Finding out that my army is unable to attend officially sanctioned events (a significant part of the gaming community) has me dissatisfied, and I'm not the only one.
So stop buying from them. Vote with your wallet, like I said. This is how capitalism works: if this is such a huge problem for enough people, it will negatively impact sales and GW will be forced to address the issue.
If your internet service provider, or your local shop, or any other business from which you purchase products or services does something you don't like, you stop buying from them. You switch providers, you start going to a different shop, you take away your custom. The only time you'd ever complain like this in any other sphere of commerce is if the terms and conditions of a contract were violated. If your ISP increased the cost of service without warning, or imposed a draconian download limit when they said they wouldn't you'd be well within your rights to say they'd screwed you and you'd probably take legal action, or at least write a nasty letter. But if a shop stopped selling the kind of cheese you like, you'd just go somewhere else: you wouldn't act like they'd reneged on some agreement because you were such a loyal customer for all those years when they had your cheese.
Phew, that's a lot of analogies...
You get what I'm saying though, right? GW aren't some sort of charitable organisation providing you with your hobby. They don't have a duty to do what you want because you've handed over your cash in the past. When you gave them your money, what you got was the product, not some oath of loyalty. It's not an investment in a future service: it's just currency in exchange for stuff.
I think a Microsoft analogy is pretty close. Windows is still far and above the most popular operating system because it is the most popular operating system. They have such domination of that market because so many people are scared to switch to something else, rendering all their current software useless and many of their files unreadable. Sure, you could get a Mac or a Linux distro*, but you won’t be able to play your favourite PC games with your friends anymore, and they don’t have the games you do. Making the switch can screw you over more than the behemoth company you hate, unless you can convince enough of your friends to do the same.
*You can have both on the same machine, but still need to own a copy of Windows
I think there is a demand (small maybe) for the Chaos Dwarf army. Each time I bring mine out the reaction is the same (Cool, I want this, When are they releasing new models/rules). Only 2 years ago GW had the Chaos Dwarf list on their main Warhammer page for a few weeks.
Their catalog from a few years ago showed images of the Chaos Dwarf army painted and many in the GW store I play at loved the army.
I’m the only one who regularly brings out a CD army and I know of a couple of others who have the army.
I used Night Goblins to fill out my Hobgoblin Archer units (mixed Metal Hobgobs and plastic Night Gobbos) and Gnoblars and snotlings for my ranked unit of Hobgobs with Lt armor/Shield (I use the PIMP Gnoblar Trapper, you know the Fur Coat Gnoblar, as champion).
I’ve read reports/rumors of the Chaos Dwarfs getting an update in Late 2009 or 2010. I don’t quite believe it because these rumors have been around for years with only the date changing.
GW has in the past come up with big ideas and messed them up with poor release of models.
Storm of Chaos and Lustria: Most of the models weren’t released until midway (or later) through the champaign. Made it hard for people to build the armies and use them during the champaign. Then we were told since we were investing time and love building armies from Storm of Chaos and Lustria that they would continue to be tournament legal. I have a 2500 point Slayer army built and my wife was making a Red Host Lizardman Army, most of her army is legal in the Lizardman army but to use all my slayers I would have to run a extremely large Dwarf army. Some at GW have claimed that the armies are unbalanced, but it seemed that when they see many people running one particular list from the book decide to ban the books. It thought it might have been easier to update the SOC book then get the ill will.
I agree with the last post quite a bit. Though those armies may not have been as “official” or perhaps even “temporary”, customers still spent a large amount of money on those products, only to have the lists never again updated once they were declared out-of-date and illegal by tournaments. This encompasses my point completely, that even GW is a miniatures company first, they are a rules company second. GWs customers buy these armies with the expectation that GW will have usable rules for them. When they make your hundreds of dollars spent on models, completely unusable, they may not have any legal repercussions to deal with, and may not have violated any binding contract, but they most certainly have violated an unwritten agreement (or perhaps it IS written when they advertised the army as having new rules and that being a reason to buy them) and perhaps even cheated their customers, by not providing an EXPECTED service.
GW advertise their miniatures with the Rules, and they are also a rules company. The 2 products go hand in hand, and when GW invalidates your rules by not keeping them playable with other armies, they are not providing a service that is naturally assumed to be upheld when you purchased those miniatures. Why is it assumed? Because the rules are emphasized and advertised hand-in-hand with the miniatures in every way possible.
This kind of screwing your customers does not need to result in any kind of legal battle, but voicing your opinion to the company and on the forums is one of the 2 loudest ways to effect change (the other being “voting with your wallet”).
We live in a day in age where communication is one of the most effective forms of change. GW has stated many times, that if you want something to change about them, KEEP TALKING IN THE FORUMS or WRITE TO US. It would be a rather ineffective and crude way of “voting” for something that we cannot buy (with them knowing it is for the purpose of building chaos dwarfs), or rules that you only buy once. For Chaos Dwarfs, it’s kinda hard to vote with your wallet for a rule book, regardless how much miniature sales reflect the rules production.
Lastly, I’m not hurting anyone by discussing this, but rather encouraging productive communication on the matter. If that is bothering you or annoying you, then simply don’t read this thread or participate, as it would only result in something none of us want.
.nick
p.s. I AM going to write up a letter showing GW our discontent with having “out-dated” rules, and hopefully inspire them with the idea for a WD article that could potentially generate more sales than any other (non-new army) article could. Hopefully you guys WILL join in on the bandwagon and send the letter too, or even your own version. I’ll post the letter in this thread when I’ve got it ready!
CheTralfa, maybe I’m missing something here: Games Workshop don’t actually sell Chaos Dwarfs any more. In fact, they phased the models out before they phased the rules out. Ravening Hordes came out with 6th Edition, long after Chaos Dwarfs had been discontinued. They supported them with rules when there weren’t models available, not the other way 'round.
Gamers have purchased models for an army and then the company discontinues the rules for the army they have invested in so they are now usless. Happened to Chaos Dwarfs, SOC Armies, Lustria Armies, Cult of Ulric (Empire), not to mention 40K Squats.
Most of the above armies you can still purchase models for.
Bilbo’s got it. GW knows that people convert Chaos Dwarfs. They also know this site exists. I would even bet you that they keep an eye on this forum. The Chaos Dwarf stats were listed in the back of the 7th edition rulebook. That is an official OK to buy, create and use Chaos Dwarf from existing models. It’s obvious you do not see it that way, but I promise you that many people on this forum HAVE seen it that way, and thus many of us have created Chaos Dwarf armies under the expectation that we are still a playable army.
I traded with a friend to get my Chaos Dwarf army about 2 and a half years ago. The reason was he felt I could really care for the army and I thought (GW Empolyees told me) the army would stay tournament legal. That is why I stripped and repainted the metal models and filled out units with current GW models.
Bilbo's got it. GW knows that people convert Chaos Dwarfs. They also know this site exists. I would even bet you that they keep an eye on this forum. The Chaos Dwarf stats were listed in the back of the 7th edition rulebook. That is an official OK to buy, create and use Chaos Dwarf from existing models. It's obvious you do not see it that way, but I promise you that many people on this forum HAVE seen it that way, and thus many of us have created Chaos Dwarf armies under the expectation that we are still a playable army.
CheTralfara
You're talking to a guy with over 3,000 points of them, okay? Do I look like someone who thinks Chaos Dwarfs should be swept under the rug? All I'm saying is that GW didn't break any "unspoken agreements" or anything like that. They have no reason to support an army for which they haven't sold models in about ten years. You can't make an army from the stats in the back of the rulebook - they exist for the same purpose as the mentions they get in the fluff sections and all the little hints about them in recent army books: to create buzz and get casual gamers interested in this possible future range.
And, again, I want to reiterate that the design studio doesn't make the rules for Grand Tournaments. The decision to ban Chaos Dwarfs from GW events didn't come down from on high - they don't take that kind of interest in tournaments. GW isn't Wizards of the Coast. Tournaments are not the default way to play Warhammer, and shouldn't be used as a measure of what the design studio or GW as a whole deems "official".