Dwarfs

K

Knin

New member
Does anyone of you who collects dwarfs think that the old dwarf model is better sculpted than the new one.
Old One:
http://www.coolminiornot.com/100612
New One:
http://www.coolminiornot.com/107822

Also which one is best to collect of these special dwarf units and why;
Ironbreakers,
Hammerers,
Longbeards.
And why do you think so.
Also don\'t you reckon the dwarf battalion deal sucks, there si saving of $10 Australian, $7.5 American, 3.5 Uk pounds. they should have added 8 more warriors to make it 2 regiments or at least one of the new dwarf machines.
That\'s about it
 
cdukino

cdukino

Member
I must say I prefer the new one too. In fact I kinda like the new dwarf miniatures GW released. Ofcourse there are some nice old ones and some new ones I like less. But overall I think the new releases definatly improved the look of the dwarf army.

I\'m not an army collector for I don\'t play the game. But if I would I would have gone for the ones I think I thought looked best and would find most fun to paint. For me that\'s faces, cloth and beards so I wouln\'t go for the heavily armored up hammerers myself. But that\'s a matter of preference. I don\'t know about gameplay.
 
G

Grumb

used to be a Freak
my 2 cents

Being a dwarf fanatic I have a slightly different view of things.

I personally think that the GW dwarf sculpts suck mighty wind...but of the two I definitely prefer the new ones over the old.

Grumb

P.S. - your paint jobs are amazing as always Scott, its just the minis themselve that I don\'t care for much.
 
E

emopainterguy

New member
While that old dwarf lord is an amazing sculpt (and amazingly painted) I prefer the over all look of the new dwarfs.

As for the special units and why I can only tell you a little of what I know right now. Longbeards are no longer a special choice, but an upgrade bought for warriors. If I remember correctly it increases their stats slightly, but gives them the \"Old Grumbler\" special rule (can quell panic in nearby troops). According to the old rules both hammerers and ironbreakers had the same stats so the difference would be in how they are armed and special rules. I think iron breakers are armed with hand weapons and shields, while hammerers are armed with great weapons. For armor ironbreakers have (or had before at least) gomril which gives a 4+ armor save, while I can\'t be sure I think the hammerers only have heavy armor which would only give a 5+ armor save. So, the ironbreakers would have a better armor save than the hammerers, but hammerers would hit harder (+2 strength from great weapons) and would also strike last. In the old rules hammerers also had the \"bodyguard\" special rule, but I don\'t know what it did specifically (perhaps makes the unit stubborn if you place a character model in it?). So I guess that would be the pros and cons of those units, I hope that helped. I would also suggest looking at the various GW sites for more info (I tend to go to the UK site the most, and then if I can\'t find what I\'m looking for I head over to the US site. The canadian site is more or less a front page, some local news and events, and then links to the US page).

And as for the battalion set, the one I\'m looking at ( http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=Individual&code=99120205004&orignav=9 ) has 24 warriors (2 units of 12, could be upgraded to long bears), 16 thunderers (can be made as quarellers, and a cannon (can also make organ gun instead). Looks like a pretty good deal to me. No character models but I wouldnt find it too much of a hassle to pick up a blister for a lord when you buy the box, just a thought.
 
S

Simontetreault

New member
Well...

I like the new models a lot better, in fact I think the old ironbreakers and hammerers and the gyrocopter NEED TO GO. They are so old, ugly and look all the same, I hate seeing a unit thats all in the same position its so unrealistic. I really hope they remake those models in the near futur because I have no intention of adding them to my new dwarf army. I like the old miners and that\'s about it.

Any rumours about releasing some new models that we havent heard about?
 
freakinacage

freakinacage

Well-known member
Originally posted by Knin
Does anyone of you who collects dwarfs think that the old dwarf model is better sculpted than the new one
Click to expand...

ultimately it doesn\'t matter what we like. YOU are the one who is gonna pay for and paint them.

ps grumb, which dwarfs do you like?
 
K

Knin

New member
I like warriors, thunderers, dwarf lord, quarrallers, hammerers, and a really cool new organ gub which looks just amazing. Keep posting your comments
 
K

Knin

New member
Help me decide, between either ironbreakers, or hammerers, i like the look of both of them equally, how good do each unit compare in the battles.
 
E

emopainterguy

New member
I would probably go with the Ironbreakers. The higher armor save means they\'ll probably last longer in combat than the hammerers. The +2 strength of the hammerers isn\'t really that great in my opinion (unless you\'re facing an enemy with lots of armor, but in that case you probably should have been focusing your cannon fire on them in the first place). Plus I like the ironbreaker models more than the hammerer models, but that is just personal preference.
 
K

Knin

New member
ok fare enough, why do hamerers lack compared to irobreakers, do hamerers die easily or what. I like the look of the ironbreakers especially the shields
 
Sand Rat

Sand Rat

New member
Well, to begin with, shouldn\'t it be Dwarves, not Dwarfs? And thats part of my issue with the whole deal - nit picking to be sure, but with GW we can all get away with that, right? GW\'s old sculpts for the most part well sucked - and the newer ones arent much better. I prefer the stuff that Werner Klocke has done for Reaper\'s Warlord line.
 
Ebonbuddha

Ebonbuddha

Active member
I agree with Steelcult. Its not nit picking. It makes sense.

I like the new dwarves. I like the norse feel that they have.
 
M

Modderrhu

New member
Originally posted by steelcult
Well, to begin with, shouldn\'t it be Dwarves, not Dwarfs?
Click to expand...
From what I recall, \"dwarfs\" is the correct English, but Tolkien used \"dwarves\". I prefer \"dwarves\", just as \"rooves\" sounds better than \"roofs\" imo.

I\'ll definitely go with the new dwarfs. The sculpts are far superior and have much more character in them. But as someone who is Dark Elf aligned - down with the stupid stunties!
 
M

Modderrhu

New member
I\'ve just checked the OED. The plural of \"dwarf\" is \"dwarfs\", for \"roof\" it\'s \"roofs\", for \"hoof\" it\'s either \"hoofs\" or \"hooves\". Well... the things one learns.

But Tolkien should have spoken English, since he was born in South Africa after all. ;)
 
W

War Griffon

New member
Originally posted by steelcult
Well, to begin with, shouldn\'t it be Dwarves, not Dwarfs? And thats part of my issue with the whole deal - nit picking to be sure, but with GW we can all get away with that, right? GW\'s old sculpts for the most part well sucked - and the newer ones arent much better. I prefer the stuff that Werner Klocke has done for Reaper\'s Warlord line.
Click to expand...

I have always looked at it as Dwarf meaning a single stuntie person whereas Dwarves means lots of them.

Somewhere along the road it has been butchered and I think these days it is only grumpy buggers like myself that get rubbed up the wrong way over it.

Personally I\'ve always prefered Orcs & Goblins but Dwarves taste nice as well but the older they are the more chewy they become :D
 
freakinacage

freakinacage

Well-known member
Originally posted by Modderrhu
I\'ve just checked the OED. The plural of \"dwarf\" is \"dwarfs\", for \"roof\" it\'s \"roofs\", for \"hoof\" it\'s either \"hoofs\" or \"hooves\". Well... the things one learns.

But Tolkien should have spoken English, since he was born in South Africa after all. ;)
Click to expand...

wasn\'t he a languages lecturer as well? thats how he made up all the elfish/elvish (?sp) and the dwarfish etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back To Top
Top