Without deliberately offending those credited, this should be changed to '15 TIPS for Dwarf Players'
I was the one actually that came up with the commandment thingy, not Wagg. I did so for two reasons:
1) Tongue in cheeck. It was meant to be humorous
2) It's meant to evoke Moses. Not pushing religion here, but rather-
a- Moses had a big beard
b- He was dour and stubborn
c- He was one of the best military generals of his day
Add beer, and he'd make a good Dawi
Thou shalt not take non-ranger Longbeards with Great Weapons.
** Cause a modified version of Hammerers as a Core choice is bad how?
Objectively, yes. Warriors with GW are a better value in core.
Hammerers, except for the core/special thing, are just better for the points.
Thou shalt not take lots of bolt throwers.
** Bolt throwers aren't bad which is why they're in quite a few armies
One isn't bad. Going for 2 or more is. A cannon is just better for the points than 2 Bolt Throwers.
Thou shalt not take the Flame Cannon of your minuature shelf.
** Agree that it is pretty bad, but with the ability to hit something between the 12"-18" (4,6,8,10)to hit your intended target, it's actually quite reliable as weapons go. The flaming could be used to strip regen if you you're intending to shoot a regen target. Im not gonna deny that there are better options, but it doesn't make this any less viable.
No, the FC really blows. It's totally over-costed for what it does. You get one shot with it usually and it can blow up, undershoot, or miss.
Thou shalt not fail to put protection on your characters, especially your BSB.
** Some players only take characters cause they have to, so wouldn't this be more of a preference?
Due to supporting attacks and pretty much always striking last, characters need protection, or they die.
Thou shalt not take runic banners on your BSB unless you are working a Strollaz list.
** Valaya/Grungi are still viable options for a BSB. Valaya is expensive, but it would give us a +4 to Dispel. Though Grungi is avail to the BSB if Im not mistaken, so if you put him in a support block in the back, this seems to be a decent, cost effective option.
Valaya at 100 points blows. You use power dice to remove RIP spells. So you pay 100 pts for a +2 to dispell...not effective unless in very specific builds.
Grungni goes on unit standards. Doesn't need the BSB.
Thou shalt not take Thunderers without shields, unless you are taking 40+, which isn't the smartest idea, unless you have a specific strategy.
** What a load of "I Swear too much". Regardless of the number you take, if you know what you want to do with ANY unit, then it's a smart idea. With all the other stuff in a Dwarf army, if the enemy is shooting the guns, then you've really given em nothing better to shoot at. If they're in combat, then game is probably at a point where shields won't save the unit.
1 pt for a 14 pt model is a good investment for doubling saves vs S3 missile fire and a 6+ ward save in CC.
Thou shalt not take Daemon Slayers unless it's for the giggles.
** If by giggles you mean watching your opponent groan if/when he gets hit by this guy, then yeah. I've read the Javidsons Handbook, again, I agree that he's the least loved, but strip down he's a great addition to a single slayer unit or even as a loner. True he is killed easily, and your experience is greater here than mine. Does that mean that no one should take them in a comepetive environement? Yes they can!
Dragon Slayers are great. Daemon slayers, not so much. Take 2 dragon slayers and save 10 points.
Thou shalt not go to war without lots of Great Weapon dwarves.
** But taking Longbeards(non-ranger) w/o them doesn't conflict with this 'commandment' in anyway?
Again, warriors are a better investment for GW.
Thou shalt not put full commmand on units of 10 dwarves.
** Javidson has pointed out a ton of merits of having Mu in units. If you're taking a small block of 10 of anything for any army, you have a specific purpose in mind for em. Wouldn't it be just as valid that having an extra Standard to regain that +1 to a combat that needs it be one of those purposes?
units of 10 are expendable. Tossing 25 free vp into them may not be a great idea for something that can't stand up to a regular unit, and is too slow to dictate who it fights.
Thou shalt not overspend on characters.
** Impossible to do since you're limited to a % of game pts, rather than by a selection chart. Again, this is true for ANY army, and while it may be impractical to do so, isnt that up to the player? Without specifying a percentage, pts value, or ratio, there isn't ANY way to possibly keep this 'commandment'. It should probably read 'Thou shalt find a balance of characters to units'
Good point. In general, you don't want to load up on characters too much and find that 'balance' between units to characters. But I think that's hair splitting.
Thou shalt not take 20 strong combat units in 2k+ games. Thou should take 25+, preferably 30+ unless gun-lining missile units.
** Im sure there is some math-reasoning behind this but it doesn't make much of a difference. As a player plays his army, regardless of dwarfs or not, he is going to adjust the number of models in his unit. ex. If a player keeps losing his unit of 20 warriors, then he's simply going to add more. On that same note, if a unit isn't getting full use of all the models in it, the owning player is going reduce the number of models to make use of the points elsewhere where they will do something for the army. If you've found that 25-30 is what works for you, then great! Is it Law that every dwarf player has to block units up in this size range? Probably not.
Against any compentant 8th edition list, units of 20 are just too small. This has been proven repeatedly. See WoC reports.
Thou shalt not play Warhammer DWARFS sober, unless you are under the drinking age.
** Fixed this for ya! Other armies need sobriety.
Thou shalt take at least one Runesmith. In competetive environments, thou shalt take Runelord equivalent anti-magic.
** As our only decent form of mag. def, this is a no brainer. Why does a competetive environment dictate a Runelord or not? Wouldn't the player choose (as opposed to HAVE to HAVE!), and be limited by the points of the game? What if taking the Runelord leads to your mystery 'overspending'?
It's been shown repeatedly that one runesmith won't stop a solid magic phase. See Undead and Lizard armies.
I think the thing that you're good at A.Wagg is that you know the Dwarf army very well, and you truly want people to succeed. I think the thing you're bad at is that you feel that you're way is the best way, and think that is the ONLY way to win, and therefore the ONLY way to play this game. I've seen some of your comments on other posters, and this is the vibe you're projecting. There is a difference between Optimal and Viable. Also, winning isnt the only reason to be playing.
Again, blame me, not Wagg.
Optimal vs Viable. Absolutely good point. This is meant to be optimal advice for winning. Not just having fun.
For someone who's experienced, they can make their own decisions. For someone new...is ANY of this really that bad advice? Is ANY of it going to make a newb weaker? Maybe limited at the start, but it's a basis to grow from.
Here's a good example:
The Bearded Ones Battle Reports. His early reports were of a 7th edition list facing...other 7th edition lists. In 8th edition. He won reliable. Does that make his list 'strong'? No...playing against sub-optimal opposition, and he's got very solid generalship skills. He won a lot.
Then he switched to LOTS O' GW and larger units. And now? He's friggin' stomping people into the dirt...people playing outdated lists don't have a chance at all against him.
Can you win with a sub-optimal list? Sure. You need to be good, and facing people with sub-optimal lists usually.