Note: this version has now been superseded. See here for details.
Like Zhargon the Great, I have spent what seems like years sequestered in my inner sanctum, labouring with every spare hour on my life’s work. The Book of Hashut? Maybe the Second Book of Hashut would be a good subtitle for it…
As advertised in the old thread, a new edition means a new version of my book, and so going into this renewed project, I had a few objectives in mind:
To create a usable version of my Chaos Dwarf army list in 8th Edition. Originally, I simply assumed I would compile a list of problems and incorporate changes in the original text, but it quickly became apparent that I wanted to do a lot more than this - 8th Edition is packed with new ideas, and almost every unit cried out to be changed in some subtle way. I knew I would have to virtually start from scratch with the rules.
To create a modern Armies book. I regard my original book as a good first attempt for an amateur. I think it looks pretty good, and most people seemed impressed by how much like a real Armies book it looked. But this wasn’t enough for me. I wanted it to be almost totally indistinguishable from something produced by the Games Workshop studio. The whole book would need reformatting to match the most recent Armies books.
With all these objectives swimming in my head, I knew that I had to go back to the drawing board. Much of the raw text could be reused, and I would of course use many of the same pieces of artwork and miniature photos for the colour section, but I essentially had to start a brand new document and treat nothing as sacred.
This is the twenty-fifth revision of this document.
I hope it goes without saying that this has been a labour of love. When I get involved in a project like this it can become something of an obsession - particularly if it seems like it may be one I can actually finish! So, while I welcome criticism and people pointing out blatant mistakes and typos, I would rather we didn’t get any questioning of some of the very basic assumptions that this book makes. There really is not much point in objecting to everyone getting Chaos armour, or customisable Daemonic Engines or the fact that I don’t go into detail about exactly what Hashut is (because guess what: it doesn’t actually matter). It should be clear from the unusually complete nature of this document that certain decisions were taken long ago, and they ain’t changing now. I’m not above making alterations, but let’s keep it to minor tweaks, okay? If there’s some fundamental stuff you dislike, it’s possible this just isn’t the book for you.
Goddammit, how the hell am I ever supposed to do my version after that!
Its awesome, the army showcase section is epic, really shows off CDO.
I still think a few of the troops are a little over-costed but it would take play-testing to find out. Competition in the Rares section is tight, but it makes sense.
I particularly like the ‘Late as Usual!’ rule for Wolf Riders :cheers
Much better than the Indy book too imo.
We also really need to do more BC-themed artwork. I’ve been avoiding them, as I can’t decide how to do their armour…
Page 22-23 (according to the program) is titled “Invention of the Dawi’Zharr”, but really, as you mention many things the CD have made, should it be “Inventions of the Dawi’Zharr”?
Also, not sure how I feel about your incarnation of the Sneaky Gitz, but then, my interpretation of them was always different from everyone else’s. Plus, no Lammasu? I do however enjoy basically the rest of the book in it’s entirety. I can assure you I will be using it as the basis of my army when I play.
Its awesome, the army showcase section is epic, really shows off CDO.
It was the easiest part to do, at least as far as finding content went. I could have shown off so much more, but there's a limit to how much you can put in these things. I had to strike a balance between it being some kind of "super book" jammed with an excessive amount of stuff just because there's no real upper limit to its size, and making it actually resemble a GW book and be a sensible size. As it is, it clocks in at exactly the same length as the Beastmen book, which is precisely as it should be.
I still think a few of the troops are a little over-costed but it would take play-testing to find out.
Yeah, I've done some testing myself and my gut feeling is most of the prices are "about right", but I've tended to err on the side of caution. The Immortals have gone up (and, crucially, can no longer be Core) because I don't know how good their Indomitable Defence rule really is now. My feeling is that a 5+ ward save on heavy infantry would be way too good if it was practical to field them as a horde, so I've made them prohibitively costly. Time will tell if I've cut too deep with that though.
I particularly like the 'Late as Usual!' rule for Wolf Riders
Well it's something a bit different, isn't it? I happen to hate the Animosity mechanic (probably because I always forget to roll for it...) and Treachery was really just a copy of that. What I wanted to do, and Indomitable Defence is also an example of this, is actually use the new rules in 8th Edition rather than retrofit a 7th Edition list. This book also contains the first recorded use of the Sea Creature rule, for example. I wanted this to be the first true 8th Edition Armies book and I believe it's succeeded in that aim at least.
Petrified Sorcerer and Palanquin: Probably best to clarify base size.
With the Cursed Axes, Immortals don’t get Parry, as they have to use their special weapon. If you want them to have Parry saves when using their Cursed Axes you need to mention this in their Cursed Axe rules.
Daemonic Upgrade “Great Horns”, you might want to clarify if this is +1S in CC, +1S in shooting, or both. I know it’s obvious to us, but you need to word everything to be reproof of rules lawyers.
Bull Centaurs: Double check this but IIRC, as Monstrous Beasts, BCs fear fire. If so, you’ll probably want to rule that out.
Black Orcs: Choppas, strongly implied, but not stated, that they would gain a parry from using a shield with choppa. Probably needs clarifying.
Ghorth the Cruel: Demonic Familiar: Clarify that the double cast over-rides the rule that you can’t. Same with the Simulacrum of Hashut magic item.
Taurus and Great Taurus: Just for Clarity, I’d recommend changing “Taurus” to “Lesser Taurus”.
Petrified Sorcerer: You’ll want to clarify that the points for the sorcerer and the unit carrying it are separate entities (or whatever) for army selection, given it’s unusual status.
With the Cursed Axes, Immortals don't get Parry, as they have to use their special weapon. If you want them to have Parry saves when using their Cursed Axes you need to mention this in their Cursed Axe rules.
Cursed Axes count as hand weapons, which is in fact mentioned in the rules. It just comes after Indomitable Defence which is a bit odd.
Daemonic Upgrade "Great Horns", you might want to clarify if this is +1S in CC, +1S in shooting, or both. I know it's obvious to us, but you need to word everything to be reproof of rules lawyers.
Fair point - it's on the list of amendments.
Bull Centaurs: Double check this but IIRC, as Monstrous Beasts, BCs fear fire. If so, you'll probably want to rule that out.
They're Immune to Psychology.
Black Orcs: Choppas, strongly implied, but not stated, that they would gain a parry from using a shield with choppa. Probably needs clarifying.
I think it says they're hand weapons, doesn't it? I'll check that though.
Ghorth the Cruel: Demonic Familiar: Clarify that the double cast over-rides the rule that you can't. Same with the Simulacrum of Hashut magic item.
I think that just by mentioning that you can cast twice it achieves this clarification, but I will look at the wording. Ghorth's rules got chopped up quite a bit when I tried to keep them on one page, so I'll make sure it all still makes sense.
Taurus and Great Taurus: Just for Clarity, I'd recommend changing "Taurus" to "Lesser Taurus".
That was the original plan, I just didn't want to echo the Daemonic Engines that closely. At one point, Heroes weren't going to be able to get Tauruses at all, in fact, and I still think that the way it works is not ideal. I don't want to just go back to boring old Great Taurus and Lammasu though.
Petrified Sorcerer: You'll want to clarify that the points for the sorcerer and the unit carrying it are separate entities (or whatever) for army selection, given it's unusual status.
Yes, that is worth pointing out. I went back and forth on this guy so much - at one point I think he was even going to be a magic banner! I like the concept so much, and I feel like he can work like a Grail Reliquae (which is what his rules are based on), but the whole "he can go in any unit" thing is a bit clunky. Maybe he could be a upgrade for a specific kind of unit? Or maybe he needs to explicitly be an upgrade for a unit (i.e. in a grey box like the special character champions)?
Thanks for the feedback, Slev - a lot of food for thought there.
Page 22-23 (according to the program) is titled “Invention of the Dawi’Zharr”, but really, as you mention many things the CD have made, should it be “Inventions of the Dawi’Zharr”?
I knew this would come up…
It’s “invention” as an adjective, not “invention” as a noun. As in “the ability to invent things”. So you would say, of someone who was very inventive, “he is a master of invention” or “his abilities of invention are very impressive”. It’s a slightly more archaic way of saying “inventiveness”.
The Lammasu is covered by the rules for upgrading Tauruses.
That is very nice… has anyone in the forum ever thought about trying to organize a “formal” print run? There are companies that specialize in magazine/journal length publications that specifically do low run productions. I’m not necessarily saying this exact version of CD rule book, but if we managed to get a concensus of say 200-300 people interested in one version, it might be something fun. I bring it up here since this is of the sort of layout quality we’d want to see.
My opinion is that of a relative noob, so I don’t want go to much into the actual rules as much as the more superficial aspects. These are thoughts I’ve had about a number of fan made books.
Lets start by saying I like the basic organization of your book as well as the way you’ve chosen to remove certain redundancies and stream lining others. That said, while I like the idea of “buildable” daemon engines, I don’t think its the sort of thing GW would ever allow, mostly due to the volume of options. The rules for each individual upgrade are fair enough, excessive combinations might be an issue. I imagine a simpler approach might be to make mortal engines that can recieve daemonic upgrades. For example, that an Earthshaker + Daemonic ability “A” and “B” becomes a Hellcannon… or where a Bazooka + “daemonic missile” upgrade becomes a retconned daemonic “death rocket.” Then all you need is some sort of generic less siege weapon unit that can be upgraded. I guess what I’m getting at is that between mortal engines, and lesser and greater daemonic engines there is a lot of overlap that begs to question the redundancy. That a mechanic of starting with “mortal engine” and simply making its lesser and greater daemonic status based on the number and type of upgrades given would stream line this. The upgrades that are exclussive to each “type” can simply have a rule that specifies the exclusivity.
The fluff that the Chaos Dwarf produce the juggernauts/bloodcrushers for Chaos Hoarde, make me think that in the very least it should be available as a mount choice for the lord and heroes. I think it gives the CD a more convention, yet characterfully unconventional mount choice. I don’t think they’d be a unit unto themselves but a mount option for the guys who build them seems appropriate.
Yes. As the fluff for that Upgrade kind of explains, the Horns are really just the most recognisable aspect of an overall larger and more robust costruction. It's profile is amended to reflect this.
That said, while I like the idea of "buildable" daemon engines, I don't think its the sort of thing GW would ever allow, mostly due to the volume of options.
I agree, although I don't think there are that many powerful combos. For example, the Hellcannon would actually be at the very top end of what's possible with this system (Greater Engine + Colossal + Doomfire + Ferocious + Ironclad + Warpfire if memory serves) so it's very hard to build something much nastier than what's already in a published Armies book. I'd be interested to see what potentially abusive combos people can come up with though!
As to their being some redundancy: well, perhaps, although Daemonic Engines are intended to cover a much broader spectrum than you might think. They can easily represent golems, or giant spider mecha, or flying fortresses, or even ships. Your examples (of war machine + daemonic, rather than daemonic + war machine, if you like) would not encompass all these possibilities.
The fluff that the Chaos Dwarf produce the juggernauts/bloodcrushers for Chaos Hoarde, make me think that in the very least it should be available as a mount choice for the lord and heroes.
It is - just build a Taurus with the relevant abilities. I left out the part of Ironclad that gives +3 armour save if it's not a monster actually, so I might put that back in.
Page 22-23 (according to the program) is titled "Invention of the Dawi'Zharr", but really, as you mention many things the CD have made, should it be "Inventions of the Dawi'Zharr"?
I knew this would come up...
It's "invention" as an adjective, not "invention" as a noun. As in "the ability to invent things". So you would say, of someone who was very inventive, "he is a master of invention" or "his abilities of invention are very impressive". It's a slightly more archaic way of saying "inventiveness".
The Lammasu is covered by the rules for upgrading Tauruses.
Thommy H
Oh, didn't see that (in regards to the Lammasu) and I wasn't sure with the invention(s) thing, hence the question mark at the end of the sentence :P
Thanks. And I just realised it’s not an adjective anyway - it’s an abstract noun. Obviously that English Literature degree was time well spent!
Re: Daemonic Engines and combos. The Upgrades are intentionally designed to be like magic items, and are priced accordingly. Plus you can only get 50 or 100 points of them. In most cases, Upgrades should be no more inherently broken than giving a Doombull magic items, or a Greater Daemon Gifts of Chaos. In fact, because you’re also paying for the ability to shoot like a war machine, giving your Engine loads of uber combat abilities is really detrimental.
Thommy, this is a very high quality work, and is much more professional than your old version. From your posts on CDO it is evident that you know a lot about the army and game mechanics. This second book is fantastic and I congradulate you on it.
It used to annoy me that you were such a fierce critic of the Indy GT book and from what I personally read from CDO, I attibuted this criticism to jealousy over the fact that the Indy GT book had been more widely recognised than your first work, despite the fact that I am sure you dedicated many hours in to writing your first version.
I ‘personally’ think that if you used you knowledge, skill and passion on Chaos Dwafs and worked with Kevin Coleman and Matt Bird to do an ‘official’ CDO CD army book that it would gain even more attention than either of the two schools would individually.
This new book is very high quality work and I think if you worked with a couple of other ‘knowledgable’ people on this site, you could get some serious recognition across the online warhammer world for your fantastic work. I mean the Indy GT book took off in Australia and became accepted in many tournaments. If you opened this work up for third party revision, I believe that the same could be said of your work too. Imagine that, people using a book you wrote to play in tournaments across the developed world, what a feat that would be!
I agree, although I don't think there are that many powerful combos. For example, the Hellcannon would actually be at the very top end of what's possible with this system (Greater Engine + Colossal + Doomfire + Ferocious + Ironclad + Warpfire if memory serves) so it's very hard to build something much nastier than what's already in a published Armies book....
As to their being some redundancy: well, perhaps, although Daemonic Engines are intended to cover a much broader spectrum than you might think. They can easily represent golems, or giant spider mecha, or flying fortresses, or even ships. Your examples (of war machine + daemonic, rather than daemonic + war machine, if you like) would not encompass all these possibilities.
Thommy H
The main redundancy was that you have "lesser" and "greater" engines. If you're going to make a unit so heavily bassed on upgrades, I think it makes more sense to keep it to one unit that uses that upgrade system to determine if its "lesser" or "greater." Regardless of that, almost all the units you describe as buildable with the rules are things that really should be Rare, further justifying a single unit entry.
All the things you want to represent are cool, but I think overly diverse "loaded" units that have excessive options tend to make people the most skeptical of the fan-written rules. Its just like the Chaos Daemons could have a "Daemonic Abomination" unit that let them build something crazy, because its justifiable by virtue of their fluff, that lots of bizarre daemons exists. They don't however, because its something that GW sees as allowing excessive diversity. I think its driven by a sentiment of institutionalizing count-as style units by creating a rule based outlet for them. The problem is to a degree, instead of creating a book with "X" units to choose from the variations in "engines" effectively allow for "Y" number of units. I think in this instance "Y" greatly outweighs the diversity of almost every other army. I think in an abstract way you've crossed a threshold for the quantity of units, that isn't into itself a problem, but that adding multiples of this type of unit makes worse enough to need attention.
The last time there was as much diversity was right before Daemons and Beastmen were spun out of Chaos. If this were a GW rulebook it would be setting itself up for the same treatment.
Things like "golems, or giant spider mecha, or flying fortresses, or even ships" are great characterful ideas, but might lend themselves better to the "Apocalypse" style game GW has planned for WHFB. The rulebook is about the "basics" and not the exceptions. The sort of unit you've written rules for, is inherently about the exceptions, the almost unique daemonic constructs of the Chaos Dwarves.
My reccommendation: Don't change the rules. Just lump "Lesser" and "Greater" Daemon Engines into a single Rare unit, placing the appropriate restrictions. If you do this, I think it makes the amorphous cloud of possibilities seem more concrete with less wishy washiness. It helps also since even a lesser daemon engine challenges other rare choices, which as a special choice makes it a no-brainer in the wrong way. As a Rare only option it just help accentuate their uniqueness.
It is - just build a Taurus with the relevant abilities. I left out the part of Ironclad that gives +3 armour save if it's not a monster actually, so I might put that back in.
Thommy H
I think it at least warrants a side note box that calls out the combonation that results in a Juggernaut.
Thanks for clarifying, aka_mythos - I absolutely take your points, and I think they’re valid ones. Looking back, the reason there are Lesser and Greater Daemonic Engines is because when I first worked on this list, there were no Mortal Engines. So Death Rockets were Lesser Engines, and Earthshakers and Hellcannons werre Greater, essentially. But Baggronor suggested something to represent bolt throwers, so I added Mortal Engines later and the decision has never been questioned since.
However, looking at it with fresh eyes, I do actually wonder why we have Lesser Daemonic Engines at all! Except to represent Golems, I’m not sure quite what purpose they serve. Just have a Daemonic Engine as a Rare choice would perhaps make a lot more sense, and maybe Mortal Engines could have access to a couple of Daemonic Upgrades anyway.
Hm. Food for thought again.
Saurus: thank you for the kind words. I won’t lie and pretend there isn’t an element of jealousy about the Indy GT list and now I think that, more than ever, I have the right to feel like there’s no particular reason for mine to have less recognition than theirs. But I was never looking for a colaborative project, and I didn’t think my ideas jibed that well with Kevin and Matt’s - plus it would always be their baby and, as satisfying as being a wetnurse is, it doesn’t compare to having a kid of your own. So you know, I’ll do what I can. I hope word of mouth can make this list a viable alternative too, but I won’t lose sleep over it.
if i can say a thing about “baby”, pros simply move to another project
and however things look good on paper, playtesting is what makes Indy CD so recogniseable, and if tournament players, whu also happen to be most active forum users group, look at it as normal armybook, then you have a succes,
anyway how many playtest games did you have against each army?
If you do end up combining Lesser engines with Mortal Engines, I think the options you keep should be least invasive ones. The Deathrocket for instance, the weapon or launcher is not the daemonic entity it is the ammunition. The same goes with the sentient ammunition. So thus its a contained daemonic attack fired from a non-daemonic construct. Ironclad is another one, the construct itself isn’t made daemonic just because of the addition of armor.
Ferocious and Great Horns are another two that don’t rely on the construct being daemonic. Though they might go their depending on if you want Golem-like engines more or less daemonic.
Other upgrades seem intrinsically daemonic or otherwise restricted to the rarest constructs and are dependent on size. Colossal, daemonic barrage, doom fire, flaming hide, foul excretion, grinder, hellbore, infernal breath, scourge of the skies, and warbarge, but I know most of those you already have restricted on the basis of the “Lesser” and “Greater” nature.
I think if you take out “lesser daemon engines” and lump some of that into mortal engines, you could get away with just making Golems their own unit. You’ll have streamlined the units and added a more defined characterization to both.
Gar, I played over 1000 games against every possible army, including several that haven’t been invented yet. I even played a game in outer space just to make sure the list was balanced at zero-G.
aka_mythos: I’m formulating a plan as we speak. I’ll probably allow Mortal Engines to get the ammunition Upgrades, while Daemonic Engines can come in units of up to three but will all have to pay for Upgrades out of the 100 point limit, and they all have to have the same. So units of three would have up to 30 points each, etc.
