • Heretical_Cactus#7598Heretical_Cactus#7598 Registered Users Posts: 3,036
    Ben1990 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    In a whole game where most stuff isn't unique? Also again, hard-capping them by having 1 per Runeforge (AKA: the tier 5 Smithy building). This along with the other runic units. Also make it so they also have upkeep in oathgold. Here. Also why is nobody thinking about hard-capping things?
    Also the part with the VCs is also missed here because of the von Carstein regularly using mortal troops in battle. Among those being ranged units.
    von Carstein - Undead + Mortal Auxilia
    Blood Dragons - Unique Melee Vampire units + A lot of Wights
    Strigoi - Ghouls, Monsters and Gypsies
    Lahmia - Subterfuge, unique Mortals and Vampire units
    Necrarch - Necromancy up to 11

    The whole uniqueness argument is false with Warhammer. Most stuff isn't unique since it takes many elements from other sources. And the few things that are unique aren't connected to most factions. Dwarfs are not unique. Them having only artillery doesn't make them unique. Adding the Shard Dragon along the other runic units won't make them less or more unique.
    And did you notice how immediately controversial they were? Quite a few people were immediately out because adding ranged damages identity. Now it is loreful for them to use mortal units but not now or ever have they ever been the mainstay of the army and so they hard cap them to very minor rolls in very few of your armies and deliberately do not take center place. And even then they remain controversial in that vein. I do not want any more.

    Another thing is, we're talking about a large massive SEM center dish unit. If dwarves get even one more I'd significantly would rather it be the Thunderbarge.
    Wyvax said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    That's a fair take and I understand the ranged comparison in regard to the VC. I just don't personally see how they would alter the dwarfen in such a radical way as say cavalry, garbage chaff meatshields or a flying monster such as our typical generic dragons would. Let me examine the Shard Dragon on the merits of its design itself, using a pdf copy of the Monstrous Arcanum in my possession.

    The creature has a movement that's comparatively low for such a large monster, 5 on the TT. It's lower than the Dread Saurian which means that while it's certainly faster than the dwarfs themselves by a good margin, it's nowhere close to cavalry speed and cannot be used in a similar way for any effective cycle charging, unlike say a feral carnosaur can be used. The creature does however possess the same toughness and wounds as the Dread Saurian on the so it is an incredibly beefy and defensive beast which meshes well with the style of most dwarf stats barring Slayers and Gyros of course. It's weapon skill is mediocre while having better than average strength at 4 and 6 respectively (also lining up with typical dwarf stats of MA and WS respectively in TW), and the thing has an option for ward save due to the rule/add-on "Gromril Hard Scales" and magic resist due to the runic collar. It does however have options for poisonous attacks and a breath weapon, though I fail to see any meaningful difference between the breath weapon of a slow landbound monster and the volley fire of a Dwarfen Flame Cannon, poison could certainly be dropped if it conflicts to much with the dwarfen modus operandi, which I'm fine with. Native rules for the Shard Dragon include what would essentially translate as collision damage (Razor Scales) and a rule similar to the Rogue Idol's crumbling rule, where once the beast is wounded it becomes even more dangerous (Rabid Frenzy). Lastly it of course has the kinship rule with dwarfs alone, all other races are either abhorrent or must use a binding scroll to recruit.

    In short there's not much that the Shard Dragon provides to the dwarfen roster that it doesn't already have other than A: enough mass to push through the enemy frontline and snack on archers and artillery, something that Gyrocopters can already do to a degree (albeit exchanging survivability for speed), and B: provide a big and scary distraction that forces the oppoenent to divide it's attention away from the real killing power of the dawi gunline. The creature doesn't provide something new, it just provides a different way for the dwarfs to do the same strategies in battle. If CA were to add some hypothetical cavalry, say battle rams like in the live action version of The Hobbit, that would completely change how dwarfs could be played, just like archers for the Vampire Counts or tough line holding infantry for the V Coast would. But the Shard Dragon? I don't see it.

    Really the best and most common arguments for not including them are aesthetic based, which I can respect even if I personally don't agree with them. Your last paragraph hits this point dead on. My personal view is that the creature itself is unique (it it was literally just another dragon reskin, just with crystals on it's head I'd roll my eyes and never want it) and the lore for the dwarfs fielding them in battle makes sense and adds to the richness and complexity of the setting. So I like them for that reason. And yes I will fully admit that I have a bias for reptiles, but that doesn't decide it for me!
    Meatshields, flying monsters, and cavalry would be also dwarves don't bash into lines they chew them apart. This is where a large SEM really has the potential of changing that a bit. Less grind, more chomp though it is perhaps the least offender when it comes to something like cavalry. And the effects upon a front line are the primary area I'm concern about it with. It would effectively need to not shatter lines.

    But as the aesthetics go, yes it just doesn't fit. Dwarves are not animal masters, gives more of a Dark Elf vibe to be enslaving some monster. And what does it do? Poison fumes that kill with fear, feels Skaven. And the thing rampages when it gets damaged. Does this sound like a dwarven unit so far?

    I get dragons are cool, it's a cool creature but I've always felt it worked better in some other factions that already deal with big dump rampage induced SEMs.
    No, no, no. Rabid Frenzy is not Rampage, people should damn stop mixing up those things. Rampage is that you don't have control over it. Rabid Frenzy is like Frenzy, but on steroids (the moment it gets wounded it gets Frenzy and can dish out double the attacks than it used to...FOR THE REST OF THE GAME, so you want the enemy to wound it). Thus you can control it even when it's **** off. Not to mention that the Runelords control the Shard Dragons through the Runic Collars. It's not about taming but shackling and using a giant monster as a living, expendable land-cruising missile because MUH GRUDGES. Taming is for Dark Elves (yes, they tame by breaking the monsters) and Dwarfs don't play this way (they could, but don't need to in case of giant monsters).
    The Shard Dragon is a Distraction Carnifex. It's a scary monster that is the bane of existence of everything that has low leadership in the form of the Breathe of Nightmares (forces models to use their base leadership instead of toughness and it's S10, meaning Skaven will die in the thousands immediately as well as any unit that doesn't have high enough LD). The Breathe of Nightmares isn't a poison. It' a hallucinogenic gaseous breathe that makes people hallucinate stuff so scary they die from a heart attack.
    It's scary monster that would force the enemy to divert his focus away from the rest of the Dwarf army (which is the actual threat) and instead focus on the murder ferret. The murder ferret also has the Razor Scales that deal damage to anyone who misses it in melee, a Ward Save (via the Gromlir Scales upgrade which makes it more resilient and unique because not many monsters have a ward save), increased magic resistance via the Runic Collar and Rock Biter (a venom that is so damn corrosive that it both gives Shard Dragons Poisoned Attacks as well as superior Impact Damage [AKA: it charges harder into the enemy and with more force]). Apart of this the standard rules that dragons have (except for Fly) and Stubborn (would see it that the murder ferret has much higher LD compared to a normal dragon since there ain't any equivalent to it in game 3). Also it had the Wall Crawler rule that allowed it to climb them over, but in the game it would have Siege Attacker instead.
    Also the aesthetics of the Shard Dragon is that it represents the fears and dangers of the underground and the Dwarfs shackling them means that they overcame said fears and dangers...but it needs a visual beef-up.
    Everything you're describing is not Dwarven tactics, not dwarven feel. Having some gigantic rage beast of any variety is something Chaos, BM, or Dark Elves bust out. You know, those defined by monster identity and rage. Not the dwarves.

    And hate to break it to you, taming by whip, collar, or magic is something the DE do. They practice every single variety over there, and none are really better. Restraining or beating something to throw at your enemy is not a dwarven tactic, and throwing life at things as a living cruise missile is definitely not dwarven.

    In fact, every description you've given so far is a gigantic red flag of why it is ill fitting for the dwarves. Up to including the poisonous gas that causes you to die by fear. That's still poison, a chemical attack. Once more befitting the DE or Skaven in horrid fashion.

    This is not the dwarven way, it does not fit grudges, it does not fit their culture, it does not really fit how they view other things should die. It's just ill fitting and everything above you describe so well basically screams, not dwarven.

    So congrats, you've convinced me even harder this thing does not belong in the roster.

    How the hell a hallucinogen can be poisonous? Hallucinogens are not poisons.
    Also no. It's as slow as any ground monster, is tanky, it's a creative way of settling grudges and unlike Dark Elves Dwarfs don't needlessly torture it. Also their ancestors shackled them, thus they saw merit in the murder ferrets. Look up the post further above yours for an explanation.
    Hallucinogenic product can be poisons, it always depends on the concentration/dosage

    Malakai Makaisson or Slayer's oath!

    Failure of an Engineer

    Failure of a Slayer
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,044
    arthadaw said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    In a whole game where most stuff isn't unique? Also again, hard-capping them by having 1 per Runeforge (AKA: the tier 5 Smithy building). This along with the other runic units. Also make it so they also have upkeep in oathgold. Here. Also why is nobody thinking about hard-capping things?
    Also the part with the VCs is also missed here because of the von Carstein regularly using mortal troops in battle. Among those being ranged units.
    von Carstein - Undead + Mortal Auxilia
    Blood Dragons - Unique Melee Vampire units + A lot of Wights
    Strigoi - Ghouls, Monsters and Gypsies
    Lahmia - Subterfuge, unique Mortals and Vampire units
    Necrarch - Necromancy up to 11

    The whole uniqueness argument is false with Warhammer. Most stuff isn't unique since it takes many elements from other sources. And the few things that are unique aren't connected to most factions. Dwarfs are not unique. Them having only artillery doesn't make them unique. Adding the Shard Dragon along the other runic units won't make them less or more unique.
    And did you notice how immediately controversial they were? Quite a few people were immediately out because adding ranged damages identity. Now it is loreful for them to use mortal units but not now or ever have they ever been the mainstay of the army and so they hard cap them to very minor rolls in very few of your armies and deliberately do not take center place. And even then they remain controversial in that vein. I do not want any more.

    Another thing is, we're talking about a large massive SEM center dish unit. If dwarves get even one more I'd significantly would rather it be the Thunderbarge.
    Wyvax said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    That's a fair take and I understand the ranged comparison in regard to the VC. I just don't personally see how they would alter the dwarfen in such a radical way as say cavalry, garbage chaff meatshields or a flying monster such as our typical generic dragons would. Let me examine the Shard Dragon on the merits of its design itself, using a pdf copy of the Monstrous Arcanum in my possession.

    The creature has a movement that's comparatively low for such a large monster, 5 on the TT. It's lower than the Dread Saurian which means that while it's certainly faster than the dwarfs themselves by a good margin, it's nowhere close to cavalry speed and cannot be used in a similar way for any effective cycle charging, unlike say a feral carnosaur can be used. The creature does however possess the same toughness and wounds as the Dread Saurian on the so it is an incredibly beefy and defensive beast which meshes well with the style of most dwarf stats barring Slayers and Gyros of course. It's weapon skill is mediocre while having better than average strength at 4 and 6 respectively (also lining up with typical dwarf stats of MA and WS respectively in TW), and the thing has an option for ward save due to the rule/add-on "Gromril Hard Scales" and magic resist due to the runic collar. It does however have options for poisonous attacks and a breath weapon, though I fail to see any meaningful difference between the breath weapon of a slow landbound monster and the volley fire of a Dwarfen Flame Cannon, poison could certainly be dropped if it conflicts to much with the dwarfen modus operandi, which I'm fine with. Native rules for the Shard Dragon include what would essentially translate as collision damage (Razor Scales) and a rule similar to the Rogue Idol's crumbling rule, where once the beast is wounded it becomes even more dangerous (Rabid Frenzy). Lastly it of course has the kinship rule with dwarfs alone, all other races are either abhorrent or must use a binding scroll to recruit.

    In short there's not much that the Shard Dragon provides to the dwarfen roster that it doesn't already have other than A: enough mass to push through the enemy frontline and snack on archers and artillery, something that Gyrocopters can already do to a degree (albeit exchanging survivability for speed), and B: provide a big and scary distraction that forces the oppoenent to divide it's attention away from the real killing power of the dawi gunline. The creature doesn't provide something new, it just provides a different way for the dwarfs to do the same strategies in battle. If CA were to add some hypothetical cavalry, say battle rams like in the live action version of The Hobbit, that would completely change how dwarfs could be played, just like archers for the Vampire Counts or tough line holding infantry for the V Coast would. But the Shard Dragon? I don't see it.

    Really the best and most common arguments for not including them are aesthetic based, which I can respect even if I personally don't agree with them. Your last paragraph hits this point dead on. My personal view is that the creature itself is unique (it it was literally just another dragon reskin, just with crystals on it's head I'd roll my eyes and never want it) and the lore for the dwarfs fielding them in battle makes sense and adds to the richness and complexity of the setting. So I like them for that reason. And yes I will fully admit that I have a bias for reptiles, but that doesn't decide it for me!
    Meatshields, flying monsters, and cavalry would be also dwarves don't bash into lines they chew them apart. This is where a large SEM really has the potential of changing that a bit. Less grind, more chomp though it is perhaps the least offender when it comes to something like cavalry. And the effects upon a front line are the primary area I'm concern about it with. It would effectively need to not shatter lines.

    But as the aesthetics go, yes it just doesn't fit. Dwarves are not animal masters, gives more of a Dark Elf vibe to be enslaving some monster. And what does it do? Poison fumes that kill with fear, feels Skaven. And the thing rampages when it gets damaged. Does this sound like a dwarven unit so far?

    I get dragons are cool, it's a cool creature but I've always felt it worked better in some other factions that already deal with big dump rampage induced SEMs.
    No, no, no. Rabid Frenzy is not Rampage, people should damn stop mixing up those things. Rampage is that you don't have control over it. Rabid Frenzy is like Frenzy, but on steroids (the moment it gets wounded it gets Frenzy and can dish out double the attacks than it used to...FOR THE REST OF THE GAME, so you want the enemy to wound it). Thus you can control it even when it's **** off. Not to mention that the Runelords control the Shard Dragons through the Runic Collars. It's not about taming but shackling and using a giant monster as a living, expendable land-cruising missile because MUH GRUDGES. Taming is for Dark Elves (yes, they tame by breaking the monsters) and Dwarfs don't play this way (they could, but don't need to in case of giant monsters).
    The Shard Dragon is a Distraction Carnifex. It's a scary monster that is the bane of existence of everything that has low leadership in the form of the Breathe of Nightmares (forces models to use their base leadership instead of toughness and it's S10, meaning Skaven will die in the thousands immediately as well as any unit that doesn't have high enough LD). The Breathe of Nightmares isn't a poison. It' a hallucinogenic gaseous breathe that makes people hallucinate stuff so scary they die from a heart attack.
    It's scary monster that would force the enemy to divert his focus away from the rest of the Dwarf army (which is the actual threat) and instead focus on the murder ferret. The murder ferret also has the Razor Scales that deal damage to anyone who misses it in melee, a Ward Save (via the Gromlir Scales upgrade which makes it more resilient and unique because not many monsters have a ward save), increased magic resistance via the Runic Collar and Rock Biter (a venom that is so damn corrosive that it both gives Shard Dragons Poisoned Attacks as well as superior Impact Damage [AKA: it charges harder into the enemy and with more force]). Apart of this the standard rules that dragons have (except for Fly) and Stubborn (would see it that the murder ferret has much higher LD compared to a normal dragon since there ain't any equivalent to it in game 3). Also it had the Wall Crawler rule that allowed it to climb them over, but in the game it would have Siege Attacker instead.
    Also the aesthetics of the Shard Dragon is that it represents the fears and dangers of the underground and the Dwarfs shackling them means that they overcame said fears and dangers...but it needs a visual beef-up.
    Everything you're describing is not Dwarven tactics, not dwarven feel. Having some gigantic rage beast of any variety is something Chaos, BM, or Dark Elves bust out. You know, those defined by monster identity and rage. Not the dwarves.

    And hate to break it to you, taming by whip, collar, or magic is something the DE do. They practice every single variety over there, and none are really better. Restraining or beating something to throw at your enemy is not a dwarven tactic, and throwing life at things as a living cruise missile is definitely not dwarven.

    In fact, every description you've given so far is a gigantic red flag of why it is ill fitting for the dwarves. Up to including the poisonous gas that causes you to die by fear. That's still poison, a chemical attack. Once more befitting the DE or Skaven in horrid fashion.

    This is not the dwarven way, it does not fit grudges, it does not fit their culture, it does not really fit how they view other things should die. It's just ill fitting and everything above you describe so well basically screams, not dwarven.

    So congrats, you've convinced me even harder this thing does not belong in the roster.

    How the hell a hallucinogen can be poisonous? Hallucinogens are not poisons.
    Also no. It's as slow as any ground monster, is tanky, it's a creative way of settling grudges and unlike Dark Elves Dwarfs don't needlessly torture it. Also their ancestors shackled them, thus they saw merit in the murder ferrets. Look up the post further above yours for an explanation.
    Hallucinogenic product can be poisons, it always depends on the concentration/dosage

    Malakai Makaisson or Slayer's oath!

    Failure of an Engineer

    Failure of a Slayer
    OK, looked into it. It's actually depends on both the dosage and type of the hallucinogen but a majority of them aren't poisonous and/or toxic.
  • LegendaryArticuno#9965LegendaryArticuno#9965 Registered Users Posts: 501
    Besides the Thunderbarge, there's nothing else that is interesting or visually unique.
  • Commissar_G#7535Commissar_G#7535 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 15,866

    Besides the Thunderbarge, there's nothing else that is interesting or visually unique.

    Unlike your elf female archer profile picture.

    Truly the epitome of creativity.
    MarcusLivius: You are indeed a lord of entitlement.
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 1,572
    Ben1990 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    Ben1990 said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    In a whole game where most stuff isn't unique? Also again, hard-capping them by having 1 per Runeforge (AKA: the tier 5 Smithy building). This along with the other runic units. Also make it so they also have upkeep in oathgold. Here. Also why is nobody thinking about hard-capping things?
    Also the part with the VCs is also missed here because of the von Carstein regularly using mortal troops in battle. Among those being ranged units.
    von Carstein - Undead + Mortal Auxilia
    Blood Dragons - Unique Melee Vampire units + A lot of Wights
    Strigoi - Ghouls, Monsters and Gypsies
    Lahmia - Subterfuge, unique Mortals and Vampire units
    Necrarch - Necromancy up to 11

    The whole uniqueness argument is false with Warhammer. Most stuff isn't unique since it takes many elements from other sources. And the few things that are unique aren't connected to most factions. Dwarfs are not unique. Them having only artillery doesn't make them unique. Adding the Shard Dragon along the other runic units won't make them less or more unique.
    And did you notice how immediately controversial they were? Quite a few people were immediately out because adding ranged damages identity. Now it is loreful for them to use mortal units but not now or ever have they ever been the mainstay of the army and so they hard cap them to very minor rolls in very few of your armies and deliberately do not take center place. And even then they remain controversial in that vein. I do not want any more.

    Another thing is, we're talking about a large massive SEM center dish unit. If dwarves get even one more I'd significantly would rather it be the Thunderbarge.
    Wyvax said:

    Nyxilis said:

    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.
    That's a fair take and I understand the ranged comparison in regard to the VC. I just don't personally see how they would alter the dwarfen in such a radical way as say cavalry, garbage chaff meatshields or a flying monster such as our typical generic dragons would. Let me examine the Shard Dragon on the merits of its design itself, using a pdf copy of the Monstrous Arcanum in my possession.

    The creature has a movement that's comparatively low for such a large monster, 5 on the TT. It's lower than the Dread Saurian which means that while it's certainly faster than the dwarfs themselves by a good margin, it's nowhere close to cavalry speed and cannot be used in a similar way for any effective cycle charging, unlike say a feral carnosaur can be used. The creature does however possess the same toughness and wounds as the Dread Saurian on the so it is an incredibly beefy and defensive beast which meshes well with the style of most dwarf stats barring Slayers and Gyros of course. It's weapon skill is mediocre while having better than average strength at 4 and 6 respectively (also lining up with typical dwarf stats of MA and WS respectively in TW), and the thing has an option for ward save due to the rule/add-on "Gromril Hard Scales" and magic resist due to the runic collar. It does however have options for poisonous attacks and a breath weapon, though I fail to see any meaningful difference between the breath weapon of a slow landbound monster and the volley fire of a Dwarfen Flame Cannon, poison could certainly be dropped if it conflicts to much with the dwarfen modus operandi, which I'm fine with. Native rules for the Shard Dragon include what would essentially translate as collision damage (Razor Scales) and a rule similar to the Rogue Idol's crumbling rule, where once the beast is wounded it becomes even more dangerous (Rabid Frenzy). Lastly it of course has the kinship rule with dwarfs alone, all other races are either abhorrent or must use a binding scroll to recruit.

    In short there's not much that the Shard Dragon provides to the dwarfen roster that it doesn't already have other than A: enough mass to push through the enemy frontline and snack on archers and artillery, something that Gyrocopters can already do to a degree (albeit exchanging survivability for speed), and B: provide a big and scary distraction that forces the oppoenent to divide it's attention away from the real killing power of the dawi gunline. The creature doesn't provide something new, it just provides a different way for the dwarfs to do the same strategies in battle. If CA were to add some hypothetical cavalry, say battle rams like in the live action version of The Hobbit, that would completely change how dwarfs could be played, just like archers for the Vampire Counts or tough line holding infantry for the V Coast would. But the Shard Dragon? I don't see it.

    Really the best and most common arguments for not including them are aesthetic based, which I can respect even if I personally don't agree with them. Your last paragraph hits this point dead on. My personal view is that the creature itself is unique (it it was literally just another dragon reskin, just with crystals on it's head I'd roll my eyes and never want it) and the lore for the dwarfs fielding them in battle makes sense and adds to the richness and complexity of the setting. So I like them for that reason. And yes I will fully admit that I have a bias for reptiles, but that doesn't decide it for me!
    Meatshields, flying monsters, and cavalry would be also dwarves don't bash into lines they chew them apart. This is where a large SEM really has the potential of changing that a bit. Less grind, more chomp though it is perhaps the least offender when it comes to something like cavalry. And the effects upon a front line are the primary area I'm concern about it with. It would effectively need to not shatter lines.

    But as the aesthetics go, yes it just doesn't fit. Dwarves are not animal masters, gives more of a Dark Elf vibe to be enslaving some monster. And what does it do? Poison fumes that kill with fear, feels Skaven. And the thing rampages when it gets damaged. Does this sound like a dwarven unit so far?

    I get dragons are cool, it's a cool creature but I've always felt it worked better in some other factions that already deal with big dump rampage induced SEMs.
    No, no, no. Rabid Frenzy is not Rampage, people should damn stop mixing up those things. Rampage is that you don't have control over it. Rabid Frenzy is like Frenzy, but on steroids (the moment it gets wounded it gets Frenzy and can dish out double the attacks than it used to...FOR THE REST OF THE GAME, so you want the enemy to wound it). Thus you can control it even when it's **** off. Not to mention that the Runelords control the Shard Dragons through the Runic Collars. It's not about taming but shackling and using a giant monster as a living, expendable land-cruising missile because MUH GRUDGES. Taming is for Dark Elves (yes, they tame by breaking the monsters) and Dwarfs don't play this way (they could, but don't need to in case of giant monsters).
    The Shard Dragon is a Distraction Carnifex. It's a scary monster that is the bane of existence of everything that has low leadership in the form of the Breathe of Nightmares (forces models to use their base leadership instead of toughness and it's S10, meaning Skaven will die in the thousands immediately as well as any unit that doesn't have high enough LD). The Breathe of Nightmares isn't a poison. It' a hallucinogenic gaseous breathe that makes people hallucinate stuff so scary they die from a heart attack.
    It's scary monster that would force the enemy to divert his focus away from the rest of the Dwarf army (which is the actual threat) and instead focus on the murder ferret. The murder ferret also has the Razor Scales that deal damage to anyone who misses it in melee, a Ward Save (via the Gromlir Scales upgrade which makes it more resilient and unique because not many monsters have a ward save), increased magic resistance via the Runic Collar and Rock Biter (a venom that is so damn corrosive that it both gives Shard Dragons Poisoned Attacks as well as superior Impact Damage [AKA: it charges harder into the enemy and with more force]). Apart of this the standard rules that dragons have (except for Fly) and Stubborn (would see it that the murder ferret has much higher LD compared to a normal dragon since there ain't any equivalent to it in game 3). Also it had the Wall Crawler rule that allowed it to climb them over, but in the game it would have Siege Attacker instead.
    It's wrong to say the unit wouldn't have Rampage. Rampage is an arbitrary trait that CA uses whenever they want. TT doesn't have "Rampage" by name. Instead, it has things like Stupidity, animosity, and impetuous which cause your units to do things without your input.

    Rabid Frenzy actually is a rule that would cause a unit to "rampage" because Frenzy causes units to rampage. As soon as the dragon takes damage, you no longer have full control of it. It can force you to pursue units and make charges you otherwise wouldn't.... "FOR THE REST OF THE GAME". Ironically, Rabid Frenzy is the closest thing to rampage in TT.

    You've also totally miss analyzed the unit. It's breath attack isn't "the bane of existence of everything that has low leadership", it's the bane of everything. 10 is the highest leadership in the game so it wounds on a minimum of 4+ and maximizes its wound chance against Ld 8 or below and it ignores armor. That's the single deadliest breath weapon in the game and it works on everything.

    It's also not a distraction for your more threatening units, it is your most threatening unit. It's one of the single most threatening units in TT. It can do a lot of high strength attacks and it's one of the tankiest monsters in the game and it's tankyness also does damage. Nothing in the dwarf army would matter as much as that dragon because nothing in the dwarf army is as deadly or tough to kill. It's not a true distraction because it can win you the game more easily than the rest of your army can.
    "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
Sign In or Register to comment.