Migol and the Axegrinders of Burning Forge Discussion Thread

[johnny139]

Obviously, historical and geographical inspiration has been divided among the generals, but I see them fitting more conveniently into a Norse "Low, Middle, High Earth" setup. Jandar and Einar get the humans. Ullar gets the elves, the griffin, the generally-pretty High Earth. Aquilla seems to be getting Low Earth - the lone warrior, the creepy-crawlies, the spiritual natives, and the dwarves. Utgar gets to be Hel, of course.

Vydar as Heaven is the part I haven't quite figured out yet.

There is actually one thing I have noticed as a theme in Aquilla's units so far: protectiveness. Dwarves, Native Americans, Monks, Insects; most of these are generally known to be very territorial, and not very receptive to outsiders. This theme is also rather prevalent in the fact that many of their abilities are defensive in nature.

This somewhat supports my theory of the reason why she has not joined the fight earlier. She is more or less a loner, content to let everyone else sort out their fighting. She is only joining the fight now that her territory is being threatened (SoTM).

Well, I'm sold. A "defensive" general... hidden within tribes and cities, deep within the jungle... deep cavern systems and treetop homes and allies beneath every rock... gah! It's perfect!

*high fives*

[NecroBlade]

With the exception of Concealment (and to an small extent the Dwarves and Braves' defense boosts), Aquilla's units have ZERO defensive powers. Hear that? It's the sound of your theory deflating. :p

[Firemaster]

With the exception of Concealment (and to an small extent the Dwarves and Braves' defense boosts), Aquilla's units have ZERO defensive powers. Hear that? It's the sound of your theory deflating. :p

Spiders: Web Special
Sujoah: Ok, nothing here.
Mohicans: Concealment+Battle Fury (sure, +1 Attack, but I think the +2 Defense is the bigger thing)
Brave Arrow: Concealment+Tracking (although you can use it to advance a bit faster, since you can't attack afterwards, it can really only be used defensively, such as to put distance between you and an advancing horde, or to support a figure that's in trouble more quickly)
Axegrinders: Fearless advantage (it does add defense, after all)
Migol: One Shield Defense
Master Woo: Ok, not much here.

Seems to me like her units have plenty of defensive abilities, unless you are talking about abilities like Raelin's Aura, in which case you would be right.

[NecroBlade]

Spiders: Web SpecialNot defensive. You have to actively engage the enemy to use it.

Mohicans: Concealment+Battle Fury (sure, +1 Attack, but I think the +2 Defense is the bigger thing)Bigger, yes, but it's to balance them into 3/3s, IMO. It's also an offensive power.

Brave Arrow: Concealment+Tracking (although you can use it to advance a bit faster, since you can't attack afterwards, it can really only be used defensively, such as to put distance between you and an advancing horde, or to support a figure that's in trouble more quickly)It's supposed to be used to get closer to the enemy more quickly, but you're completely right it could be used the other way (which is an unfortunate break in flavor).

Migol: One Shield DefenseAlright, I did forget that one.

2x Concealment, One Shield Defense, and counting the squads' powers as half a defensive power each, Aquilla has 4 defensive powers on 7 cards (57%), out of 20 powers total (20%).

[johnny139]

Aquilla's offensive powers, however, are very "assassin" like. There's a lot of fast movement, and a lot of emphasis on either stopping your opponent from moving or just plain taking him out fast. Most figures are either one or the other - Sujoah, Woo, and the Spiders are all "hunters," while Brave Arrow and the Mohicans are very "sniper" like. The Dwarves are outliers, really - but they have some defensive capabilities, and have a "crush your opponent's face" style to them.

The best defense IS a good offense, after all.

[theats]

The 10th Regiment of Foot would be surprised, I suspect, to find out they are Asian.

Well forgive me, Rev. I am a bit rusty in regards to my scape.

Truth be told I dont know how long I should hang on to this hobby. I'm finding thermite and chemical fun to be more of a thrill, and blows over a bit better with the buds of mine. Also I have noticed that it seems to be a female deterrent...

But back to the "generals not having narrow picks", what I meant is that in addition to the dozens of squads and such, there are back bone units. Jandar's, I see, being the knights. I was just asking what you all thought of having the dwarfs be a backbone unit for Aquilla. but given the theme of jungle in which he was introduced, IDK.

[Cavalier]

...
Truth be told I dont know how long I should hang on to this hobby. I'm finding thermite and chemical fun to be more of a thrill, and blows over a bit better with the buds of mine. Also I have noticed that it seems to be a female deterrent...

....
:rofl: It is not the game that is a 'female deterrent'. Do you know how many of us on hear are married or in active relationships? Before looking at the game, look at your own behaviors when trying to isolate a 'female deterrent'.

[theats]

Well as a TEEN, who is trying to ATTRACT a female, I say it is a deterrent. They almost always laugh when they open the door to the room that I dont want them to see, and thats the scape room.

Im by no means saying scape is the reason I have womanly woes, I am only saying that it sure doesn't help the situation.

EDIT: And I would assume most of you who are married picked up the hobby after being married.

And as I said, im not saying girls dont like scape, just from my own experience is all.

[Jaz1597]

What you need is a down-to-earth girl who enjoys playing 'Scape and video games. Then you'll have it made in the shade. ;)

[theats]

What you need is a down-to-earth girl who enjoys playing 'Scape and video games. Then you'll have it made in the shade. ;)

Hmm, intersting prospect considering I am interested in a rather short girl who has a tolerance for guy's nerdiness.

Just a nice coincidence was all.

This is a bit of a broader question, but do you all prefer taking a turn with the hero BEFORE or after taking a turn with the Squad?

As I said I have been out of the hobby for a short while, but do you all like the trend towards the strategic bonding?

[Einar Gen.]

Well as a TEEN, who is trying to ATTRACT a female, I say it is a deterrent. They almost always laugh when they open the door to the room that I dont want them to see, and thats the scape room.
Never had a girlfriend, but have you thought that maybe trying to hide that room makes it look more childish than it really is?

[Einar Gen.]

I, personally, like how the new bonding works. Bond with a hero, or get plus two move. Opens up lots of possibilities.

[theats]

I, personally, like how the new bonding works. Bond with a hero, or get plus two move. Opens up lots of possibilities.

I may have my vocabulary off. I meant the bonding with, such as with the axegrinders, you take a turn with the dwarfs THEN with the hero.

[killercactus]

I, personally, like how the new bonding works. Bond with a hero, or get plus two move. Opens up lots of possibilities.

I may have my vocabulary off. I meant the bonding with, such as with the axegrinders, you take a turn with the dwarfs THEN with the hero.

You should probably read the card again - you take a turn with the hero first for the Dwarves. The Mohicans is the squad that lets you take a turn with the hero afterwards.

I like how they both play. It's a bit tougher with the Mohicans, because you only get the bonding if you don't kill what you're engaged to.

[GreenLanturn]

I, personally, like how the new bonding works. Bond with a hero, or get plus two move. Opens up lots of possibilities.
I'm interested to see if this kind of new bonding will carry over to other stats like attack, range, or even trigger an ability on the hero you bond with.

[Yodaking]

This is a bit of a broader question, but do you all prefer taking a turn with the hero BEFORE or after taking a turn with the Squad?

Depends on the squad and hero in question. If the Hero gives adjectne squad figures a boost to attack, then obviously you want to move the hero up first then teh squad can move in around him. If I can't get any bonuses from the hero, then it's nice to be able to move the squad up and attack first, then move the hero up and attack a figure the squad failed to kill.

[clancampbell]

This is a bit of a broader question, but do you all prefer taking a turn with the hero BEFORE or after taking a turn with the Squad?

Depends on the squad and hero in question. If the Hero gives adjectne squad figures a boost to attack, then obviously you want to move the hero up first then teh squad can move in around him. If I can't get any bonuses from the hero, then it's nice to be able to move the squad up and attack first, then move the hero up and attack a figure the squad failed to kill.


I think most bonding states that before taking a turn with, whatever squad. That to me would say the hero always goes first, except in the case of the MRT.

[RobertDD]

Do you know how many of us on hear are married or in active relationships?As opposed to what? Passive relationships?

Why the hate for the couch potatoes? :)

[Jaz1597]

Do you know how many of us on hear are married or in active relationships?As opposed to what? Passive relationships?

Why the hate for the couch potatoes? :)
Some marriages I've seen are a study in passive relationship...:roll:

[GreenLanturn]

Do you know how many of us on hear are married or in active relationships?As opposed to what? Passive relationships?

Why the hate for the couch potatoes? :)
Some marriages I've seen are a study in passive relationship...:roll:
I wonder if Migol has a sweety of his own... Maybe his offensive characteristics make him unattractive, but don't talk to him about it because he gets very defensive. Maybe a more passive relationship is required to straightin Grumpy out. (Ha ha I made a Snow White joke.)

[DBC]

I posted a question many pages ago, that seems to have gotten lost in-between the heated discussion about movement and bonding. Either that, or I simply got ignored...
I hope you people don't mind me asking again:
I haven't read much of the history/mythology behind the Heroscape universe. So maybe I'm missing the obvious...
I have read in other posts that Migol is somehow connected to the Migol from the "Migol's Tomb" scenario, in the original rulebook.
But reading that description, I found out Migol-ll was an archkyrie. Are those guys not all winged creatures, or is there some other definition of an archkyrie?

[Cavalier]

I posted a question many pages ago, that seems to have gotten lost in-between the heated discussion about movement and bonding. Either that, or I simply got ignored...
I hope you people don't mind me asking again:
I haven't read much of the history/mythology behind the Heroscape universe. So maybe I'm missing the obvious...
I have read in other posts that Migol is somehow connected to the Migol from the "Migol's Tomb" scenario, in the original rulebook.
But reading that description, I found out Migol-ll was an archkyrie. Are those guys not all winged creatures, or is there some other definition of an archkyrie?
Kyrie = flying humanoids
Archkyrie = Uber kyrie

Migol (in wave 9)<> either.

[A_Train]

Do you know how many of us on hear are married or in active relationships?As opposed to what? Passive relationships?

Why the hate for the couch potatoes? :)
Some marriages I've seen are a study in passive relationship...:roll:
I wonder if Migol has a sweety of his own... Maybe his offensive characteristics make him unattractive, but don't talk to him about it because he gets very defensive. Maybe a more passive relationship is required to straightin Grumpy out. (Ha ha I made a Snow White joke.)

I'm pretty sure Migol does have a sweety, and she is in the Axegrinders squad. The one that is in the least aggressive stance, hunkered over with both axe and shield facing forward.
What a cute couple they make.

[Toad Rocket]

In regards to Fearless Advantage, considering that the dwarves are small would it not be from their perspective that medium sized characters look large compared to them? They do need to look up to fight a medium sized character.

(this is done tongue in cheek)

[chispito]

I have a feeling these guys will be a sentimental favorite, but will be difficult to successfully field against a lot of armies. I can't imagine I would ever draft them without at least one large, high-cost figure in an opposing army. I think I like the idea of the brave army a little more for general use.

[The B.I.V.]

Quote:
Originally Posted by b57123m http://www.heroscapers.com/community/images/jungle/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=832515#post832515)
Axegrinders shouldn't have extra climb. They can go higher than most average people, like all the humans and elves.

Just try please. I no has a good grammar myself, but I try, you know?

In response, they would suck without it, don't you think? If they could only hop up low ledges, most of the map would be out of their movement range, and they would not be able to engage range on some maps. Every size 3 and lower unit has had this power in some way.

Uumm...Repulsors? ;)

Brandon

[Jaz1597]

Axegrinders shouldn't have extra climb. They can go higher than most average people, like all the humans and elves.

Just try please. I no has a good grammar myself, but I try, you know?

In response, they would suck without it, don't you think? If they could only hop up low ledges, most of the map would be out of their movement range, and they would not be able to engage range on some maps. Every size 3 and lower unit has had this power in some way.

Uumm...Repulsors? ;)

Brandon
That was posted before the Repulsors were previewed. So I think we can cut him some slack...

[Hahma]

Thus I think I have to come down on the side of getting the bonus 2 movement only if you also draft a dwarven hero and choose not to use him via bonding.

Yup, that's how I see it as well.


I agree as well. I mean otherwise you could draft like 4 squads of these guys and no Dwarf hero and they would all get a move of 6. Besides, I distinctly remember Gimli having a hard time keeping up with the others in LOTR, maybe because he didn't have a Dwarf hero to inspire him. ;)

Also, with the monks and Win Choo, monks have move of 6 and Win has move of 5 and they don't bond. It's a pain to keep these guys together w/o the bond, but also the monks move faster. With Migol and the Axegrinders, they move 4 if they bond and he moves 5. This is easier to keep him inspiring him by being in front. Now if you don't bond, then he can inspire them to move their azzes to catch up from further back in the board or to attack if they are in range of something that is six spaces away. Also it can keep the opponent guessing and not knowing whether you are going to bond or move six. I think this part makes it better to have to have a Dwarf hero in order to use the +2 move.

[nyys]

I'm confused, this was already clarified (by the rules ream), you get the +2 movement even if there is no Dwarf Hero in the army.

[Hahma]

I'm confused, this was already clarified (by the rules ream), you get the +2 movement even if there is no Dwarf Hero in the army.


Sorry, I just started reading this thread today and only got to page 23 or something before making my post.

Nevermind. I was wrong anyway. :D

[Obsidian]

I have been reading this thread for a while and I don't think anyone brought up this point yet.

Will we see some possible "stinger denial" from the one dwarf with the axe extended out to his right side?

[Jaz1597]

I have been reading this thread for a while and I don't think anyone brought up this point yet.

Will we see some possible "stinger denial" from the one dwarf with the axe extended out to his right side?
Not in my games. ;)

[nyys]

I'm confused, this was already clarified (by the rules ream), you get the +2 movement even if there is no Dwarf Hero in the army.


Sorry, I just started reading this thread today and only got to page 23 or something before making my post.

Nevermind. I was wrong anyway. :D

No worries, more making sure I didn't miss something.

[The B.I.V.]

Axegrinders shouldn't have extra climb. They can go higher than most average people, like all the humans and elves.

Just try please. I no has a good grammar myself, but I try, you know?

In response, they would suck without it, don't you think? If they could only hop up low ledges, most of the map would be out of their movement range, and they would not be able to engage range on some maps. Every size 3 and lower unit has had this power in some way.

Uumm...Repulsors? ;)

That was posted before the Repulsors were previewed. So I think we can cut him some slack...
Yeah, I should've checked my dates. Drat Foiled again!
I do feel his arguement holds true, however, and that the repulsors are going to be difficult to play for the very reasons Einar's Puppy (inadvertantly) posted in regards to non-climbing small units...

Brandon

[Eirikr]

Axegrinders shouldn't have extra climb. They can go higher than most average people, like all the humans and elves.

Just try please. I no has a good grammar myself, but I try, you know?

In response, they would suck without it, don't you think? If they could only hop up low ledges, most of the map would be out of their movement range, and they would not be able to engage range on some maps. Every size 3 and lower unit has had this power in some way.

Uumm...Repulsors? ;)

That was posted before the Repulsors were previewed. So I think we can cut him some slack...
Yeah, I should've checked my dates. Drat Foiled again!
I do feel his arguement holds true, however, and that the repulsors are going to be difficult to play for the very reasons Einar's Puppy (inadvertantly) posted in regards to non-climbing small units...

Brandon
This is, I think, directly reflected in the repulsors' low cost. Without this they would rival the reavers in power for points.

[clancampbell]

I have been reading this thread for a while and I don't think anyone brought up this point yet.

Will we see some possible "stinger denial" from the one dwarf with the axe extended out to his right side?

Stinger denial, dwarf denial, anyone who tries these shady tactics with me, will result in game denial for them.

[DBC]

I have been reading this thread for a while and I don't think anyone brought up this point yet.

Will we see some possible "stinger denial" from the one dwarf with the axe extended out to his right side?

Stinger denial, dwarf denial, anyone who tries these shady tactics with me, will result in game denial for them.
You are going to poke them with a stick if they come close to your gaming table?

[Fenmeister]

I posted a question many pages ago, that seems to have gotten lost in-between the heated discussion about movement and bonding. Either that, or I simply got ignored...
I hope you people don't mind me asking again:
I haven't read much of the history/mythology behind the Heroscape universe. So maybe I'm missing the obvious...
I have read in other posts that Migol is somehow connected to the Migol from the "Migol's Tomb" scenario, in the original rulebook.
But reading that description, I found out Migol-ll was an archkyrie. Are those guys not all winged creatures, or is there some other definition of an archkyrie?
Kyrie = flying humanoids
Archkyrie = Uber kyrie

Migol (in wave 9)<> either.
was it actually stated anywhere that archkyrie HAD to be Kyrie? we know from thormund's journal that at least one of the kyrie was an archkyrie: the ruler of nostralund, Jandar. he is now a VALKYRIE: an Uber Kyrie as a result of drinking from the wellsprings. The Valkyrie are the warlords: those 6 (7?) with the ability to open transdimensional portals to other worlds. They now wield supreme power because they have unrivaled military strength. Before the discovery of the wellsprings, the Archkyrie are now puppets if they even still claim their previous position. They were the RULERS, but no one ever said they were exclusively kyrie...

[1Mmirg]

I'm not sure how someone could be an arch-kyrie without first being a kyrie. Being an "arch-" anything generally presupposes one fits the initial category. Maybe I'm missing something. Sorry, if I am.

[Revdyer]

I'm not sure how someone could be an arch-kyrie without first being a kyrie. Being an "arch-" anything generally presupposes one fits the initial category. Maybe I'm missing something. Sorry, if I am.
I agree, although I am somewhat bothered by the thought that an "archer" must first have been a simple "er."

[Jaz1597]

I'm not sure how someone could be an arch-kyrie without first being a kyrie. Being an "arch-" anything generally presupposes one fits the initial category. Maybe I'm missing something. Sorry, if I am.
I agree, although I am somewhat bothered by the thought that an "archer" must first have been a simple "er."
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Revdyer again."

:lol: Hilarious as always. I'll get back to you with +Rep.

[Super Platapus]

I think that the dwarves are gonna do better than the knights, with a great hero, better bonding, and in my oppinion fearless advantage is better than a cowards reward, and they can do great even without their hero. Plus, they're dwarves.

[killercactus]

I think that the dwarves are gonna do better than the knights, with a great hero, better bonding, and in my oppinion fearless advantage is better than a cowards reward, and they can do great even without their hero. Plus, they're dwarves.

Just like 4th Mass vs. 10th Reg - I'll take the extra defense die all the time vs. some of the time. KoW FTW.

[Hogg]

Migol's shield looks really cool. I took a picture through the packaging:
http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo263/volvohogg/hs002.jpg

[Jaz1597]

Migol's shield looks really cool. I took a picture through the packaging:
http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo263/volvohogg/hs002.jpg

Very cool. I can't wait!

[Hogg]

They are from Feylund.

[GreenLanturn]

Migol's shield looks really cool. I took a picture through the packaging:
http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo263/volvohogg/hs002.jpg
You have the box... :drool:

Maybe the beast on his shield could inspire some very cool monsters from the deep, I'm imagining the Balrog from LOTR.

Feylund huh?

[Orcs Blade]

I think that the dwarves are gonna do better than the knights, with a great hero, better bonding, and in my oppinion fearless advantage is better than a cowards reward, and they can do great even without their hero. Plus, they're dwarves.

Just like 4th Mass vs. 10th Reg - I'll take the extra defense die all the time vs. some of the time. KoW FTW.

I personally think that the 4th Mass are better, but that the 10th Reg are cooler, and I will play the 10th Reg over them any time. That might be because I don't have the 4th Mass:roll:, but I do seriously like the 10th Reg.

Sorry about the double quote, the one by Super Platapus wasn't supposed to be there. I still haven't quite worked out how the quote thing works.

[J4Jandar]

Migol's shield looks really cool. I took a picture through the packaging:
http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo263/volvohogg/hs002.jpg
You have the box... :drool:

Maybe the beast on his shield could inspire some very cool monsters from the deep, I'm imagining the Balrog from LOTR.

Feylund huh?

I'm imagining the beast on the shield is a Grizzly Bear to symbolize power and strength.

[Angear]

Oh man this is probably gonna be one of the first small expansions I get multiples of. These guys are awesome and seem very playable competitvely.

[SymphonyScaper]

Migol's shield looks really cool. I took a picture through the packaging:
http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo263/volvohogg/hs002.jpg
You have the box... :drool:

Maybe the beast on his shield could inspire some very cool monsters from the deep, I'm imagining the Balrog from LOTR.

Feylund huh?

I'm imagining the beast on the shield is a Grizzly Bear to symbolize power and strength.

When I look at that shield (which is completely awesome) I see the face of some animal along the lines of a lion, symbolizing royalty and bravery. What if it's a leobear?

[holylink718]

Sorry for being so late to this party. I followed the first, oh, 15 pages of this thread before I gave up...was there ever an offcial ruling to the whole movement bonus thing?

[Hogg]

Sorry for being so late to this party. I followed the first, oh, 15 pages of this thread before I gave up...was there ever an offcial ruling to the whole movement bonus thing?

Yes. They get the bonus if they don't activate the leader. It doesn't matter if the leader is in play or not.

[holylink718]

Sorry for being so late to this party. I followed the first, oh, 15 pages of this thread before I gave up...was there ever an offcial ruling to the whole movement bonus thing?

Yes. They get the bonus if they don't activate the leader. It doesn't matter if the leader is in play or not.

Yesssss...8)

[Hogg]

Two of the scuplts seem to be charging forward. I think this implies the speed bonus.

[Orcs Blade]

I don't have the sculpts yet. Sigh.

[Yaish]

I played these guys last night, and they are some of my new favorite figures.

600 point game with five players. To make a long story short, it came down to my wife and I left all the way across the board from each other. I had six dwarves left, Migol with four hits on him, plus Isamu and a single repulsor. My wife still had one squad of Aubriens, two WoA, and an untouched Charos, and Jordawn.

She took possession of a hill, but I was able to get my dwarves there by first moving slowing and bonding with Migol, then sprinting into engagement with Charos and her archers once I was in range. Thanks to their speedy bonus and great climb I was able to actually get height advantage on the big green death machine. Once engaged I used bonding to rush Migol in, and his one shield defense let him survive the archer storm (she rolled frenzy at least once each activation, plus kept winning initiative).

Still, with five dice from three attacks, four from another, and two with deadly strike Charos went down in three turns. The archers went down as well, as Migol and some of the other dwarves were able to get them on their way in.

By this time it was down to two dwarves and Migol on my side, besides Isamu and the repulsor clear back in my start zone. She had just the two WoA (figures, not squads) and Jordawn left, but I was able to kill her and one of the WoA before she took the dwarves out. Deadly strike isn't as helpful when one shield blocks all damage!

In the end Isamu won it for me when her last remaining WoA wiffed her defense roll. I'll definitely be playing the dwarves again though. I play knights a lot, but the Axegrinders are just as good, or better in a lot of situations.

[killercactus]

600 point game with five players. To make a long story short, it came down to my wife and I left all the way across the board from each other. I had six dwarves left, Migol with four hits on him, plus Isamu and a single repulsor. My wife still had one squad of Aubriens, two WoA, and an untouched Charos, and Jordawn.

She took possession of a hill, but I was able to get my dwarves there by first moving slowing and bonding with Migol, then sprinting into engagement with Charos and her archers once I was in range. Thanks to their speedy bonus and great climb I was able to actually get height advantage on the big green death machine. Once engaged I used bonding to rush Migol in, and his one shield defense let him survive the archer storm (she rolled frenzy at least once each activation, plus kept winning initiative).



If Migol had 4 wounds at the beginning, how did One Shield Defense help? Are you sure you weren't playing him like the Krav Maga Agents?

[Yaish]

Good point, but no, actually I was rolling good defense dice and even with height, the archers were only rolling one skull most times.

It was actually Crixus that Migol went toe to toe with, and he did all right but that isn't a fight to stick around for if you can help it. Fortunately I had some Omicron Snipers to help out on that one. (Migol's first two wounds came on a defense wiff)

[Shades fan]

I just witnessed these guys systematically take apart an army of Knights and Krug with the help of their leader!

One of my new favorite units!!!

[spiteofthedice]

I considered starting a new thread because I feel so strongly about this, but I figured I'd try to hijack this one first:

I'm trying very hard to love the Axegrinders. Love their sculpts, love that they are dwarves for Aquilla, love their @$$-kicking champion.

They, however, seem like an unfortunate design.

Here's what I mean:

1) Fearless advantage is an unfortunate ability. It makes the dwarves "niche-units" when I would really rather they be universally playable, being dwarves and all.

2) The dwarves need Fearless Advantage in order for their stats to compete with the KoW. Otherwise, the KoW are simply the better unit.

3) Even Fearless Advantage only operates against large and huge figures, so in a toe-to-toe match, the KoW are better at destroying the Axegrinders than the other way around, again making them the better unit. In other words, the KoW have better universal stats.

4) In order to use Fearless Advantage, the dwarves have to get to that large or huge opponent, and whoever you're playing against, if they are paying attention, shouldn't have too tough a time throwing something at the dwarves that prevents them from getting at that one huge opponent.

5) Even Fearless Advantage isn't enough to scare me away from drafting Zelrig or Braxas to destroy the dwarves.

6) Migol is great, BUT, the KoW have many bonding options, while the Axegrinders only have 1 (I realize this could change, but I want to like the dwarves now).

7) Finally, 2 extra move is nice, a climbing boost is nice, but I'm not sure either one competes consistently with the raw statistical advantage of the KoW.

These are the various aspects of my concern. Please, someone explain why I'm wrong and the dwarves are awesome.

[Hahma]

I just witnessed these guys systematically take apart an army of Knights and Krug with the help of their leader!

One of my new favorite units!!!

They took care of some Minions, Sentinels and Protectors lastnight. My newphew had one squad of each (not the best thing) and Atlaga. He wanted the attack of the Minions, defense of Sentinels and flyers with range from Protectors.

I had 3xDwarves, Migol, Brave Arrow and Kravs. Needless to say, I only lost Migol (Minion w/h rolled three skulls for six wounds and I wiffed with Migol) and three dwarves. I basically took out his whole army with the dwarves, Kravs took out Atlaga. I likely would have fared somewhat worse if he had used 3x either of those Kyrie, but I still liked how they did with their quick movement and 4x attack.

I loved the 6 move to get the dwarves into fighting position and then once they were engaged I could bond with Migol, since I didn't need the six move anly longer. Anyway, I had good luck with these little guys, hope it continues.

[Sherman Davies]

I considered starting a new thread because I feel so strongly about this, but I figured I'd try to hijack this one first:

I'm trying very hard to love the Axegrinders. Love their sculpts, love that they are dwarves for Aquilla, love their @$$-kicking champion.

They, however, seem like an unfortunate design. Please, someone explain why I'm wrong and the dwarves are awesome.

You're right and wrong at the same time.

All the points you brought up are valid; the Knights are going to be the more dependable squad in most situations, with the Dwarves having an advantage only when fighting large figures or on maps in which their speed difference will allow them to reach key areas of defendable high ground. In a straight Knights versus Dwarves battle, the Knights should win almost every time, mathematically speaking. But the KoW are an A-ranked unit, whereas I predict the Dwarves will end up as a B or B+ ranked unit at best.

That said, you're wrong about the dwarves not being awesome because awesomeness has nothing to do with rankings or anything else I just said.

[fomox]

I think if you're comparing a Gilbert-knight build with a Migol-dwarf build, then yes, the Gilbert-knight build is clearly better. But if you don't have room for the bonding hero, the dwarves could be a better choice. 6 move instead of 4 is a big deal, and worth the loss of a defense die.

Also, fearless advantage isn't only great because of the +1 attack, but the +1 defense makes them every bit as good as the knights against Q or Dragon builds. The height of 3 also allows them to hide where the knights can't, and to slip past screens by avoiding engagement. This happened a couple of times in our games at the KC tournament.

Also, they are a great counter to have available in draft play, or in tournaments like Big Monster Battle or Dragon Wars.

[spiteofthedice]

My concern is that, in an empirical, undeniable sense, the knights already do essentially the same thing the dwarves do, only better. They have better stats against most figures, making them more versatile than the dwarves. And since their strength is not contingent on the size of their opponent, they can be drafted as the core of an army, whereas the dwarves must be drafted for a specific purpose, say, taking out Jotun.

And if they are prevented from reaching their target, which they probably will be since my opponent is not stupid and there are no armies consisting of lots of Large and Huge figures (none that we actually play anyway), then even if the dwarves manage to do alright, there will be no way around the fact that I would have been better off drafting the KoW.

So how do the dwarves function as a "response-draft" when their use is so specialized?

[Hahma]

So how do the dwarves function as a "response-draft" when their use is so specialized?

Because they're cute little buggers.:D

Actually, their "smallish" stature may be helpful for LOS at times.

[Aldin]

My concern is that, in an empirical, undeniable sense, the knights already do essentially the same thing the dwarves do, only better.

That may be a bit strong.

Sans leaders, ABF are 50% faster and have a better attack and identical defense versus Charos, TorKulNa, Nilfheim, Zetacron, Q9 and Q10 - all popular on the tournament scene. They have a much easier time closing the distance with ranged squads AND they are easier to conceal.

Add Sir Gilbert for the Knights and Migol for the Dwarves and the Knights mobility improves, but they still can't climb ledges higher than three (the Dwarves can handle five) and their movement is unreliable. To gain the mobility, Sir Gilbert generally hangs back a bit from the front lines - costing the Knights a fifth attack which the Dwarves regularly get. And that attack hits harder and is on a bit more durable of a platform than Sir Gilbert's.

Head to head, 3xABF+MI+Q9 v. 3xKoW+SirG+Nilf is probably going to be a win for the KoW more often than not. But it does depends on the terrain, and the results of those two armies against other foes might vary pretty widely depending on the foe. I just don't think this is the slam dunk you were describing.

~Aldin, praising mobility

[Orcs Blade]

I still don't have my wave nine yet:cry::frustrated::brickwall:, so I can't really talk about the dwarves vs. KoW.

[spiteofthedice]

So how do the dwarves function as a "response-draft" when their use is so specialized?

Because they're cute little buggers.:D

I label you "unhelpful." ;)


I suppose commons with a 6 move and the possibility of 4 attacks with 3 dice is somewhat "uncommon." I'm just not sure those extra two steps are going to make their game for them. If they get to the battle before the KoW show up, they might have to wait a round to die.

[Sherman Davies]

~Aldin, praising mobility

Me too; I've always thought that mobility was the most underrated stat in Heroscape, and I've never understood why it seems so overlooked. After all, it can effectively give the faster unit +1 attack and defense.

Head to head, 3xABF+MI+Q9 v. 3xKoW+SirG+Nilf is probably going to be a win for the KoW more often than not. But it does depends on the terrain, and the results of those two armies against other foes might vary pretty widely depending on the foe. I just don't think this is the slam dunk you were describing.

Excellent post, Aldin. I completely agree; the beauty of Heroscape is that the infinite map combinations, as well as the rock/scissors/paper nature of the game, makes it possible for every unit to shine under the right circumstances. Like I said, the KoW will often perform better than the AoBF, but the two are so very close in quality that it's impossible to label one flat out better than the other.

[Hahma]

So how do the dwarves function as a "response-draft" when their use is so specialized?

Because they're cute little buggers.:D

I label you "unhelpful." ;)


I suppose commons with a 6 move and the possibility of 4 attacks with 3 dice is somewhat "uncommon." I'm just not sure those extra two steps are going to make their game for them. If they get to the battle before the KoW show up, they might have to wait a round to die.

Or while the dwarves are waiting, they can get height advantage, bringing them high enough to look the KOW in the eyes...before they do some recycling of them tin cans with legs :D

Am I helping yet? :p

[spiteofthedice]

If they get to the battle before the KoW show up, they might have to wait a round to die.

Or while the dwarves are waiting, they can get height advantage, bringing them high enough to look the KOW in the eyes...before they do some recycling of them tin cans with legs :D

Am I helping yet? :p

Actually . . . yeah.

[Hahma]

Actually . . . yeah.

Good, because I didn't want to get "Unhelpful" added to my "American Girl" title. Though...on second thought it might make me seem tougher...nah, just dumber. :oops::D


Actually I really do like the KOW and all their buddies in armor. But I think these dwarves have some merit and if nothing else, are kind of fun to play. They may not be the stars of tourneys, but I play casual games and fun and variety is good.

Usually when players have units that bond, they take advantage of it and get an extra turn with a hero or what have you. The thing is, that at some points in the game (the beginning lastnight for me) I'll give up that bonding and get the grunts in as good a fighting position as posible right off the bat. I didn't even use the bonding with Migol until the third turn of the first round (I had all order markers on the dwarves) because that second move of six got me in position to have four attacks on a couple Minions. Once they were engaged and didn't need the big move any longer, I bonded with Migol and started bringing him up. It worked pretty well that way for me, but that was just one game and things went my way. Things could be different for the next ten times I use them. :(

If WOTC (are listening Truth :)) bring out another dwarf hero that bonds with the dwarves, they can have more options and perhaps enhanced abilities from that hero? We'll have to see I guess.

[spiteofthedice]

If WOTC (are listening Truth :)) bring out another dwarf hero that bonds with the dwarves, they can have more options and perhaps enhanced abilities from that hero? We'll have to see I guess.

As I said somewhere, I would love it if Wave 10 came out with a Dwarf-hero pack.

I thought about the 6-Move. Thing is, Gilbert offers the knights a statistically-good chance at a 6 Move as well, and they don't need to give up bonding to do it.

I'm coming around to the fact that 4 common squad figures moving 6 spaces with a 3-Attack and a 3-Defense is somewhat "unique." But, with Gilbert in the game, the knights do that too, and do it better. So unless my opponent starts the draft by declaring that they are going to field "a hivelord army" or "an orc army," I can't figure why I would start drafting dwarves instead of knights.

[ABOMINATION]

If WOTC (are listening Truth :)) bring out another dwarf hero that bonds with the dwarves, they can have more options and perhaps enhanced abilities from that hero? We'll have to see I guess.

As I said somewhere, I would love it if Wave 10 came out with a Dwarf-hero pack.

I thought about the 6-Move. Thing is, Gilbert offers the knights a statistically-good chance at a 6 Move as well, and they don't need to give up bonding to do it.

I'm coming around to the fact that 4 common squad figures moving 6 spaces with a 3-Attack and a 3-Defense is somewhat "unique." But, with Gilbert in the game, the knights do that too, and do it better. So unless my opponent starts the draft by declaring that they are going to field "a hivelord army" or "an orc army," I can't figure why I would start drafting dwarves instead of knights.
In favor of the dwarves, if Sir Gilbert is killed, then that's the end of 6 move knights. On the other hand, if Migol is killed, then the dwarves recieve a steady 6 move for the rest of the game. Also, Migol can give and recieve much more punishment than Gilbert.

[spiteofthedice]

In favor of the dwarves, if Sir Gilbert is killed, then that's the end of 6 move knights. On the other hand, if Migol is killed, then the dwarves recieve a steady 6 move for the rest of the game. Also, Migol can give and recieve much more punishment than Gilbert.

Oh Migol definitely impresses me more than Gilbert. I'm not disputing that. Being paired with Migol is a huge asset in my mind, and bonding is on the squad's card, but the champion can't be the only thing the squad has going for it.

Its true that Gilbert's death takes away the bonus while Migol's gives it permanently. Hadn't thought of that either and its an important point.

However, in most cases where the movement bonus is going to be an asset over a squad like the KoW, the best way to achieve the same result of "closing the gap" is probably going to be drafting something that can either shoot or fly, depending on whether the concern is hitting hard or grabbing glyph.

I'm trying to confirm that there will be situations in which the dwarves will definitely be a "Strong Draft."

The more I think about it, Dwarves vs. Orcs is definitely a chance for the ABF to shine. They are statistically on-par with the Heavy Gruts, unless an orc champion is adjacent, which would mean that the ABF are very near to being able to do what they were born to do and kick the carp out of a large or huge figure. They would discourage the orcs from bonding and the dwarves would probably hold their own against the squaddies. Sounds like fun.

[ABOMINATION]

And Migol should be able to kick the orcs butt up and down the battlefield for awhile. I think that the ABF are somewhat like the rats; they're meant to run up and engage the enemy melee units while range takes them down from the back. And the ABF should be able to hold their own in a melee battle.

[spiteofthedice]

I understand that. My issue is: are they holding their own well enough that it was a good idea to take them over the KoW? Against orcs, I can see how they might, since the use of orc squads practically mandates the use of Tornak and Grimnak, Large and Huge. I mentioned the Hivelords because they also represent a predictable draft, where a couple of high-cost huge figures are likely to show up.

Other than these two armies, I can't think of any others which include enough Large and Huge figures that I will be able to see, right from the draft, "This is a game for the ABF." Which is why I'm so disappointed that the ABF are niche-units. The niche is hard to recognize early enough to put a good dwarf army together.

[Rÿchean]

We have two events at Gencon this year that require fielding a Large or Huge figure:

Dragon Wars and Big 'ol Monster. I think the dwarves are a strong play in those events.

I also think they are a stong play in the Lightwieght event because they can be effective without Migol.

[ABOMINATION]

I understand that. My issue is: are they holding their own well enough that it was a good idea to take them over the KoW? Against orcs, I can see how they might, since the use of orc squads practically mandates the use of Tornak and Grimnak, Large and Huge. I mentioned the Hivelords because they also represent a predictable draft, where a couple of high-cost huge figures are likely to show up.

Other than these two armies, I can't think of any others which include enough Large and Huge figures that I will be able to see, right from the draft, "This is a game for the ABF." Which is why I'm so disappointed that the ABF are niche-units. The niche is hard to recognize early enough to put a good dwarf army together.
If there isn't any huge figures in the other army, that won't stop me right away from picking them. I'd have to say that I would pick the dwarves for melee units. The dwarves have a nice melee hero, and can get to the enemy fairly quick. I would use the knights to go against ranged units such as the Ashigaru, 4th or 10th. With a higher defense, the knights will be able to withstand the attacks longer, and if you have Sir Gilbert they can quickly reach the range enemy and then destroy them. ABF would do better against orcs, Macdirks, zombies, and the like.

[spiteofthedice]

If there isn't any huge figures in the other army, that won't stop me right away from picking them. I'd have to say that I would pick the dwarves for melee units. The dwarves have a nice melee hero, and can get to the enemy fairly quick. I would use the knights to go against ranged units such as the Ashigaru, 4th or 10th. With a higher defense, the knights will be able to withstand the attacks longer, and if you have Sir Gilbert they can quickly reach the range enemy and then destroy them. ABF would do better against orcs, Macdirks, zombies, and the like.

You lost me. If there aren't any huge figures in the army, the knights are simply better, stat-wise (3A-4D vs. 3A-3D). The only reason to pick the dwarves is because they're faster, which should make them a better choice against ranged units, particularly units with a 5 or 6 Range, which is exactly when you say you would draft the knights. Doesn't quite make sense.

But again, you're not wrong-the Knights have a better Defense. That's my problem with the dwarves. Sure, they could hold their own, but against melee squads like the Macdirks and the zombies, which don't usually include any Large or Huge figures, the knights seem like they will always be the better choice, if only because of that extra Defense die. And against ranged figures, sure the Dwarves are faster, but as you said, the knights have a better defense. So why would I ever pay for Fearless Advantage with no Large figures on the board when I can have an extra Defense die with the KoW? Migol is one selling point, but I doubt he's enough.

[ABOMINATION]

You lost me. If there aren't any huge figures in the army, the knights are simply better, stat-wise (3A-4D vs. 3A-3D). The only reason to pick the dwarves is because they're faster, which should make them a better choice against ranged units, particularly units with a 5 or 6 Range, which is exactly when you say you would draft the knights. Doesn't quite make sense.

I said that knights would do better against ranged units with that extra defense and Sir Gilbert. You said yourself that the knights will regularly get a +2 to their move. One thing that the dwarves have going for them is the fact that they're small, and can hide out, while the knights are pretty easy to see.

But again, you're not wrong-the Knights have a better Defense. That's my problem with the dwarves. Sure, they could hold their own, but against melee squads like the Macdirks and the zombies, which don't usually include any Large or Huge figures, the knights seem like they will always be the better choice, if only because of that extra Defense die. And against ranged figures, sure the Dwarves are faster, but as you said, the knights have a better defense.

I stand corrected. I guess that the Knight probably are better in both situations.





At least the dwarves have cooler sculpts.;)

[kpotassiumk19]

I personally just like the Dwarves for their looks. I do beleive the Knights are better all around, but the dwarves are better at certain things. They do have the fearless advantage, but they also have the extra move, more height (when climbing), smaller size for hiding, and the better hero. Also, the Dwarves look way cooler.

[Aldin]

And remember folks, if the Dwarves are enough more mobile than the Knights that they can get height advantage, they're a 4/4 vs. the Knights 3/4 :thumbsup:

~Aldin, manoeuveringly

[Bonecrusher]

And remember folks, if the Knights are enough more mobile than the Dwarves that they can get height advantage, they're a 4/5 vs. the Dwarves 3/3 :thumbsup:

~Aldin, manoeuveringly

Fixed.

[spiteofthedice]

And remember folks, if the Knights are enough more mobile than the Dwarves that they can get height advantage, they're a 4/5 vs. the Dwarves 3/3 :thumbsup:

~Aldin, manoeuveringly

Fixed.

Um . . . what? and . . . no.

[Aldin]

And remember folks, if the Knights are enough more mobile than the Dwarves that they can get height advantage, they're a 4/5 vs. the Dwarves 3/3 :thumbsup:

~Aldin, manoeuveringly

Fixed.

You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? :poorpost:

~Aldin, ascending to ever greater heights

[spiteofthedice]

And remember folks, if the Knights are enough more mobile than the Dwarves that they can get height advantage, they're a 4/5 vs. the Dwarves 3/3 :thumbsup:

~Aldin, manoeuveringly

Fixed.

You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? :poorpost:

~Aldin, ascending to ever greater heights

He thought we were talking about basketball teams.

~Spite, who feels funny watching Aldin ascend in public

[Zealot]

I haven't had the opportunity to play the Dwarves yet but from every angle I look at them, I don't see them as a niche unit.

In the vast majority of tournaments I've been to, there is always at least 1 large or huge figure in my opponent's army (most of the time it was one or both of the Q brothers but I digress) so getting use out of fearless advantage doesn't seem like a problem to me.

I love their sculpts and have been wanting Dwarves in Heroscape for a while but its the "Dwarven Strategic Bonding" + Migol that really sold me on how much fun they would be.

Think about it this way...
The knights have some powerful heroes but once they die the knights lose some of their advantages (extra movement from Gilbert, attack from Finn, etc...)
The Macdirks lose their attack once their chosen hero bites the dust making them a 2/2 permanently.
The Orcs (melee or arrow) need their large and huge characters to be worthwhile at all attack and defense wise.

The Dwarves may only have 1 hero but he is a TANK (offensively AND Defensively), and once he does die the Dwarves effectively lose NOTHING, they just permanently gain movement. They still get their bonuses to attack, defense, and their movement jumps to 6 for the rest of the game.

My last point is touching on what Aldin said, the Knights have a better defense but the Dwarves have serious terrain advantages. First of all is their size, they are small enough that they can be hidden very easily from ranged fire and can sometimes avoid engagements all together due to terrain height (I play Hivelords and Nagrubs extensively and a height of 3 with "Climb" is amazingly useful offensively).
The second point is what Aldin directly said, because of climb and their ability to have a move of 6 whenever you want, the Dwarves will often be able to achieve height before the Knights would which would give them a defense of 4 anyway.
Never underestimate Climb + a move of 6.

I just bought the hero pack and 3 packs of Dwarves, I can't wait to play these guys.

~Zealot, who is "very dangerous over short distances."

[spiteofthedice]

In the vast majority of tournaments I've been to, there is always at least 1 large or huge figure in my opponent's army I don't always find this in casual play, but I see their value against some of our heavyweights like Q9 and Krug. I also realize that playing the dwarves against these heavyweights will not always mean launching 4 attacks of 4 dice every turn. Rather, it may simply mean that Krug doesn't manage to do as much damage because he's trying to stay away from the dwarves. Hopefully, though, they will get to actually use the ability often enough for it to prove useful as more than a metacognitive factor.
the Dwarves have serious terrain advantages. First of all is their size, they are small enough that they can be hidden very easily from ranged fire and can sometimes avoid engagements all together due to terrain height
Never underestimate Climb + a move of 6.
This is very interesting. It makes me think about the simplicity of the maps we often play on. I think if we create more rugged terrain, I would see more value in the 6M+Climb+hiding combo. Point conceded.

I just bought the hero pack and 3 packs of Dwarves, I can't wait to play these guys.
Wait, you haven't even tried them yet? Ok, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. :p

[Bonecrusher]

And remember folks, if the Knights are enough more mobile than the Dwarves that they can get height advantage, they're a 4/5 vs. the Dwarves 3/3 :thumbsup:

~Aldin, manoeuveringly

Fixed.

You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? :poorpost:

~Aldin, ascending to ever greater heights

Actually, I think you were saying the Dwarves can go higher because of climb and six move as compared to two separate moves. But the Knights will still have height more because JD > Extra move from not bonding.

[Aldin]

But the Knights will still have height more because JD > Extra move from not bonding.

Knights flat out can't climb anything higher than three, need some luck to get the right amount of extra movement for climbing and aren't very mobile in congested terrain where Sir Gilbert can't see everyone. JD is great for river crossing, but mediocre for climbing.

~Aldin, highlighting the Axegrinders' positives while still acknowledging the great points about the Knights

[StarofEarendil]

I've actually seen Dwarves vs. Knights, and it was interesting. While the Dwarves were able to take the map's main bridge first, gaining height advantage over the Knights, but even then, though they killed off most of the Knights, they all ended up getting killed (even Migol, the last one to die). Gilbert even persisted for a few rounds Migol died.
I also tried a Dwarf army against Q9-Krav build (on Derelict). The Q9-Krav build also had the two 80-point viking champs and the Marro Warriors. By round two, the Dwarves had cut down both viking champs, and then went on to engage the Krav, while one Dwarf engaged Q9 from height. Five attack from height from the Dwarves can be quite powerful.

[mccombju]

First of all is their size, they are small enough that they can be hidden very easily from ranged fire and can sometimes avoid engagements all together due to terrain height (I play Hivelords and Nagrubs extensively and a height of 3 with "Climb" is amazingly useful offensively).

Zealot, could you expand on the circumstances when you use the height of 3 to avoid engagements? Would you use it to wall off Tor-Kul-Na or Migol Ironwill from attacks? Or would you use it to encourage an opponent to move to a space where they think they will get to attack from height, only to be denied that satisfaction? I'd like to hear about your experiences with this strategy.

[Zealot]

First of all is their size, they are small enough that they can be hidden very easily from ranged fire and can sometimes avoid engagements all together due to terrain height (I play Hivelords and Nagrubs extensively and a height of 3 with "Climb" is amazingly useful offensively).

Zealot, could you expand on the circumstances when you use the height of 3 to avoid engagements? Would you use it to wall off Tor-Kul-Na or Migol Ironwill from attacks? Or would you use it to encourage an opponent to move to a space where they think they will get to attack from height, only to be denied that satisfaction? I'd like to hear about your experiences with this strategy.

I was mostly referring to the ability to deny an opponent height advantage on me. Many maps are built with rugged terrain that often has height differences of three. Battlements and Bridge walls are a good example. If you use that knowledge to avoid engagements then you can effectively give yourself a first strike advantage against opposing melee units. Having figures that are so short but able to climb as well as a tall figure gives you the ability to avoid ranged fire more effectively while not limiting your vertical movement.

The Nagrubs I use specifically to keep my hivelords alive (obviously) but the height of 3 plus climb sometimes allows me to move a Nagrub next to an enemy figure without becoming engaged, meaning that my enemy has to lose their height advantage in order to strike at me. This tactic would be even more effective with the Dwarves because of their higher attack and defense, ESPECIALLY if you use this strategy with Migol.

I don't try to block off my Hivelords from enemy attacks with my Nagrubs unless I have 4 squads, 3 or less squads and they are only for healing and occasionally attacking if possible while still being engaged to my hivelord.
Dwarves, I think, would be more effective offensively because you would be able to deny your opponent some attacks from height while easily acquiring them for yourself.

I hope that helps, I tend to ramble.

~Zealot

[mccombju]

Thanks for the clarification, Zealot. Cheers!

[Sokol]

I ran two games of Dwarves v. Anubian Wolves the other night (4 squads of each and their respective heroes: Khosumet and Migol (dwarves = 390 points, wolves = 375 points). The Anubian Wolves won both times. The first game ended with 3 wolves standing and the second with 1 wolf left. It was a blast, but I had hoped the dwarves would stand up a little better than they did. I always pictured them as being a little more durable. I was amazed at how fast they fell, even when the wolves rolled poorly. 3 defense just doesn't hack it.

I will have to try a few Knights v. Dwarves battles...that sounds like fun.

[Bonecrusher]

But the Knights will still have height more because JD > Extra move from not bonding.

Knights flat out can't climb anything higher than three, need some luck to get the right amount of extra movement for climbing and aren't very mobile in congested terrain where Sir Gilbert can't see everyone. JD is great for river crossing, but mediocre for climbing.

~Aldin, highlighting the Axegrinders' positives while still acknowledging the great points about the Knights

How many height differences of three can the Dwarves take advantage of? That height diff is uncommon (not many on a map), the chance you would be next to a height of > 3 is also uncommon, and the chance the Dwarves would have enough move (Bonding, having to bring up new Dwarves cause of 3 defense, etc.) is uncommon. Sure they aren't very mobile in congested terrain, but the Dwarves aren't very mobile when they bond. When the Dwarves don't bond, they have one less squad member. The Dwarves huge advantage is that they are incredible against large/huge figures (AKA Q9).

~Bonecrusher, trying to like the Dwarves.

[1Mmirg]

FWIW, I've seen the dwarves in action on maps with battlements (like the Embattled Fen and Invasion). The battlements are perfect for the dwarves--they can hide behind them and also hurdle them. Fun stuff.

[Dysole]

Let me also add that I played a game where Migol got to sit on Gerda from almost Round 1. (Which is pretty dang evil) Once that happened, the Dwarves were deadly and wiped out pretty much everything by their lonesome. (Q9 sat in the back and took pictures) It was a Protectors army so I don't know how much that means, but I say that if you can get the Dwarves a +1 defense bonus go for it. Hmm...maybe SOTM Raelin is a good person to put in an army with them?

They also crushed an Arrow Grut army, so I think they will do well against armies with large figures. I also think pairing them up with a Q9, Q10, Braxas, Nilfy, or somthing that can take on small squad figures helps a ton.

The Knights may have the better constant defense and be better overall but since I need more of them and don't have Sir Gilbert, the Dwarves are the best I got.

[Einar's puppy]

In my playtesting, Dwarvesx3, Migol, AE, and Marcu wiped the floor with everthing they came up against, except for 3xRats, Q9, and MW. I am going to use the build tomorrow at an event, and I feel very good about it. The dwarves are pretty strong.

[Creationist]

I agree. Try x3 Stingers For 50 extra points. It makes a solid combo that can be hard to stop.

[Hero Hot Hatch]

After playing with and against squads of Axegrinders I'm satisfied although they only get their point value when they are able to use fearless advantage. I still prefer a solid squad of KoWs. Migol, however, has proven a tank! Migol is harder to kill than NGS and NGS was "the tank." I haven't seen a hero that would last as long a Migol consistently since NGS came into play (for 120 or less). As unique heroes go NGS, Crixus and Migol are some tough ones to get rid of. Nice! In terms of survivability Migol is worth his points in gold. He will last long enough on average to get his points worth.

Going back to the Axes, it is actually interesting to have different forms of bonding. Although Migol slows the Axes down, it is good to have that choice and decide tactically which way to go instead of the plain "old school" bonding.

[mad_wookiee]

In my playtesting, Dwarvesx3, Migol, AE, and Marcu wiped the floor with everthing they came up against, except for 3xRats, Q9, and MW. I am going to use the build tomorrow at an event, and I feel very good about it. The dwarves are pretty strong.

And now they have a tourney win to their credit! Great job with that army - it was solid and you played it flawlessly.

[That Guy0715]

In my playtesting, Dwarvesx3, Migol, AE, and Marcu wiped the floor with everthing they came up against, except for 3xRats, Q9, and MW. I am going to use the build tomorrow at an event, and I feel very good about it. The dwarves are pretty strong.

Do you really need dwarves x3? with 4 in a squad, it seems like 2 would be fine.

[GreenLanturn]

In my playtesting, Dwarvesx3, Migol, AE, and Marcu wiped the floor with everthing they came up against, except for 3xRats, Q9, and MW. I am going to use the build tomorrow at an event, and I feel very good about it. The dwarves are pretty strong.

Do you really need dwarves x3? with 4 in a squad, it seems like 2 would be fine.
I have x4 Dwarves, and have heard many armies consisting of x4 of other 4 figure squads. It's really not uncommon to have that many in one army.

The dwarves get their defense bonus against Q9's Queglix gun right?

[holylink718]

The dwarves get their defense bonus against Q9's Queglix gun right?

I would think so. I just pulled the card and it says they get +1 attack/defense against large or huge. It says nothing of range or special attacks. So we're supposed to do what the card says, not what it doesn't, right? Hey, I guess that does work! I never quite got what it meant until now. ;)

[1Mmirg]

That's how we played it this weekend. I hadn't thought of that either, until the dwarves starting pouring into my Q9 pod (I'd thought it said adjacency, but nope...). They are pretty tough, pretty capable little guys. I've got to try them out again.

[spiteofthedice]

Just got back from testing the Axegrinders against an orc army:

The map featured a bottle-neck with height-4 on either side of it. That's where most of the action happened, around a 2-height single hex in the middle, which offered the chance for some melee height-advantage.

It was an uneven game, with my dwarves taking up a decent position early, but then getting jammed up and being ineffectual in the middle of the game. They pulled it out though, and I killed the last Blade Grut with only 2 Axegrinders left on the battlefield.

Overall, I'm still not certain whether knights would have done better than dwarves. 6-Move+Climb is great, and Migol, as others keep pointing out, is a tank, but I couldn't roll for carp with Migol, and that was boosting him with Finn.

I'm not displeased with them, but I think we need more hearty dwarf-champions before the dwarves can be called a versatile, reliable army in their own right.

PS. I think I got 1 4-Attack on a Huge figure. Migol and Thorgrim did most of the giant-killing. Oh well.

[White Noise]

But the Knights will still have height more because JD > Extra move from not bonding.

Knights flat out can't climb anything higher than three, need some luck to get the right amount of extra movement for climbing and aren't very mobile in congested terrain where Sir Gilbert can't see everyone. JD is great for river crossing, but mediocre for climbing.

~Aldin, highlighting the Axegrinders' positives while still acknowledging the great points about the Knights

I've done some number crunching, and with Sir Gilbert you have about an 18.4% chance of rolling anything higher than 3 on Jandar's dispatch. Even if you rolled 3 symbols (19.7% chance) giving you a total move of seven, this wouldn't make the knights more mobile necessarily, because as Aldin pointed out uneven terrain would cause them to waste some of their move.

The strategic bonding is something to take into consideration though, because if the Axegrinders move with Migol you end up in a situation reminiscent of knights moving with Sir Dendrick. I've found that the best way to use the bonding is to use the extra move to get close to enemy figures, but once they get within four move spaces of the enemy or become engaged, switch to moving Migol.

However, the knights have a static 3/4, whie the Dwarves have 3/3 on small/medium figures and 4/4 on large/huge figures. This would appear to make the Dwarves more situational.

Overall, the Knights are better at fighting small or medium figures, have stronger hero synergy (and a variety of choices), and more mobility on water (with Sir Gilbert). The Dwarves, on the other hand, are better at fighting large or huge figures and have more mobility on rugged terrain.

[SamIam4191]

[/quote]Migol Ironbutt is so old and slow that bonding with him slows down the whole squad.[/quote]

Go home Noob.:evil:

[SamIam4191]

Migol Ironbutt is so old and slow that bonding with him slows down the whole squad.


GrungeBob you noob.

[SamIam4191]

noobs

[Cavalier]

SamIam4191 (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/member.php?u=7213)

Migol Ironbutt is so old and slow that bonding with him slows down the whole squad.

Go home Noob.:evil:

Migol Ironbutt is so old and slow that bonding with him slows down the whole squad.


GrungeBob you noob.

noobs
And that is what happens when you call :gb: a noob... three times. :rofl:

[Cleon]

SamIam4191 (http://www.heroscapers.com/community/member.php?u=7213)

Migol Ironbutt is so old and slow that bonding with him slows down the whole squad.

Go home Noob.:evil:

Migol Ironbutt is so old and slow that bonding with him slows down the whole squad.


GrungeBob you noob.
And that is what happens when you call :gb: a noob, twice. :rofl:

:lol:

I think the third time was directing to himself in his two posts before:

noobs

EDIT: Ah, you edited, whatever still hilarious. :)

[Knight of Feylund]

I'm surprised dwarves weren't created earlier.

[Knight of Feylund]

I share your opinion about the dwarves but Grungebob is not a noob.

[Hahma]

I like the Dwarves x3 either with or without Migol. First round I'm not bonding at all and just moving a squad or two with a move of 6 and let them tangle with the opponent. Then when I have enough dwarves in the action, I will start bonding with Migol to get him involved. By then the normal move of 4 won't be such a big deal because they will be engaged or close enough.

I like the Knights too, I will play both of them depending on my mood or the map. If I need speed, I go with dwarves, if speed's not as much an issue, then KOW can get the nod.