Thommy H:
Just feels like it lacks a certain extra character or direction...
Baggronor
Yeah, this is what I was kind of reaching for, but couldn't put my finger on it. This list
works, and if that's all you're interested in then it's fine. But when I get my hands on a new army book, I want my existing army to feel like a new one, or what's the point? I believe this is the design ethos of GW at the moment - to give every army a shot in the arm, hence controversial stuff like ASF for High Elves.
The things I liked I wanted to see more of. I don't want to see new ideas tacked on to stuff that already exists. What's new is largely good, but it's just added to things that don't work that well and aren't that interesting. In fact, one of my rules of thumb when reading a new Chaos Dwarf list is to check the blunderbuss rules - if they're pretty much identical to the current rules, I'm a little sceptical of the list as a whole. Slay those sacred cows, man!
(Quick nitpicky note regarding the blunderbusses in this list, btw: they're dropped by a point because you need five models per rank? That's crazy. They're still just as good, especially since nobody ever fielded them in ranks of four anyway).
ryanamandaanna:
I think part of the issue is that they WANTED it to be accepted. Sure they could add all sorts of cool character development pieces that fit into the varying “concepts” of Chaos Dwarfs, but how readily would it be accepted by people who don’t PLAY Chaos Dwarfs? Just because they write something that WE would love doesn’t mean that the gaming community as a whole would find it reasonable or fair; particularly if Chaos Dwarf players started winning all the time because of it.
I think they took the safer, and possibly wiser path of not going too far out on a limb in the interest of putting out something that everyone would be at ease about. :cheers
jolpis:
this… is the best news i’ve ever heard of!
the Earthshakers shake range should be increased.
and sneaky gits survived! get a lap around special rule for em
mattbird:
I think they took the safer, and possibly wiser path of not going too far out on a limb in the interest of putting out something that everyone would be at ease about. :cheers
ryanamandaanna
This was the intention- build build on what exists already, as opposed to redoing the whole from scratch.
I think the new Daemonsmith units and fluff add a lot to the list, personally, compared to the Rav Hordes list. I'm not sure what direction people thought it would take?
Anyway, this is the first draft list, and I'm sure much will change once feedback is incorporated.
kerbak:
i just make a quick view, and looks really nice,
even so Im agree that earthshaker needs more range,
also, it will be need a hero mage choice
Congratulations its a great job and a very good start
Method:
daemonsmith is the hero mage/runesmith choice…
Thommy H:
I think part of the issue is that they WANTED it to be accepted. Sure they could add all sorts of cool character development pieces that fit into the varying "concepts" of Chaos Dwarfs, but how readily would it be accepted by people who don't PLAY Chaos Dwarfs? Just because they write something that WE would love doesn't mean that the gaming community as a whole would find it reasonable or fair; particularly if Chaos Dwarf players started winning all the time because of it.
I think they took the safer, and possibly wiser path of not going too far out on a limb in the interest of putting out something that everyone would be at ease about. :cheers
ryanamandaanna
That doesn't make any sense. This list being safe doesn't endear it to the non-Chaos Dwarf gamers, it panders to
us, the existing players of Chaos Dwarfs. It just preserves your model collection with a new list: it doesn't
do anything. All your old units still work, they still cost the same and they still do pretty much the same stuff they always did. Blunderbusses are a case in point: of all the things in the Ravening Hordes list, Blunderbusses are the most complicated to explain and the least intuitive to use. They're like nothing else in Warhammer. But we all like them, right? So the rules stay the same.
You have to shake things up, or what's the point? If these independent tournaments want to allow Chaos Dwarfs, just let the Ravening Hordes list in. This list is essentially "Ravening Hordes with some new units", so what's the difference?
I just don't see what it brings to the table. I applaud the effort and the sentiment, but this list is only more interesting than some random newbie's first attempt at a Chaos Dwarf list because it has some kind of quasi-official endorsement.
Seriously: rock the boat a little, guys. I want to feel like I have a new army, not that my existing army has the option to include a few new units now.
Method:
well thommy, that being said, what was so new about alot of the armies? ok, the h elves got always strike first, and darkies got the super hatred going, but the dwarfs, empire? they play EXACTLY like they always had… unless you think the shieldbearers and oath stone was that out of the box…
the armies that are radical departures are also the ones that happen to be over the top…
the warriors got a shrine and eye of god, and forsaken… they play pretty much the same they always had, the lizards got engine of the Gods… but no more skink spam…
i just dont see your point on this, i see a new way to do magic, a couple ways to use new/old minatures, and expanded rules on outdated units…
too much of a deviation would be a bad thing IMHO. besides it’s only the 1st draft, so things might change…
on a related note, what ideas were you hoping to see? i am interested on all ideas of chaos dwarfs, and you stories are second to none…
Thanks, my 2 cents
Ancient History:
Ah, man. Maybe it’s good the wiki’s down at the sec. I’m not up to doing the tactics on this list.
mattbird:
Thommy, while we’re interested in feedback, we are not trying to drastically change the nature of the Chaos Dwarf army, and turn it into something entirely different. It’s not like we’re doing a Fishmen army book. I can’t think of any WHFB army book revise that has made the kinds of changes you are talking about.
I think adding SIX new troop types, new character classes, a whole new magic item section and a whole new way of doing magic is really already pretty drastic…
In terms of what it brings to the table that other fan lists have not�?"you are correct. The only thing this brings is that it will be thoroughly playtested, and quasi-official.
wallacer:
The 4 dispel dice came as a bit of a shock, but apart from that it seems good. A few things could be clarified (such as the status of Bull Centaurs as infantry or cav) and some of the magic item descriptions could be made a little clearer. Not sure about some of the point values either but that’ll become clearer with playtesting.
Overall I like the list a lot. The fact that it is evolutionary rather than revolutionary seems to me prudent given the purpose for which it was created.
Gaixo:
on a related note, what ideas were you hoping to see? i am interested on all ideas of chaos dwarfs, and you stories are second to none...
Method
Thommy's working on a new armybook, too. Top thread in the Rules Development section. It's more innovative, but it's obvious that the group writing
this book is most interested in coming up with a safe list that is capable of clearing whatever administrative hurdles these tournaments have in place.
Alric:
Thommy's working on a new armybook, too. Top thread in the Rules Development section. It's more innovative, but it's obvious that the group writing this book is most interested in coming up with a safe list that is capable of clearing whatever administrative hurdles these tournaments have in place.
Gaixo
I believe Matt said he was doing it for the Indy GT's and is interested in getting some feedback for such to help.
Hi all, we are working on a new Dwarfs of Chaos army book that will be tournament legal in some Indy GTs in North America, including the Colonial, Conflict, and Crossroads.
Triton:
With some of the text in gibberish, (I thought I was reading some sort of latin slang for a while until I re-read the first page) making it a little unclear and flowing at the moment.
I like a lot of new troops, immortals and golums. Not sure on the Jugger especially at T7 maybe T6 with a 3/4+ ward.
But kudos to those involved and those others which are also writing up lists anything that alerts those in the Emperors throne room in Nottingham is a good thing.
Merchant:
The Rabble unit, is it a kinda slave unit or is it also Hobgoblins - I’m not sure, I get it right???
Can anyone help me with this one, please ? 
Thommy H:
well thommy, that being said, what was so new about alot of the armies? ok, the h elves got always strike first, and darkies got the super hatred going, but the dwarfs, empire? they play EXACTLY like they always had... unless you think the shieldbearers and oath stone was that out of the box....
the armies that are radical departures are also the ones that happen to be over the top...
the warriors got a shrine and eye of god, and forsaken... they play pretty much the same they always had, the lizards got engine of the Gods... but no more skink spam...
i just dont see your point on this, i see a new way to do magic, a couple ways to use new/old minatures, and expanded rules on outdated units..
too much of a deviation would be a bad thing IMHO. besides it's only the 1st draft, so things might change..
Method
But we're talking about an army that hasn't had any official new material in the better part of a decade and which even then was just an update of an army list written 15 years ago. A lot's changed in Warhammer in that time, and I just don't think it's enough to say "here's the same list with some new stuff". The Ravening Hordes list works just fine, so why create a new list that uses that as the bulk of the material? Just use Ravening Hordes if you're so content with it.
Sorry, I don't want to turn this into a debate or anything, but you wanted feedback, Matt. My feeling is that it's fine. It works. It satisfies most people without being too controversial. But it's a first attempt, and bears the hallmarks of that. Hopefully you'll tweak and change as newer drafts emerge, and I hope you'll have the guts to rethink a few of the basic premises of this list instead of just closing loopholes and tidying up.
Perhaps I need to understand why this list is being done better? You wanted something legal for indy tourneys, but presumabley you also want to get people excited enough about Chaos Dwarfs to use it, don't you? If so, I think you need to be bolder. But if all you want is to give existing Chaos Dwarf players some rules to use then, if anything, you've been
too bold. Why change anything at all if your only requirment is legality and playability? Just get the tourneys to give Ravening Hordes (with some minor tweaks) their stamp of approval.
Grimstonefire:
Thommy does have a fair point, if the point it just to have an official list that is playable an updated RH list would suffice.
This list however is clearly designed to encourage more people to put together lists than would normally want to enter with the RH list (updated or not). So it had to be different enough to be interesting, but not so radical that none of the current players would want to use it. It may not be exciting, but it is playable. It’s a tough balance but I think you’ve done quite a good job. As far as fan lists go it’s probably interesting to a lot more people than some, but not as interesting as others.
You will have to do the same with the background though so it makes sense. Nothing too radical, only an update of the WD Presents. So my fluff would not be appropriate really for this.
It may be worth pointing out that this list will have no impact on when or how CD are done, so if anyone was thinking it might it’s only leading to obvious disappointment.
Groznit Goregut:
With some of the text in gibberish, (I thought I was reading some sort of latin slang for a while until I re-read the first page) making it a little unclear and flowing at the moment.
Triton
Thank Hashut someone else said something! I thought I had a different download! Yeah, the Spanish sprinkled throughout it is really odd and frustrating.
Overall, I think it's good for what they were going for. They wanted to be able to have a tournament capable CD list. It's got all the old greats in it and updates the RH list. It adds in some new twists that could be interesting.
I see how everything is going to a kind of bound spell system for magic with CD's. The casters are priests that have bound spells (pwr lvl 7?), the demonsmith guys have demon weapons with bound items, and a number of magic items that are bound spells. So, there is no casting. I kind of like regular mage dwarfs. I think the rolling of a "1" is harsh. That means three "1's" will be pretty easy to roll. I see a lot of CD casters dying.
Why change the Chalice of Darkness to make it one time only?
mattbird:
With some of the text in gibberish, (I thought I was reading some sort of latin slang for a while until I re-read the first page) making it a little unclear and flowing at the moment.
Triton
Thank Hashut someone else said something! I thought I had a different download! Yeah, the Spanish sprinkled throughout it is really odd and frustrating.
Groznit Goregut
It's funny, this has come up very often :o
If you read the first page, at the bottom, it explains what that text is. I guess I should have made the explanation more prominent. I'm so used to working with placeholder Lorem Ipsum text (I'm a graphic designer) that I didn't even think twice about it.
mattbird:
A note on feedback, to all:
If you want to give specific feedback, please do it at the forums we set up. Discussions here are fine, of course, but none of this is going to reach the people who are writing it or the playtesters.