The Grumbler's Gambit: Raindog's Dwarf Project

[MexicanNinja]

Perfect, this is much easier when the rule in question is presented to us.

[HeroZero]

Thank you NtK sometimes I don't get what I am trying to express across.

Also thank you, it is pretty cut and dry rules wise here.

[Raindog]

Okay, I am exhausted from work, so my brain is not fully working.

 

If the AP goes to the model and not the weapon, how does AP work on a hand weapon or a great weapon?

 

If a model has natural attacks, like a troll or a dryad, AP for the model as written would work just fine.

 

Help me here please..

[MexicanNinja]

Ok, basically the rule states the if a model has AP it only applies to his close combat attacks.  If a model with a weapon has AP then AP only applies to those attacks.

 

Example:

 

Runepriest gives AP to the models in his units.  Therefore their close-combat attacks have AP.

 

Crossbows don't have AP and so wouldn't benefit from AP.

 

Handguns have the AP rule so get AP when used to shoot.  The model doesn't have AP for their close-combat attacks.

[generalripphook]

"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further -1 armor save modifier, in addition to those for Strength. "

 

So it doesnt matter if the weapon has armor peircing, if the model has it, the -1 armor save is applied to his attacks. While for ranged the weapon has to have it.

 

[mojoslayer]

I have a tendency to think that the rules lawyers here are correct, and that AP does not go toward shooting attacks, however the fact the skill is called fire forged indicates it is the weapons that have AP, and therefore crossbows should get it.  This is the case of rules vs fluff number 10543, and hopefully they will release an FAQ soon, but until then I will not been giving AP to the crossbows, grumble grumble. 

[generalripphook]

Personally I hope that the crossbows get the AP because that makes sense.

[MexicanNinja]

I hope they don't get AP because now you have handguns with a 36" range.

[HeroZero]

Yes, that's the real reason I don't want this to invalidate a weapon type (and have trickle down effect)

It's no because certain people misinterpreted a rule. We all have done that, but no weapon should be made invalid.

[MexicanNinja]

Yes, that's the real reason I don't want this to invalidate a weapon type (and have trickle down effect)

It's no because certain people misinterpreted a rule. We all have done that, but no weapon should be made invalid.

I am agreeing that RAW the crossbows don't get AP.  What I was saying above was that I hope an FAQ doesn't say that ranged weapons get this as well.

[HeroZero]

That's what I was trying to say as well.

Why make the dwarf handgun invalid by giving xbows AP?

[mojoslayer]

The handgun does not become invalid if the crossbow gets AP because of the Runesmith, remember the Runesmith costs a lot of points to get that bonus, if of course we get it.....please release the FAQ!

[MexicanNinja]

The handgun does not become invalid if the crossbow gets AP because of the Runesmith, remember the Runesmith costs a lot of points to get that bonus, if of course we get it.....please release the FAQ!

Uh, yeah, the rune priest costs points.  However, the cheap point cost that he is would make it well worth the investment for crossbows over handguns, IMO

[HeroZero]

Not to mention having bonus dispel, and runes of spellbreaking ... No reason to take one ever /sarcasm off.

[mojoslayer]

Every army I take has two runesmiths, however I find them more useful in my close combat blocks, so if you want to include them in with the crossbows you are making a choice that strengthens you in one area, but weakens you in another.  

[McNathanson]

I think Runesmiths make great additions to your CC units too, especially the HW/Shield guys who really need the Armor Piercing bonus!  My brother's army runs two blocks of Iron Breakers with a Runesmith in each, and they are tough to beat in CC.

[MexicanNinja]

NtK......YES!

 

I think ironbreakers are one of the top 3 units in that book.  I really like that unit.  Like you stated, with a runemsith, they are more solid in CC.

[Munkie]

I think Ironbreakers are rad but I'm having a hard time fitting them in my lists. Hammerers are too good to pass up and you've got to fill up the core requirement. I just don't have the points to drop on another combat block.

[MexicanNinja]

I think Ironbreakers are rad but I'm having a hard time fitting them in my lists. Hammerers are too good to pass up and you've got to fill up the core requirement. I just don't have the points to drop on another combat block.

Yes, I like hammerers, but honestly (and this is strictly my own opinion), I'd rather have a block of 30 ironbreakers flanked by 2 units of longbeards with great weapons.  Hammere's can't hold the line like a unit of ironbreakers can.  Sure, the hammerer's kill more things, but they die just as fast when they get wounded.  A 3+/5+ parry isn't an easy thing to get past.

[HeroZero]

Someone did the math on bugman's . Ironbreakers actually kill more models of certain types due to holding numbers longer.

Shock! Warhammer is ruined!

[MexicanNinja]

Someone did the math on bugman's . Ironbreakers actually kill more models of certain types due to holding numbers longer.

Shock! Warhammer is ruined!

Weird how that works out.  Honestly, Ironbreakers where the first unit I was drawn to as a "must have".  Just give them the Stubborn ruin on their banner and you're good to go.  I am pretty shocked that I haven't seen a unit of 25+ on the table yet.  I can't wait until I get mine assembled and ready for table useage.

[Munkie]

Someone did the math on bugman's . Ironbreakers actually kill more models of certain types due to holding numbers longer.

Shock! Warhammer is ruined!

Yeah that's true but the certain types they're better against are not generally things I worry about. At least not as much as stomp/thunder stomp worries me.

 

Sure, you can slap runes on them and/or throw an oath stone in there so they can stick around like hammerers but that means A) you aren't spending points on runes of slowness or strollaz and B) they cost more than hammerers to do the same job, just without the flexibility.

[McNathanson]

IBs and Hammerers are both great.  Which is better depends on the army design and general strategy right?  

For me, I prefer Dwarves to play in a more "stalwart" way, sticking in and grinding and losing models at a snail's pace.  Dwarves should be hard to kill, ya know??  I never really liked the highly-aggro Dwarf troops that die like Elves.  Just doesn't feel in character.  So definitely a fan of Ironbreakers. 

But (forgive my pointless whining) why oh why does Parry save not work against Impact Hits, or Stomp attacks?  I could argue the fluff either way, but those Impact hits and Stomps are already WAY good, no need to cruelly ignore a pitiful 6+ Parry save :(  </whine off> :)

[Raindog]

I've been line painting the next four Thunderers. I'm bit a line painter. U like quicker results. Line painting is more efficient, but it lacks the soul and attention I like in painting. 

Over the week, I have painted three more Battle of Skull Thunderers for a total of six so far. I am working on number seven. 
 

[Brother Glacius]

Shush Raindog...we are trying to talk about dwarfs here...