Does any of the more experienced players know if it is worth getting dwarf warrior archers ?, or am i better off just getting more khazad guard or iron guard.

It depends on what strategy you choose to use. There rarely are units that have no real value to their use

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming

As the newish scenarios mean that shooting is less useful, you may often come across opponents entirely without any missile power.. which in turn means that you can outshoot them, depleting the opposing army with no damage in return! Decent archers are almost always useful to get rid of some enemy spear support or simply lower their numbers.

Even in combat, Dwarven archers are as good as a Rohan Royal Guard however: good fighters (F4) and tough too (Defence 6). Only when you are certain of encountering a lot of S4 enemies, is it worth considering swapping those guys for more D7 troops. Other than that, you won't often regret taking along a band of archers.

I prefer using the Dwarf Ranger's , due to the 24 inch bows , fire on 3+ and quite cheap also with hilly and rocky terrain they are very tactile. Only downside is strength 2 on the longbow and of course the defence is only 5.

I will bare that in mind

I actually prefer the Dwarf Warrior Bowmen. I did the math, and not taking into consideration the bow range, the Dwarf Warriors have on average a higher chance of wounding enemies with their bows. They also have defence 6 making them obviously better in melee fighting as well. And they cost 1 less point so if you're buying archers in bulk those extra points can really count e.g. swapping out Khazad Guard for Iron Guard, giving Heroes equipment etc.

_________________
Don't click on this link!!!!
http://www.mindistortion.tv/iwantyoursoul/?i_am=Gen Giddings

It depends very much on the mission.
Are you going to shoot much on the hill? no,
Are you going to need range on lords/to the death? (they are coming at you) so dwarf bow
Are you going to shoot on domination?? I'd say yes, from your back objectives... if you set them well then you range is not an issue. Dwarf bow can be used but I would prefere to put the objective further back and use d.rangers
Recon, d.ranger gets an extra round of shooting, so if you have quantity then yes, otherwise dwarf bow because they are coming at you
Hold ground. scattered set up. I would say d.ranger is more versatile here. Potentially you may be stuck in the middle of no where so range could help.

Over all I prefere dwarf warriors with bow, I find they are a solid fighting force and can offer a good supporting fire base... but do not rely on these kills because you just can't really get hte numbers in most dwarf armies.

I have faced many Dwarf armies and can say that under the old rules I would say the Rangers were always valuable on the table. Under the newer rules where deployments can be much closer the extra range of the Rangers, combined with their slightly lower (bow) strength and lower defense they just don't 'feel' as effective to me. I still hate seeing them but in the couple games I've faced off against Dwarves under the new deployment rules the Dwarf Warriors with bows seem more effective overall.

This is very similar to the Uruk Scouts. An Uruk Hai Scout with a bow is every bit as good of a combat model as any other Uruk Hai Scout except for the lack of shield. So if you can get a couple kills with the bows without actually counting on them then you're doing good and still have some effective forces when you engage. Dwarf Warriors with bows are, as pointed out above, otherwise every bit as good as any other Dwarf Warrior except for the little Defense difference. If they can take out a few enemy or enemy mounts with their bows before engaging that's bonus, but don't count on it.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com