[Archive] Balance in Tamurkhan Rules?

Archive [Archive] Chaos Dwarf Discussion
21

Thommy H:

All right, let’s all chill out here!

Doesn’t matter who was told what, or why they were told or who by. I have the book in front of me now. I’m not just a native English speaker, I’m a native English speaker with a degree in English Literature who is a semi-professional writer. I’m not setting myself up in opposition to your friend, Zuh-Khinie, I’m just listing my credentials so that, if required, I can be cited instead! I’m not arguing with anyone, I’m just explaining what the rules say.

The box on 186, as a whole, explains how to include Chaos Dwarf units in a WoC army. This is the place to look. The first paragraph is just some general stuff, setting the scene. The second paragraph is a little addendum about Great Hosts (which I think has now been superseded by the FAQ anyway). Paragraphs three and four are where the actual rules you need are.

The presence of a colon, as Bitterman says, makes it clear that “the following options” are the next two paragraphs and that these are not to be used for Great Hosts. So they’re for everything else. For the record, Zuh-Khinie, you’re right that this isn’t the best way of organising things - why mention Great Hosts in the middle of the box like that? It would have been clearer to put them at the end.

Nonetheless, since the last two paragraphs aren’t for Great Hosts, it’s clear that they apply in all other situations. So you can only include certain war machines and a unit of Infernal Guard per Daemonsmith or Sorcerer Prophet. You don’t get free rein over the whole list.

22

Zuh-Khinie:

All right, let's all chill out here!

Thommy H
Sorry for the overheating part... let's all just have a :cheers, we're all brothers in arms here, right?

Thanks for level-headed feedback Thommy...
23

jbrown1214:

If you read the rules closely, it states that everything in the CD list can be added to the existing WoC list...

Zuh-Khinie
No it doesn't. That's simply untrue.

You can take certain units (a specific list is given) but in each case you must take a Daemonsmith to go with it; this adds to the points investment and helps to balance things out. IIRC (at this point I must admit I'm going by memory) a Destroyer cannot be taken in a WoC army, period. A Magma Cannon (for example) can, but you also have to pay for the Daemonsmith. It is emphatically not as simple as "take your normal WoC army and add as many Chaos Dwarf war machines as you like".


Bitterman
All right, let's all chill out here!

Thommy H
Sorry for the overheating part... let's all just have a :cheers, we're all brothers in arms here, right?

Thanks for level-headed feedback Thommy...


Zuh-Khinie
I'm almost sorry that I raised the question--didn't mean to start a disagreement!--but it is good to work out our disagreements, no? At least we know the forum is "vibrant"!

Cheers,

Jason
24

Bitterman:

When the purpose of the thread is to discuss “Balance in Tamurkhan rules”, it is important to get the rules right. Most of this thread has been written with the idea that WoC can freely select any CD units… which would indeed be absurdly imbalanced if it was true, but since it’s not true, it’s actively misleading, and could so easily be abused by the anti-FW/WF crowd to (unnecessarily and unjustifiably) stop people like us using the models, armies and rules we love.

25

jbrown1214:

When the purpose of the thread is to discuss "Balance in Tamurkhan rules", it is important to get the rules right. Most of this thread has been written with the idea that WoC can freely select any CD units... which would indeed be absurdly imbalanced if it was true, but since it's not true, it's actively misleading, and could so easily be abused by the anti-FW/WF crowd to (unnecessarily and unjustifiably) stop people like us using the models, armies and rules we love.

Bitterman
Speaking of folks that don't like ForgeWorld rules, I'd invite interested readers to take a look at the ongoing discussion I'm having with a skeptic. At this point, I'm a bit tired of arguing about it (and I don't want to say a whole lot more, given that I haven't actually fielded a force yet).

http://www.miniwargaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=71857

BTW, I highly recommend Miniwargaming.com, a great site for batreps (mostly 40k, unfortunately) and a decent forum.

Jason
26

aka_mythos:

Let’s just point out one of the significant contributors to why (IF allowed) access to all warmachines would be broken is that its because of the internal balancing within the different armylists.

Often people complain when two similar units have different prices in different armylist, and yes some of those complaints are justified, but the reality is that within a book pricing and balance considerations can cause discrepencies between the different army books… and the simple reality is that to be fair CD warmachines IF allowed freely in the WoC should likely be pricier.

27

Zuh-Khinie:

Reading through that thread on miniwargaming.com, there’s one piece of import missing from Todda’s comparison between dwarfs and chaos-dwarfs… Runes. Dwarfs have access to runes, which can make those slightly cheaper units just that much better, or those warmachines that much sturdier etc. I’ve played dwarfs for a long time, and it really is runes that make all the difference.

Now, Todda could easily complain about the differences between empire warmachines and dwarven warmachines, or the difference in cost between chaos warriors and irom breakers, because believe me, every dwarf player wants to field ironbreakers with 2 attacks at least :slight_smile:

Now, to close up… if dwarfs are so bad in comparison to our dwarfs, then where are our S4 scout and immune to panic dwarfs with throwing axes, which count as a core choice, that don’t get the negatives almost all other scouts get, ie no ranks?

That being said, dwarfs could use some love though… maybe a sort of steamtitan or ‘ancestor-engine’

28

cornixt:

LoA is so different from Dwarfs that the comparison is laughable. If anything, LoA is closer to Warriors of Chaos (for troops and monsters) or Empire (for war machines). The only similarity are two particular war machines (Grudge Thrower with specific runes and Flame Cannon) and the name “Dwarf”. Apart from that, everything is different.

29

Burske:

I believe that each army book (army) has it own composition, and in turn, it’s own unique twist on the game. Whether I/you/we agree or disagree with point values of units, what is defined as over or under powered or if the RAW can be deciphered or not, they are still the rules. The only person they are/would affect is the player on the other side of the table.

With that being said, there are certainly armies I feel are unbalanced compared with the rest. But usually these balance questions are only a matter of matchup. There are armies that will do very well against LoA and others will not. A good general can make up for a poor matchup and turn a sub-standard army into a victor.

The LoA is balanced for the LoA list. If a player feels that they are being oppressed, they can always sell their army in lieu of another or they could try a different list. If you are playing a game with the WOC additional option, then it is probably for fun, so again, it is your opponent that has the final word.

Just my take on balance.:hat off

30

ChungEssence:

My big problem with the Destroyer is that it breaks to many rules of warhammer. I’m fundamentally against things (especially amazingly killy things) being completely immune to things as it can break the game depending on the match up. Ethereal units have no where near the killing power or durability (or speed) of the Destroyer. It’s just too much imo and will be unfun for many people so I refuse to run it as a matter or principle. I mean why can a gnoblar wound a Blood Thirster/Steam Tank/Dwarf Lord/Ghorgon/Super Fatty Fat Fat but have zero!! chance against a Destroyer… I just don’t like it. For the points I think it’s very overpowered for what it can do and how durable it is compared to any other (non undercosted) monster.

Regarding the Dwarfs vs Chaos Dwarfs argument (my 2 main armies) I think direct comparisons are a bit silly as they both have their benefits and importantly for me… their own unique feel which is great!

Overall Tamurkhan could have been a lot better… but i’m happy with how it turned out and with the 2 exceptions listed above think it’s very balanced. Of course i’m sure one could argue that when I say ‘balanced’ I actually mean ‘underpowered’ but that’s the side i’d like the army to fall on (as opposed to say Daemons) so i have no complaints and enjoy playing around with our ‘overpriced’ core and ‘very overpriced’ options. I’m just happy to have Blunderbuss rules I actually like now and the Fireglaives are a cool addition no matter how many points they cost.

Edit- I can’t believe I actually posted all that ish on

“http://www.miniwargaming.com/forum/viewt…=1&t=71857”

There you go Jbrown. I guess it’s my first time on the site haha.

Overall a Thumbs up to Tamurkhan and anyone that ‘bans’ the list based on it being ‘overpowered’ should try actually making an army with it…

:hat off

31

Coopervisor:

As was pointed out, a lot of people think FW rules are just overpowered from a time long a go when it consisted of super heavies. Talking from a 40k stand point, if you only take super heavies and flyers in apocalypse games, then generally things aren’t too bad. The examples people throw up in 40k include the Lucius drop pod and the Land Raider Achilles (not the Ares as was mentioned earlier in this thread, that was a GW creation), however both were toned down in the latest release (IMPERIAL ARMOUR APOCALYPSE SECOND EDITION) and both are a large chunk of points.

You will often find that the same people that cry overpowered about certain things when taken in isolation and viewing the experimental rules, will also complain that other FW units are garbage and why would anybody bother taking them.

I only have experience playing 40k (1st Fantasy game tonight!), but often find that there are just as overpowered rules in GW codices, yet people just accept them. Is this the case with Fantasy as well?

32

The Odor:

Chung: I never use the Destroyer, but I still dont find it overpowered. Yes some armies may have a uphill struggle against it but more seem to have an answer. I have actually played against one with my WoC this weekend and a combo with shadow magic and a Knight bus saw it leaving the table in a rapid fashion. I could probably have done it with only the magic. I have seen Dwarves shooting bringing one to it’s knees and Skaven can probably mutilate it some how (I heard someone tabled a CD army with a Destroyer with skaven).

33

Zuh-Khinie:

I have done so (brought a destroyer vs skaven), and it tore his army to shreds…

But, for it’s points, I don’t think a destroyer is ‘more overpowered’ than let’s say, a hellpit abomination, or the new doomengines the vampirecounts have (the one with the necro on has put some serious hurt on my army)…

Every new army gets some new monster that’s bigger and better than anything anyone had ever seen in previous armylists, although the new codices seem balanced when compared to each other.

34

Baggronor:

Speaking of folks that don't like ForgeWorld rules, I'd invite interested readers to take a look at the ongoing discussion I'm having with a skeptic. At this point, I'm a bit tired of arguing about it (and I don't want to say a whole lot more, given that I haven't actually fielded a force yet).
He is just another idiot who hasn't read the rules and doesn't know what he is talking about :~

Regular Dwarfs, when played properly, are a much tougher army to beat than LoA. I play regular Dwarfs and have done for years now, they are far more reliable than the Tamurkhan CDs. They are also far more boring ;) - 3 big shelves of Dwarfs and 4 war machines in a corner doesn't have much to say when it comes to variety, but it'll absolutely flatten most opponents.
Magma Cannons and Hellcannons are nice, but if you want effectiveness, try a pair of runed Dwarf cannons (re-rolling misfires, one flaming) and a runed Grudge Thrower (str 5, re-roll scatter) anyday. Dwarfs are the top dogs when it comes to war machines, by a mile.
35

Zhorn:

Of course i'm sure one could argue that when I say 'balanced' I actually mean 'underpowered' but that's the side i'd like the army to fall on (as opposed to say Daemons) so i have no complaints and enjoy playing around with our 'overpriced' core and 'very overpriced' options.

ChungEssence
Funny how i'm the opposite of this.

I'm all in favour of so-called "overpowered" books, for two reasons:

1. Viability of every choice in a given book. If you like the models and the background you can just go for it without loosing anything. Ogres, Dark Elves, Demons, Skaven, .... every single choice in their books is fun to use.

2. Availability in a 2000 - 3000 points game. The more expensive ("overcosted") your units are - the less cool miniatures you can pack on the table. I don't play warhammer because it is oh! so balanced - i play because it is fun and i get to play with my little puppet soldiers. When i play (or am playing against) a given army, i want to see all the cool minis available to that army on the table. I get excited when i see hydras, black guards, cauldrons, witch elves AND a dragon on the table. It looks great, it is great fun - in short, it is way more exciting than 3 blocks of same-same and a character.

With LoA, it is unfortunately so that you cannot put all the cool models on the table. And i think that's a shame. Every army book should have the same cool options like Dark Elves, or Skaven, or Demons. Way more fun. :)
36

Baggronor:

With LoA, it is unfortunately so that you cannot put all the cool models on the table. And i think that's a shame. Every army book should have the same cool options like Dark Elves, or Skaven, or Demons. Way more fun.
I actually agree, and the power level isn't connected to the viability of the army book. The 8th ed books all have awesome synergy and pretty much every choice is viable... unlike LoA ;P
37

Thommy H:

Someone should totally make a Chaos Dwarf army book in the style of the 8th Edition books and post it on this forum.

Would that we lived in such a world!

38

Bitterman:

Someone should totally make a Chaos Dwarf army book in the style of the 8th Edition books and post it on this forum.

Would that we lived in such a world!

Thommy H
I assume that here you are hinting at the link in your sig... however when I click it, I get a "not found" error?

On "power levels"... yeah it's really nice to be able to play with an army and be able to use anything and have fun with it. When I play with my Dark Elves, I know that (with the exception of Repeater Bolt Throwers, which are awful) I can field whatever I want and have a decent game. And that is indeed fun. With my WoC, OTOH, some units work (some work really well) but some... just don't work at all. And so in order to have a game where I've not been tabled by turn two, I tend to find myself taking a very similar list all the time. (Have you ever seen a WoC player take Forsaken? Bet you haven't). And yeah, that's less interesting.

However... I tend to have the most fun when my opponent is having fun too. And they tend not to do that if my army wipes the floor with them by turn two, so I don't enjoy that much either, even though on paper it sounds like a good thing. So, no, I'm not much in favour of armies that are "overpowered". Even when all armies are "overpowered" (ie. they've all got crazy destructive units) and it 'should' be balanced as a result, really it's not, because whoever gets their destructive stuff up and running first will win easily, giving the other player no opportunity to get their destructive stuff dishing out destruction. I just can't imagine that ever working such that both players have fun... it doesn't happen IME.

It's one reason I'm not a big fan of the 8th Ed rules and certainly not the 8th Ed army books. Sure, all the big new toys they seem to put out might be equally as "overpowered" as each other, so it's all fair, right? Well, maybe fair, but not much fun when the entire army I've spent months painting gets wiped out because they've taken one unit that I theoretically could have countered but never got the chance to and it's powerful enough to win the game on its own if not countered. (This is especially true when the unit in question does have a weakness, but if you've not read the army book cover to cover five times you won't notice it).

So... for me, personally, I'm not a big fan of "everything being overpowered means nothing is overpowered". I find that everything being "overpowered" means someone is going to get thrashed, and even if it's me doing the thrashing, I won't enjoy it much if my opponent isn't having fun too. (Nor do I enjoy getting thrashed myself of course).
39

warh:

Someone should totally make a Chaos Dwarf army book in the style of the 8th Edition books and post it on this forum.

Would that we lived in such a world!

Thommy H
I'm starting to think you actually like Scibor and Mantic dwarfs.
40

Thommy H:

Whoops - link fixed.