I was wondering if there was any plan to seperate the LoA and indy/RH discussion in to seperate sections in the forum. I am a relatively new Chaos Dwarf General and have only collected Chaos Dwarves as an army since Tamurkhan.
Although some tactics and discussions about either list are still relative to the other I think it would be advantageous for the site to have a clear seperation.
I’m not sure on the forum community’s stance on what list they prefere to use but I think LoA is going to become more popular and you may well see many new members brought in only knowing Tamurkhan and never having heard of Ravening Hordes!
I’ll stick a poll in just for good measure!
I think that, where it’s relevant (which is mostly just in Tactics - models and background stuff transcends list choice) a tag in brackets would be sufficient. That’s what happened when the Indy GT list was gaining traction and for the few people using my list. I would suggest therefore that any tactics threads should have one of the following in the title: [LoA], [RH], [Indy GT],
I think that, where it's relevant (which is mostly just in Tactics - models and background stuff transcends list choice) a tag in brackets would be sufficient. That's what happened when the Indy GT list was gaining traction and for the few people using my list. I would suggest therefore that any tactics threads should have one of the following in the title: [LoA], [RH], [Indy GT],
I think this would work as long as it's "enforced". Maybe a permanent option in thread creation to state which list is appropriate?
There is so much overlap that thread tags would be the best way. The Poll about lists shows that around 80% are using LoA, so that looks like it will be the assumed list for now.
Yeah, I don’t think it’s a big enough problem to necessitate changing forum architecture or anything. Most people use LoA, but plenty will stick to what they used before or, more likely, continue to collect Chaos Dwarfs of such variety and in such quantities that no one list can capture every unit! We’ve been an adaptable community for a long, long time - we’re not going to start nailing colours to the mast just yet.
It would be best not to, because many people here also play using the other rules, and army lists. Therefore, you can compare the old rules to the Throne of Chaos and such.
We can certainly get rid of the Chaos Dwarf rumours section now.
There is some overlap between Chaos Dwarfs, Warhammer Forge and Warhammer general sections.
Why would we get rid of Rumours? Even assuming Warhammer Forge is the only part of GW that ever does any Chaos Dwarf models/rules, there’s the Monstrous Arcana book on the horizon, which is rumoured to contain Scrolls of Binding for K’daai and Bull Centaurs. And they’re supposed to be making models for everything, so we’ll be anticipating those, won’t we?
Because it’s Chaos Dwarf rumours. Not warhammer forge or warhammer general.
There are no rumours for CD outside of WF now and will most likely never be. So keeping that section open now is pointless really imo.
But the K’daai and the Bull Centaurs are Chaos Dwarf units.
Plus there’s Chaos Dwarf mentions in other books and stuff like that. Why close it? It’s not like the rumours sections from other army-specific forums close when an new Armies book is released - there’s always a new edition, new models, etc.
While I agree with Thommy that there will always be more rumours, I’m not sure there are ever really enough to have their own section. It always ends up bleeding into one of the other sections and we have multiple threads that cover the same thing. It’s only got ten threads right now, if they all got moved to the normal CD thread then no one would even notice.
Indeed. Outside of the dreadfleet one (which I think was already for sale when it was posted), it’s been well over a year now since something rumoured from GW (not FW) was posted there.
As Cornixt said there’s just not enough rumours from GW studio to keep it open.
I’m not sure we need a rumour section at all here tbh. Just one sticky somewhere would do it. A decision for staff anyway.