Warhammer The Old World Dwarfs Faction Focus Infantry Comparison

This is always an informative way to look at things. This is what I first did in my own spreadsheet when the stats were made public. I liked Hammerers at first, as the best hammer unit (I'm sure that's intentional). But being so slow, your opponent will essentially always get to pick the engagements, which makes it hard to maximize their use. Same with Ironbreakers as the best anvil. Longbeards are my favorite melee troop as a balance between tough to move and competent in battle. I like taking a king as my general anyway, so the fact that I can get one unit of these grumps as core is even better. Add to that the one unit of 10-12 rangers as core and we've successfully padded out the core with 300+ points of rather elite troops. I like to get warriors to fill out the rest of the core so that I can focus my Rare and Special sections on more elite shooting rather than melee. But if you wanted a block of ironbreakers or hammerers, you would do well to fill the rest of core with shooty units. As you pointed out, for one point extra over warriors, quarrelers get you a crossbow and only lose one WS and shield wall. I really don't like slayers. First of all, I don't like the look of them, which is a deal breaker for me. Beyond that, having no save is really bad. I think of them like the wardancers from Wood elves. I don't like the wardancers either, but at least they get a ward save and are relatively fast. The glass cannon melee unit is hard enough to make work, but if you only give them a Move of 3, they're pretty much dead before you even start.

Good video lookiing forward too dwarf war machines. I expect will come in 2 videos time. Are we allowed to vote what comes after dwarfs? I have all 5 good guy factions so hoping for one of them lol

Thanks for the videos. You talk about the stats having been squeezed, but don't mention the ones that have actually changed. The ws and strength of the combat units is what it was previously. The only ws change is actually the missile troops losing a point and dropping to ws3 as the first ws3 dwarfs ever in warhammer. This has some relevance in discussing the differences between warriors and quarrellers/thunderers. Otherwise the main change is the hammerers losing an attack except when charged and I think gaining a point of initiative (2 points when charged). Given that the hammerers are supposed to be our hammer(!) this is disappointing. It is in line with other factions' elites losing their second attack in a number of cases, but dwarfs don't have cavalry or monsters so it feels like a bit of a slap in the face. The only way of getting troops with 2 attacks in all circumstances is slayers with add h/w, but their equivalents in other factions generally also have frenzy, furious charge etc and/or higher movement and I think your criticisms of them are valid. On the differences between warriors and the missile troops other than ws I think the main thing is knowing what you want to do with the unit. If you want to move, have a small frontage or have a large unit for combat then there's a good case for warriors - why spend points on a handful of crossbow shots at -2 to hit when you can spend them on drilled? One thing that does help the missile troops in combat is the change to stand and shoot counting for combat res so if you know you want to stand still they may well outperform warriors in the first round of combat despite the lower ws and if you're wide for shooting purposes you'll get attacks back ideally with 'great weapons' Strength 4 for longbeards and ironbreakers feels like that's what I want for any shield-dwarfs so any warriors would be better off with two-handed weapons though the latter doesn't tally with my model collection too well unfortunately. Worth noting you have to have a king for longbeards in core as well (I know you plan to take one and I probably do too). I need to get some games played to see what works for me, but at least in theory these are the sort of things I've been considering.