[Archive] Indy GT Dwarfs of Chaos army book version 4 now up!

cornixt:

It’s all a bit academic now, doesn’t look like they are going to change it much if at all until after the tournament season. There are plenty of changes that could be made, and it was at a point when I had no space time to add my input.

Personally, I would have left space for mudane war machines and rewritten the Hellcannon rules (it needed a whole section in the FAQ, there were so many holes, plus it saves buying another book). I think that the “US 2 Infantry” rule for BC should probably be explained a bit more, pointing out that they are not cavalry in any way except for the base size. Just calling them “US 2 Infantry” can leave people open to saying, “but they are on a cavalry base, so they are cavalry according to the rulebook/this spell/etc”.

On the base level though, it is a 6th ed CD army plus the 3rd ed war machines and a bit extra. The lack of standard medium magic is not a fatal flaw, and it is far better than what was in the earlier versions. If this list is a success then at least it shows that the community can produce acceptable fan-lists without GW’s permission, even if GW publish their own CD army book to go along with all these Forge World rumours and supersede it.

The Brain:

The lack of standard medium magic is not a fatal flaw, and it is far better than what was in the earlier versions.

cornixt
How can you say that the lack of a hero level wizard is not a fatal flaw. It means that in a game of less than 2000 points you are missing a major element of the Chaos Dwarfs. Magic is a defining element that separates Chaos Dwarfs from normal Dwarfs. As far as the war machine rules being from 3rd ed, that is completely untrue. Ravaning Hoards brought every army into 6th ed. From that point the playing field was level. The lack of a current book only means that Chaos Dwarfs are a single eddition behind. The RH list is still very competative and can hold its own agaist new books ie. Warriors of Chaos and Vampire Counts. For me I will be keeping my 3 page RH list over this list which drastically changes the dynamic of the army.

Thommy H:

They’re two editions behind, purely in terms of rules: Ravening Hordes came out at the start of 6th Edition and brought the 5th Edition books forward, and since then almost every army has had at least two updates (even the armies still using 6th Edition books - like Wood Elves and Bretonnians - got White Dwarf updates before their current books).

In terms of background and style of army, they’re more like three or four editions behind, because White Dwarf presents: Chaos Dwarfs was released during 4th Edition, and the Ravening Hordes list is just an update of that and adds nothing new.

Incremental steps just don’t cut it, I’m afraid.

The Brain:

They're two editions behind, purely in terms of rules: Ravening Hordes came out at the start of 6th Edition and brought the 5th Edition books forward, and since then almost every army has had at least two updates (even the armies still using 6th Edition books - like Wood Elves and Bretonnians - got White Dwarf updates before their current books).

In terms of background and style of army, they're more like three or four editions behind, because White Dwarf presents: Chaos Dwarfs was released during 4th Edition, and the Ravening Hordes list is just an update of that and adds nothing new.

Incremental steps just don't cut it, I'm afraid.

Thommy H
It is not a matter of adding anything new. In 2000 when RH came out all the armies were on a level playing field. All of them had their rules updated for what was in the plans for 6th edition. Think of RH as 6th edition A, and the army book as 6th edition B. You have to remember that GW stated in the RH book that these rules were official until the army book came out. They further stated when 7th edition was released that all current lists are official until a new one comes out. Therefore The RH list is the 6th edition fully viable rules for CD and since no book exists yet it is still the viable list in 7th, so they are only one edition behind. Also not every army had something added new from RH to their 6th Ed Book. Dwarfs for instance if you read the 6th edition rulebook was very much the same as the RH. The Book just added fluff and the rules for runes, which most of them came were inspired from the 5th Ed book. So by your estimates they are an edition behind too, because they had nothing new from 5th to 6th.

Nothing has changed in their background since White Dwarf Presents. They are still the magic using, slave holding, evil dwarfs of the Darklands. As far as style that is a matter of interpretation. There has only been one model with CD produced since the old line, and that is the Hell cannon. Do to the fact that it was a new unit to the game and not a redo of an older model it is still unclear if the rest of the Chaos Dwarfs have changed. Also there is nothing to say that all the people of a nation have to look the same. In the empire the people of Stirland look far different from those of Middenhiem.

It is all done a few changes each edition. No army has ever changed this drastically between lists.

Thommy H:

I think the fact that the lists would be seperated, in rules, by about a decade and, in theme, by about fifteen years, means this is a unique situation. You keep saying “between lists” and “existing rules” as if Chaos Dwarfs have been trucking along nicely this whole time.

I can’t think of any other way to explain this, sorry. It seems obvious to me that a new Chaos Dwarf list would naturally depart significantly from the aging, out-of-date rules that currently occupy such a nebulous position in terms of “game legality”. Objecting because a list updates ancient rules too much seems like madness. Chaos Dwarfs have been by the wayside for so long that they’d be effectively a brand new army, and no assumptions can be made about how much of the old rules would be preserved.

But, hey, you’re entitled to your opinion. I just think you’ll find very few fan-lists around here that will please you if your main criteria for a good list is “looks mostly the same as the old one”. We all make pretty major alterations. And if that is your main criteria, then there’s little point adding your voice to the debate, because pretty much everyone makes the same sweeping changes.

The Brain:


I can't think of any other way to explain this, sorry. It seems obvious to me that a new Chaos Dwarf list would naturally depart significantly from the aging, out-of-date rules that currently occupy such a nebulous position in terms of "game legality". Objecting because a list updates ancient rules too much seems like madness. Chaos Dwarfs have been by the wayside for so long that they'd be effectively a brand new army, and no assumptions can be made about how much of the old rules would be preserved.

But, hey, you're entitled to your opinion. I just think you'll find very few fan-lists around here that will please you if your main criteria for a good list is "looks mostly the same as the old one". We all make pretty major alterations. And if that is your main criteria, then there's little point adding your voice to the debate, because pretty much everyone makes the same sweeping changes.


Thommy H
If you think rules from 2000 are ancient then obviously you have not been playing very long and your attitude shows you inexperience. This is partially why GW does not take Chaos Dwarf players seriously, because instead of making requests for a balanced list people keep coming up with over the top fan boy lists that give all the best things from both Warriors of Chaos and Dwarfs. Chaos dwarfs need to have a distinct feel and not a rip off of other army books. The best way to do this is to use the current rules, i.e. RH, as a starting point and allowing gradual additions not rewriting the entire army. The attitudes of we want all the good things and no drawbacks will; not help the cause gain the attention of the GW design team. With the Indy GT list the way it is you might as well play Warriors of Chaos because that is basically what it is with the exception of smaller bases, and the fact that they have a hero level caster.

PS.
Don�?Tt try and quote me for something I did not say.
ex. "looks mostly the same as the old one"

Thommy H:

I was playing when Chaos Dwarfs were still sold in Games Workshop stores, actually.

PS.

Do not make assumptions about people who disagree with you.

cornixt:

The lack of standard medium magic is not a fatal flaw, and it is far better than what was in the earlier versions.

cornixt
How can you say that the lack of a hero level wizard is not a fatal flaw. It means that in a game of less than 2000 points you are missing a major element of the Chaos Dwarfs. Magic is a defining element that separates Chaos Dwarfs from normal Dwarfs. As far as the war machine rules being from 3rd ed, that is completely untrue.


The Brain
You can fire off a lot of bound spells at that level. No miscasts is pretty nice.

Also, apart from the Daeth Rocket, earthshaker and hellcannon, the other war machines are meant to be represented by the 3rd ed models.
Ravaning Hoards brought every army into 6th ed. From that point the playing field was level. The lack of a current book only means that Chaos Dwarfs are a single eddition behind. The RH list is still very competative and can hold its own agaist new books ie. Warriors of Chaos and Vampire Counts. For me I will be keeping my 3 page RH list over this list which drastically changes the dynamic of the army.
I never said I'd be using this list myself, I just don't think it is as bad as you do. Nothing in the list is different enough to make your 4th edition models useless.

mattbird:

Hi, I would have joined in this earlier, but I just now saw it. I agree with some of TheBrains’ comments, and as always, try to get things worked into the book that I agree with. The solution of Daemonsmiths vs. Level 2 wizards I concede is not perfect. The community wanted to get alot of different things into the book, and we passed a threshold on characters. Most wanted hero/lord level wizards, bull centaurs, hobgoblins, daemonsmiths, and just regular chaos dwarfs (not to mention wanting Black Orc characters, Golem characters, and other stuff). In the list writing phase it was just too many characters, so we came to the compromise that made the most people the happiest.

I do disagree that a medium magic phase is not possible through daemonsmiths and bounds, and daemonsmiths are of course useful in other ways.

With the testing now officially over (today is the last day), I can say that the thing that I am happiest with has been the overall willingness to participate in the book from the general community. Any feedback at all is helpful, including scathing reviews and criticism. With such a wide range of views and wishes, it is of course impossible to make a “perfect” list that everyone is happy with. (There are certainly dozens of things I would do differently if this were MY list.) But hopefully you can come up with something that makes most of the players happy. I think�?“I hope�?” we have done that.

and! thanks very much for the compliments on the artwork. That’s been the hardest part. :slight_smile:

mattbird:

Does anyone know how many entries in the list actually changed completely (as in replaced by something different) between versions 1 and 4?

No entries completely changed or were added/eliminated, apart from some special characters that people suggested. We had a set of guidelines as to what to include from the beginning, and stuck to it.

The Brain:

I do disagree that a medium magic phase is not possible through daemonsmiths and bounds, and daemonsmiths are of course useful in other ways.

mattbird
How? He has two attacks, a magic sword and a bound spell. A Sorcerer can provide more magic and a CD hero can provide a better fighter. The extra crewman is nice but his re-roll is not significant, as dwarfs do not fail to many leadership tests any way. I just feel that the Daemon smith is trying to hard to copy the Dwarf engineer. In a way he is a lot like the dwarf engineer he is too many points and does very little for the army. He is a little pointless. If you take two daemon smiths you get two spells and two mediocre fighters. Instead if the list had a level 2 sorcerer you could take a level 2 and a hero. The spells would have a better chance of going off because they would not be bound and you would have a better fighter. I also do not see how if most of the developers wanted a level 2 caster, how the daemon smith won out. My local gaming group is going to try some play testing with a level 2 instead of the daemon smith and see which is more fitting to the army.

I would not call my comments a scathing review, however as a long time gamer of many different GW armies I see some problems with the list. That being said this list is a wonderful effort to be more creative with the army. Special Characters, fluff, organization, rule explanations all spot on. It just needs some more tweaks before it becomes tournament legal, otherwise my complements to everyone who worked on the list.

mattbird:

If you take two daemon smiths you get two spells and two mediocre fighters. Instead if the list had a level 2 sorcerer you could take a level 2 and a hero. The spells would have a better chance of going off because they would not be bound and you would have a better fighter.  

The Brain
One level 2 sorceror is not nearly as effective as 2 daemonsmiths, as the daemonsmiths get 2 bound spells at 5. The level 2 likely only gets off 1 spell (certainly only 1 if not using pool dice. ) Bound spells have a better chance of going off than diced spells, as they always go off. The other thing Daemonsmiths provide, which is vital these days, is fear, giving the CD blocks immunity to fear.
I also do not see how if most of the developers wanted a level 2 caster, how the daemon smith won out. My local gaming group is going to try some play testing with a level 2 instead of the daemon smith and see which is more fitting to the army.  

The Brain
More people wanted the Daemonsmith than the level 2, and testing has proven out that the magic phase is just as effective. Still, feel free to use the book in any way you wish! If you or your local group would like to use level 2's as well, there is no reason not to. :) Just note that in the GTs where the list will be allowed, it will be the list as published. AFAIK, anyway...
I would not call my comments a scathing review

The Brain
Oh, I know- your comments were not those I was referring to. :)
however as a long time gamer of many different GW armies I see some problems with the list. That being said this list is a wonderful effort to be more creative with the army. Special Characters, fluff, organization, rule explanations all spot on. It just needs some more tweaks before it becomes tournament legal, otherwise my complements to everyone who worked on the list.

The Brain
thanks very much! I think you may have unfortunately caught wind of the project a bit late. After 3 months, we're just wrapping it up now.

Grimstonefire:

I’ve deleted a number of posts here, let’s try and keep this civil and on topic please :wink:

Thommy H:

Actually, the only posts you deleted were the civil ones…

The Brain:



mattbird
The other thing Daemonsmiths provide, which is vital these days, is fear, giving the CD blocks immunity to fear.

The Brain
Don't you think that this is a little unbalance when you already have a unit of toughness 4, leadership 9 dwarfs in chaos amour? Doesn't it also negate the idea of taking the more expensive Obsidian Guard unit which can achieve the same thing without a character?

Border Reiver:

No, a Daemonsmith is quite expensive as a character, and I’d need to have 50 warriors in a unit before I’d compensated for the cost of the character over simply making the unit Obsidian Guard.

The Brain:

No, a Daemonsmith is quite expensive as a character, and I'd need to have 50 warriors in a unit before I'd compensated for the cost of the character over simply making the unit Obsidian Guard.

Border Reiver
Dude what you just said makes no sense.

Thommy H:

He’s saying that using a Daemonsmith to make a unit of Warriors immune to fear is actually more expensive than taking Obsidian Guard to achieve the same thing, so it doesn’t unbalance that option.

Grimstonefire:

It’s probably really obvious, but I can’t see the place where it says the daemonsmith makes anything immune to fear?

Thommy H:

If they cause fear, they make the unit with them immune to fear.