cornixt:
I’d be a bit worried if the FW website rules end up being exactly the same in the book, with one machine being so powerful for its points and another is lacking so much, the army may be considered pretty unbalanced.
Astrogothic:
I think the hemming and hawing about the DQM template is perhaps overstated. I don’t recall ever using the Hellcannon and saying. That’s ridiculous I only killed 17 Swordmasters, as my opponent is contemplating conceding the battle.
Groznit Goregut:
The Treb. is undercosted and I’m sure it won’t be S5 when the new book comes out. On that we can both agree.
The small template with S5, AP, and multi-wound is good enough. The Quake makes it even better. I think once people start using it, they will be able to tell just how nasty it is.
Thommy H:
The Treb. is undercosted and I'm sure it won't be S5 when the new book comes out. On that we can both agree.We don't agree on that at all. I've never seen anyone ever complain about the Trebuchet. Bearing in mind the thing can't even move, I think it's cost is pretty fair.
Groznit Goregut
rabotak:
to contribute something to the flamewar, i think both sides are right. … i dont think the treb is undercosted, its external and internal balance is fine imo… concerning the dqm, it is ok and has good potential to do a lot of damage, still i think the size to ouput ratio is a tiny bit disappointing… when i first saw the pics last year i was expecting some apoc-style mega-artillery (or in whfb-terms: big pie-plate, abominable special rules and enormous point-cost), and what we got was, well, a nice little hard hitter… im fine with it, it has its uses but personally i would have either made it more expensive and big-pie-platey-devestating or leave it like that and scrap the 3+ to shoot rule.
Thommy H:
This isn’t a flamewar. If I started a flamewar, you’d know about it.
rabotak:
sorry, it was meant as a bit of a tease, no offense!
you may call me a troll if you like 
Thommy H:
It’s cool. To be honest, I just don’t think the rules are that great or that innovative. I’ve put an awful lot of time and effort into developing modern rules for Chaos Dwarfs and I feel the same about this WF stuff as I did about the Indy GT list - they just don’t feel like three Edition’s worth of development. They feel like someone had one or two good ideas and then bolted them onto the original concepts.
vulcanologist:
Think I’ve already made my position clear… Much as it’s nice to see all this lovely new forgeworld stuff I’m a much bigger fan of all the hard work and passion that out own members have created and that’s why I’ll be sticking to Thommys list which I also think to be a far more lovingly crafted, well thought-out and superior affair anyway!
Thommy H:
Quite right.
This message was automatically appended because it was too short.
Astrogothic:
I’m intrigued about getting to make them take a dangerous terrain test. I once lost 5 out of 7 Chaos Knights on a particularly unlucky one.
Hashut’s Blessing:
vulcanologist: Whilst it’s true, we didn’t need to make his ego bigger 
Just joshing ya, Thommy H.
For its cost, it’s not good enough, IMO.
For its size, the rules aren’t representative enough, IMO.
In comparison to other things (smaller template than Hellstrom, which is made of fireworks. Higher strength, but smaller template than the mortar, despite it being the same thing but with a bigger bomb
Groznit Goregut:
Every time I come back here I get reminded as to why I stop coming. The various reputations that this site has tends to be true.
Astrogothic:
What is the reputation? You mean like whineseer?
Thommy H:
Every time I come back here I get reminded as to why I stop coming. The various reputations that this site has tends to be true.The weird thing about the internet is that not everyone will always agree with you. If you take that personally, you're going to be constantly disappointed.
Groznit Goregut
rabotak:
Every time I come back here I get reminded as to why I stop coming. The various reputations that this site has tends to be true.sorry, i'm on many forums, i dont get what you mean?
Groznit Goregut
Nicodemus:
This is the Internet, and everyone gets to have their opinion aired.
There’s a multitude of ways one might choose to respond to posts on forums. CDO is fantastic in that it’s done very well at self-moderating and keeping things civil and respectful for all forum members. Of course we too, like all forums, have members who choose to be agressive, or belittling, or who are smug, are agressively arrogant with high opinions of themselves, have over-inflated egos or choose to be just plain impolite when they respond. Some of folks are even self-conscious enough to know that they themselves are like this, but feel that it is somehow noble to act like a jerk becase they are just “being themselves” and we should really just respect them for it. That kind of thing is really just BS and doesn’t work in the real world except in groups of (usually) juvenile-minded young men. Thankfully, most out grow that phase by the end of high school
More often than not, it’s just easier to ignore all that foolishness and move on to something else more interesting, like tjub’s blog or something…
I, of course, am not like that at all, you bunch of ignoramuses! It’s about time you all realized how great my blog is, bow down to it, and see how a real evil general gets things done! … erm, or doesn’t get things done, as the theme of my blog goes :P
~N
Groznit Goregut:
The general reputation that I’ve heard from several places is that CDO has a rigid viewpoint as to what is good/not good. If you disagree with the general viewpoint you get shouted down by everyone. The established members tend to rally around each other.
Also, you guys are never satisfied with what happens. You just want a list that’s acceptable to play at tournaments, but then complain when you get something. There’s also just a negative trend on the forums. People would much rather bitch about something than talk about how good something is.
I don’t mind someone having a different opinion than me. That’s not shocking.
I am not saying this in an attempt to flame.
Nicodemus:
The general reputation that I've heard from several places is that CDO has a rigid viewpoint as to what is good/not good. If you disagree with the general viewpoint you get shouted down by everyone. The established members tend to rally around each other.Not that I've been around as long as some... but I'd agree with all of the above from personal experience.
Also, you guys are never satisfied with what happens. You just want a list that's acceptable to play at tournaments, but then complain when you get something. There's also just a negative trend on the forums. People would much rather bitch about something than talk about how good something is.
Groznit Goregut
khedyarl:
Something I find relatively disheartening is Tommy H’s constant tirade against any armylist that isn’t his own homebrew version. We get it, you designed an armylist. I am sure you put a great deal of thought and time into it. I would certainly prefer to be able to come into a thread involving anybody else’s design and not see a torrent of Tommy H posting about how poorly he believes everyone else’s rules are, and plugging his own rules in same-said thread. It’s effectively thread hijacking, at this point.
More on target: The D3 wounds on the Magma cannon seem to be the sticking factor for many playtesters. It’s simply amazing at every role - destroying high or low toughness ranked units, killing anything with regeneration, taking down units of monstrous infantry/cavalry. There really isn’t any place that the Dreadquake shines over the magma cannon, aside from perhaps dropping that S10 d6 wounds onto a Steamtank, or other incredibly high toughness, good armour-save creation. The Hellcannon isn’t priced too far off of the Dreadquake, and would appear to be quite a bit superior. I suppose it can’t be packed around on the landtrain, but that isn’t really a bonus.