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

124»

Comments

  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,044
    User_Clue 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.
    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.
    Wait. It's that lethal? And I thought the Magma Dragon's Brimstone Fire Breath or the Warpfire Dragon's Warpfire Blast were the real killers. Or the Toad Dragon with its whooping T7 W10 seems to be very tanky along with having the Colossal Beast rule. Then again the Toad Dragon's Unspeakable Foulness Breathe is an always hits attack that forces a model to take a Toughness test with a -1 modifier and the model can't take armor saves, and when it fails the test it suffers D3 wounds.
    Then again all those models with a breathe attack seem to all be pretty powerful.
  • Nyxilis#3646Nyxilis#3646 Registered Users Posts: 7,729
    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.
    You don't seem to understand the definition of poison. A poison is something that causes damage or death to the body when introduced or absorbed.

    And how it damages can be myriad. Be it scalding the lungs, attacking the nervous system, muscular issue, or host of other things. So a chemical introduced into the body that induces fear so badly your heart breaks down is yes, a poison.

    And even then, hallucinogen? This is where we're going with a dwarven attack? Something that sounds of out the DE, Skaven, or Slaanesh? Particularly one that causes fear till they die? Again, not the dwarven way. Or they'd have long since copied the Skaven weapons. Dwarves could if they wanted to, they don't because it's looked down upon. So, again, the very nature of the attack is just not fitting of dwarves.

    A dwarven army should be about the might of their footsoldiers, and the power of their machinery. Not their brutality of and skill of magical suppression to throw a beast at front lines to use toxins to kill them all for a unit that would end up taking all visual focus away from the rest.

    It's why people define HE around having dragons. They're big, gigantic, centerpiece dishes. They begin to define the army they are a part of and the way they go about bringing them in. So the HE are defined in part by the relationship they have with the dragons to ride into battle. Or by the DE who also use dragons but do so at the end of a brutality and control. This is not what defines the dwarven roster.
  • FrikoFriko Registered Users Posts: 3
    (Ive never played TT and my knowledge of warhammer lore comes mainly from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and some other stuff so take it easy on me :) )

    Why is no one talking about damn Anvils of Doom?! They are supposed to be insanely powerfull dwarven artifacts capable of throwing fireballs, lighting bolts and binding winds of magic but right now they are just a basic mount… so here comes my idea:
    1 time use army ability for armies led by Runelord (with AoD unlocked) or just lord ability that locks Runelord in place for lets say 30second, knocksback enemies around him, grants him very high ward save, a small/medium aoe Lightningstrike (similar to already existing spell) that can be used 3times and passive/activation effect that makes all nonrune magic impossible to cast or drains all available winds of magic and blocks its regeneration for the duration or cancels all ongoing magic effects. That could rly make AoD feel like a proper dawi artifact from ages ago.

    Now to units.

    Lords:
    Engineer type lord - skill line that boosts artilery/gyros/gunpowder units.
    I dont think that Slayer type lord is actually a good idea. It just doesnt fit imho. Ungrim as a Slayer King is the only esception to that.

    Heroes:
    Demon Slayer - antilarge, armor piercing and some skills that boost slayer units.
    Runepriestess - some healing/defensive spells, one such spell could remove any negative effect from friendly units or positive one from enemy, the other could make a unit(s) immune to magic?

    Units:
    Dragon Slayers - tier 5, antilarge, low model count to make them rly elite (tier 3 slayers -80 model unit, tier 4 giant slayers 40 model unit, tier 5 dragon slayers 20 model unit)
    Doomseekers - low count, tier 4, anti infantry with some debuff effect (-melee attack and speed would fit)
    Engineers - (similar to SFO unit) tier 4, medium range, shoots in arc (like small hand mortar so it can shoot over other units), small aoe dmg, low model count unit with aura that boosts reload/accuracy for range units, nice addition that rly fits the theme
    Grudgerakers/some kind of tier 4 unit that is an upgrade to Thunderers
    (mby Crankgunners - low count, weapon team unit with very fast rate of fire)
    Thunderbarge - basically slow moving, flying fortress, 2 attack modes (similar to eagle claw bolt throwers) : first from the big cannon at the front -big dmg, big range, used to snipe SEMs, lords, heroes or artilery, second from organ guns or something similar from the sides: fast shooting, lower dmg, lower range.
    Rune Guardians - tier 5, very low count (like 6-8 to make them feel rly elite) monstrous infantry type of unit, almost invicible to magic, very high armor, melee defence and weapon strength (melee attack not so much) very high mass but also very slow.

    In TWWH3 there are so many new monsters, cav, chariots, monstrous infantry units that dwarfs would need something to counter that. Slayer hero and new slayer units fit that role perfectly.
    Dwarfs also heavly relay on gunpowder/range units so here we go with Grudgerakers/Crankgunners/Engineers. Mby 1 new artilery unit could also be added (goblin hewer?).
    Dawi are the only race with a proper airforce (machines not monsters obv) so Thunderbarge is a no brainer, also id give gyros some small boosts (more speed, better rate of fire).
    Dwarfs are supposed to be masters of engineering and runecraft… soooo Rune Guardians. Due to low speed they wouldnt be used like other monstrous infantry or cav or chariots (so defensive playstyle wont change) but due to very high mass and defs they could hold SEMs or other monsters in place and not be tossed around (this was always a problem for dwarfs).

    I think all those units complement dawi playstyle and theme perfectly: powerfull infantry that holds the line - Rune Guardians, deadly range units like Grudgerakers and Crankgunners, air superiority - Thunderbarge and ofc more crazy slayers. And dont forget about Anvil of Doom.
    (Im a big fan of unit caps, im playing a lot or sfo in WH2 so thats why, high tier units like Rune Guardians or Thunderbarge could be or even should be capped in campaign, 1 or 2units of guardians per tier 5 rune building, 1thunderbarge per tier 5 engineering building to make them feel unique, as they should be)

    Im not a fan of Shard Dragons, they just dont fit my personal vision of dwarven aestetics.
    Rune Golems (single entity big monster)… i dont think dwarfs need that.

    There are also some lorefriendly mechanics that could be added to campaign:
    For example:
    The Underway - it is rly crucial to dwarfs, whole new campaign mechanic can be created based on that - rebuilding the underway and reconnecting the holds. Some kind of mix of lizardmans geomantic web buffs and woodelfs forest instant teleport to already reconnected hold. You have to capture a hold or have military alliance with npc factions to have „rebuild underway” option, then fight a quest battle (vs orcs or skaven ofc) to have holds reconected and teleport/some trade etc buffs unlocked, something like that :hushed:

    Or

    Similar to a mod called Dawi from another hold.
    When certain criteria are met (building or tech) reinforcements during battles become available. You can summon a unit of miners or gyros (after constructing landmark in Karaz a Karak). In lore miners are able to use already existing tunnels or dig new ones to suprise enemy army from behind and tbh it is damn awesome when enemies are battling your infantry but suddenly group of miners digs out of ground behind them and throws granades at em :smile:
    Same with gyros, they are supposed to be quick response force for dwarfs. These things wouldnt be op imho but just give so much flavor.

    Tbh i want just that: more flavor for dawi. More guns, more slayers, more runes, more engineering. Proper Anvil of Doom, Thunderbarge and Rune Guardians just enhance this dwarven theme so much.


  • Slayer_Yannir#8069Slayer_Yannir#8069 Registered Users Posts: 2,719

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

    Because it kinda looks like a gigantic, scaly ferret. With murderous tendencies.
    Ben1990 said:


    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.

    Well, it's a serpent. Serpents have incredibly inefficient digestive systems and they swallow their food whole. They eat a lot at a time, then digest it for days or weeks.

    Imagine if you had to eat a weeks worth of food all at once. You'd look pretty murderous too, right?
    Formerly known as Yannir. Oaths have been taken.
  • Ben1990#8909Ben1990#8909 Registered Users Posts: 3,044
    edited April 2022
    Nyxilis 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.
    You don't seem to understand the definition of poison. A poison is something that causes damage or death to the body when introduced or absorbed.

    And how it damages can be myriad. Be it scalding the lungs, attacking the nervous system, muscular issue, or host of other things. So a chemical introduced into the body that induces fear so badly your heart breaks down is yes, a poison.

    And even then, hallucinogen? This is where we're going with a dwarven attack? Something that sounds of out the DE, Skaven, or Slaanesh? Particularly one that causes fear till they die? Again, not the dwarven way. Or they'd have long since copied the Skaven weapons. Dwarves could if they wanted to, they don't because it's looked down upon. So, again, the very nature of the attack is just not fitting of dwarves.

    A dwarven army should be about the might of their footsoldiers, and the power of their machinery. Not their brutality of and skill of magical suppression to throw a beast at front lines to use toxins to kill them all for a unit that would end up taking all visual focus away from the rest.

    It's why people define HE around having dragons. They're big, gigantic, centerpiece dishes. They begin to define the army they are a part of and the way they go about bringing them in. So the HE are defined in part by the relationship they have with the dragons to ride into battle. Or by the DE who also use dragons but do so at the end of a brutality and control. This is not what defines the dwarven roster.
    Still want the Shard Dragon. There is nothing against Dwarfs having monsters and it's explicitly stated that they unleash those on anyone they consider their hated foe. So Greenskins, Skaven and other evil/chaotic factions.
    And after some nerfing it will be fine. Not to mention that lore is not set in stone, it's subject to change.
    Either way it's canon. So if anyone wants changes then one must look at Warhammer: The Old World on if Dwarfs will have monsters or not. For now the serpentine draconic murder ferret is here to stay.
    Yannir said:

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

    Because it kinda looks like a gigantic, scaly ferret. With murderous tendencies.
    Ben1990 said:


    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.

    Well, it's a serpent. Serpents have incredibly inefficient digestive systems and they swallow their food whole. They eat a lot at a time, then digest it for days or weeks.

    Imagine if you had to eat a weeks worth of food all at once. You'd look pretty murderous too, right?
    Duh. I'd go after mammoths for that meat. Or those giant slugs that are underground. Shard Dragons love to eat those a lot.
    Post edited by Ben1990#8909 on
Sign In or Register to comment.