[Archive] Nice rumor?

westerntraitor:

Hats might have put a scoff on a few faces but i dont think they doomed the chaos dwarfs for example when i first proposed the idea of converting a cd army at my local hobby store they encouraged me to make big hats. (i aslo love that they are distincly mesopatamian in style). And Willmark i dont mean to contradict you but the argument that the prices are not kid friend, though holds some truth, is in my opinion false. I might have a few problems getting models due to financial problems but many other kids have no problem. For example when my local gaming store closed down about a week and a half ago almost all the purchases in its last month were mad by kids ages 11-14 one kids parents bought him almost half the shop!!! So when GW says that its main buyers are kids i can belive it.

Doogle:

point out that hats weren't the problem (when in fact they were)
You often say this, Willmark, but I see no evidence for it save your own opinion. Plenty of current Chaos Dwarf gamers like the big hats - enough for them to be in short supply on ebay anyway. I would estimate that the majority of the armies in the showcase forum are based on classic models, for example.

The Chaos Dwarfs of 4th and 5th edition didn't fail because of one single thing, clearly - it was a combination of them always being a niche army (they were introduced through White Dwarf), being on the periphery of events in the background and having a style that didn't tap into an obvious fantasy trope (Mesopotamian imagery doesn't show up often in fantasy). You could possibly summarise the last as "no one liked big hats", but it would be just that: a summary, and not at all reflective of the other factors.

I don't mean to start an argument, but you do keep saying it, and it just strikes me as very odd. The whole "big hat" debate is completely insane to me - how can the failure of an army be laid at the feet or something so nebulous and dependent on personal aesthetics, for which there is no strong evidence?


Thommy H
I think what he is trying to get at is that, while yes, there are many people on these forums and HoH that favor big hats in their armies, that it is only a fraction of CD players. The reason why the army failed is because the models looked cartoony and ridiculous, mostly due to the big hats. Of course there are the people out there who loved them and still play with them or convert them, but the over all argument is that majority won, and majority was against the hats.
Thats what I get from his posts at least.

Thommy H:

The reason why the army failed is because the models looked cartoony and ridiculous
As do the current Vampire Counts (very popular), all Orcs and Goblins (always popular), many Empire troops - especially that robot horse thing (ditto), many of the Dwarf miniatures like Miners and Slayers (again, very popular) and probably lots of others. Warhammer is pretty ridiculous and cartoony overall - the Chaos Dwarf models weren't the problem: the lack of support after the initial release was.

Examine the fate of the Storm of Chaos army lists, or many of the variants (in 40K too) that never got more than a single supplement or article in White Dwarf. Did the Slayer army fail because of the goofy models (and they are goofy)? No, it failed because once released it was left to fend for itself and people stopped playing it. The 'tournament mentality' doesn't help either, because people think these niche lists aren't 'official' - another problem the Chaos Dwarfs have faced, as we all know.

An army has to be supported to thrive. Most of the least popular current lists are those that were released longer ago and need updating, such as Tomb Kings and Beasts of Chaos. The most popular ones are the ones with the newest army books and figures (Vampire Counts, Daemons, Dark Elves, High Elves). Chaos Dwarfs weren't even updated for 5th Edition, let alone 6th and 7th - they could never have had more than a brief lifetime because they only got one real release during 4th Edition.

And yet...they still have a following... Unlike those other niche lists from the last decade, which sank into obscurity. So, I question whether, by the standards of an obscure White Dwarf list, they 'failed' at all. People still want to play with them, despite exactly zero support from GW. Clearly, something about them was interesting enough to hold people's attention all this time.

You could equally say "they succeeded because of the hats, and in spite of the lack of support", because something has made us all like them.

Willmark:

And how often are the current vampire, orc and goblin armies raked over the goals as it were because of the models.

Even if we go with the perception that the hats/comical nature of the figures of that era didn’t contribute to their demise for a minute then consider this. The perception is there. Perceptions are tough to break down or overcome.

Look at it another way and it’s a chicken and an egg thing. Was their failure because of their comical nature? Or because the weren’t supported? It’s entirely possible that their comical nature directly led to lack of support. Only GW knows for sure.

point out that hats weren’t the problem (when in fact they were)
You often say this, Willmark, but I see no evidence for it save your own opinion. Plenty of current Chaos Dwarf gamers like the big hats - enough for them to be in short supply on ebay anyway. I would estimate that the majority of the armies in the showcase forum are based on classic models, for example.

The Chaos Dwarfs of 4th and 5th edition didn’t fail because of one single thing, clearly - it was a combination of them always being a niche army (they were introduced through White Dwarf), being on the periphery of events in the background and having a style that didn’t tap into an obvious fantasy trope (Mesopotamian imagery doesn’t show up often in fantasy). You could possibly summarise the last as “no one liked big hats”, but it would be just that: a summary, and not at all reflective of the other factors.

I don’t mean to start an argument, but you do keep saying it, and it just strikes me as very odd. The whole “big hat” debate is completely insane to me - how can the failure of an army be laid at the feet or something so nebulous and dependent on personal aesthetics, for which there is no strong evidence?


Thommy H
Thommy I have no problems with dissenting points of view, this isn’t the USSR.

1) Of course there will be more big hat armies on eBay. By their very nature they will be the most common type of figure found out there. This is simply because this is the only form that GW made them in in such massive quantities (comparatively speaking).

I’d postulate that if Hats were a raging success, we would have seen the Hellcannon crew attired in them or something like them.

2) I’ll give that there were many factors, hats being one of them.

Nex: A niche site (which we are) or a army that hasn’t been supported in years (yeah were that too) is in no way indicative of of what the general gamer perception is on Chaos Dwarfs. By its vary nature people will be drawn to Chaos dwarfs and big hat models by two major forces 1) their rarity, 2)see number one. Are they the only factors? No but they are powerful ones indeed especially for the a fore mentioned reasons. Their very rarity attracts people who feel that they are different by simply picking something obscure, we are all probably guilty of that to some degree if we honestly appraise it.

You mention chaos dwarfs to anyone who is a non-hat fan/non chaos dwarf fan and the first look is what you would expect. Even if hats didn’t sink the chaos dwarfs they sure didn’t help. No army that GW has ever produced has had to overcome this burden or stigma, take your pick.

In the end I really don’t care if someone wants to make their army a big hat on or not, if the want to have an army solely comprised by them.

My view is much farther down the road: the survival of the Chaos Dwarfs as an army in its own right. That is a goal far bigger then any of us, whatever the personal preference. And if the what I think are ludicrous/comical '(insert your comment here) models of yesteryear need to be sacrificed in order for the Chaos Dwarfs to move forward, then I’m all for it.

We discussed this in the past and that should be our primary goal, hats or no it doesn’t enter into the equation. Viability of the army and its survival does, even as I have said before if it means going in a direction I don’t support or want. I have my order of preferences as to what I would want to see in the army. In most cases it focuses on bring the army list forward. Aesthetics  for me are far down on the list, in so much as their direct relationship to selling models, thus ensuring the armies survival.

As I have also said before: I’m not going to tell someone to not make a big hat army. If that is what you like then do so (that’s anyone). But bar in mind that if they have to be sacrificed to go forward then be prepared for that too.

Hashut’s Blessing:

Thommy H, it’s always been said that GW stopped supporting CDs because of a lack of sales and this was due mostly (keyword is mostly) because people disliked the big hats. Yes, many people do now, but these aren’t the same people as then and some may have changed their minds. As to sales on eBay, as aforementioned by others, rarity and OOP means they are wanted more and the fact that more of them are on eBay shows people don’t want the 4th ed models for themselves as much, as well as (again, aforementioned by others) their larger production quantities.

However, that is not to say that because people then disliked the hats, they won’t now. Alernatively, it appears that GW took note of the 4th ed model’s failure and changed the look in their “test” or “new-look” model and so newcomers won’t think of CDs as big hats.

Either way, I feel like not much is going to come along for us any time soon and that’s if we’re lucky enough to get anything.

If something does come along, it won’t necessarily be to everybody’s tastes and I believe that it’s more than likely going to be the “hatters” that will like them least (not to say they will dislike them).

Thommy H:

Thommy H, it's always been said that GW stopped supporting CDs because of a lack of sales and this was due mostly (keyword is mostly) because people disliked the big hats.
Yes, it's always been said - by you, and Willmark, and a couple of others. Not by any kind of impartial jury of gamers.
Even if hats didn't sink the chaos dwarfs they sure didn't help.
I don't know - this is what's debatable to me. The problem is that you don't like big hats so, from your POV, big hats were a contributory factor to the Chaos Dwarfs' demise. But I could equally say (because I like big hats) that they're a contributary factor to them doing as well as they have.

The only fact we have in this situation is that Chaos Dwarfs were not a success. You can either blame that on a factor of your choice (big hats, curly beards, Assyrian imagery, hobgoblins, bad rules, poor models, being a White Dwarf list, no support, etc. etc.) or acknowledge that it's a combination of gamer opinion about any or all of those.

What I'm getting at is that I have a problem with people blaming the big hats because they personally don't like them. There is no data to support the hypothesis that "big hats killed Chaos Dwarfs" and I think it promotes an unhealthy dichotomy (the old big hats vs. masks debate) in the community.

You may not like big hats, but that doesn't mean everyone didn't, and that that led directly to the death of the army.

Willmark:

Yes, it's always been said - by you, and Willmark, and a couple of others. Not by any kind of impartial jury of gamers.

Even if hats didn't sink the chaos dwarfs they sure didn't help.
I don't know - this is what's debatable to me. The problem is that you don't like big hats so, from your POV, big hats were a contributory factor to the Chaos Dwarfs' demise. But I could equally say (because I like big hats) that they're a contributary factor to them doing as well as they have.

What I'm getting at is that I have a problem with people blaming the big hats because they personally don't like them. There is no data to support the hypothesis that "big hats killed Chaos Dwarfs" and I think it promotes an unhealthy dichotomy (the old big hats vs. masks debate) in the community.

You may not like big hats, but that doesn't mean everyone didn't, and that that led directly to the death of the army.

Thommy H
Can you honestly say that like or dislike aside, that you think they HELPED sell Chaos Dwarfs? That when mentioned to every gamer I've run across in the last 5-10 years has the same reaction? dare I say this site with its group that likes hats is an anomaly, at least my experience has borne that out.
There is no data to support the hypothesis that "big hats killed Chaos Dwarfs" and I think it promotes an unhealthy dichotomy (the old big hats vs. masks debate) in the community.

Thommy H
As long as everyone conducts themselves within the guidelines of the site then everything will be fine. Discussion is fine as long as its reasoned debate and not a shouting match. We take great pride that this forum is civil in its demeanor, but open enough to discourse and and even disagreement. Basically I'm open for any debate as long as people are cool about it.

Thommy the funny thing is that everything your pointing out can be argued the other way. Trouble with anecdotal, its just that. It cuts both ways. Trouble is we have scant information and only the past to go on...

You can claim that its just me and a few others and I can likewise say the opposite, doesn't make me right or you wrong, its simply where we diverge in opinions.

Next I could rightly say "Show me the date that proves Chaos Dwarfs were as successful as they were because of the hats". Perhaps GW felt the provided excellent support for a White Dwarf army list.

Lastly, I think we can all agree that everyone wants Chaos Dwarfs to go forward as an army, we all have our vision of how we want them to be. I'm prepared to stomach changes that might run counter to what I want Chaos Dwarfs get an army book, can those that like hats say the same? I know how I want the army to look, if I don't get it what choice do I have? What choice do any of us have?

Bottom line as I mentioned before is this: Chaos Dwarfs getting a list of their own is more important than any of our individual agendas.

Thommy H:

Can you honestly say that like or dislike aside, that you think they HELPED sell Chaos Dwarfs?
Well I bought them. So did other people. As I say, the only data is "Chaos Dwarfs didn't sell well". You've arbitrarily selected big hats as the cause of that because you personally don't like them. That's what I have issue with.
Thommy the funny thing is that everything your pointing out can be argued the other way. Trouble with anecdotal, its just that. It cuts both ways. Trouble is we have scant information and only the past to go on...
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Bear in mind that I haven't actually said anywhere that big hats weren't the cause of the Chaos Dwarfs' death - I'm just saying that it isn't necessarily so. Your sweeping statement earlier in this thread that big hats killed them and anyone who disagreed was performing "mental gymnastics" is what I think was unfair. Equally, had I said that big hats were great and everyone loved them, you'd be entitled to think the same thing.

So I'm not saying that I'm right, or even that you're wrong, but that you can't say for certain that big hats are to blame, and ergo it's unfair to cite them as a destructive factor. It makes those of us who like them feel pretty stupid when you say things like that (and especially when you accuse us of those aforementioned "mental gymnastics" to support our opinions), and this is what I take issue with.

Dislike big hats all you want - it doesn't bother me in the slightest - but when you tell new members that big hats killed Chaos Dwarfs as if it were gospel, I think that's a problem.

Willmark:

I’ve rewrote my response several times but I’m thinking further belaboring of each others points isn’t going to resolve anything.

Suffice of to say we have heard each others points and well leave it at that.

Thommy H:

So big hats definitely are to blame then, as far as you’re concerned?

Willmark:

Thommy if you want continue this lets take it to PM.

Hashut’s Blessing:

Thommy, do not let this turn beyond simple debate. Also, I think you should re-read the posts before replying as you have said that those of us suggesting big hats are the cause are “not necessarily right”, when we purselves have said that we aren’t saying that’s all that led to it. Also, I’d like to point out that it’s not Willmark, myself and a few others as it was the generally accepted most widespread reason on HoH for starters. As for saying we dislike big hats, that’s also incorrect as they’re what started me off in the first place, so you’re reasoning of “we dislike big hats, so everybody else did” is false. I love them and I still believe it’s one of the primary reasons they failed.

Thommy H:

Willmark and I already discussed this via PM and resolved it to our satisfaction. My issue was not with the topic itself, but with the way he was presenting the argument. I felt he was being dismissive.

when we purselves have said that we aren’t saying that’s all that led to it
Well actually, that’s pretty much exactly what Willmark said - if he hadn’t, I wouldn’t have taken issue.
“we dislike big hats, so everybody else did” is false.
Which is not what I’ve been saying at all.

Let me explain, so we can just end this silly debate right here. I don’t know if big hats killed Chaos Dwarfs or if it saved them. No one does: no one ever can - there is no data for it. You’d have to ask every single person playing Warhammer at the time (remember: the people who didn’t actually buy any Chaos Dwarfs would be the main source of data for this hypothesis, not those who did, so asking around HoH isn’t really that useful) and figure out how much big hats turned people off.

So I’m not actually on either side of this debate in any real sense. What I was actually debating was Willmark making a sweeping and (to my mind) dismissive comment about big hats and those who liked them - and the reason he did that, I felt, was because he personally doesn’t like them. I believed it was somewhat improper for him to treat as gospel a conclusion for which there is no strong evidence.

Now, we can debate the evidence if you wish and try to decide once and for all whether big hats are the culprit, but I doubt there will ever be data presented by either side that will convince the opposition, and I doubt it will be at all a productive use of our time.

The issue between Willmark and myself, though, has been completely resolved.

Hashut’s Blessing:

It’s good to hear the issue has been resolved.

However, there is one thing I’d like to differ with you on because you did say that.

You may not like big hats, but that doesn’t mean everyone didn’t, and that that led directly to the death of the army.

Thommy H
Although you’re quite correct on not being able to ask everybody, the majority of people on HoH didn’t buy them at the time fot eh reason of big hats was what I saying. Since they are CD collectors as well, I thought it may provide a little more credence.

As for debating how true it was, that would be pointles because, as you said yourself, there is no concrete evidence. However, from the experience I have obtained of speaking to people about it, their major “turn off” was the big hats.

Once again, glad to hear that all issues have been resolved.

Thommy H:

And, conversely, in my experience, the big hats were pretty popular. None of my regular opponents was anything but regretful that the range was discontinued.

There’s just no way know how much of a contributing factor it was (if at all). We both have only anecdotal evidence to offer. That’s why I wasn’t interested in debating that issue in particular - only the issue of Willmark’s comments.

Hashut’s Blessing:

Aye. it seems, collectively, our experience says that big hats weren’t THE singlemost primary and only reason. However, if 50% didn’t like them (yes, that’s not an accurate number), it’s still fairly notable at least.

Not that I’ve ever meant to say (if I have) that big hats were the only reason.

curlybeard:

http://z4.invisionfree.com/cotec/index.php?showtopic=3702&st=0

see this for more details, could be just the hellcannon

Grimstonefire:

My view of the reason GW stopped supporting the CD is only partly due to the big hat> low sales theory.

When you look at how they were released in the first place its very clear they were only ever an afterthought.  How many other ‘armies’ did GW ‘officially’ release with no official armybook?  Only other ones I can think of are Sisters of Battle and Necrons (not even so sure on those).  Beastmen was more clarifying which elements of Realms of Chaos fell where.

GW did what it always does.  They clearly defined where the boundaries are of what armies they would support from 5th onwards.  So IMO they dropped them because they had never really supported them in the first place, perhaps the lower than anticipated sales didn’t help (which we will never know).  But going by the evidence of what we have seen in terms of armybooks, its clear they had no intention of major support from the start.  Why else release them piecemeal as a series of WD lists?

More of a gimic than a proper launch of an army. 5th ed was the end of the gimics.

Thommy H:

Only other ones I can think of are Sisters of Battle and Necrons (not even so sure on those).
Necrons were a WD list, but Sisters got their own Codex right away.

wallacer:

Big Hats also have a certain kitsch or novelty value which time lends to some things. This kitsch value, which seems to be a part of the appeal for some Hatters out there, wouldn’t necessarily have helped push Hat sales at the time.

My own opinion is that GW, for reasons probably known only to them, simply didn’t seem to care all that much about supporting CDs. Their “army list” was just a compilation of White Dwarf articles (which in itself says a lot about GW’s lack of interest) and also the model support wasn’t all that it could have been.

It would be interesting to hear from people in the know in GW at the time why all this might have been so, but I doubt if we ever will.