Hello there.
It's been a longtime since I posted here and I thought it would be good to come back a little. I've read through the forum and I'm forced to admit that it's wonderfull community is mostly cold feeted when it comes to 9th age.

While I can understand, I would like to share my own experience and vision of the game, and why I fell in love with it.

First off, after the dump of Age of Sigmar, I lost all motivation to play or paint during the summer. Most people in my area felt the same way and a lot simply started to sell their armies.
Then came 9th, with a new approach to the game and a strong desire to make it the more balanced and competitive as possible. I wasn't sure what I could trust until I saw the amount of effort and work put into the game by the teams.

It was a blast. Every army felt different to play with or against, some unseen units made a comeback onto the field, there is a whole new meta to learn and adapt to. There are still some things that can feel broken but those issue are usually adressed quickly after enoug feedback about it are given in the playtest sections.

Concerning Dwarves, the approach taken made agressive playstyle viable, while all shooty is also possible. Here is my analysis, unit by unit, of the new version of the book :

Dwarven Holds 10.0 Analysis.

Characters :

Dwarf King : Nothing to say. He his where it should be. At first I thought the throne was probablytoo expensive, but seing all that it provides, I find it nice the wayit is (+2W, +D3 units affected by reckoner, 6" swiftstride, 4A S4(5) reroll to hit and to wound against reckoned targets).

Runic Master Smith: He feels great. He is my general of choice, because of his tankyness and magic capabilities.

Master Engineer : Kinda tricky. I don't really know what to think. He has still his place in some lists, but now that the GreyBeards have their BS reduced to 3 he really shines only in Forge Wardens. He remains quite a big investment, but might be worth it. The new rangers and their BS4 could be a possibility for him.

DaemonSeeker : Loosing MW2 makes him more balanced, as I found him way too strong as he was before. Now he feels fine and still very strong and capable.

DragonSeeker : 50pts for goodstats and rules.. I think he becomes a better option than thedaemonseeker, fully equiped (mostly because of MW2 and raging beingless expensive). My build of choice : +2Init, +1A, Ignore AS and Grim resolve for a total of I7, 7-9A S4(5) ignore armor. In a game where always strike first disapeared, init is king.

Runic Smith : Nothing to say, he'sfine.

Engineer : He is really good in my opinion. Cheaperthan his 8th version, he can also shoot and help awarmachine in the same turn. He cannot reroll an artillery die thatsaid, but with wyrmslayer and an organ gun, he has a spot in anylist.

Guild Master : 85pts ?Really ? I mean, okay, this is a tough guy but this is making asimple dwarf bsb with shield 113pts. Seems a bit too much. Especiallywhen those guys aren't taken beside of the bsb option, and even then,more and more players (me included) don't play bsb at all in theirlists. It's a shame because I like those characters, but they neverfit anywhere, moreso now that their base point cost and weapon optioncost has increased.

Core :

Dwarf Warriors : Better than their previous version, in the sense that GB got less good (I won't say worse, they are still very good). Spear can become a decent option,especially after the parry nerf. Vanguard is cool too, but mostly access to magical banner is what they needed.

Greybeards : now where they should be. Parry is almost useless on them but shieldwall still cut it, and now that Great Weapons cost more than shield, there is almost no upside to take Great Weapon on them.

Shooters : Well, they are currently overcosted. They are dwarf warriors, and they pay 5 pts to have ashooting weapon, 4 if equiped with shield (without shieldwall). On a BS3 model, it is too much. Loosing scout option makes them almost "unplayable". Almost.

Special :

Seekers : Still too good and needing a 1-2 points cost increase to be balanced. S4 as a base stat and weaponmaster, along with the other seeker rules (deathblow, wound on 4+, 6+ ward, swiftstride) bring them to god tier level where the unit is cheap while very versatile and killy, plus very reliable on different aspects due to deathblow and unbreakable.

Kingsguard : Where they should be thanks to the 4+ armor save. I still have a hard time finding a spot for them when seekers are so good and almost have the same role.

Ironguard : Now completely worthless. With the parry nerf, they almost have no use of it. They are basically greybeards with +1AS, for 2 points more and special instead of core.

Copters : Still very good, butthey feel like they miss something. Beside being flying redirectors (costly ones), they don't have a huge impact most of the time (still very threatening against elves). I personnally prefer drakeraker to the breath weapon.

Anvil : With 48 » range and-1 armor it is now a balanced unit. I find it very very usefull, especially because the damage spells don't need line of sight, meaning we have threats against hidden targets.

Forge Wardens : They're good as they are. I'd prefer them to have BS4 and WS4/S3, but it might be toopowerfull, especially with Master engi. Having them in special makes them usable anyway.

Rare :

Miners : Very cool looking. S4 warriors with access to pistol & ambush. Me likey. That said, being rare makes them kinda tricky to include in a list in my opinion. Their role would also fit in special without being too powerfull.

Warmachines : are fine. Something probably needs to be done for the flame thrower because the volleygun beats him almost all the time. The more I play canons, the more Idislike them in 9th. They're way too unreliable, but maybe it's just my badluck speaking. Now that canons are using straight BS in shooting, it might change. Hitting on 4+ under 30" and 5+ over.. Ignoring cover can be a good thing in some way. Might need to test and see, but how I see it 2xbalistas with +1 to hit on flying unit do a better job; while being almost the same price.

Rangers : well, 11pts per model iscool. But options.. GW + crossbows, make 5 of them 90pts, so 20 more than their 8th version with +1BS. I'm not sure how to use them, as all their options are priced high (streamlined I understand, but still high). Probably better as just 5 guys to deny/ensure vanguard for cheap, even tho they won't do anything beside that for the rest of the game. TW might be a decent optionthat said.

Hold Guardians : I don't know whatto think about them. 210Pts for the first 3, when the unit is tankybut really lacks fighting power. They were designed to kill monstruous stuff, but they are outclassed in this task by seekers, while being rare.

SteamBomber : +1wound and +25pts. While they were super good and cost effective in 0,9 they now feel weird. Not sure yet, have to playtest to make my mind but I find their cost a bit repelling.

Berserkers : god I love those guys. 60Pts of pure awesomeness. Probably don't need distracting, as they are I10 and will strike anyway. Distracting makes them actually surprinsgly resilient once they reach close combat, with their WS5 and 3W. And they dish out very decent amount of damage, can redirect,absorb shooting & magic.. Very (too?) good.

Anyway, that's it for me and for my review of the book. Agressive playstyle took a (hopefully temporary) nerf but it was mostly needed due to the amount of pressure and power the dwarves could bring on the table from turn one onwards. The lack of viable counter play for the opponent meant almost all the time a very dominating game for DH, and very little room for the opponent. This agressive style of play is still viable, I think, but will need more sacrifices and thoughs when used.