Abilities or Traits that "define" races in Fantasy Wargaming?

[Hobgoblin]

Dwarves as cowardly fighters but powerful users of magic breaks the common stereotypical image (where does the inability to use Magic actually come from?.........is that pure Warhammer?) and while it is certainly a viable idea it would probably be quite a hard sell as an army list......not to mention the dearth of suitable figures.
The vision as a not tall, technically proficient cross between a Viking and an Ozark Mountain Man seems too well established.

I think there's a question for any fantasy game: do you take your stereotypes from myth/folklore/legend/literature, or do you take them from other games? The latter is the more common, but the former is the more interesting, I think.

There are actually plenty of dwarfs out there that would fit the mythical bill. The ones Ethelred linked to are good, but then there are the old Ral Partha ones from Iron Wind:



And, if you actually look at the physiques of most dwarf miniatures, they wouldn't be great at fighting: too stubby, too little reach, too stunted in the leg. Oddly enough, if you compare the physiques of (say) a classic Kev Adams goblin and a classic Citadel dwarf from the same period, it's the goblins who have the better physiques for fighting - they tend to be longer in the leg and much longer in the arm, and are pretty muscular with it. Fighting the goblin would be like fighting a very large chimpanzee; fighting the dwarf would be like fighting a severely overweight, albeit steroidal ten-year-old.

So there's this odd thing with miniatures whereby "dwarfs are tough and good at fighting" in rules, but the miniatures themselves portray physiques that might be muscular, but would have a real job swinging an axe to much effect.

There's an honourable exception here for Nick Lund's Fantasy Warrior dwarfs (the ones that Mirliton produce now). They have more similarities with Citadel goblins, in that they combine robust physiques with long arms and relatively long legs. So they do look like they'd be able to swing a skeggox fairly fearsomely. That's why I reckon they make the best Tolkien dwarves.

It's worth noting that Tolkien indicates that dwarves have a tough time fighting Man-sized opponents: at Helm's Deep, Gimli prefers to fight the Uruk-hai (who are presumably around dwarf-sized) rather than the Hill-men. That echoes the Isengard orcs having problems with the Rohirric shield-wall at the Isen.

I think the "not good at magic" trope comes D&D (building on hints in Tolkien) and then into Warhammer. Dwarfs in the Eddas are very good at magic. Oddly enough, I think Tolkien largely transfers the ability that dwarfs have with making magic items in Norse sources to his elves - probably in line with the fact that dwarfs are sometimes called "elves" in the Eddas, etc. So Tolkien has enchantment-working elf-smiths that are probably based on Eddic dwarfs.

Ethelred: yes, I was thinking of Regin in Volsungsaga, who becomes Mime in Siegfried.

[Hobgoblin]

I should add that the "dwarfs are hard" trope seems to begin with the Battle of the Five Armies in The Hobbit, when Dain and co. are described. Before that, the dwarves of Thorin's company seem more like folkloric dwarfs than under-sized tanks. Even then, though, the dwarves are described only as "very strong for their size" rather than very strong in absolute terms. And the dwarves of the Iron Hills are noted as particularly tough veterans rather than representatives of dwarf-kind.

[Mister Frau Blucher]

This is a great thread!

I like the idea of a split among the elves as well. Gygax codified it a bit in AD&D, where the High or Grey Elves were more disciplined and cultured, and the Wood elves were wilder and more fae, while both maintained their mystical heritage. 3rd edition D&D established it a bit more, if I recall, by making high elves have Wizard as a favored class (intelligence-based magic) and Wood elves have Sorcerer as a favored class (Charisma-based magic).

[Mister Frau Blucher]

Yeah, I think hobgoblin is right with dwarves' non-magical nature getting started with D&D. They could not be magic-users (though there were NPC Clerics) and they got bonuses to their saving throws against spells and magic-like abilities.

[robh]

D&D is an excellent source of traits and racial distinctions, it also provides a lot of useful ideas on attack resistance and the alignment categorisation is a very good way of building unusual army themes.
Much like the old WotC Chainmail warband game.

[robh]

Not much discussion yet on Ratkin/Verminkind/Skaven et al.

What are peoples thoughts on the uber tech that dominates in Warhammer?  Personally I hate it and see Ratkin as completely different, but do concede that it gives them something unique to  give another army a theme. Unlike Lizardmen  who seem to have nothing interesting about them at all.

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

I should add that the "dwarfs are hard" trope seems to begin with the Battle of the Five Armies in The Hobbit, when Dain and co. are described. Before that, the dwarves of Thorin's company seem more like folkloric dwarfs than under-sized tanks. Even then, though, the dwarves are described only as "very strong for their size" rather than very strong in absolute terms. And the dwarves of the Iron Hills are noted as particularly tough veterans rather than representatives of dwarf-kind.

They were alo damn tough at the Nirnaeth Arnoediad in the Silmarillion.  You are correct about their stumpy physique.  Conqueror probably have the right idea with most of their figures being spear armed.  D&D and Warhammer loom large over our perception of fantasy races 

Perhaps a dwarf is like a rugby hooker.  They are usually one of the shortest people on the field but built like a tank and not someone you would want to run into.

[Cubs]

What are peoples thoughts on the uber tech that dominates in Warhammer?  Personally I hate it and see Ratkin as completely different, but do concede that it gives them something unique to  give another army a theme. Unlike Lizardmen  who seem to have nothing interesting about them at all.

I remember being really excited when I saw Skaven for the first time in the Citadel Journal. The way they swarmed out of the underground tunnels, ambushing the guards in a horde was great and I really liked seeing them have an awe-inspiring, terrifying new weapon in the flame throwers. Sadly, everything GW did with them after that seemed to move away from what was so interesting about them. They weren't small scuttling things, they were man-sized creatures all of a sudden, with gigantic Rat Ogres in tow. They didn't scuttle around through tunnels and sewers ... well, they did, but somehow they were also able to construct enormous machines and devices and tow them around with them. For no apparent reason, these rat beastmen were technologically advanced beyond the most arcane Dwarf or Empire engineers and apparently had gigantic forges to create their inventions.

Lizardmen suffered from being geographically isolated out in Lustria and not being developed enough in the fluff. They would make great infiltrators and secret societies in the style of disguised serpent people and the like. If even the addition of dinosaurs to thier ranks couldn't make them interesting, then something has gone wrong somewhere.

[Hobgoblin]

They were alo damn tough at the Nirnaeth Arnoediad in the Silmarillion.

Yes, though I was thinking more about publication history here (so The Hobbit is where the idea of tough dwarven fighters is first introduced to the public). One thing about Tolkien's descriptions of heroic warfare is that "everyone's tougher than everyone else". I think that's a feature, not a bug, as you get the same sort of thing in chivalric legend (e.g. The Nibelungenlied). But it makes it quite hard to parse the text in game terms. Take orcs, for example: when we see them close up, the big ones are quite formidable: the big chieftain in Moria, the bodyguard of Bolg, the Isengarders in Rohan. But when we 'zoom out', they become faceless hordes that die in their droves at Helm's Deep and the Pelennor. Gamers nearly always try to rationalise this by suggesting that the bulk of those armies were 'lesser orcs', not Uruks. But the text suggests otherwise: most of those armies were Uruks, and they die in their droves in the big set-pieces because that's what the story demands that they do.

Or to look at it another way: the Uruk-hai are fast, strong, brave, fairly well disciplined, heavily armed and armoured and equipped with powerful bows. The only disadvantage is that they're smaller than Men. But they still die in their droves against our heroes, because that's what the narrative requires. So statting them out in wargame terms can't be an exact science, because the needs of stories and games are very different.

[Hobgoblin]

I remember being really excited when I saw Skaven for the first time in the Citadel Journal. The way they swarmed out of the underground tunnels, ambushing the guards in a horde was great and I really liked seeing them have an awe-inspiring, terrifying new weapon in the flame throwers. Sadly, everything GW did with them after that seemed to move away from what was so interesting about them. They weren't small scuttling things, they were man-sized creatures all of a sudden, with gigantic Rat Ogres in tow. They didn't scuttle around through tunnels and sewers ... well, they did, but somehow they were also able to construct enormous machines and devices and tow them around with them. For no apparent reason, these rat beastmen were technologically advanced beyond the most arcane Dwarf or Empire engineers and apparently had gigantic forges to create their inventions.

Yeah, exactly that. When they first appeared in Warhammer (in that great monastery scenario), they were unique: no cavalry, but loads of very fast-moving infantry, sneaky assassins and a few bizarre weapons.

Lizardmen suffered from being geographically isolated out in Lustria and not being developed enough in the fluff. They would make great infiltrators and secret societies in the style of disguised serpent people and the like. If even the addition of dinosaurs to thier ranks couldn't make them interesting, then something has gone wrong somewhere.

Their original Warhammer fluff had them popping up everywhere via secret subterranean tunnels. So they were a threat from below to dwarves and orcs. I think their Lustrification made them less interesting, though they worked quite well as a small part of a Slann army, as in second- and third-edition Warhammer. The Slann were interesting tactically, because they could make good use of water terrain and had nicely varied infantry: well-armed palace guards, frenzied braves, cold-one riders, blow-piping scouts and lumbering lizardmen and troglodytes. But yes, the serpent-people pulp thing is very interesting and is the 'natural' role of humanoid reptilians. I guess chaos cultists/mutants/beastmen have that role in Warhammer, though.

[Cubs]

There's an illustration in the Dragon Rampant book that shows the Lizardmen as iguana-like in appearance and (apparently) quite lithe and agile. That would have been a good take on it.

[Hobgoblin]

There's an illustration in the Dragon Rampant book that shows the Lizardmen as iguana-like in appearance and (apparently) quite lithe and agile. That would have been a good take on it.

Yes: one oddity of early Warhammer was that it used the same profile (two wounds and all) for the lean and lithe Tom Meier lizardmen and the burly crocodilian Trish Morrison ones. I suppose the skinks (after my time!) are a bit like that. There were originally lesser lizardmen too, but I don't think they survived first edition.

Hordes of the Things has lizardmen with hordes (low-quality but endlessly replaceable) as infantry, supplemented with various beasts 'n' priests. In some ways, that's more interesting than the big, tough D&D-style lizardmen that Warhammer adopted. It's certainly more pulpy.

When I was a kid, the Trish Morrison lizardmen were staples of our 40K games as tough but primitive natives.

[robh]

Hordes of the Things has lizardmen with hordes (low-quality but endlessly replaceable) as infantry, supplemented with various beasts 'n' priests.

But that army theme fits better with Ratmen/Skaven. Rats do swarm (as do Crabs and Beetles and Turtles etc) but Lizards don't. I admit to struggling to find any defining traits of Lizardmen as they are now that are not better suited to other armies.

They have some great figures and the MesoAmerican background should be a rich source of ideas but as an army it is pretty dull really. 
Imagine if the Tech of the Skaven had been given instead to the Slann as an Outsider/Alien race viewed as Gods with the Lizards as subjugated local tribes there would at least have been something unique about them.
 

[Hobgoblin]

But that army theme fits better with Ratmen/Skaven. Rats do swarm (as do Crabs and Beetles and Turtles etc) but Lizards don't. I admit to struggling to find any defining traits of Lizardmen as they are now that are not better suited to other armies.

I think the effect that the HotT authors are going for is a pulpy feel: endless scaly natives pouring out of jungle ruins. I'm certainly tempted to get another box of these guys to make some cheap HotT hordes.

They have some great figures and the MesoAmerican background should be a rich source of ideas but as an army it is pretty dull really. 
Imagine if the Tech of the Skaven had been given instead to the Slann as an Outsider/Alien race viewed as Gods with the Lizards as subjugated local tribes there would at least have been something unique about them.

That's kind of how it was in the early Slann army lists, from memory. The lizardmen (and trogs) were optional extras, as vassal tribes, while the Slann had well-equipped soldiers of various casts as well as their own tribal sorts. And lots of wizards - though, as you say, it would have been better if they had had the same sort of high-tech weapons that the Lustrian Amazons had.

One thing that did give a lot of flavour to lizardmen in early Warhammer was simply their combination of high points and high wounds and toughness. We played a lot of satisfyingly asymmetrical games in which small bands of lizardmen (the Morrison sort, chiefly) advanced steadily to engage much larger numbers of orcs or whatever. Song of Blades and Heroes gets the same effect with its tough, high-cost lizardmen - and that game has the delightful added detail of the Tailslap rule, which allows lizardmen to knock down their foes more often than other troops.

[lethallee61]

A good primary source for "Ratmen" is Fritz Leiber's Lankmhar series of books. I'm fairly confident they are the concept that was eventually turned into the Skaven. They certainly fit the model of the sewer-dwelling, scheming creatures that many of us have come to know.