[erised]

So the title says it all.

For those who do not know, the dwarf lord torpedo is ranking a hammerer unit 2 wide with a dwarf lord at the front. Everyone attacking to the front MUST attack the lord, who is usually kitted out to be damn near unkillable.

I've seen numerous people (David L in particular) pull out the infamous dwarf lord torpedo in a unit of hammerers. I would like to know the opinions on whether this is cheesy/beardy or necessary against things like VC regen knights and the like.

Personally, I never tried this tactic as I thought it was a little too strange. But after being waxed by daemons, VC, DE in head on fights (Juggers, Regen Knights and execs with ASF and cauldron), it's beginning to feel like this torpedo tactic is becoming less beardy and more of a natural adaption to the nastiness out there. Dwarf armies just can't stand toe to toe with lots of the nastiness out there in CC!

Note I am not calling those users of the torpedo as cheesy or beardy! Not at all as I feel the need for it and it is not against the rules in any way shape or form.

Looking forward to some input.

[Dirken Thorn]

Won't that create a big juicy flank?

[erised]

Dirken Thorn, on 11 March 2010 - 03:24 PM, said:

Won't that create a big juicy flank?

Yeah it does. However, hammerers don't care due to stubborn. This set up is not to win combat, but tie up the deathstars out there so they don't wreck the whole army. The general idea is that you point this unit at the deathstar. Rune of challenge it, charge it, or angle yourself so they must charge you. Then once the deathstar is engaged, if any supporting blocks flank charge your hammerers you have units nearby to counter charge.

The reason why players have resorted to this is that even when you place an unkillable lord in a large unit of hammerers, the ridiculous deathstars out there can kill all the hammerers and autobreak your lord. If you doubt this then merely fight a unit of executioners 7 wide with a hag BSB supported by a cauldron of blood. Talk about messy

[Halbrad]

I don't think it's a question of whether you need such tactics or not, but rather a matter of how you approach the game. If your mindset is that you command an army that fights a battle against a horde of orcs invading your realm, it could feel a bit unnatural. If your mindset is that it's a game that has a certain set of rules and both players try to beat each other there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Now most players will have a bit of both, but the question is which one is prevailing?

If you and your opponent both want to play a "realistic" fantasy battle, you can ignore silly rules and play it how you think it should be played. In that case the torpedo lord is probably a big nono.

But there are lots of things that don't make sense even if you ignore the argument of nastiness thrown at us. Things like the Hydra moving through the woods unhindered, trolls that can be screened by snotlings, ranked units moving out of difficult terrain by turning and expanding frontage. Not being able to charge a unit in the front if you are in the flank zone whilst you can see the front but not the flank of the unit. Being terrored or marchblocked by enemies you have never seen. Clipping and sliding. A single pursuer running down an entire unit. Dwarfs fleeing 11" through difficult terrain whilst they charge 6" in the open. Pinning a steamtank so it can't charge. Oh. and why can't I turn on the spot and fire a crossbow while a dark elf can turn, move back, turn again and shoot twice? My point is there are a lot of things that don't "make sense" in the game. Some are widely accepted and questioned by none, like taking a terror test for a dragon you can't see. Yet others are considered beardy like conga line miners.

Personally I like to play the game as a game and think there is nothing cheesy about the torpedo lord or anything else that's clearly allowed by the rules. Things just get fuzzy quickly if you don't. A Hydra moving through woods unhindered makes no sense to me. But if you say no to that, how about a razordon? Not being able to shoot trolls screened by snotlings makes no sense to me. But if you say you can shoot at Trolls, what about Big uns? There are some silly rules in the game, but I find making the most out of them a lot more fun then arguing which silly rules should be ignored and which shouldn't each and every game. Especially as opponents who complain about silly rules never seem to do so if said rules are to their benefit.

This post has been edited by Halbrad: 11 March 2010 - 11:02 PM

[erised]

Halbrad, on 11 March 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:

I don't think it's a question of whether you need such tactics or not, but rather a matter of how you approach the game. If your mindset is that you command an army that fights a battle against a horde of orcs invading your realm, it could feel a bit unnatural. If your mindset is that it's a game that has a certain set of rules and both players try to beat each other there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Now most players will have a bit of both, but the question is which one is prevailing?

If you and your opponent both want to play a "realistic" fantasy battle, you can ignore silly rules and play it how you think it should be played. In that case the torpedo lord is probably a big nono.

But there are lots of things that don't make sense even if you ignore the argument of nastiness thrown at us. Things like the Hydra moving through the woods unhindered, trolls that can be screened by snotlings, ranked units moving out of difficult terrain by turning and expanding frontage. Not being able to charge a unit in the front if you are in the flank zone whilst you can see the front but not the flank of the unit. Being terrored or marchblocked by enemies you have never seen. Clipping and sliding. A single pursuer running down an entire unit. Dwarfs fleeing 11" through difficult terrain whilst they charge 6" in the open. Pinning a steamtank so it can't charge. Oh. and why can't I turn on the spot and fire a crossbow while a dark elf can turn, move back, turn again and shoot twice? My point is there are a lot of things that don't "make sense" in the game. Some are widely accepted and questioned by none, like taking a terror test for a dragon you can't see. Yet others are considered beardy like conga line miners.

Personally I like to play the game as a game and think there is nothing cheesy about the torpedo lord or anything else that's clearly allowed by the rules. Things just get fuzzy quickly if you don't. A Hydra moving through woods unhindered makes no sense to me. But if you say no to that, how about a razordon? Not being able to shoot trolls screened by snotlings makes no sense to me. But if you say you can shoot at Trolls, what about Big uns? There are some silly rules in the game, but I find making the most out of them a lot more fun then arguing which silly rules should be ignored and which shouldn't each and every game. Especially as opponents who complain about silly rules never seem to do so if said rules are to their benefit.

Very well said Halbrad. Hear hear.

I think, based on that description, that I will go for a mixed approach.

In tournament settings I will use the torpedo lord when the case calls for it, in non-tournament games I won't. Mainly because I view tournaments as a test of tactics, skill and gut... while outside of tournaments I love fun, crazy, heroic and more realistically inclined battles.

Thanks for the enlightened input.

[Dirken Thorn]

I guess i got hung up on the torpedo idea meaning your Lord being shot out in front of your line without support but with units in range to counter-flank anything it could prove a deadly tactic, i like it.

[Cadillac]

Halbrad summed up it perfectly.

My few cents:
I first heard about this tactic few days ago on this forum.

I've got two friends with which I play. Against one of them I don't use this kind of tricks, as we enjoy (like Halbrad mentioned) the "fantasy" style of play and try to make the game as fair as possible (we never! argue). The second one is a whole different story, he's exactly that kind of person that complain a lot about silly rules but use them a lot to his benefit (but always got a good "logical" explanation). Against him I'll definitelly try out torpedo . Miners conga line is a little bit too much even against him. It all depends on your jugdement and where you set your trick/cheating boundries. The golden rule (which I ignore against my "complaining friend" ) is: Treat people as you would like to be treated.

Cheers

[Gramnir]

Sounds to me like a fine solution, I might just try that tactic out against my DE friend (got owned hard by a unit of exes with hag BSB w. ASF banner, backed by cauldron)

[David L]

For me, my Dwarf Lord torpedo is reserved for Daemons, Vampires and maybe Dark Elves. Armies that contain units that CANNOT be engaged by anything else, because I'll lose them all nearly instantly. And probably cause fear. I'll solo Black Guard with the tank Lord, but he cannot do that to Daemons or VC because of fear.

[liveundead122]

i understand everyones frustration with the most recent books, and the more unbalanced aspects of the game, but the dwarf lord torpedo strategy takes away from the fun of the game. if you are playing in a game that requires you to use this strategy to get a victory, i suggest you find a new gaming group to play with. they are missing the point of the game.

[purpledtentacle]

liveundead122, on 14 March 2010 - 06:03 AM, said:

i understand everyones frustration with the most recent books, and the more unbalanced aspects of the game, but the dwarf lord torpedo strategy takes away from the fun of the game. if you are playing in a game that requires you to use this strategy to get a victory, i suggest you find a new gaming group to play with. they are missing the point of the game.

Agreed.

I usually fight Daemons and Vampires without finding too many problems. I think the problem isn't the book but the players who are using it in a nasty way.

[Halbrad]

liveundead122, on 14 March 2010 - 07:03 AM, said:

the dwarf lord torpedo strategy takes away from the fun of the game. if you are playing in a game that requires you to use this strategy to get a victory, i suggest you find a new gaming group to play with. they are missing the point of the game.

Obviously i disagree. As I stated before I think it's the mindset that is used to approach the game. If both players take it as just a game there is nothing wrong with it. Passing your judgement on how you think others should or shouldn't play it and recommending to find another gaming group without knowing their situation is something I find rather patronising.

Personally I don't see how the torpedo strategy is very different from landing a terror causer outside the charge arc. I mean: I can't charge it because I can't see it, but I can run away from it in terror. Is that any wierder than having a lord lead his hammerer unit from the front when such a devastating enemy is heading their way that even the dwarf elites don't have any chance against? Does it make more sense to have dwarfs slaughtered by the dozen than to hide? Also it's not like the torpedo strategy is a "I win" button. With no ranks or even a banner you are not going to beat many foes so it's a last resort.

I am a very fair player. I don't overguess, I remind my opponent of rules that are in his favour, I don't cry a river if the dice hate me, I don't aim my cannon at pointless targets in the hope i hit something precious behind that I can't see. I don't use "rubber rulers" and if I miss a charge by a fraction of an inch, so be it. My gaming group are doing the same. But we do use tough lists and all tactics that are clearly allowed by the rules and I do use the torpedo if I have to choose between having my unit slaughtered or keeping them alive. We are having lots of fun and never have arguments about things being fair/realistic/reasonable or not. Please tell me what point of the game we're exactly missing

[erised]

I can see this opened up a can of worms on this one.

Because, as Halbrad pointed out, this is a game that is approached and played by different players in different ways. Some play casual games against members of their gaming group and have one opinion. Others play to the death style where each player does everything possible, within the listed rules, to win (tournament). Others play a mixture of both. Who is anyone to say one person's approach to the game is wrong?

Back on point, I have been playtesting the torpedo formation and it is in no way all powerful. It trades durability to the front for every other bonus. No static res, HUGE flanks, ridiculously bad maneuverability (i couldn't get a critical flank charge because my unit couldn't wheel without smacking terrain lol). To be able to pull it off, you need a small unit of hammerers... which in turn are very very vulnerable to being shot to death. A cunning opponent would simply feed it a tarpit and tackle the rest of the army. The sad thing is, even a block of 30 skaven slaves would tie this unit up for several turns because he gets +5 SCR from the beginning.

To sum it up, I've come to the conclusion that his formation helps keep us level with 1100 point deathstars while making us much more vulnerable against shooting, SCR, tarpits. I now fully endorse it as being as being functional a tactic and can single handedly can prevent a deathstar from being an autowin button against dwarfs.

[David L]

erised, on 14 March 2010 - 08:22 AM, said:

I have been playtesting the torpedo formation...

It sounds to me like you are making the mistake of deploying that way. Deploying in that formation is almost always a bad idea, unless you intend to get out of it instantly (strollaz forward then add frontage on turn 1, purely to get in front of war machines).