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

About Kislev missile units being able to form a "battle line", and Dawi units requiring babysitting

mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 4,718


Unless i misunderstood, forming a battle line here means they will also be beefy in melee combat as we've seen from Streltski who have better stats than Thunderers despite the latter being 197 year old dwarfs with dedicated melee equipment and the former utilising some weird gun in melee while being totally human like my uncle.

Personally i always disliked the dwarfs being too reliant on ranged damage. Yes they are cheap and cost effective just like every other cheap ranged troop, and this can also cause issues against some factions due to how spammy they can be. Fill the battlefield with 500 gold armored, shielded ranged troops with 160 range and let them pepper everything - what's not to like? Too much quantity over quality.

Yet this is not how they were in any source. Their cheapest ranged troops had the same melee stats as Dwarf Warriors in TT so you could actually form a proper hybrid frontline from ranged troops. So far Kislev troops "sound" like how dwarfs should've been. Yet in TW, in default state
  • 700 gold armored Thunderers get murdered by 300g Goblins or similar before even dishing out 150g worth of melee damage
  • Irondrakes, who were supposed to be sidegrades to Ironbreakers, have absolute zero melee capability
  • Rangers were stripped from their armor and hence they are even worse than Quarrelers in melee, receiving heavy losses even against some malnourished Skavenslaves
  • Bugman's Rangers, who appeared without Bugman, are the only ranged unit that is somehow close to being hybrid, yet they too barely survive against any cheap chaff
This also gets exacerbated in campaign where melee troops get further buffed, but the above mentioned units don't benefit from melee buffs, and become even worse in melee. This situation is also one of the reasons that "TW Dwarfs" are so boxy and campy; because their ranged troops require constant babysitting, and their vanguard units were heavily tier nerfed. Not to mention lack of various unit runes heavilty diminishing their playstyle. Gotta admit though, it's quite an achievement to make a faction play more limited than they could in TT, yet not so surprising given the attention they have gotten so far.

Title may sound like a rant, but it's actually a sound criticism which has been brought up many times by various other users before.
«1

Comments

  • PocmanPocman Registered Users Posts: 4,724
    edited June 10
    If there is any conclusion i get from that is that Kislev is going to suck.


    The only Hybrid that is halfway decent in this game are lothern sea guards, and that has more to do with how disproportionate bvL are and charge defense v large. Every other one just sucks.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 32,686
    Streltsi should suffer constant damage whenever they use their idiotic weapon. Having a gun that's aimed at yourself half the time and slicing yourself up on a sharp blade the other must be presented as idiotic as it is.

  • Theo91Theo91 Registered Users Posts: 2,271
    Pocman said:

    If there is any conclusion i get from that is that Kislev is going to suck.


    The only Hybrid that is halfway decent in this game are lothern sea guards, and that has more to do with how disproportionate bvL are and charge defense v large. Every other one just sucks.

    Shades and sisters of averlorn are pretty awesome. I’d say they’re hybrids
  • Loupi_Loupi_ Registered Users Posts: 2,883
    Theo91 said:

    Pocman said:

    If there is any conclusion i get from that is that Kislev is going to suck.


    The only Hybrid that is halfway decent in this game are lothern sea guards, and that has more to do with how disproportionate bvL are and charge defense v large. Every other one just sucks.

    Shades and sisters of averlorn are pretty awesome. I’d say they’re hybrids
    neither of these units are awesome, they are great fun but hybrid archer units are just not as good as pure archers
  • PocmanPocman Registered Users Posts: 4,724
    Theo91 said:

    Pocman said:

    If there is any conclusion i get from that is that Kislev is going to suck.


    The only Hybrid that is halfway decent in this game are lothern sea guards, and that has more to do with how disproportionate bvL are and charge defense v large. Every other one just sucks.

    Shades and sisters of averlorn are pretty awesome. I’d say they’re hybrids
    Neither are great units, situational at best. And, in terms of pure melee power, they are barely able to beat a unit of swordmen (400). And by that time, they are basically spent.


    Imho, CA does not understand that for a hybrid unit to work, specially a multi model one, it has to be better than the sum of its parts.
  • ShevaTsarShevaTsar Registered Users Posts: 529
    Pocman said:

    If there is any conclusion i get from that is that Kislev is going to suck.


    The only Hybrid that is halfway decent in this game are lothern sea guards, and that has more to do with how disproportionate bvL are and charge defense v large. Every other one just sucks.

    You're going from the assumption they'll be correctly priced and not underpriced.

  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,069
    I think a hybrid rifle makes a lot of sense because they should have a best case line of site situation without a whole lot of cajoling of your front line, because they are the front line. I think it will be fine and more than a smidge more expensive than their lil dawi brothers in arms.
  • Elder_BasiliskElder_Basilisk Registered Users Posts: 438
    Loupi_ said:

    Theo91 said:

    Pocman said:

    If there is any conclusion i get from that is that Kislev is going to suck.


    The only Hybrid that is halfway decent in this game are lothern sea guards, and that has more to do with how disproportionate bvL are and charge defense v large. Every other one just sucks.

    Shades and sisters of averlorn are pretty awesome. I’d say they’re hybrids
    neither of these units are awesome, they are great fun but hybrid archer units are just not as good as pure archers
    It should be clarified: neither are very good in multiplayer. In campaign they're both good but that's because the supply lines mechanic (and lightning strike skill) discourages multiple low tier armies and encourages elite stacks in campaign while the fixed army cost makes cost-effectiveness key in multiplayer.

    In single player shades and sisters of Avelorn are good units and the cost doesn't matter much. In multiplayer, they're both extremely niche and offer a good reason to suspect that if Kislev's faction call concept is based on having similar units, that will hamper it's ability to be competitive in multiplayer.
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 664
    To be fair, most range units in TT had the same stats as their melee equivalent.

    Archers and spearmen were the same, orcs and arrer boys were the same, Bleakswords and darkshards, the list goes on.

    There was no special weakness in melee for any ranged unit. Worse case scenario they just didn't get access to weapons like spears or polearms (something that plenty of melee units also lacked)
    "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
  • mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 4,718
    edited June 10
    Loupi_ said:

    Theo91 said:

    Pocman said:

    If there is any conclusion i get from that is that Kislev is going to suck.


    The only Hybrid that is halfway decent in this game are lothern sea guards, and that has more to do with how disproportionate bvL are and charge defense v large. Every other one just sucks.

    Shades and sisters of averlorn are pretty awesome. I’d say they’re hybrids
    neither of these units are awesome, they are great fun but hybrid archer units are just not as good as pure archers
    Yes mainly because their super cheaper counterparts like Darkshards and HE Archers do the job pretty well in any situation and you do not want to endanger your expensive hybrids like Shades in melee.

    Streltsi should suffer constant damage whenever they use their idiotic weapon. Having a gun that's aimed at yourself half the time and slicing yourself up on a sharp blade the other must be presented as idiotic as it is.

    To make the matters worse, they actually melee with loaded rifles and randomly flip them things and shoot in melee according to the animations. Was it really necessary though.
    Post edited by mightygloin on
  • another505another505 Registered Users Posts: 3,162
    Loupi_ said:

    Theo91 said:

    Pocman said:

    If there is any conclusion i get from that is that Kislev is going to suck.


    The only Hybrid that is halfway decent in this game are lothern sea guards, and that has more to do with how disproportionate bvL are and charge defense v large. Every other one just sucks.

    Shades and sisters of averlorn are pretty awesome. I’d say they’re hybrids
    neither of these units are awesome, they are great fun but hybrid archer units are just not as good as pure archers
    Black spots or whatever they are called are good too
    But ya generally most of them are meh

    Hybrid monsters are a lot better like rotting promethean ror and selp stalkers
  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Registered Users Posts: 6,943
    Pocman said:

    If there is any conclusion i get from that is that Kislev is going to suck.


    The only Hybrid that is halfway decent in this game are lothern sea guards, and that has more to do with how disproportionate bvL are and charge defense v large. Every other one just sucks.

    I'd argue the opposite. They're going to be really strong unit-wise Streltsi, War Bear Riders, Little Grom, Rasputin all sound good. Mechanic wise? not sure.
    Albion would make the perfect Total War Warhammer 3 pre-order; with Hengus the Druid and Bran MacKerog as Legendary Lords.
  • Totentanz777Totentanz777 Registered Users Posts: 586
    Would dwarf players be OK with a cost increase to all their ranged units for the buffs OP mentioned? Because just giving them the buffs for free is having your cake and eating it too. I feel like if they made those changes dwarf players would then complain about how they can't build any wide armies. But then again, I don't play dwarves in MP often.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,076

    Would dwarf players be OK with a cost increase to all their ranged units for the buffs OP mentioned? Because just giving them the buffs for free is having your cake and eating it too. I feel like if they made those changes dwarf players would then complain about how they can't build any wide armies. But then again, I don't play dwarves in MP often.

    Dwarf balancing (ie balancing a slow faction) wouldn’t work well without cost effective range. They could maybe have a few hybrid units like bugmans as well but yeah not an easy preference to entertain.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,069
    Generally, I think the majority of dwarf players would like the rangers of all kinds to be +5MA/+5MD to +10/+10 for a reasonable cost hike.
  • mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 4,718
    edited June 11

    Would dwarf players be OK with a cost increase to all their ranged units for the buffs OP mentioned? Because just giving them the buffs for free is having your cake and eating it too. I feel like if they made those changes dwarf players would then complain about how they can't build any wide armies. But then again, I don't play dwarves in MP often.

    Wide dwarf armies is kinda a necessity to be competitive rather than a preference as far as i see it. You know you aren't supposed to outnumber GS and Skaven frequently. So yes cost increase would come naturally. You could also cut some ammo to reduce a bit of a price though since you rarely get to use all ammo in MP and you easily double the ammo capacity in SP anyway not to mention the ranged in general being overtuned there.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 6,360
    Just to add....

    ALL DWARF UNITS that had the Shield Wall Rule should have Charge Def vs. Large, That INCLUDES QUARELLERS AND THUNDERERS.
  • AsamuAsamu Registered Users Posts: 1,025
    edited June 11
    From what we've seen so far of Kislev unit stats, I think they'll be a bit better at doing the hybrid thing and fending off weak anti-archer units like dogs/bats, making them harder to shut down. The units tend to be weaker at range, but a bit stronger in melee when compared to "hybrid" units from other rosters for the cost. The faction will have issues if you try to go toe-to-toe in missile play with factions using more dedicated missile options (as was noted by the devs - you'll need to lean into other options in such cases), but it's not .

    I could see them being the new worst match up for VC, as zombie summons won't be particularly effective on the archers, and their great leadership makes fear/terror less effective.

    Kossars have only 140 range, 20 ammo, and 20 missile strength (shown on the card; presumably this is the /10s value), and they cost 475 (assuming the preview battle costs are accurate), with 15 armour, 71hp/entity, 72ld, 26MA, 28MD, 28WS, and 12CB for melee. (20ma/30md/25ws/4cb for spears).

    The melee stats are actually pretty decent as well, and make them compare favorably to most other "hybrid" units currently in the game.

    Compared to Sea Guard, Kossars with spears for 100g less, have -2 melee attack/-2 melee defense, -25(?) armour, -3 weapon strength, +2 leadership, and +3hp/entity.
    Their missile output is slightly higher at 25 less range, and they lack martial prowess, but they have better leadership.

    Compared to Quarrelers, Kossars get +8 melee attack, +8CB, +8 leadership, +1 HP/entity, and +~12.5% more models (80 vs 90 on ultra/60 vs 68 on large) but lose 55 armour and the shields. Quarrelers have better missile damage and range, but are also more expensive.

    Compared to Arrer boyz, Kossars have +3 melee attack, +14 melee defense, and +17 leadership, for -6 weapon strength, and -5 hp. Missile output and range is the same, and Kossars are 25g cheaper.

    Currently, they're looking pretty good as far as hybrid archers.

    Streltsi are a similar case - compared to Thunderers, they get AP damage with higher weapon strength, better melee attack, and substantially better leadership, with almost identical ranged output.


    Frankly, in single-player, unless there are some significant changes to how the game plays, Kislev might have the easiest campaign of any faction. Hybrid units are generally great in campaign, and the high leadership of Kislev units makes them particularly good at the typical "cheese" strats involving massed missile units with a very thin front line (or no front line with higher tier hybrid units).
    In multiplayer, having hybrid units be a weakness in some match ups (notably vs missile oriented factions) and a strength in others (notably vs factions like Beastmen and VC).


    As far as buffing Dwarfs... Their missile units aren't really "hybrid" right now. They pay 75-100g for a bit of extra melee stats compared to a missile unit with the same stats. Kislev units look like they're paying quite a bit more than that, especially streltsi.
    Raising the cost of Dwarf missile units in trade for higher melee stats would be fine, bud I don't think it'd make the faction better, considering their line infantry are so good at holding and giving more time for missile units to shoot.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 9,310
    edited June 11
    Barring any info about costs, both kislev and khorne seems to be t3 weak factions by design.

    Especially khorne, their units better be cheap. I thought demons r suppose to be powerful, maybe CA trying to play down the expectations, nothing I heard suggest kislev and khorne to be strong.

    Kislev has to be cheap, surely
    Chaff should be their saving grace, maybe some missile cavs

    Must be missing heaps of info, they r suppose to powercreep all current 15 factions
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,069
    I think Daemons have two levels shown us by CA regular and exalted glowy ones, so players can field cheaper and more expensive variants.
  • ReymReym Registered Users Posts: 658
    @Bastilean yeap they got classic and exalted bloodletters. As I understand it we got marauders, then bloodletters, then the chaos warriors trio and at last exalted bloodletters.
    yst said:

    Barring any info about costs, both kislev and khorne seems to be t3 weak factions by design.

    Especially khorne, their units better be cheap. I thought demons r suppose to be powerful, maybe CA trying to play down the expectations, nothing I heard suggest kislev and khorne to be strong.

    Kislev has to be cheap, surely
    Chaff should be their saving grace, maybe some missile cavs

    Must be missing heaps of info, they r suppose to powercreep all current 15 factions

    Well that why kislev got access to pretty good slow I guess. Between the 2 WoM 48% slow AoE we saw and range frostbite on the ice guard. So yeah slows, multiple layers of hybrid inf with eventually a Tzar guard or two and cav charging everywhere, sounds decent vs rush armies, however I'm sold on how they are supposed to beat most range/defensive armies we currently know without chaff to neutralize the enemy frontline and a weaker missile vs missile trade potential.
    For khorne the design seems clever on paper as an elite infatry race who benifit form a ton of rewards if they kill chaff such as buff on their unit (see the hellblade passive on bloodletters) and the global ability unlocked with kills who are probably here to allow the player to kill the important targets he couldn't attack because of the chaff blocking him (like idk a free windspell, buff maybe a summon etc). Sounds pretty decent against races who rely on chaff/weak infantry such as skaven bretonnia VCoast and... a good amount of races actually we just have to figure out if the skullcannon, war hounds and fleshhound trio is enough to help vs kite.
    But is talking about what is appropriate to talk about in this thread appropriate to be talked about in this thread ?

  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 324
    Dwarves are screwed by janky roster.

    Its an impossible balancing position,
    Buffing the melee troops makes the gunline borderline unreachable.
    Buffing the gunline makes nothing able to reach your melee troops.

    i struggle to see an option that doesn't make the matchup unwinnable for a lot of factions that doesn't also include alot of heavy nerfs.

    At the very least its a sure thing that Irondrakes are 100% robbed. Not up to any of the standard of almost any hybrid unit let alone one so elite.

    The dwarves deserve better. Hopefully some of their untenable units are brought up a bit in game 3. Else, they are very much overdue a dlc.
  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 9,310
    Speculation stage really, design seems okayish, but thats just talks. They hardly ever play the way they r suppose to be, may even end up being a shock cav faction lol and khorne being the same
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • Triumph4meTriumph4me Registered Users Posts: 123
    edited June 11
    So man



    Unless i misunderstood, forming a battle line here means they will also be beefy in melee combat as we've seen from Streltski who have better stats than Thunderers despite the latter being 197 year old dwarfs with dedicated melee equipment and the former utilising some weird gun in melee while being totally human like my uncle.

    Personally i always disliked the dwarfs being too reliant on ranged damage. Yes they are cheap and cost effective just like every other cheap ranged troop, and this can also cause issues against some factions due to how spammy they can be. Fill the battlefield with 500 gold armored, shielded ranged troops with 160 range and let them pepper everything - what's not to like? Too much quantity over quality.

    Yet this is not how they were in any source. Their cheapest ranged troops had the same melee stats as Dwarf Warriors in TT so you could actually form a proper hybrid frontline from ranged troops. So far Kislev troops "sound" like how dwarfs should've been. Yet in TW, in default state

    • 700 gold armored Thunderers get murdered by 300g Goblins or similar before even dishing out 150g worth of melee damage
    • Irondrakes, who were supposed to be sidegrades to Ironbreakers, have absolute zero melee capability
    • Rangers were stripped from their armor and hence they are even worse than Quarrelers in melee, receiving heavy losses even against some malnourished Skavenslaves
    • Bugman's Rangers, who appeared without Bugman, are the only ranged unit that is somehow close to being hybrid, yet they too barely survive against any cheap chaff
    This also gets exacerbated in campaign where melee troops get further buffed, but the above mentioned units don't benefit from melee buffs, and become even worse in melee. This situation is also one of the reasons that "TW Dwarfs" are so boxy and campy; because their ranged troops require constant babysitting, and their vanguard units were heavily tier nerfed. Not to mention lack of various unit runes heavilty diminishing their playstyle. Gotta admit though, it's quite an achievement to make a faction play more limited than they could in TT, yet not so surprising given the attention they have gotten so far.

    Title may sound like a rant, but it's actually a sound criticism which has been brought up many times by various other users before.
    Im gona be talking on a cost effective perspective because it is the required one for this type of "this unit is OP, this unit is not"

    Strelzis will for sure lose to basic marauders because they will not be that much armored and they do not a have a weapon designed to dispatch light infantry also they will be way fewer in number compared to basic meele infantry. So there goes your "streltzis r op omg"

    The strelzi unit will be basically quarrellers with great weapons. Just that they have a rifle instead of a crossbow.

    Every single hybrid unit in this game its average in range and bad in meele.

    Seaguard --> lower range than basic archers, same garbage AP value, can fend off light cav that cost way less than them. Overall not cost effective.

    Sisters of averlorn --> can beat hounds in meele loosing almost 1/3 hp again a really bad performance if you just compare prices. You field 1 sisters of averlorn your oponent gets 2 hounds and some chevrons for them. Overall not costefective again.

    Rangers, free company militia, shadow warriors and well any "hybrid" unit you want to just talk about suffers from the same. Its a good unit on paper but the meele stats often do not pay off for the price the unit has.

    Obiously if you play the tutorial (campaign xd) you can just spam the better unit once you develop a good economy so yeah. Streltzis will perform as good and bad as any other hybrid unit in the game, you will see.
  • Triumph4meTriumph4me Registered Users Posts: 123

    So man



    Unless i misunderstood, forming a battle line here means they will also be beefy in melee combat as we've seen from Streltski who have better stats than Thunderers despite the latter being 197 year old dwarfs with dedicated melee equipment and the former utilising some weird gun in melee while being totally human like my uncle.

    Personally i always disliked the dwarfs being too reliant on ranged damage. Yes they are cheap and cost effective just like every other cheap ranged troop, and this can also cause issues against some factions due to how spammy they can be. Fill the battlefield with 500 gold armored, shielded ranged troops with 160 range and let them pepper everything - what's not to like? Too much quantity over quality.

    Yet this is not how they were in any source. Their cheapest ranged troops had the same melee stats as Dwarf Warriors in TT so you could actually form a proper hybrid frontline from ranged troops. So far Kislev troops "sound" like how dwarfs should've been. Yet in TW, in default state

    • 700 gold armored Thunderers get murdered by 300g Goblins or similar before even dishing out 150g worth of melee damage
    • Irondrakes, who were supposed to be sidegrades to Ironbreakers, have absolute zero melee capability
    • Rangers were stripped from their armor and hence they are even worse than Quarrelers in melee, receiving heavy losses even against some malnourished Skavenslaves
    • Bugman's Rangers, who appeared without Bugman, are the only ranged unit that is somehow close to being hybrid, yet they too barely survive against any cheap chaff
    This also gets exacerbated in campaign where melee troops get further buffed, but the above mentioned units don't benefit from melee buffs, and become even worse in melee. This situation is also one of the reasons that "TW Dwarfs" are so boxy and campy; because their ranged troops require constant babysitting, and their vanguard units were heavily tier nerfed. Not to mention lack of various unit runes heavilty diminishing their playstyle. Gotta admit though, it's quite an achievement to make a faction play more limited than they could in TT, yet not so surprising given the attention they have gotten so far.

    Title may sound like a rant, but it's actually a sound criticism which has been brought up many times by various other users before.
    Im gona be talking on a cost effective perspective because it is the required one for this type of "this unit is OP, this unit is not"

    Strelzis will for sure lose to basic marauders because they will not be that much armored and they do not a have a weapon designed to dispatch light infantry also they will be way fewer in number compared to basic meele infantry. So there goes your "streltzis r op omg"

    The strelzi unit will be basically quarrellers with great weapons. Just that they have a rifle instead of a crossbow.

    Every single hybrid unit in this game its average in range and bad in meele.

    Seaguard --> lower range than basic archers, same garbage AP value, can fend off light cav that cost way less than them. Overall not cost effective.

    Sisters of averlorn --> can beat hounds in meele loosing almost 1/3 hp again a really bad performance if you just compare prices. You field 1 sisters of averlorn your oponent gets 2 hounds and some chevrons for them. Overall not costefective again.

    Rangers, free company militia, shadow warriors and well any "hybrid" unit you want to just talk about suffers from the same. Its a good unit on paper but the meele stats often do not pay off for the price the unit has.

    Obiously if you play the tutorial (campaign xd) you can just spam the better unit once you develop a good economy so yeah. Streltzis will perform as good and bad as any other hybrid unit in the game, you will see.
    Also wanna point that a hybrid unit is basically a ranged unit. So if the Strelzi cost lets say 800 and the empire hand gunners cost 600 (you get 2 strelzis I get 3 handgunners overall I got way better shootiness than you that can probably rip apart your cav or your guns), even if the handguners are way weaker in meele. You dont want to engage in meele with a ranged unit until it has spended all its amunition.
  • mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 4,718
    OdTengri said:

    Just to add....

    ALL DWARF UNITS that had the Shield Wall Rule should have Charge Def vs. Large, That INCLUDES QUARELLERS AND THUNDERERS.

    Plus + charge strength so 3-4 charge bonus shouldn't be a thing for any dwarf infantry lol. Only orcs are comparable as far as infantry charging goes afaik yet in TW most dwarf unit charge like wet noodle in comparison to their counterparts hence even the more incentive to box and be static..
  • AWizard_LizardAWizard_Lizard Registered Users Posts: 1,691
    Analog said:

    Dwarves are screwed by janky roster.

    Its an impossible balancing position,
    Buffing the melee troops makes the gunline borderline unreachable.
    Buffing the gunline makes nothing able to reach your melee troops.

    i struggle to see an option that doesn't make the matchup unwinnable for a lot of factions that doesn't also include alot of heavy nerfs.

    At the very least its a sure thing that Irondrakes are 100% robbed. Not up to any of the standard of almost any hybrid unit let alone one so elite.

    The dwarves deserve better. Hopefully some of their untenable units are brought up a bit in game 3. Else, they are very much overdue a dlc.

    The main difficulty certain factions face against the dwarfs is that the counters to gyros are vastly different to the counters required to face the rest of the roster. That aside there is hardly anything extraordinary in the faction that can't be realistically faced by almost everyone.
    Prettiest of the foot overlords.
  • AnalogAnalog Registered Users Posts: 324

    Analog said:

    Dwarves are screwed by janky roster.

    Its an impossible balancing position,
    Buffing the melee troops makes the gunline borderline unreachable.
    Buffing the gunline makes nothing able to reach your melee troops.

    i struggle to see an option that doesn't make the matchup unwinnable for a lot of factions that doesn't also include alot of heavy nerfs.

    At the very least its a sure thing that Irondrakes are 100% robbed. Not up to any of the standard of almost any hybrid unit let alone one so elite.

    The dwarves deserve better. Hopefully some of their untenable units are brought up a bit in game 3. Else, they are very much overdue a dlc.

    The main difficulty certain factions face against the dwarfs is that the counters to gyros are vastly different to the counters required to face the rest of the roster. That aside there is hardly anything extraordinary in the faction that can't be realistically faced by almost everyone.
    At the moment yeah,
    But i was specifically mentioning a situation in which either the Melee or ranged troops were buffed up, not the roster as it is.

    The roster atm is fine if a little uninspired given the current standards.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 6,360

    OdTengri said:

    Just to add....

    ALL DWARF UNITS that had the Shield Wall Rule should have Charge Def vs. Large, That INCLUDES QUARELLERS AND THUNDERERS.

    Plus + charge strength so 3-4 charge bonus shouldn't be a thing for any dwarf infantry lol. Only orcs are comparable as far as infantry charging goes afaik yet in TW most dwarf unit charge like wet noodle in comparison to their counterparts hence even the more incentive to box and be static..
    Your getting Resolute and Shield Wall Confused.



    Shield Wall is obviously the rule CA used as justification for Charge Def on Dwarf Warriors, Iron Breakers and Longbeards w/Shields.
  • mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 4,718
    I didn't say they were the same skill though.

    And if every shielded unit is to get a CD, you could remove it from LBGW and give em some hefty CB and MA instead. But i guess this way you risk them being Hammerers-lite with ITP.
Sign In or Register to comment.