Dwarfen Mountain Holds - Warhammer The Old World - Faction Review
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 03. 2024
- gommo & Andrew review the "Dwarfen Mountain Holds' and their Grand Army list for Warhammer The Old World
[2:45] - Special Rules
[9:53] - Runes - Weapons
[23:17] - Runes - Armour
[29:38] - Grand Army Composition
[35:20] - Characters
[1:03:51] - Runes - Talismans
[1:09:10] - Runes - Standard
[1:20:26] - Runes - Engineering Runes
[1:24:17] - Infantry
[1:43:20] - Cavalry
[1:47:05] - Monsters
[1:49:28] - War Machines
[1:51:40] - Summary
Join our Patreon @ / oldworldfanatics
You can follow us on
* CZcams - @oldworldfanatics
* TwitterX - @oldworldfanatic
* Instagram - oldworldfanatics
* Threads - @oldworldfanatics
* and email the show at oldworldfanatics@gmail.com
#warhammertheoldworld #warhammer #warhammerfantasy #dwarfenmountainholds #dwarfs #dwarves #forcesoffantasy #miniaturepainting #paintingminiatures #tabletopgaming #warhammercommunity #ageofsigmar #podcast #warhammerpodcast - Hry
I have a few grudges:
1. Gromril Weapons AP disappears when you have anything other than a hand weapon, or add runes, but a great weapon does not lose properties when you add runes. I get the combo shouldn't stack with great weapons, but it seems silly that you could add a rune of might to increase strength but doing so loses you a single AP. Or that you have to spend 15 points and use up a rune slot just to get back the one AP you already had by default. You need to spend 2 runes slots and 30 points to get an additional AP on a runic hand weapon. It just makes me feel cheated from some viable combos that aren't great weapons.
2. Also missed opportunity that Borne Aloft doesn't expand the command range of the general to 18" like others' get when they mount leaders on large targets. Dwarfs don't have an opportunity to purchase big mounts, but lifting your general up on a shield should be enough to boost the range of your command. They probably don't need it, but the option should be there to mitigate their poor mobility.
3. Dwarfs not having an equivalent to level 4 spellcasters for defense is upsetting. For a faction that doesn't have access to wizards they should have access to defend themselves without being shoehorned into taking an immobile Anvil. MR across the board is nice but it does nothing for things that don't target the Dwarfs directly like vortexs' and buffs. It's always been poor design, but if they are going to remove them from an entire phase of the game should have a few, not just 1 options for combatting it. Runesmiths should be +2, runelords +3 and Anvil should be the option +4 if you just want to shut down enemy magic. I don't see that as game breaking or OP. Anvils in the Lore are essentially an anti magic field and should be able to contest any level 4 wizards in the entire map.
4. Hammerers not coming with at least full plate. O&G's gave full plate to Black Orcs who also have furious charge, choppas, and quell impetuosity, and waaagh for 12 points a model. On a turn they charge they get +1A, reroll 1's to hit/wound, AP(-3). I get that you have GW striking at initiative value, 2 attacks and +1 I when charged but you only get the value when essentially losing combat. Whereas furious charge is recyclable while you have momentum or continue to press the enemy into falling back. You NEED to take the rune of confusion on these guys otherwise there's just no point. Again it just feels like you're being shoehorned into a single particular build. These guys should have furious charge instead of stoic defenders, or in addition to, plus full plate gromril armor. To me these guys aren't worth the cost. It's still T4 with a 5+ save on a very expensive model. Their main shtick is that they are meant to be coupled with a hero but that's such a points investment that an enemy just avoids them.
hear hear! very nice compilation! I think even with all these buffs, dwarven holds would not be op! Just the quality of life that matters!
The first point begrudges me the most tbh. You also need to spend 35p to create the equivalent to the sword of might, which costs only 20p.
Your analysis is correct. In my opinion whoever designed the dwarves for tOW (the style reminds me of Gav Thorpe…) showed a poor understanding of the new system. Dwarves being at a disadvantage when dispelling is difficult to understand. Another baffling choice was making dwarven warmachines worse than empire ones all around and runes don’t do much to improve them. The fact a dwarven master engineer is actually worse than an imperial engineer is also upsetting. On the positive side, Irondrakes are amazing and rangers are very good, so the army still has good shooting.
That aside the army has the usual weaknesses: M3 on 98% of units forces you to stay back and shoot. Having no monsters and no cavalry leaves dwarves in a tight spot when dealing with monsters (and artillery is much less effective against them).
In general, dwarves are a reactive army, that depends on the enemy’s choices. You are going to be charged 9 times out of 10 and your troops are expensive, which means most enemies will outnumber you. Sure, you have t4 infantry all around, but that means little when getting impact hits,stomps, high strength hits in your face. Btw, the fact the dwarves, supposedly masters of armor and weapon crafting, get to have max ONE character with a base armor save of 2+ is also ridiculous imo.
Given their many weaknesses, dwarves should have been given some counters to mitigate them (O&G got most of their weaknesses reduced or erased outright… our being “resolute” became just a weakness…), instead those that existed were largely taken away. No more runes to hit flyers more easily, no more taunting the enemy into charging a block of infantry, no more forcing layers to move with normal movement…
That said, the army can do well when facing mass enemy infantry (probably not O&G though, cheap troops, fanatics and black orcs ruin your day). Against monster or magic heavy armies dwarves are in trouble though.
@@Tulkash01 Please never say that name again!
I'll give them a few positives, Gyrocopters, and Rangers and Irondrakes are the big winners here. You can still kit out a general quite well and its nice they finally built runes on top of a great weapon. Otherwise just stick with basic warriors for your front line, if you want some elites, Ironbreakers are the go to choice here.
@@pinch1loaf I agree on all counts. I’d also add the suggestion not to bother with long beards. They are overcosted for what they can do.
Fairly sure your reading of Master Rune of Hesitation is wrong. If you don't get to use a weapon then obviously you don't get to use any special rules that weapon would have so there would be no need for the last clause. Think an ordinary understanding of that sentence would take it as the special rules referred to are the ones the unit has for charging i.e. things like Choppa, Impact hits, Furious Charge etc. Could be wrong of course!
You're definitely correct; it stops all the charge special rules like impact hits a furious charge. The long answer involves pronouns vs nouns and subjective pronouns
Yep you are correct.
Agreed, quite powerful but that's how I read it too.
The Strollaz banner rune is laughably bad. Paying 25 points for a 3 inch vanguard is ridiculous.
The only niche use I can see is, it ‘might’ allow a unit of quarrellers/thunderers to get into range for first turn shooting if an opponent put a unit just out of their standard shooting distance during deployment.
I used to really enjoy taking a melee strollaz list in 8th as something different to a gunline/combined arms and that doesn’t seem very viable now.
@@Knoffles I agree in 8th I'd take it in a melee focused list on a couple of units, plus bringing a large unit of rangers and or miners. Now out side of the very niche use you've stated I can't see anyone taking this. for the points I think I'd rather have 2 more quarrellers/thunderers.
True super bad
It would be debatable if it was useful at even 5 points. At 25, it makes me think it was a last-minute change where the rule was adjusted, and they forgot to change the points.
I love these. Even the 30-45 minute ones.
🤣 All our episodes are 30mins :)
@@oldworldfanaticsthis one was especially “short”. I’ll see myself out.
@@KT-pl5qy 😃
Ancestral shield is a 5+ ward save not a 4+. The anvil is AT A DISADVANTAGE when dispelling ANY lvl 4 wizard before factoring magic items. It is at a disadvantage when casing against any lvl 4 wizard as well. On top of this it is immobile, so your opponent can just cast outside its dispelling range. On a positive note, as far as I know being unbreakable and immobile means it does not give ground.
can you wizardly dispel a anvil ? wizardly dispel needs to target a wizard and the anvil is not a wizard.
@@balemoran3168 can you dispel a bound spell ? Because the anvil of doom casts bound spells with a power level of 3 (Forces of Fantasy, page 15). The answer is yes, you can dispel the anvil of doom’s runes.
@@Tulkash01 I'm asking a very specific question. Can you do a wizardly dispel against a bound spell from a non wizard. RAW you can not, so your +3 for the anvil is not impacted by your opponent's wizard trying to dispel it. You have +3 to dispel and with our native -1 MR. We are about as good as a l4 dispelling against debufs or magic missiles. We also have access to the classic dispel scroll of nope that's not happening.
@@balemoran3168 Lol. You are giving the most disingenuos reading possible to the rules in order to claim the anvil is good.
In this case I assume you are extrapolating from the recent Ravening Hordes FAQ, specifically from the following:
"Beastmen Brayherds
Q: Can the Hagtree Fetish be used to re-roll rolls To Wound caused by a Bound Spell?
A: No. Bound Spells are cast by the item they are bound to, whilst Arcane Items such as the Hagtree Fetish affect spells cast by their bearer. Therefore, unless an item specifies it has an effect upon Bound Spells, it does not".
Notice how the FAQ only talks about items... AND page 109 of the Core Rule Book specifies the following:
"You may attempt to dispel a bound spell as usual. Magic items that dispel or destroy spells work as normal against bound spells. when dispelling a bound spell there is no risk of being outclased in the art".
In other words you are inventing rules. The Anvil of Doom's bound spells can be dispelled as usual.
As for MR, I've already pointed out how the protection granted by that rule is really only working on 2 types of spells.
@@Tulkash01 I really am not, "Wizardly Dispel: To attempt a Wizardly dispel, nominate a
single Wizard in your army that is within ‘Dispel range’ of the
Wizard that cast the spell. " No wizard cast the spell. "Possessing a Bound spell
does not make a model a Wizard."
I really like the clatter gun its the only one that can move 18 inches and still fire.
I don't think you'd be able to use multiple standards with runes which add combat res. For all intents and purposes they're magical standards so pick only one.
There was a special character is 8th (Grimm Burloksson - son of the 4th Ed special character - Burlok Dammisson) who allowed rerolls to hit on shooting units (or allowed quarrellers/thunderers to increase their range by 2D6). That’s the closest to the reroll 1’s to hit that the engineers now get.
What do you think of the Dwarf Engineer in comparison to the Empire one? Think I'd rather have the BS for the bolt thrower or organ gun.
Great stuff, but it seems you got confused. This was supposed to be Dark Elves, not Dwarfen Holds. I realise they both start with D, so I'll forgive you, but I expect Dark Elves next time 😉
Hahah right on. Maybe we’ll put a vote up
Unfortunately deathblow is not open to interpretation: it is clear it is a special attack with its own specific profile which is actually different from what slayers can usually do (the -1 AP does not normally apply to their attacks).
The real Rune Discussion: don't take Runes on your characters. The enemy will just avoid you.
Oh pease do analisis like that for O&G Xd
We did one a while back - czcams.com/video/alyxZlxFqlk/video.html
@@oldworldfanaticsMy bad thank you
No worries. Maybe we’ll redo it soon since we’re learning so much more
@@oldworldfanaticsDo it!