Credit to Thommy for inspiration on the daemonic Engines rules.
--------------------------
My comments that I posted up in a separate thread on the boards:
Hi all, I just wanted to chime in and share some thoughts with everyone.
Playtesting can be a rough process, even in the most ideal situations. People will each have individual expectations and opinions that they bring to the table, and it is impossible to have a group 100% agree on every detail of project like this. The last 2 or 3 weeks have been an excellent example of that, as even getting “internal” agreement on this new version has taken time, patience, and compromise.
While I cannot say that I 100% agree with everything in the new V4 list, I do 100% believe that it is head and shoulders better than any previous version. It is better than the Ravening Hordes list. And, without any changes whatsoever, I think it is a list that would be well received at tournaments. These were the goals we set out on when we began the project, and I truly think we have achieved them, and in many cases, surpassed them.
Yes, there are some things that are probably debatable, and they have been argued back and forth both on these board and offline, between the community testers and the organizers. In the larger scheme of things, if a unit is miscosted by a few points, or if the abilities of another unit do not seem to be all that great, these are minor details that at the end of the day do not spell success or failure of the project, regardless of your view on the specifics.
With that in mind, please consider most of the V4 list final at this stage. There have been thorough debates, and decisions made on some units that you may not be 100% happy about, but do know that your feedback has been listened to and taken into account.
On things like Golems and Sneaky Gits, these are final decisions at this point. You may love them, hate them, or be “meh” about them. That’s the nature of playtesting. Neither unit is a key to the success or failure of the list. A decision has been made on each. It’s time to move on and focus on other, more important parts of the book.
Moving forward, please focus most of your thoughts and testing on the new Daemonic War Machine rules. It is late in the process to have made such a change, we know. But we hope that it will make for a better, more unique and flavorful army list. No other army has such a unique rule on such a scale, and it’s a great opportunity for us to really make a mark. The rule is wholly supported by the current fluff, spread throughout multiple army books and novels, and the basic rule is familiar to most players through exposure to the Hellcannon and Lizardmen Spinodons, etc.
So just to end, thank you again for your continued involvement, feedback, and support!
Credit where it’s due, you guys have made something that will appeal to a wide audience, and looks high quality. Achieving both these things is a job well done.
There are a few minor things that bother me, but overall it looks quite balanced imo.
First time I’ve looked at the list for a while. Looks okay, nice that a lot has been simplified in a good way. I wonder if a summary page would be helpful for opponents who probably haven’t even heard of the list before, let alone played it. Just the stats and very brief rules description would do.
Any ideas when the first tournament using this list will be? The usage had expanded by a few when I last checked.
The Hobgoblin Chieftain rules are potentially confusing. CD warriors and Anihilators count as Rare when he is the general, but does everything else stay the same?
Nice that the big magic issue has been simplified. I can’t see a big problem with it since the Daemonsmiths are magicless apart from their bound spell. It pretty much removes the option of a traditional magic-heavy army due to the lack of available power dice, but that isn’t exactly a bad thing for a tournament army. I always find it odd to see the CD magic user Lord with only Ld9. I don’t see Astragoth getting much use either since he is rather subdued from magic, which is a shame. I always thought of him as a being like a Vamp Lord.
I think to be honest for a tournament where not many people will have played against these rules before they are probably too complicated. That’s not to say that they are not good, or balanced, just that having to explain a whole book to each new player who hasn’t bothered to read it each and every game could get tedious?
thanks guys. It’s been a long, rough road to get to where we are at, and I’m happy to be close to the end.
I think to be honest for a tournament where not many people will have played against these rules before they are probably too complicated. That’s not to say that they are not good, or balanced, just that having to explain a whole book to each new player who hasn’t bothered to read it each and every game could get tedious?
Grimstonefire
It’s a potential issue, to be certain. We will be emailing the book to all of the attendees to each event a month prior, and posting related info on the events’ websites, so hopefully that will ease the issue.
In games at the club where I have played it against those who never heard of the book, explaining it hasn’t been a problem. Granted, that’s a small segment of people.
First time I've looked at the list for a while. Looks okay, nice that a lot has been simplified in a good way. I wonder if a summary page would be helpful for opponents who probably haven't even heard of the list before, let alone played it. Just the stats and very brief rules description would do.
Any ideas when the first tournament using this list will be? The usage had expanded by a few when I last checked.
The Hobgoblin Chieftain rules are potentially confusing. CD warriors and Anihilators count as Rare when he is the general, but does everything else stay the same?
Nice that the big magic issue has been simplified. I can't see a big problem with it since the Daemonsmiths are magicless apart from their bound spell. It pretty much removes the option of a traditional magic-heavy army due to the lack of available power dice, but that isn't exactly a bad thing for a tournament army. I always find it odd to see the CD magic user Lord with only Ld9. I don't see Astragoth getting much use either since he is rather subdued from magic, which is a shame. I always thought of him as a being like a Vamp Lord.
cornixt
�?� we'll add a summary page to the back I think, as the current rulebooks do.
�?� first one to allow the rules is the Crossroads GT, about a 60-person tourney, at the end of September. I know Allan Mcnab will be using the list at a minimum. I won't be bringing it myself til Conflict, which is in January.
�?� hobbo chieftan rules, just those 2 units move slots. I'll check the wording though.
�?� astragoth seems pretty solid to me? lvl 4 wizard, plus a bound, plus he's fighty. I'm never that concerned with special characters, apart from avoiding monstrosities like that dwarf one, or the spawn guy in BoC.
The wording was okay for the HG Chieftain, it just seemed unintuitive so I thought it may have been different to how it was intended.
Astragoth was the only special character I looked at so far, I generally don’t bother with them. He just lacked the uber magic and wasn’t fighty enough.
So, is this version the "approved" army list? Ie: close to finalized? Or is there still a lot of churn on it?
GRNDL
It's pretty close to final at this point. A few things may be tweaked-Daemonsmiths may either get a second spell, able to cast one a turn, or the ability to default (possibly, but not likely, both). The upgrades to Golems are being tweaked and tested, and I think there's a couple of other niggling issues here and there, but that thing's probably close enough to done you can start getting an idea of what your final army could look like. I'm bringing a CD army to Crossroads at the end of September and am reasonably confident at this point any tweaks I make to my list are going to be in the neighborhood of less than 100 points out of 2250. I've currently got an entire regiment of Warriors drying from their black wash, after that I get to paint fun stuff like Bull Centaurs and Golems for a bit. :cheers
Excellent. If that is true, I’m going to see where my miniscule amount of CD models gets me pointwise. I’m kinda hoping that my GH #whatever it was entry (the golem) fits in the rules and boosts my point count over 1000, so I can claim a freakin CDO medal after almost 2 years of abject failure! :P Oh, and maybe play a game or two.
Now that I have had a chance to read through the list I first want to say good job. The art work and the organization are great. That being said I have a few problems with the list:
1. There are now hero level magic casters. There is the deamonsmith, but he just has a single bound spell. No other army in Warhammer has a lord caster but no heros. This does not follow the consistancy of the game. Magic is a big part of what separates the chaos dwarf from regular dwarfs. With out casters their just evil dwarfs. Many people play games of less than 2000 points, and with this list then will have no magic. In standard size games (2000-2500) people will have to pick between having magic or none at all, thus waisting all the great effort you guys put into the other lord options that will never get used because people want magic in a CD army.
2. The rules for the death rocket are not very clear. It is good that it works like a cannon, but how do you resolve models hit in the line. Are they hit with a S10 like a cannon or a S3 like the templet at the end.
3. The Earthshaker is worthless. Its hard enough to hit one unit with a templet let alone multiple. The rdius affect in RH is much better.
4. The whole deamonic engine thing is not a good idea. On the hell cannon it makes scense, but there is no indication in the fluff that all CH war machines are have a bound deamon in them. You also give no indication if the machine can fire if it fails the test.
5. The Hell Cannon should not be in the list period. In the Storm of Chaos book it clearly says that they were commissioned by Archion for his army. Once again their is very little to show that they are a regualr part of the standard CD army.
6. It is not right to give the CD the extra Dispell Dice. That is special dwarf feature. The CD cast magic and have become affected by it that is why they lost that ability. Just like the deamonsmiths (ie. dwarf engineers) you can’t have everything the dwarfs have. There needs to be defining separations between them. Example Dark elves do not have strike first because they are not high elves.
7. The rules for Zhatan the Black make him a cheap ripoff of Thorgim Grudge Bearer. He has some nice qualities, the magic snotling awsome, but he is too close to a character that already exists.
You guys have made a awsome job, ther are just a few things that you should rethink before you begin playtesting or using these rules in a tournament. The art work is really cool.
4. The whole deamonic engine thing is not a good idea. On the hell cannon it makes scense, but there is no indication in the fluff that all CH war machines are have a bound deamon in them.
This may have more to do with the fact that the rules for the Earthshaker and the rules for the Death Rocket were written about a decade before the rules for the Hellcannon. It's not exactly an intentional difference and, more to the point, by this argument nothing new could ever be justified.
In the Storm of Chaos book it clearly says that they were commissioned by Archion for his army.
And in the Warriors of Chaos book is says they're used by other mortal armies too. They're evidently common enough to show up as often as Giants, Warshrines and Chaos Spawn anyway.
You guys have made a awsome job, ther are just a few things that you should rethink before you begin playtesting
I think you're a little late to the dance: this is, as the thread title suggests, Version 4 of these rules and they've already been playtested quite extensively, I believe.
This isn't my book, I should point out (though I am getting credit for the "all war machines are Daemon engines" concept, which is why I just defended it), but I'll stand up for it on the basis that feedback is great, but disagreeing with editorial and cosmetic choices is probably not useful criticism. Saying "I don't think this feature is good" or "I'd do this particular thing differently" is neither here nor there - evidently the authors didn't feel that way, and their opinion is as valid as yours. What you can do is comment on whether the ideas that are already included are balanced or fun. Anything else is just opinion.
It’s been an interesting few months playtesting the rules, and the changes have been minor in some cases and not so minor in others (like the last minute change to the daemonic posseesion for all the CD war machines). Magic, the Daemoneater and the Blunderbuss rules hav been MAJOR points that people disagree on, but at the end (playtesting ends tomorrow) it should be a product to be proud of.
4. This isn't my book, I should point out (though I am getting credit for the "all war machines are Daemon engines" concept, which is why I just defended it), but I'll stand up for it on the basis that feedback is great, but disagreeing with editorial and cosmetic choices is probably not useful criticism. Saying "I don't think this feature is good" or "I'd do this particular thing differently" is neither here nor there - evidently the authors didn't feel that way, and their opinion is as valid as yours. What you can do is comment on whether the ideas that are already included are balanced or fun. Anything else is just opinion.
Any time someone creates fan fiction, which this list is, and puts it up for public display they need to expect people to give criticism. I understand it is necessary to come up with new things in order to create a distinct army list. However that being said, I have been around this hobby for a long time. Every time GW rewrites a book there are some things that stay the same and some new things that are added. An example is the cannon or bolt thrower, these war machines have changed little in the past 30 years of the game. In this list virtually nothing about the chaos dwarfs has stayed the same from the previous list. It is a good idea to clarify rules but what has been done in this list is the rules for the earthshaker/death rocket have been changed completely to something entirely different. Another major flaw in the list is that magic has always been a part of chaos dwarfs. In this list you can�?Tt have any magic in a game less than 2000 points. The daemon smith is a cool concept, but it does not make up for the lack of a caster. No other army has only lord level casters. Even orcs have level 1 and 2 shamans. This list is a great piece of �?ofan fiction�?� but until it shows more continuity with the prior list and other warhammer books it will be just that. When an authentic GW book is published there are things that remain the same and some new things that are added, but the essence of the army stays the same. There ways some hard work put into this list, but all in all it appears to be more of a fan boy �?owhat I want it to be list�?� rather than a well thought out balanced list. Still just my opinion
Does anyone know how many entries in the list actually changed completely (as in replaced by something different) between versions 1 and 4?
I think it is very few, maybe none? But then I have not been following it closely since V2 onwards ( I keep forgetting to read it, then have other things to do).
Valid points, if it wasn't about fifteen years and three editions since the Chaos Dwarfs had a book (the Ravening Hordes list was just bringing the rules from that book into 6th Edition, without adding anything significant). I think there's no question that any book released for Chaos Dwarfs now would not be a small evolution from WD presents: CD, because that book was from a time when Warhammer was totally different. Most races have had at least three significant updates since that time period. How could a relatively minor step possibly bring Chaos Dwarfs into line with 7th Edition?
