[Archive] Chaos Dwarf Regiment of Renown Contest


Ok I voted, and if I ever run into some more cheap horses I might even convert them to Khazrak�?Ts Bull Brothers, I ca always use them as additional handweapons i think and i might be able to use them in a friendly game (:


I don’t know about Luca Gozzadini and Khazharn Firestorm, they remind me too much on Gotrek and Felix… in evil ^^. But on the other hand, they are, what I expect from a fantasy world, they are not so much stereotyp. Of course, why should every Dawi-Zharr just hand around in Zharr-Naggrund, they can make allies to other people or… just travel or whatever ^^

Thommy H:

They were featured in a five-part story in the first five issues of Word of Hashut, should you want to get to know them a little better (though the fluff for their entry now gives away the story…). And yes, they’re an evil twist on Gotrek and Felix.

Gar Shadowfame:

Ward save, a lot of fire+magical attacks, etc, this is what looks like unbalanced concept.

And as i remember the contest, the balancing of unit entry was important as much as concept, so i judged the entries as for balance, and coolness, but i would like to promote moderation in game design so i voted for most balanced, sadly there werent any unbalanced in minus so too week to be fielded only owerpowered.

Balancing isnt only points, balancing is metagame issue.


Ward save, a lot of fire+magical attacks, etc, this is what looks like unbalanced concept.
Magical Flaming means nothing vs the vast majority of troops, all you're doing is paying for abilities that don't make any difference against 90% of enemies (not to mention the Special slots which could be spent on things like Death Rockets and Bolt Throwers, which would likely be a better buy versus most opponents). What it does do is give CD and DoW players a much needed helping hand option against some of the current armies and their powerhouse units which can ride roughshod over those 2 armies (Abominations, Wraiths, regen bunkers, Hydras, etc).

Gar Shadowfame:

armies are not ment to be equal against same odds, if they were, then this game would be called “chess”

magical flaming means the rule is made purely to cover some kind of weakness, which is wrong by definition, because armies fill in certain slots which are characterised by game developers by naming the strenghts and weaknesses.

with regards


Thommy H:

armies are not ment to be equal against same odds
I'm almost completely certain that they are.

Gar Shadowfame:

then i am afraid you are wrong, different armies are designed to have different chances against same enemy


I would have to agree… different armies don’t necessarily have the same chance of winning against all opponents, you really have to cater your force to your adversary, but sometimes it is difficult to win, even if you know what you are up against, and you have taken all the options meant for you to be able to counter your opponents strengths… I’ve played with a night goblin army quite a bit, and it is very difficult to win, especially if you are fighting elves… which they fear, or dwarfs, which hate them… now, yes, you are going to say well in an orc and goblin army you must take orcs for some muscle… but that’s not mandated… I always enjoyed the fun of squigs hopping around or going wild or whatever… for me playing is more about havign fun, meeting challenges, and enjoying some quality time with friends/like minded folks… over winning… If each side was supposed to be equally balanced then as Gar said, you might as well play chess… that is the fun in playing a game which allows choices in what you can field… some things work, some don’t… some things are overpowered against some opponents, yet get wiped out easily by others… it’s all part of the fun!


armies are not ment to be equal against same odds, if they were, then this game would be called "chess"
No, it would still be called "Warhammer", it would just be really boring as all the army choices would be exactly the same. It would still have army selection, points values, dice and deployment, so would have an awful lot more variables than chess. This would be a relevant point, had the armies in question actually received up to date books with which to establish a set of fair odds, or at least a book written within the same edition. As it happens, they did not.
magical flaming means the rule is made purely to cover some kind of weakness
No, it means the rule is there because it makes a surprising amount of sense in an army called 'Dwarfs of Fire". Its called background, you know, that thing that underpins the entire hobby? The fact that it also allows a completely outdated list to compete a little better versus current books is just a nice bonus.

Thommy H:

then i am afraid you are wrong, different armies are designed to have different chances against same enemy

Gar Shadowfame
Different armies in the sense of different combinations of units, characters and war machines, perhaps. So an army consisting of Dwarf thunderers and cannons will generally beat a Wood Elf army that doesn't take advantage of their manoeuvrability - just a load of Glade Guard units, for example. So a well chosen army will beat a poorly chosen one, which goes without saying. But Dwarfs do not have a better chance of beating Wood Elves per se. It's not like some armies automatically trump some other armies - that's madness. Everyone would just play whichever one is "best", and they self-evidently don't so in theory points costs are intended to ensure that any given army has an equal chance to beat any other given army before the dice start rolling. That's the idea. Otherwise why bother assigning an all-encompassing "quality" value to anything?

Now, this may not always work, but that's at least the aim. Are you actually suggesting that, since Chaos Dwarfs are supposedly low tier compared to other armies, anything that makes them better destroys the delicate balance of Warhammer?


Gar, I was hoping you had entered this so I could at least have some idea of what you think is balanced. Most of the entries aren’t bad at all, lots of flavour in special rules - like RoR units should have, otherwise they are pointless. For a strength there is a weakness.

Gar Shadowfame:

hardly any weaknesses, as i said all but 1 entry are overpowered which makes them by definition a bad composed work, because good work would have cool story behind it AND balanced rules, i cant support a unit with cool story and unbalanced rules, because it childish.

Armies are different, and they are designed to have strenghts and weaknesses, purposely designed, wood elves dont have fire attaks, so if on wood elf forum someone created a contest and someone created a ror with fire attacks to compensate this lack (because there are hydras over there) then would you think that it is ridiculous.

If a unit is a must have choice because it is so good, then it is broken and doesnt deserve a vote, at least not mine,

I didnt enter any competition cos i had exam session, and i put a hoby on my shelf, i might convert a sorcerer for GH.

Thommy H:

Wood Elves have a magic weapon that gives the bearer flaming attacks, actually. That’s by-the-by though: yes, armies have strengths and weaknesses - a Wood Elf regiment of renown (to continue our theme) that consisted of static artillery or a steam tank would be a bad idea, because it plugs a blatant hole in the army. That’s poor design. But a Chaos Dwarf regiment with flaming attacks? How is that going to break the army? A Great Taurus already has flaming attacks, and they have a magic item that grants immunity to them - if nothing else, you can’t say it goes against the theme.

But, bottom line: you don’t have to like all the entires. You certainly don’t have to vote for one if you think they all suck, but it might be nice if that’s the way you feel if you just keep out of the thread altogether. This is just a fun contest that everyone who’s entered has enjoyed - we’re not professional games designers and we’re not writing something which is supposed to stand up to intense scrutiny. I’m not going to defend my entry to the hilt against your comments and I doubt anyone else will either, so why bother? Maybe they are broken - no one’s forcing you to use them, or to vote, or to even click on the link and read them.

So please, politely, in the nicest way possible, shut up.

Hashut’s Blessing:

Gar Shadowfame: All armies in Warhammer are intended to be balanced. I.E. All be at the same level of power. In practice, this often isn’t the case, but some armies do have certain strengths over others. E.G High Elves versus and all-goblin army. but that can be counter-balanced with choosing the right force.

As for saying that they’re all overpowered and are there to fill holes in the army, that’s the IDEA of DoW and RoR units: they are they for you to counter someone’s strength against you. As I said before Chaos with cannon and Braganza’s Besieger’s covers their lack of shooting weakness, but that’s the point of the units.

In terms fo the flaming magical attacks let’s look at that: there are probably as many/more things immune to fire than flammable. Flammable things are mostly mummies and treemen. Immune to fire: anything in dragon armour, armour of the furnace etc. They do have the advantage of negating a regen roll, but how many things have regen? Trolls and the odd character, hydras and that’s about it (from the top of my head)… Magical attacks means that they can hit ethereal models: spirit hosts, banshees and wraiths for the most part…

They are slight advantages, but they are compensated for.

In response to your issue of metagaming: any Regiment of Renown is going to change how a list will play, unless it’s similar to what you have (Empire taking Braganza’s Besiegers: why bother? They can already have crossbows).

So, rather than saying all of the entries are childish, consider the attempts to balance them, make polite suggestions of how to tweak them to be more balanced (I know my entry wasn’t and I plan to rectify it as soon as voting is over) and be a constructive member of the forums in regards to the works of others, particularly since you have consistently berated them without producing your own, despite repeated requests for them to see what your opinions are when applied.

Now, before ANYone replies, please consider if your post is actually on topic or in response to this discussion. If it is to this discussion, it does not belong in this thread. If it’s on-topic, please post to your heart’s content (well, sticking to forum rules, lol :P).

I’d also like to say now: excellent job on all entries to my competitors and good luck to us all :smiley: I just hope I can make mine work when this is over :wink:


I highly recommend that you read the forum rules and mission statement. If you want to criticize entried please feel free to do so. Flinging around “childish” will earn you some face to face time with me via PM. I’d rather like to avoid that, your choice.

This site welcomes all points of views, is welcoming of commentary. What it is not: being rude to other members or their efforts. If you want to do that there are plenty of other sites that engage/tolerate/encourage such behavior. If you want to tell someone how they can improve then do so. That is what CDO is about.

In short, this was/is a fun contest. That was it’s intent and one that everyone (so far) seems to have had fun and enjoyed it except you. If it’s that disturbing or upsetting I suggest not commenting on it.


not to be a suck up, but just as a general kind note:

I enjoyed reading the entry’s and dindnt find much to wrong with them in all. at the end I voted for the one witch i found was the most fun.

Gar Shadowfame:

thommy, be kind enough not te tell me to shut up,

i think i said it earlier

publishing= judgement, someone doesnt like judgement, dont publish, dont expect to be praised for a bad work.

When the contest was anounced i noticed that there a mention about game balancing.

The fact that all home made game designers (besides 1) didnt read about balancing is not of my concern.

My concern is to write truthfully what i think,

now again adding unbalanced rules to good idea is childish because it lacks perspective, it is a feature and if someone feels offended that beacuse they acted childish i call them childish then it is not my problem, play adults and i call you adults. Is that a problem?

And please dont stuff the forum rules in my face. I am not insulting, i am strict, i have certain standards, and i am upholding them, i cant say about bad or simply not well though job “good job” is this what admins expect me to do.

To tell about everything i see “oh how nice!! <3 xddd” i am not emo.

And please dont get all “selfrighteus” for point you out lackings in your work, if there are lacking.

Now some examples, why RoR bulcentaurs have twice the amount of BS than normal bull centaurs do, with insane number of shots, why someone couldnt make same story with a simple hangun? if the answer is “cos it would be weak” then this person doesnt deserve to win the contest. Or more precisely "this person’s WORK doesnt deserve to win the contest.

Why some unit has a WARD save, how many units in whole game have ward save ( demons are exception cos they lack normal saves on units). Why half of the entries have fire atacks that will counter regeneration, or magical ones, why fire has to be magical? "would be normal atack be weak? shall i continue?


Umm… Because it’s a repeater handgun?  Like the Outriders have?

I’ll grant you the BS thing, BS4/5 was probably more than they needed for a single special slot.  Believe it or not that was a typo on the BS4, then I just added one thinking it would be ok.  In hindsight I think 3/4 would have been better.

if someone feels offended that beacuse they acted childish i call them childish then it is not my problem, play adults and i call you adults. Is that a problem?
No, it is not a problem if we treat all members the same.  Play like a mature adult Gar and we will all treat you like one.  :wink:

The rules are there for all members to obey, reminding someone to actually take a look at it (which I presume you didn’t) was a friendly warning which Willmark didn’t have to do.


My idea on balance is that two units of the same points are equal in a fight.

Everything has a point value to them, even though GW seems to forget that when creating certain armies.

I have no problem with people creating over the top units because they would logically be point sinkholes in the army, as long as it is possible for another unit of equal points to beat it 50% of the time.

Remember Bilbo’s (and The Doom Seekers webzine) rule #1, the game is supposed to be FUN.

A single unit with a Ward Save in an army WILL NOT break the game.

I liked the units presented, and I wouldn’t have any issues going against them. If any proved to strong for the points, edit the point values or the abilities. :smiley: