[Archive] Indy GT Dwarfs of Chaos rules feedback HERE!

felix:

First of all Thanks for your rulebook I like it alot, :hat off BUT I still play Death Rockets the old way. I really love the random direction bounce. Adds a lot of fun to the game. The Skaven have a lot of that randomness built in to their army.

zobo1942:

I love your book - its GREAT - but I read somewhere else on these forums about ‘Chaos Dwarf clans’, ‘daemonoogy’, and something about rune magic, as it changed for chaos dwarfs…

Thought you might want to look at those rules which were posted - they are very characterful, and add a lot of ‘character context’ for the chaos dwarfs…

Looking forward to 8th… and the CD revision!

maelzch:

If you need any help with revising the book for 8th, I’ll lend a hand

khedyarl:

So, after looking through the 8th ed rulebook for many hours at the local store, I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that Blunderbusses simply cannot work in the fashion they currently do.

With the introduction of the Horde rule, and the current meta-speculation of unit sizes increasing dramatically, we are looking at a massive increase to Blunderbuss destructive power.  I’ve already cut down my usage of them based on enormous amounts of negative backlash regarding their ability to target every model in a unit - both in fun games, and more recently in a 40-man tournament environment.  People love the concept, but not the implementation it would seem.

Perhaps there could be a way to take advantage of the new volley rule for short/long/normal bows?  It would retain the same gigantic fire output concept, give CD players a reason to have a wider than 5 rank unit of Annihilators, and fit into the design philosophy for 8th edition.  The strength can be based on ranks, still, if needed, since it would then become something of a tradeoff - higher strength = more ranks, or more shots = more width.

-Conan

EDIT: It would also mean that Annihilators could fire at things like large monsters, chariots, war machines, etc, and actually do some damage. The current system for Blunderbi simply has too many problems {not your guys’ fault, I know you were trying to keep it faithful to GW’s initial design intent.}

Uzkul Werit:

Oh, I think Blunderbussmen should stay as they are. Apart from how amazing they are (laughs), they won’t be getting too much shooting in with the avrage charge range now skyrocketing in distance.

Grimstonefire:

To be honest I think a decent way to nerf the blunderbuss without losing it’s unique fluff would be to say:

Front rank models:  Hit on a 4+ (as usual)

Second rank models:  Hit on a 5+

Third rank models:  Hit on a 6

It would take some serious number crunching to work out how this compares to say empire handguns (considering the higher strength only, ignoring the range difference for now).

Da Crusha:

give CD players a reason to have a wider than 5 rank unit of Annihilators,

khedyarl
well actually they have the exact same reason to have a bigger frontage as every other troop in warhammer, to get more close combat attacks in.
Oh, I think Blunderbussmen should stay as they are. Apart from how amazing they are (laughs), they won't be getting too much shooting in with the average charge range now skyrocketing in distance.

Uzkul Werit
that is absolutely true, I completely forgot about that. now the average charge range is 11" (4" move plus average roll of 7") wow, that sure makes blunderbuss less effective I didnt even think about that. hmm... I might have to rethink some things

wizuriel:

Annihilators in 8th edition are deadly, but in practice they are only getting the 1 shot off, maybe a stand and shoot reaction. They remind me a lot of 40k Flamers. They are a suicide unit that will likely take out what they shoot at, than get charged and killed.

khedyarl:

Oh, I think Blunderbussmen should stay as they are. Apart from how amazing they are (laughs), they won't be getting too much shooting in with the avrage charge range now skyrocketing in distance.

Uzkul Werit
The average charge range doesn't change at all. With 2d6 pick the highest, the average charge for most infantry {move 4} will still be eight inches. They will retain a similar number of turns to fire, now.
well actually they have the exact same reason to have a bigger frontage as every other troop in warhammer, to get more close combat attacks in.

Da Crusha
Well, no, not really. There isn't a single ranged unit in the game that wants a larger frontage for close combat. {Maybe Sea Guard}. The reason Peasant Archers, or High Elf Longbows, or any other ranged unit in the game has a wide frontage is to output more firepower. You don't have 10 wide Jezzails because you want to take that unit of Gors in close combat.
To be honest I think a decent way to nerf the blunderbuss without losing it's unique fluff would be to say:

Front rank models: Hit on a 4+ (as usual)
Second rank models: Hit on a 5+
Third rank models: Hit on a 6

Grimstonefire
That's not a bad idea, Grimstone, but then you still run into the problem of frontage. Under the Ravening hordes rules, you still needed a relatively large frontage for your units in order to do damage, since the killbox was twelve inches from each end of your unit of Blunderbusses. The biggest problem I am having, is that the width of a unit of Annihilators is utterly worthless at the moment.

There must be a way we can incorporate both width and depth into the firepower formula for Annihilators.

Da Crusha:

The average charge range doesn't change at all.  With 2d6 pick the highest, the average charge for most infantry {move 4} will still be eight inches.  They will retain a similar number of turns to fire, now.

khedyarl
are you sure thats the way it works? I would've sworn charge distance = movement+2D6.

khedyarl:

I read the rulebook at my local store yesterday, and that was my understanding. 2d6, pick the highest for infantry, 3d6, pick the two highest for Calv.

klemanius:

Na its 2d6. its 3d6 and pick the highest 2 for cavalry. At least that’s what I hear from my blackshirt friend (who wasn’t meant to tell but I tricked him:P).

cornixt:

Page 19 of the rulebook: “A Unit’s charge range is equal to 2D6” plus its Movement value".

So an average charge of 7+4 = 11" for normal infantry.

Cavalry roll 3D6 and drop the lowest.

khedyarl:

Derp. I must’ve confused it with the Calv charge, then.

Regardless, frontage still needs to be addressed.

Da Crusha:

Regardless, frontage still needs to be addressed.

khedyarl
I don't think changing blunderbuss frontage is a really big issue, the biggest issue is that they suck at hitting small units and they have short range. yes they are devastating, but they are also expensive. I think in the best case scenario, most BB units will get 2 shots off before getting into combat. worst case scenario the opponent will easily stay out of range and shoot at the blunderbuss unit who is extremely vulnerable with low movement and low armor.

wizuriel:

Regardless, frontage still needs to be addressed.

khedyarl
Why? Blunderbusses are addressed through depth already, if you need both a big width and 3 rank depth they will become too unwieldy to use. Blunderbusses in WHFB seem to be like a shotgun. They fire a burst and hit lots of enemies, but they don't have a good range. The more you have firing the more damage behind the shots. What if changing the frontage modifies the to hit modifier? If frontage is the same they hit on 4+. For every additional frontage the enemy unit has you need 1 more to hit. Wouldn't slow down gameplay too much, would add some use to the width of your unit (beyond close combat) and could combine it with a breath weapon attack or something to let Annihilators attack monstrous creatures or other multi wound models .

They are an expensive unit, with medium-low defense. Min size being 10+ will make it hard to spam MSU except for large point games (guessing 3000+).

With the change to needing 25% of your army being core I think only counting chaos dwarf warriors and annihilator as core is too harsh. I would like to see it so that only rabble doesn't count towards your min core cost. Fluff wise Hobgoblins are more servants than slaves and I could see them being counted on in an army of chaos dwarfs. Also almost all the special and all the rares are now Chaos Dwarf units so you can't have a non chaos dwarf army. Fluff wise could see it even making sense that a chaos dwarf army has large amounts of fodder (in slaves and servants) and tries to have few true chaos dwarf units to minimize casualties for the important people.

khedyarl:

I don't think changing blunderbuss frontage is a really big issue, the biggest issue is that they suck at hitting small units and they have short range.

Uzkul Werit
Not quite. The biggest issue, at the moment, is that Blunderbusses simply don't make any sense the way that GW has written them. Five models, regardless of what they are, should never be able to potentially hit every model in a 50 man High Elf Spearman unit. At least dealing with frontage would require larger units of Blunderbuss to get the most out of them - like every other ranged unit in the game under 8th edition rules.
yes they are devastating, but they are also expensive. I think in the best case scenario, most BB units will get 2 shots off before getting into combat. worst case scenario the opponent will easily stay out of range and shoot at the blunderbuss unit who is extremely vulnerable with low movement and low armor.

Uzkul Werit
I'm not sure how any unit can 'easily' stay out of a fifteen inch threat zone.
Blunderbuss are not expensive, at all. At 12 points apiece, they are only 1 point more expensive than a High Elf Archer, for much more damage potential. An archer may get a turn or two more chances to fire, but they are S3, with no save modifier, and do not have the durability {T4, 5+ save} of an Annihilator.

I know that we, as players, aren't the most change-friendly people in the world, but we need to face that Annihilators simply don't work in their current form. They are stuffed with bulky rules, have to be explained in depth to players new to the army {and again, to surprised, mildly upset players when half of their unit of infantry goes up in smoke from a unit of 15 Annihilators}, and generally don't seem to fit the system. It is a remnant from over two editions ago, and I think that we as a community, and the Dwarfs of Chaos boys, are capable of devising a more elegant solution.

{Again, Matt and Kevin, you two are incredible at what you do, please keep it up}

klemanius:

comparing them to elf archers is a wit wonky considering an empire handgunner is what 3pts cheaper than an elf archer? especially when most HE units are considered over costed to begin with.

I think in 7th they could be very broken but I think it best to wait and see at this stage. play a few games and see whether or not they are just as broken under 8th as they are now. I expect at most a 1 or 2 point rise until they are about as close to balanced as they will ever be.

khedyarl:

I still don’t quite understand how nobody could think that the fact that frontage has a massive, massive impact on how units work on eighth edition shouldn’t be taken into account.

The very idea that Blunderbusses that are 5x3 give the exact same result as a unit of Blunderbusses that are 10x5 is a problem. A big one.

Nazhur:

I actually think the blunderbuss rule is a good one. If you read about real life shoot guns (that a blunderbuss are kind of) then you see that firing such a one into a mass of bodies is lethal and can hit many off them standing in the way. That´s why in real life we stopped with using mass infantery units like in warhammer around 1800 because the new kind of weapon like cannon and mortars made them terribly to be in as many got hit and hur or worse, dead. So if you think about it, the blunderbuss suits pretty well with how it works in real life.

Then you can always argue about if it fits in the gamesystem but thats another thing I think. And sadly something I´m not so good at.