[Archive] LOA - The 'One' List to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

Kronus:

I have noticed a huge shift against unofficial dexes and the RH list in my current meta and tournies generally. While FW latest entry brings with it overdue recognition as well as a fresh line of top models it appears to be decimating all other accepted CD list.

In my area where CD are admittedly rare only LOA gets played and any tourney that used to accept RH and other lists have since changed to LOA only. Big Tournies are doing much the same with Adepticon going with LOA to exclusion of others. I have a friend who has been using RH and then Thommys list without issues at the LGS only to find himself the subject of a minor inquisition as to why he is not using LOA in last few months so much so that he’s completely gone over to save himself the hassle of having to explain what RH is and quell suggestions its a abusive fandex.

What I am trying to say are all the other dexes literally dead in the water now that FW have made a official list that is broadly accepted by the wider gaming community? Have the commonly accepted lists of 2011 already become antiquated and socially unusable?

Thommy H:

Depends. I think if you’re playing pick up games and tournaments, you have to expect FW rules to be more acceptable than a decade-old pamphlet or something you downloaded from the internet! Speaking only for my own rules, it was certainly never my intention that they be used against anyone sight unseen - no matter how balanced and fair I believe my work to be, it’s always going to be a “fandex” and I wouldn’t play a game against a complete stranger who turned up with an army based on something similar either.

But I would hope that, within gaming groups and between a couple of friends, everyone would be able to agree on using something unofficial if it was felt by all to be the best option for whatever reason. I never wrote my book to be a stopgap - it was done solely because I wanted to do it and thought I had the ability to make a good job of it. I still think it’s a viable alternative to LoA and I hope people who used the last version will use the updated version that’s on the way, but I always knew it would be a harder sell for opponents in this post-Tamurkhan world.

Kronus:

Personally I tend to use yours or LOA to the exclusion of others within my gaming group because I find they fit nicely into the current rules set and don’t feel like I am playing some antiquated list of bygone years. I consider RH a bit too antiquated, its hard to claim in all seriousness that a 2 page list included in a supplemental book years ago now that has not been officially updated since has very much relevance today. As for the Indy GT List, while I can only commend the work involved it too it has also become increasingly antiquated. Its a 7th edition rulebook that never bothered to make the transition to 8th in part as the writers had no interest in supporting it. If the creators have little interest in using the rules any more I frankly cant see much use to bother myself.

Thommy H:

From what I understand, Kevin and Matt were both really turned off by 8th Edition and chose not to continue to develop the project. I always felt the Indy GT was very “gamist” because it was written for and by tournament gamers. It had a lot of rules that depended on quirks of 7th Edition - quirks that only competitive gamers knew or cared about - and when 8th rolled around and changed some of those arbitrary little things, it kind of scuppered the book.

I think the LoA list is also a little mired in 7th Edition, but I think this is more to do with lead time than anything else - there are some units that work well, and some that don’t, and you can almost see how some were written a while ago and some were put in more recently, and therefore reflect more current trends. The command group prices are a classic example - some are 10 pts across the board, as per 8th Edition (with a handful of exceptions), and some have the musician at half cost, or prices obviously derived from the cost of rank and file troops, and there’s no real rhyme or reason for which is which!

I think LoA would have worked better if it had been a small selection of units that could be taken in WoC armies (which I believe was the original intention), and there just happened to be sufficient units to make a pure Chaos Dwarf army if you really wanted to. As it is, a lot of stuff appears to have been retro-fitted to the work that was done during the early part of the project. It actually looks to me like they realised there was a market for entire Chaos Dwarf armies half way through writing it and quickly made plans to add the missing units from Ravening Hordes and some magic items (note that almost all of them are the same ones from RH - with the exception of the two that let you represent Zhatan and Astragoth…).

So, personally, I think it’s a shame that LoA is seen by some as the only way to play Chaos Dwarfs because it feels incomplete to me. The Tamurkhan book actually goes to great lengths to brand their Chaos Dwarfs as a unique and somewhat unusual faction too, and I think Alan Bligh even said in an interview that this shouldn’t be seen as the last word on the army.

cornixt:

LoA is very openly accepted in the stores near me. RH is pretty much just a “WHY?” or “WTF is that?”. It makes sense. I didn’t expect it to be as sudden a shift. I expect that in places that have a regular player with CDs they would still allow the RH list, but elsewhere it seems like the only occurrence of CDs in all. Even five years ago I got blank looks from some people when I tried to use them.

Seriously, some players weren’t even born when Ravening Hordes came out.

MLP:

The command group prices are a classic example - some are 10 pts across the board, as per 8th Edition (with a handful of exceptions), and some have the musician at half cost, or prices obviously derived from the cost of rank and file troops, and there's no real rhyme or reason for which is which
I think it makes more sense to have different point costs for command units depending on the unit. For example musicians are of extra use to fast cav. Standards are probably more efficient on blocks with ranks than units with no ranks. These might not be the best example but I think it makes the point! Same with champion costs as many champs have a stat increase like hobgoblin +1 initiative.

Thommy H:

Whether it makes more sense is irrelevant - it’s how it works in the new 8th Edition books.

ChungEssence:

LOA is accepted at my local GW (good for them) however Ravening Hordes/fan lists are not.

I agree with Thommy on LOA being a specific faction… i mean they can’t even field normal CD warriors.

MLP:

LOA is accepted at my local GW (good for them) however Ravening Hordes/fan lists are not.

I agree with Thommy on LOA being a specific faction.... i mean they can't even field normal CD warriors.

ChungEssence
They are most certainly only a faction. The first line under the Legion of Azgorh list is "this army represents the Chaos Dwarf forces that garrison the bleak and foreboding Black Fortress in the southern Dark Lands."

It goes on to say "Such are the diverse slaves and diablic war engines of the Chaos Dwarves the Legion of Azgorh doesn't represent the full range of their power"

I think this leaves plenty of scope for an expanded list in the future or possibly another faction. If GW feel it would be profitable of course.

Personally I am extremely pleased with the LoA list. Ravening Hordes is just rubbish and although I think Thommy's list is fantastic it doesn't suit my "pick up game" habbits as I don't have a regular gaming group.

Hashut’s Blessing:

INFERNAL GUARD ARE NORMAL WARRIORS!

Sorry, had to get that out. People are getting hung up on the lack of the uninspired named of warriors instead of infernals.

Regarding the list, GW can’t accept RH in-store anymore because a new book has come out for the army: it’s the same reasoning as not letting people use the last edition of Vampire Counts. They can’t accept fanlists either, regardless of how good or from where: they are fanlists AND a direct undermining of sales (for the army book at least).

Outside of GW stores, if it’s a tournament - the organiser chooses. This can mean no Chaos Dwarfs at all. If it’s a friendly gaming group, find out what list people will play against: no point in bringing RH if they only feel it’s fair/fun to play LoA.

Basically, LoA is the supported list and the one that has GW’s backing, so it’s the one to be used. That being said, you can use fanlists in the same contexts as any other army’s fanlists and ravening hordes is about on par with them p therefore, use the list your opponent/location allows you to use!

tvandyke:

LOA is accepted at my local GW (good for them) however Ravening Hordes/fan lists are not.

I agree with Thommy on LOA being a specific faction.... i mean they can't even field normal CD warriors.

ChungEssence
Two of the fairly big yearly tournaments in my area (SAWS Invitational and Quake City Rumble) have made the "switch" from Ravening Hordes to LOA.  It makes sense if you think about it.  It's the most current and official list available.  We usually have 2 or 3 Chaos Dwarf players at each tournament and it would be odd to have one guy playing LOA and another RH, IMO.  Basically, most everyone in the tournament circle considers LOA official.  The Indy GT list was never permitted in my area and RH, while allowed, was getting quite dated.  I believe the tourney organizers are pleased they're able to use a list that's both current and official (even if it's not through the main studio) instead of having to make exceptions for RH (or one of the other Fan lists).

Thommy H:

Yeah, tournaments and GW stores are kind of a given. I think what Kronus is talking about though is a very sudden switch in casual play between everyone being totally cool with a fanlist or rules that are really too old for purpose, to now insisting on the Tamurkhan list. But, it depends on what your stance on “officialdom” is, I suppose. LoA is produced, albeit indirectly, by GW, but Forge World rules have always occupied a nebulous area in the minds of Warhammer players. The exception is being made here though, one would assume, because it’s the closest thing to official since RH.

But the confusion comes from the idea that, if we’re going to allow FW rules - and let’s put aside the debate about “FW being part of GW” or “it says it’s official”, because these are kind of beside the point - there’s always an element of “fudging”, and looking at the rules first to make sure they’re fair and fun to use. You don’t just accept them on faith because, historically, FW aren’t as good at this kind of thing as the main GW studio. I think the same is true of Tamurkhan, which has some really quite bizarre rules errors in it, so that objectively it’s not really up to the standard of a regular GW Armies book, in rules terms. But this part of the process seems to be being skipped: because LoA is such a long time coming, and this is so close to being “Warhammer: Chaos Dwarfs” after so many years, there’s a bit of collective relaxation of the usual critical thought patterns going on.

I’ve used this example before, but I don’t think opponents are nearly as happy to let someone use the WoC or Empire special characters and units in Tamurkhan as they are the LoA, for example, even though they occupy exactly the same conceptual space in rules terms.

MLP:

INFERNAL GUARD ARE NORMAL WARRIORS!
Well the are core in the LoA list but I wouldn't say normal. They are a cult of dishonoured chaos dwarves who guard the Black fortress. And the ironsworn are the bodyguards of the lord.

LoA is pretty specific that it is only for that particular army which allies with The Maggot Lord.

It may be an official list which can bus used in tournaments and such but it's certainly not a full Chaos Dwarf army book.
I've used this example before, but I don't think opponents are nearly as happy to let someone use the WoC or Empire special characters and units in Tamurkhan as they are the LoA, for example, even though they occupy exactly the same conceptual space in rules terms.
Totally agree here. It's a bit odd really that people can't accept the whole book as official. The thing is warhammer used to be a couple of people with armies and rules who played a wargame. It's only the recent couple of editions people seem more worried about things being official.

I'm more than happy to play against armies that have new books I've never read or know rules for I don't see why people can't be the same with Tamurkhan.

Kronus:

People have always been more willing to accept entire FW Lists rather then FW elements in pre-existing lists. In the case of the former the common assumption is that the gamer is doing the list for fun and fluff reasons. In the case of the latter to improve his army and otherwise buff it to level it was not originally intended. It applies just as much to 40k as Warhammer with Elysian drop armies and death corps having few issues but just include a unit any they will look at you funny and wonder what advantage its given you.

Personally I feel lucky I can enjoy fan dexs in edition to LOA by virtue of being the head of my gaming group and thus being in a position to encourage inclusivity (we have a lot of quirky armies. lists and FW models) but I do feel for the pick up game community. Its the feedback of friends that has largely motivated me to raise the issue. There can be no doubt that FW did CD a huge favour but LOA is somewhat restrictive in its nature and cookie cutter at competitive levels.

Thommy H:

Well, you know, everyone will play with what they think is balanced and fun. I hope that people keep an open mind, because I agree with you, MLP, that a game of Warhammer should be out the two (or more!) people playing the game having fun and any other consideration is very much secondary.

With gaming groups, obviously there is sometimes a need to set a common standard, and “official” books are an easy way of doing that without getting bogged down in specifics - a gaming group I was once a periphery member of was, I felt, more stringent than usual in terms of sticking to the RAW, but the reasons they did so were because they’d agreed, as a group, that this saved arguments and they wanted to play games, not debate rules. Fair enough.

In established groups though, especially groups that play stuff besides Warhammer and perhaps have a slightly older average age, I would think they could reasonably decide what was fair objectively, rather than pressuring someone to use a new book that may not fulfil all their needs - which is not the same as a new Armies book from GW: I’m talking about the guys with stuff like Black Orcs and Bolt Throwers in their Chaos Dwarf armies that suddenly can’t use them, not the VC gamers who just got their all-Ghoul army nerfed! If they were using a fanlist before, there’s no need to make them switch, since the group was obviously happy with the fanlist previously…

Kronus:

I would think they could reasonably decide what was fair objectively, rather than pressuring someone to use a new book that may not fulfil all their needs - which is not the same as a new Armies book from GW: I'm talking about the guys with stuff like Black Orcs and Bolt Throwers in their Chaos Dwarf armies that suddenly can't use them, not the VC gamers who just got their all-Ghoul army nerfed! If they were using a fanlist before, there's no need to make them switch, since the group was obviously happy with the fanlist previously...

Thommy H
I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head of where the CD are for me. There big difference between your VC player here and indeed any core army user then CD is that their new book always includes their old units/models and supplements them further. While for CD the some what limited options particularly regards core present in the LOA  fails to keep a number of establish units in. Its never easier to find large parts of your army is not so much uncompetitive as completely irrelevant. This is not FW fault but rather the expectation of others that the LOA which clearly represents just one aspect of CD society, should be used in replacement of past lists. Its an odd thing that many old school CD players will get more use out of the models in a WOC list then they would do in LOA. I for one would hope no open minded gaming group would not seek to apply such limitations to CD players

tvandyke:

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head of where the CD are for me. There big difference between your VC player here and indeed any core army user then CD is that their new book always includes their old units/models and supplements them further. While for CD the some what limited options particularly regards core present in the LOA  fails to keep a number of establish units in. Its never easier to find large parts of your army is not so much uncompetitive as completely irrelevant. This is not FW fault but rather the expectation of others that the LOA which clearly represents just one aspect of CD society, should be used in replacement of past lists. Its an odd thing that many old school CD players will get more use out of the models in a WOC list then they would do in LOA. I for one would hope no open minded gaming group would not seek to apply such limitations to CD players

Kronus
I look at this as being no different than what many players have experienced when a new book comes out for their favorite army. Sometimes, units are eliminated from the previous list. Just one example off the top of my head is when GW took Spider Riders and Forest Goblins out of the O&G book. I know my buddy was stuck using his Spider Riders as Wolf Riders. I"m pretty sure Spider Riders are back (they may have been the last two books), but not sure about Forest Goblins. I remember building multiple units of Skeletons with Heavy Armor/Shield for my VC army about 7 or 8 years ago and then they released a VC book where Skeletons could only have Light Armor. Not a huge issue, but irritating since my skellies obviously had heavy armor. I'm sure others can come up with a lot of examples over the years. You also have to take into consideration rule changes as well. Sometimes when a new book is released, some units are relegated to the shelf just because they just aren't worth taking anymore. In some ways, I guess asking to use RH would be like a VC player asking to use the previous VC book instead of the one just released.

Method:

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head of where the CD are for me. There big difference between your VC player here and indeed any core army user then CD is that their new book always includes their old units/models and supplements them further. While for CD the some what limited options particularly regards core present in the LOA  fails to keep a number of establish units in. Its never easier to find large parts of your army is not so much uncompetitive as completely irrelevant. This is not FW fault but rather the expectation of others that the LOA which clearly represents just one aspect of CD society, should be used in replacement of past lists. Its an odd thing that many old school CD players will get more use out of the models in a WOC list then they would do in LOA. I for one would hope no open minded gaming group would not seek to apply such limitations to CD players

Kronus
I look at this as being no different than what many players have experienced when a new book comes out for their favorite army.  Sometimes, units are eliminated from the previous list.  Just one example off the top of my head is when GW took Spider Riders and Forest Goblins out of the O&G book.  I know my buddy was stuck using his Spider Riders as Wolf Riders.  I"m pretty sure Spider Riders are back (they may have been the last two books), but not sure about Forest Goblins. I remember building multiple units of Skeletons with Heavy Armor/Shield for my VC army about 7 or 8 years ago and then they released a VC book where Skeletons could only have Light Armor.  Not a huge issue, but irritating since my skellies obviously had heavy armor.  I'm sure others can come up with a lot of examples over the years.  You also have to take into consideration rule changes as well.  Sometimes when a new book is released, some units are relegated to the shelf just because they just aren't worth taking anymore.  In some ways, I guess asking to use RH would be like a VC player asking to use the previous VC book instead of the one just released.


tvandyke
Excellent reponse. i agree completely.

Thommy H:

Except that Tamurkhan isn’t a replacement for RH. That’s why it says that the Legion of Azgorh isn’t necessarily representative of all Chaos Dwarf armies and why Alan Bligh has said exactly the same in interviews. It was never intended as the last word on the army.

tvandyke:


Except that Tamurkhan isn't a replacement for RH. That's why it says that the Legion of Azgorh isn't necessarily representative of all Chaos Dwarf armies and why Alan Bligh has said exactly the same in interviews. It was never intended as the last word on the army.


Thommy H
That's why I said in some ways. We're talking about an army that's always kind of been an odd duck. There are many in GW that considered Chaos Dwarfs to be obsolete and RH wasn't considered valid anymore. The GW sponsored Grand Tournaments allowed Chaos Dwarfs all the way up till 2008 then stopped allowing them in. Luckily, the Indy GT's for the most part still allowed the army (along with Dogs of War). So I guess the other way to look at this isn't that it's a direct re-write or replacement of RH, but more of a reboot of Chaos Dwarfs.