Stubborn as a Dwarf: Tales from the Land of Mid-Table Obscurity

Greetings, fellow war gamers! With the US Masters coming up, I wanted to use this opportunity to go deep into my Masters list, and discuss the ideas behind the list and why I chose the units in it. I also want to use this as a window into my thoughts on the current state of play, and my personal expectations for the game as a whole. Be forewarned, if you are looking for tactical genius and analysis of unit efficiency, look elsewhere. But if you’re interested in the ramblings of a guy who is only sort of good, then soldier on.

Like a lot of you I’ve been adapting to the 3rd edition rule set, while prepping for the US Masters. Also, like a lot of you, I’ve either heard about, or experienced first hand, some of the scarier builds that are possible in this new edition of the game.

I want to set the stage by saying that I have been war-gaming for almost 30 years, and I have a general understanding of what I look for in a game experience. I’m also a warhammer refugee, and the hero-hammer, Death Star, “ten from the back” world isn’t one that i want to revisit. I want units of infantry, cavalry, and maybe a dragon or two on the field. I left armies with four dragons and 6 war engines in the past. I like the idea of ranks of well disciplined soldiers, throngs of dwarves, or unruly mobs of orcs clashing on the field of battle.

In my opinion, Kings of War is an excellent blend of simple mechanics and deep strategy. Army construction across the multitude of factions offers the right amount of complexity to offer a myriad of possibilities. At first blush, the army construction rules also offer enough limitations to force units on to the table, but they’re loose enough to give loads of freedom for players to experience the game the way that they want.

All of that being said, I’m not a fan of army lists that have “obvious” or “auto-include” units, (I’m looking at you, Mhorgoth!). And it’s to be expected that in the first year of a new release there will be more of these units on the scene, before the rules committee can refine the internal balance. I’m also sad that the army construction rules still allow you to take four dragons and some random guys clapping in the background for unlocks, but what can you do?

I also have a stubborn streak, and it leads me to reject units that conventional wisdom says are too good to leave off the table, but that don’t fit my pre-conceived notions of how the “game should be played”. Speaking of stubborn, I play dwarves, (go figure), and I’ve never fielded a Berzerker Brock Lord in any game I’ve played. I’m not saying that to brag. I’m mostly saying that to show how my biases about how an army “should” look actually force me to take army lists that some would call “sub-optimal”. Now, I’m not the best player on the scene, (just ask some of my Northeast team mates), but intentionally nerfing your army out of spite is really just stupid. In short, a lot of my issues on the table are self induced…

Now I can make the assertion that “I’m the one playing the army and I’m gonna take what I like!” But I’ve found that only works as long as I’m still mildly competitive on the table. After the last few weeks of pre-Masters practice games, I believe that the list I submitted to Masters is not going to be very competitive at all. Let me explain.

So, my army for Masters is as follows:
Imperial Dwarves (who even takes these?)
4 x Shield Breaker Regiments w/ mastiffs
4 x Sharp Shooter Troops
2 x Brock Rider Regiments, one with Brew o’ Haste
2 x Earth Elemental Hordes, one with Healing Brew
Stone Priest with Bane Chant
Army Standard Bearer with Lute
2 x Steel Juggernauts

16 drops, 30 Unit Strength
Lots of actual dwarves, zero cannons.
Only 30 ranged shots, all at piercing 2.
136 attacks with TC 1 or Crush 1. (10 with Crush 2).
162 nerve to chew through. (Most of it Def 4).
So it’s a mildly bulky list that is built to play scenarios.

What the army does is it puts lots of medium sized units on the table that can contest objectives, hold table quarters, and push across the table. I intentionally took “weaker” choices to pump up my unit strength and give me more flexibility to play scenarios. For example, cannons put out an average of just under 8 wounds across four rounds of shooting. Sharpshooters put out just under 5 wounds over the same four rounds. But in exchange I have a unit that can sit on a backfield objective or play in dominate or control. And I intentionally shied away from non-scoring characters in favor of two large infantry heroes. When it came to the infantry, I had been running ironclad because of the added defense, but I found that even though they could take a punch they usually only put 2 wounds on the counterattack to units that were Def 5. For just 15 more points I could take shield breakers that had +1 to hit and to wound. This pushed the damage up to over 4 wounds. Combine that with mastiffs for some ranged threat and two units together could do some work. Not too shabby.

I have eight units that put out some mild threat, but I have lots of nerve and lots of targets. The idea was that the list would force elite builds to take multiple turns to kill each of the units without combo charges. A dragon attacking a Def4 unit in the front should do about 7 wounds, leaving two rolls of a 9 to remove. Not too bad. Essentially I fielded a list that “felt” like a dwarf army to me. And on the table it looks like a legitimate army, with over 120 actual dwarf models on the field.

Then all that theory got put to the test. My practice games have mainly been against Varangur and Abyssal dwarves. What I found in my games was that in a lot of cases the units just weren’t tough enough. The regiments of shieldbreakers usually would take 8-9 damage from a mildly punchy unit. (As an aside, the idea that there is a lot less crushing around doesn’t feel right. I think that there’s plenty of crushing, they just took it away from cavalry units that had TC2 on top of it. Maybe it’s the armies in my meta?). And with the four point nerve reduction Brock regiments can only take two hits before being routed. So, in short, a 14/16 nerve unit with Def4 doesn’t seem to be able to take a punch from a “punchy” unit. And this was giving me fits. After losing another game where every time a unit got touched it just melted I literally had what my mom would have called a “hissy fit.”

“If the game is supposed to be about ranks and flanks, then why doesn’t it reward actually taking infantry units?” (If you read that in a mildly agitated and whiny voice then you nailed it). “What’s the point of playing dwarves if you always get charged first, but the unit never gets to hit back? If it just takes two war engine hits to cause 7-8 wounds with shattering, and it removes a unit a turn, then what’s the point? And if the game is forcing me to take specific units to counter this stuff, then can I really build a list that I like and still be competitive?” All in all I was super frustrated. And I was committed to going to masters, so I had a choice to make. Should I take a different army with all of the “best” units in order to be competitive, and maybe have a better play experience? Or do I stick to the army that I want and just accept that I’ll come in last. (You can just smell the hyperbole in this paragraph…it’s the worst).

But then a funny thing happened. After about two weeks of whining, I just accepted it. I accepted that my units won’t be able to take a punch from a lot of units. That my brocks will fold like a cheap suit after two rounds of wounds. And that my elementals will usually still get wounded on 4s. That even though I was playing an army that is supposedly “tough” I had chosen some of the softer units in the list. And I started actually playing different on the table. And I started winning a few games. I pulled a scenario win in one matchup where I only had three units left on the table. But they were all scoring units, so the army was playing as intended. And I felt more competitive with every game, so that was good.

So where does that leave me, with less then a week before Masters? I know the list isn’t good enough to handle the heavy shooting lists that are out there. It’s too slow. And it will struggle against armies that are really tough, with lots of regen and heal. Dwarves just can’t do the alpha-strike thing to force the action. But I feel like the army will at least compete in most games, depending on the scenario. In short, I don’t think that the game currently rewards my style of play at the top tables. In particular, regiments of infantry just don’t have the staying power to take a punch from an elite unit. But I’ll know more after this weekend. I plan on putting up a post Masters article with my thoughts about how my games, and how the specific elements of the list, worked over the course of six games against the game’s best players. Hopefully you’ll stick with me on my Road to the Middle Tables.