[Archive] In other News (good, but not GW)

Archive [Archive] Chaos Dwarf Discussion
21

hashuts lil helper:


Hm. I was actually hoping that what we had here was someone who knew what they were doing just writing a list, throwing it open for playtesting and then tweaking accordingly. Right now, this seems to be just another collaborative project to write a new Chaos Dwarf list in which everyone sticks their noses in and no one is pleased by the result. It's nice that it's (theoretically) going to be endorsed by a group running tourneys, but what makes it any different from all the projects we've run on this very website? Why will design-by-committe succeed here when it's failed elsewhere so often?


Thommy H
A.  Not written by committee.  Written by one man. (one who has written for GW in the past, although not a "career" game designer)  He is asking for ideas, but in the end it is Kevin Colemans baby.

B. Endorsed by Indy GT organizers, and allowed in the Indy GT's

C.  Playtested for balance by some of the top tourney players in the US, not little Jimmy playing against his buddies no butcher ogre list. (not that I'm implying that you are little jimmy but some of the ideas on the site are somewhat out there)
22

Thommy H:

A. If he needs to get other people to give him ideas about what to write, then it’s designed by comittee.

B. Which have no inherent authority, so are irrelevant to the issue.

C. Balance is not the issue.

Hey, good luck to him, but I was kind of excited about this and now I’m not - why is he mining for ideas as if this has never been done before? He’s not the first guy to want to make a new Chaos Dwarf list: there are ideas for all sorts of new units and improvements for old units all over the internet. A cursory glance at this very website would give him enough material to fuel a total revision of the list. I’m not suggesting he crib ideas from us, but why does he need to solicit suggestions when there’s already a player base out there who’ve thought long and hard about this? I thought the situation was that we had an experienced rules writer creating an army list based on some of the concepts that Chaos Dwarf players have in mind instead of some random dude who seems to have no idea where to even start.

Right now, it’s just another collaborative project. It might turn out fine, but I don’t see how it’s any more valid or interesting than the dozens of others I’ve seen.

23

cornixt:

The more I have looked into this, the more uneasy I feel. At first I was thinking, great, Kevin Coleman has come up with some good stuff in the past and it will give our army some more publicity. Now it looks like a collaboration, and the largest CD community hasn’t even been properly contacted. Most of the people involved don’t seem to even know about the fluff in the Grudgebearer book. I don’t have a problem with the current idea for the list (RH list but with the O&G units replaced by the 3rd ed machines), but if GW aren’t secretly working on a CD armybook then there is a half-decent chance that this will end up being the official (even if not legal) list for our army, given Coleman’s history of having army lists published in White Dwarf. The support by several tournaments is what makes this stand out from any other fan list and gives it an air of authority over everything else. This list won’t flounder and die even half as quickly as everything else, or at least until GW do an armybook for us.

It couldn’t come at a worse time for me; I’m swamped at work and home, I definitely won’t be able to get in on any of the collaboration, even keeping track of it won’t be easy for me, and even if I checked it weekly I’d probably only ever read the results of important discussions.

24

Thommy H:

Someone on that forum can at least bring up Immortals and show him my rules in WoH. It would be a shame to see a list that was written completely in a vacuum, ignoring the work done by all the other Chaos Dwarfs fans over the last few years.

I remember when I was at uni, studying English, and we were required to make sure our essays contained quotes from published academic works. It used to annoy me, but recently I figured out why it’s necessary: if you know something about a topic, it’s annoying to read something about it that’s written as if the author is the first person to come up with these ideas. You feel exasperated that they haven’t done their research, and are feeling all smug for being so clever when it’s something that people have actually been saying for ages.

So yeah. That’s kind of how I feel about this.

25

Tarrakk Blackhand:

Just put a Chevy V8 in it an it will be fine! :smiley:

26

dedwrekka:

From the conversations in there (Few though they are) the book is being written by the main guy, then it’ll be play tested, and the few suggestions will be taken into account. Doesn’t seem any more community written than GW army books, though it is a more open community.

From what’s been said, they’ve already looked over this site, and picked a few ideas. I think they wanted to avoid the bias of being a ravening fanbase and having so many of our own ideas on what we think would be cool, and go for something that would be a bit more balanced.

27

Thommy H:

I don’t think there’s anything unbalanced about our ideas - the inclusion of a mildly elite unit like Immortals, or a generic slaves unit in place of Greenskins wouldn’t be in the least bit overpowered, and they’re two of the first things you see in almost every fan list around here. It’s a bit of a fallacy to assume that the players of a given army produce house rules for it that are automatically overpowered - as if we’re biased towards making the army we play as powerful as possible as sometimes.

Hopefully this list will incorporate some things that have been done elsewhere, that’s all I’m saying. He isn’t the first guy to boot up his computer and give writing a Chaos Dwarf list a bash, you know?

28

Servius:

Heres my point with the list… I see 1 major problem.

That is simple. Sure its legal at the tournament but knowing my personal area If I was to attend and am forced to use this fan list… Where am I supposed to practice for the tournament… My local and I know many other areas that are the same doesnt allow fan lists to be played. regardless of their legality in other areas. Personally, While the endevour is noble in its idea. I find it rather disheartening that personally I wouldn’t be using it.

29

dedwrekka:

I don't think there's anything unbalanced about our ideas - the inclusion of a mildly elite unit like Immortals, or a generic slaves unit in place of Greenskins wouldn't be in the least bit overpowered, and they're two of the first things you see in almost every fan list around here. It's a bit of a fallacy to assume that the players of a given army produce house rules for it that are automatically overpowered - as if we're biased towards making the army we play as powerful as possible as sometimes.

Hopefully this list will incorporate some things that have been done elsewhere, that's all I'm saying. He isn't the first guy to boot up his computer and give writing a Chaos Dwarf list a bash, you know?

Thommy H
I understand, but you also have to understand that your (in a general sense not specifically you) units and your (again, in general) rules may not be how others want to do it. It may also seem quite balanced in one list, but placed in another be entirely overpowered.

He's not the first to write a list, but he is the first with some amount of backing.
30

Willmark:

Yeah but here is some of my thoughts: they are taking great liberties with a list with ZERO input from us then looking to have it posted here for feedback perhaps? I’m unclear on many if the why’s and I also don’t understand: why not contact us? Is this list input from ACTUAL chaos dwarf players?

Then there is the fact of hey CDO simply throw together some art and help out simply because it promotes Chaos Dwarfs. That’s all well and fine, but it seems like the thought there is they design it, throw out the ravening hordes list and oh by the way help us with the playtesting and the art after they have designed it with no input from us.

Apparently I’m being offered up for help/art/designs what have you, on their site when no contact to me let alone any other staff.  

Am only the only one the sees this as… We are good enough to help with the grunt work but apparently can’t design rules?

Hrmmm.

31

Thommy H:

I understand that. But, like I said in my analogy about writing essays, it’s a little bit grating to see someone come up with ideas like they’re the first one to ever consider making a Chaos Dwarf list. I would like to think he would familiarise himself with the expectations of the community he’s writing for if nothing else. Someone should at least link him to Word of Hashut or something.

32

dedwrekka:

Someone should at least link him to Word of Hashut or something.

Thommy H
We have.
33

Willmark:

I don't think there's anything unbalanced about our ideas - the inclusion of a mildly elite unit like Immortals, or a generic slaves unit in place of Greenskins wouldn't be in the least bit overpowered, and they're two of the first things you see in almost every fan list around here. It's a bit of a fallacy to assume that the players of a given army produce house rules for it that are automatically overpowered - as if we're biased towards making the army we play as powerful as possible as sometimes.

Hopefully this list will incorporate some things that have been done elsewhere, that's all I'm saying. He isn't the first guy to boot up his computer and give writing a Chaos Dwarf list a bash, you know?

Thommy H
I understand, but you also have to understand that your (in a general sense not specifically you) units and your (again, in general) rules may not be how others want to do it. It may also seem quite balanced in one list, but placed in another be entirely overpowered.

He's not the first to write a list, but he is the first with some amount of backing.


dedwrekka
And the reverse is also true he may very well write a list that others are not happy with and does not reflect how others think the list should be. I'm not sure why that isn't readily apparent.
34

Servius:

I did notice this… I think that being told at a tournament that i have to use a fan list instead of the GW produced legal list in order to play is a little out of line… Its like making your own VC list and saying “Sorry, you cant play the VC book and you have to use this to participate” I see this whole endevour doing less to encourage the use of the army than simply saying you can use the RH list does.

Not that im saying that i discourage the writing of this fan publication… on the contrary. But that as far as the tournament its BS… What is the motivation for it… Is there something wrong with the RH list in their opinion?

35

cornixt:

I’m worried that the list will end up becoming the only one available, and it will not be any better than what we have now. Maybe it is needless worry, since we have a limited and semi-unofficial (wholey unsupported by GW now, even the “This is legal in 7th edition” text is gone) list at the moment, as long as they don’t make it terrible it won’t be any worse than the current situation. This is going to grind at me for a while.

36

hashuts lil helper:


Someone on that forum can at least bring up Immortals and show him my rules in WoH. It would be a shame to see a list that was written completely in a vacuum, ignoring the work done by all the other Chaos Dwarfs fans over the last few years.

I remember when I was at uni, studying English, and we were required to make sure our essays contained quotes from published academic works. It used to annoy me, but recently I figured out why it's necessary: if you know something about a topic, it's annoying to read something about it that's written as if the author is the first person to come up with these ideas. You feel exasperated that they haven't done their research, and are feeling all smug for being so clever when it's something that people have actually been saying for ages.

So yeah. That's kind of how I feel about this.


Thommy H
I'm sure Mr Coleman will/has looked at some of the other things that have been done prior to his take on CD's, but as much as what you write is sacrosanct to you, other views of the army are no more or less valid than your own.  I'm sure that he is well acquanted with the fluff of the CD.  

Nobody will force you to use any of the rules that he comes up with.  However, they will end up as legal in a subset of American tournaments, and as such may spread beyond that.  Whether you choose to use any of it is entirely up to you, but I cant help but see your response as analogous to one person messaging another to say what a nice day it is and being told to sod off since its raining where the second person is.  

I am Happy to be able to use some of the models that I have been collecting and using since the early 80's in a large competitive environment.

I like the rules and articles that Kevin Coleman has come up with previously.

I am happy that one of the large gaming groups on the east coast is doing something that gets CD a more modernized list, that whether or not it is more competitive will at least be more compatible with current rules.

I would prefer GW do it, but lacking this, something newer, that I can use in the GT's that I attend will do just as well for most of my needs.  I'm sick of having rules that don't fit in the current environment at tournies.  The Current CD have a hard time handling  many things that are in the newer army books, and when I do win people decry how broken BB's and  earthshakers are.

In no way am I saying that this will be better, or more knowledgable that some of the things produced on this site.  What I am saying is that for these for relatively major GT's that it will be "official".  Whereas none of the stuff on this site is.  If you play in these tournaments, who have a certain amount of credibility in the tournament world, that is whats important.  

For that matter, there is no guarantee that if GW were to do them again, that their rules would be as well written or vetted as those on this site.  In fact, having seen some of what has come out of GW I would say it's improbable.
37

dedwrekka:

I don't think there's anything unbalanced about our ideas - the inclusion of a mildly elite unit like Immortals, or a generic slaves unit in place of Greenskins wouldn't be in the least bit overpowered, and they're two of the first things you see in almost every fan list around here. It's a bit of a fallacy to assume that the players of a given army produce house rules for it that are automatically overpowered - as if we're biased towards making the army we play as powerful as possible as sometimes.

Hopefully this list will incorporate some things that have been done elsewhere, that's all I'm saying. He isn't the first guy to boot up his computer and give writing a Chaos Dwarf list a bash, you know?

Thommy H
I understand, but you also have to understand that your (in a general sense not specifically you) units and your (again, in general) rules may not be how others want to do it. It may also seem quite balanced in one list, but placed in another be entirely overpowered.

He's not the first to write a list, but he is the first with some amount of backing.


dedwrekka
And the reverse is also true he may very well write a list that others  are not happy with and does not reflect how others think the list should be. I'm not sure why that isn't readily apparent.


Willmark
It is, but I also realize that there hasn't been one produced list that everyone agrees on, fan made or otherwise. When someone makes a list, it's going to be different. There will be some similarities or ideas taken from other lists, but I'm not going to say it wont have differences, or that it will be accepted by everyone.
I did notice this.. I think that being told at a tournament that i have to use a fan list instead of the GW produced legal list in order to play is a little out of line... Its like making your own VC list and saying "Sorry, you cant play the VC book and you have to use this to participate" I see this whole endevour doing less to encourage the use of the army than simply saying you can use the RH list does.

Not that im saying that i discourage the writing of this fan publication... on the contrary. But that as far as the tournament its BS.. What is the motivation for it.. Is there something wrong with the RH list in their opinion?

Servius
It's out of date, it's not even GW legal in many of the GW run tournaments. It's time as a legal list ended a couple years back when the US GTs (Which were the ones that FAQd it and kept it for a time) stopped allowing it. By that time many UK GW tourneys had already said it couldn't be used.

In addition, it has problems with being translated into rules three or four
editions later. Bull centaurs are a good example.

Actually, every reason we have for wanting a new army book, are reason why they would want to make one.

I'd point out that for every person saying we need to be consulted for input, I've only seen a couple actually offering it in their forums. Go! Say something! Make your voice heard! You shouldn't wait for someone to ask you if you have an opinion or idea! Since when has our community every been about that?
38

Thommy H:

t as much as what you write is sacrosanct to you, other views of the army are no more or less valid than your own.
Which cuts both ways. So.
Whether you choose to use any of it is entirely up to you, but I cant help but see your response as analogous to one person messaging another to say what a nice day it is and being told to sod off since its raining where the second person is.
How is that not valid? What would be wrong with me telling someone to stop bragging about how lovely it is when it's not nice weather where I am? Your analogy just proves my point!
If you play in these tournaments, who have a certain amount of credibility in the tournament world, that is whats important.
And what about the people that don't play in tournaments, but might have to watch this list spread as the only "semi-official" list out there when it's no more valid than any other fan list.

Do you see the issue here? If this is just some random guy with no connection to the Chaos Dwarf community putting his own spin on this army, and his vision becomes the accepted norm for Chaos Dwarfs, that's going to be a shame.

Now, in all seriousness, I hope this will be good, I hope it will raise the profile of Chaos Dwarfs and I wish Kevin luck with his endeavour. But I'd also like him to stop by and give us a nod because an awful lot of people have worked very hard in this community to keep Chaos Dwarfs alive. Understand that it isn't because of "my work" that I feel slighted (I've offered only a few units and ideas here and there - no full army lists) but because of the work done by some of our veterans here. If he wants some feedback and ideas, we already have a community set up to do that. I would prefer, if this is to be a collaborative project, him not to be working in isolation on some new forum, that's all.
39

dedwrekka:

Well, since there are so few of us on their boards:

Re: WELCOME and FAQ!

Postby Dedwrekka on Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:29 pm

Just a question, but since these could end up being known as the “Semi-official list”, think the Chaos Dwarf community can get a run down of it? We’ve a bit of a stake in it if it becomes quite popular and wide spread. :smiley:
Re: WELCOME and FAQ!

New postby mattbird on Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:40 pm

You definitely can, and your input will be more valuable than others’, I think. Apart from Kevin and I, NOBODY has seen it yet, including the Warmonger Club. I totally intend to make an announcement at the 2 main CD sites as my first 2 stops once it’s ready.

I probably should have shut these boards down until it was ready to go in the first place, but now we’re just racing to get it out.

40

Thommy H:

Fine by me then. I’d be happy to provide feedback and even playtest the thing if it’ll fit my model collection!