Thommy H:
It was quite enough to validate RH, to let friends play with you
By that argument, all the 6th Edition books are still legal - after all, the current rulebook has
those stats in the back, for the most part...
Look, I'm not getting into an either/or argument here. If that was what your friends needed to convince them that Chaos Dwarfs were "legal" then whatever but the fact is that the Ravening Hordes list has occupied a nebulous (at best) area of "game legality" since it was taken down from the GW website. There is, legally speaking (and I mean that in the real sense, not the game sense) no way to play Chaos Dwarfs now because you can't get the army list without going to a website that's infringing GW's IP. That's not a change for 8th Edition - it's been the case for a long time.
Please bear in mind that I have literally no opinion about this except for supporting the truth rather than implications that there's some kind of conspiracy going on. I've always maintained the stance that whatever your opponent agrees is the only definition of "legal" that matters, so it's actually irrelevant whether GW endorses the RH list or not.
Also, it's worth remembering that they a) have no duty to support a discontinued army and b) no particular reason to endorse an army list written for a free pamphlet two editions ago.
AssurBahniZharr:
I appreciate very much your explanations,
all You write is quite clear, and I think, correct.
I’m conscious now that probably I was in dreamland.
This is important because it was ONLY my personal feeling, background, idea…call it as you like, mostly due to the place i live and to my gaming community.
I didn’t want to start an argument too, no way, it was simply my “italian warhammer player state of mind” which is of course different (let me say surely wrong) from the rest of you.
I think this will help us to communicate better;)
Thank You!:hat off
Thommy H:
It’s cool. I just get a bit touchy when people make out that it’s a black and white situation because, invariably, I end up getting cast as a hater or something. It’s in my nature to be pragmatic and logical, and that can come across as looking like I’m “against” Chaos Dwarfs. I’ve been accused of “endangering the cause” by others, which I think is very silly.
Willmark:
Will we get to vote on which rules CDO arbitrarily deems to be official then? Because you're only the biggest community because we, the members, made you it.
Because I know I'm not alone in having serious problems with the Indy GT list, and I'm not at all convinced making a sweeping statement about supporting it over Ravening Hordes or another fan-made list (because that's all it is) is a positive step. This is not an issue with devotion to rule or RAW, but an issue with thinking we shouldn't support something that not everyone thinks should be supported.
Just saying.
Thommy H
Indy GT is an example, not what I think we go forward with. Personally I still use RH.
cornixt:
Will we get to vote on which rules CDO arbitrarily deems to be official then? Because you're only the biggest community because we, the members, made you it.
Thommy H
The staff are not CDO, the members are.
The points you've raised are exactly why this site has not endorsed any fanlist previously. It's always going to be a contentious issue. I expect a great deal of debate if we do go the RH2 route, even to keep it 99% the same. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
The CD stats in the back of the rulebook has always been the quick "They're in the rulebook, the list must still be valid" position, which was always several levels higher on the scale of having opponents accept them than if they weren't, even if several key steps were missing between the list and officialdom for 7th ed.
Hashut’s Blessing:
Well, if CDO does support a list, it would be one that the community agrees upon (at least majoratively).
I would propose that we simply do as GW are doing and create a PDF that updates the rules of the RH list to be 8th edition useable (not actually changing the list, just changing the things that MUST be changed for the list to be physically possible to actually use in the game). The Ravening Hordes list was the last one that was legal and so I feel it should be updated to fit 8th edition (without updating the list to make it “better” or what-have-you), over creating/endorsing/updating a fan list…
Just my opinion, but I agree whole-heartedly with what Thommy H has been saying (P.S. I wasn’t aware that people thought you were anti-Chaos Dwarfs… I hope it helps
Grimstonefire:
The CD stats in the back of the rulebook has always been the quick "They're in the rulebook, the list must still be valid" position, which was always several levels higher on the scale of having opponents accept them than if they weren't, even if several key steps were missing between the list and officialdom for 7th ed.
cornixt
We will know within a week if the stats are in the 8th book, but from what I hear they may not be.
This obviously is a blow for people who used that to argue about them being valid still.
But, at the end of the day, people who refuse to play friendly games against an updated previously official list are not worth playing against at all imo. It's their loss.
People who have no other choice will have to adjust and use dwarfs etc.
Willmark:
Funny thing: thinking about the Indy GT List, the reason it got done at all is in all probability because there is no way we all would agree on a CD list.
Thommy H:
I think it got done because Kevin just wanted to do it and his history of having done some White Dwarf articles lent him enough pull to actually get it some recognition. My impression of its genesis is that he wasn’t aware there was an active Chaos Dwarf community when he started the project - which may or may not have been detrimental, depending on how you look at it.
Personally, I’d rather have seen a book of that status emerge from CDO, not be written by an outsider and I honestly wince a little bit every time I see the Indy GT get attention on Warseer because I think, “that should be something we did.” But it’s precisely because we’re a diverse and passionate community that makes it impossible for us to create a book we can all agree on. So, for our part, I’d rather CDO make it clear that it endorses no fan list above any other, and promote them equally in the same way as models, background and artwork.
Willmark:
You seem to be under the impression we are rushing to endorse “X” when in fact we are not. CDO hosts many armylists, books etc. We do not endorse anything other then the RH PDF list.
To be quite honest I don’t see this changing as last time there was no agreement what should be changed for the RH list…
In short any project CDO takes to create a list is not going get done. Hence the reason why people go it alone and create their own. While I don’t play the Indy list I’ve come to appreciate the effort for what it is; because things done in comitee rarely if ever get done, let alone finished.
Thommy H:
I’m not arguing with anyone, Willmark, I’m just reiterating my views which CDO agrees with as far as I know.
cornixt:
I wonder if the lack of usabilty for the RH in 8th edition (if that is the case) will actually be a good thing for us as a site. We can create our own RHv2 list with only tiny adjustments to the original to make it playable and we’ll be able to host it ourselves. Since the basic idea is to keep it almost exactly the same, there is very little room for argument like there is over the “full armybook”-style lists. Maybe we’d need 4-5 polls for the issues, depending on 8th edition, but it won’t be a very big undertaking at all and there could be a reasonable consensus.
Thommy H:
Cornixt, you made that 7th Edition style version of the RH list - would you consider letting us use that as a base for creating this theoretical 8th Edition version? Just to save us doing the work all over again…
cornixt:
Certainly. Now I just have to remember where I put it!
Thommy H:
I have the PDF, but obviously we’d need the original document to edit.
Willmark:
Not always true, PDF to text is very doable.
mattbird:
why would the new rules invalidate the RH list? I am not aware of any 8th ed issues that would make it unplayable…
Thommy H:
Given that every Armies book is likely to receive an FAQ when 8th comes out (much as all the 40K Codecies did for its 4th Edition), I would think it’s fair to say that a little clarification for a set of rules two Editions old might be useful. We don’t know, for example, how cavalry will be defined in 8th. Things like the fleeing and pursuit rules are rumoured to be different. Army selection is looking to be totally different. What about magic items? I don’t doubt that Ravening Hordes will work in a basic sense, but this edition seems to represent such a shake up of basic concepts that it would be a worthwhile project to create an FAQ of our own.
Willmark:
I was thinking along the same lines, Direwolf while not official is widely used. I think since we are the biggest CD community we can speak to what the changes of the game (if any) effect said list.
Baggronor:
I am not aware of any 8th ed issues that would make it unplayable...
The magic items would need clarifying/adjusting for one thing. The Chalice will need to be modified to retain its value (such as it is) for a start, and the new magic items in the brb may need to be vetted appropriately for CDs.
Also the use of Ld for things such as cutting down fleeing enemies in 8th could mean the CD combination of dirt cheap hobgobs and Ld 10 generals could be rather better than is reflected in the points values. And so forth. Plus, there's just some stupid stuff in RH that we could use this opportunity to clean up.