It has to fit in with all the 7th edition rules. Hasn't the definition of a 'rank' been changed to 5 now?
Grimstonefire
If it has, I'll wrangle it by RAW. I'd rather it was consistent than advantageous. But if there's nothing in the existing rules that say it's five models rather than four then we're stuck with the current situation. It's obviously imperative that nothing new be added to this - it's literally just a reformatting of the Ravening Hordes rules, with the addition of established errata. This needs to be presented as the current legal rules for CD, because we currently lack a definitive source since GW revamped their website.
I’ve been working on the same idea on and off for months. I have the units all done and just need to fill out the filler as it were perhaps combining the efforts is the best bet.
Basically lay it out in a traditional form: armorey, magic, magic items, etc…
In fact I’ve used your special character formats, makes logical sense. Ubertechies PDF of the fixed to blundies, it’s very rough slow aren’t done either. I’m guessing if we flesh this out, add the fluff and art and we are all set.
The real question is the legality, this such a nebulous area, however if we reference the O&G book rather the post the rules we might be all set.
In terms of an army book we could use members models rather then illustations which is another way to avoid GWs IP concerns.
Well…here’s the thing: you say you’ve been working on it for months. I don’t want to be in a situation where I (or we) farm out lots of different tasks to lots of different people and we end up doing a fairly simple task by committee and ending up with it never coming to fruition. We need a pretty firm hand, and this is something I want to do anyway, so I figure it might as well do some good instead of just sitting on my hard drive.
Essentially, I would like to do the whole thing, and I just need you guys to give me your seal of approval (and sexify it, of course). If you’d rather take a more democratic approach, then that’s okay, but I think the results will be better if one person just submits the work and if there’s any serious problems then others can come in and make modifications.
I think this is a very simple task that doesn’t need a dozen people throwing in their ideas. It just needs one guy willing to do the work quickly and well, and then the staff to make it “official”.
Well...here's the thing: you say you've been working on it for months. I don't want to be in a situation where I (or we) farm out lots of different tasks to lots of different people and we end up doing a fairly simple task by committee and ending up with it never coming to fruition. We need a pretty firm hand, and this is something I want to do anyway, so I figure it might as well do some good instead of just sitting on my hard drive.
Essentially, I would like to do the whole thing, and I just need you guys to give me your seal of approval (and sexify it, of course). If you'd rather take a more democratic approach, then that's okay, but I think the results will be better if one person just submits the work and if there's any serious problems then others can come in and make modifications.
I think this is a very simple task that doesn't need a dozen people throwing in their ideas. It just needs one guy willing to do the work quickly and well, and then the staff to make it "official".
Thommy H
I think you are misunderstanding me.
The reason why I haven't finished this very idea is because of time. However I fully agree that the keep it tight and focused approach is the way to go. I have no issue with you leading this.
When I say I have it done I'm talking about specific sections. For instance the stat blocks for the units. There is no sense having you have to retype them when they have already been done.
Armory like wise, etc...
The one issue thou is that is still available on the Australian GW website. This one is tricky because on one hand GW is saying now they are not legal, but don't posts any rules for them. Its much different then when I wrote rules for Nippon, Estalia and the Norse... www.darkshadowgames.com
No, I got why - but it amounts to the same thing. The more people we rely on, the longer this will take to come together. If one person is doing the fluff and one person is doing the rules for units and another person is doing the rules for characters, that’s going to hold this up. The project is not extensive enough to require a whole gaggle of people contributing. It’s going to go smoother if the main body of writing is done by just one person, since it’s not a massive amount of work. It can be done in a matter of days, I believe.
As for legality. Well, we’re not adding anything new. Could it be challenged? I don’t know…I’d argue that, since it’s just reiterating the information available in a free PDF then it qualifies as fair use. We’re not charging for it, and we’re not reprinting anything that appears in a GW publication that would ordinarily have to be paid for. I plan to write an introduction that makes the situation clear but, worst case scenario, they’ll just ask us to take it down.
The priority, I believe, is to provide new Chaos Dwarf players with the resources they need to collect their armies. Right now, there isn’t an army list. I couldn’t even get the Australian version up, so that may be down too now. We can just host the original pdf here (since plenty of us have it saved), but if we’re going to do that then why not make our own definitive version? The only argument against doing that is “it’s going to take too long to get it made” but that’s an issue I plan to circumvent with my super-skills in the coming days.
So if I write it and post it, will those of you interested proof-read it? And if we’re all happy, we move on to pdf-ication.
In that case I think your best bet is to see how it goes in its raw form. As to formatting who knows? What we really need is a few more people skilled in graphic design to step forward and those that possess Adobe InDesign in their arsenal.
Well it was the hope that I could get you guys on board to help with the graphic design elements that motivated me to suggest this as a project instead of just doing it and going “hai guyz! look wat i did!” and posting it.
Obviously though, if either of you don’t have the time to do it then that’s cool. There are others who could help, but I’m hoping for this to be something CDO can promote (that’s the idea of the Projects here, isn’t it? Have we ever actually completed one before?).
I’m glad the pdf is still online too. I tried it earlier and it didn’t work, but that was probably just a random server error. Still, it’s pretty obscure - I think having a nice, coherent piece of work we can host as our own thing would be very beneficial.
I’d love to do it… however, WoH is taking up A LOT of time as you can imagine. Plus the fact of the ongoing time demands of the T-shirts which I have some ideas on how to get that taken care of…
In short we need more graphic designers. I was looking to start with the Coordinator spot first, but it looks like I need to put teh call out sooner then I expected. Stay tuned.
Okay, so, my plan right now is to get to work on this tomorrow and to post it as “raw” text (there’ll be bold headings and stuff, but no formatting to speak of) and then it can be proof-read and any graphics guys can step up to make it look good. If that’s not possible, I’ll spruce it up a bit (columns, art, etc.) and I can make it into a basic pdf myself.
Sorry, missed this somehow. I can do InDesign work for this project easily, especially if you have some blocks started Willmark. Graphically, I think the choice is whether it matches WOH or not. I’d vote close, but not exactly, personally. Maybe same background, unit photos (or close ups), but keep the font for WOH on WOH, and use something else for this. What were you thinking Tommy?
Also, I posted the oz link for tjub and grunts earlier today…it was working when I did that - I checked it. It is finally back up, but I noticed something funny. The FAQ is not up on their site. So especially as a reference for new players this should be available somewhere!
And I agree with Willmark, don’t post anything but a reference for the Orcs and Goblins book, and be very careful to represent their trademarks, and a note that it is a get you by army list that we are hosting in efforts to promote Chaos Dwarfs.
Well, it looks like we have a couple of people willing to help with the graphics side of things. I don’t really want to say that one of you can do it and one of you can’t so if you guys can come to an agreement that would be ideal, otherwise I say first come first served! I’m going to post the content anyway and you guys can work on it at your leisure really. I don’t want to get all formal and project manage because, as I said before, I think this is too small a task to require micromanagement. We just need a few guys who’ll get the job done.
Certainly my vision was that it would be similar to WOH and I’d love a colour section with models, but that depends on how the book works out. We should probably decide whose models to use if we want to do that though - Ishkur’s are certainly my first pick, but he doesn’t have a huge army, so there’s an issue with getting pictures of everything. I have almost every unit type, but my painting and photography is not the highest standard. If we get desperate, I might re-photograph everything so they look a bit nicer.
If the Earthshaker does not misfire and, in addition to normal damage, roll 2D6.
Also could we clarify the rules on some other shooting, such as salamanders for example? That one came up in a battle today, unsure what the rules are.
Also, you’ve kept the pricing for command groups the same as in RH, which is WAY out of sync with current armies. Hobs and gobs should be 4(mus)/8(st)/8(champ), Warriors, Orcs 5/10/10, Blorcs (and Wolf riders?) 6/12/12, and BCs 8/16/16 to be in line (I think, it’s close to that anyway).
A note may be useful to clarify that slave black orcs cannot carry magic banners as they can in the O&G book.
I may have missed this, but there should also 10000% definitely be a note that CDs do not get the +2 army dispel dice for being Dwarfs.
If the Earthshaker does not misfire and, in addition to normal damage, roll 2D6.
I have a feeling I cut up that sentence in the editing process. I wrote the rules and they ended up as one long sentence so I chopped it up a bit. Evidently one orphan sentence slipped through.
Try it as this: "If the Earthshaker does not misfire, in addition to normal damage, roll 2D6: all units with at least one model within this distance in inches from the point the shell hits are thrown off their feet."
Also, you've kept the pricing for command groups the same as in RH, which is WAY out of sync with current armies.
EVERYTHING is the same as Ravening Hordes. That's what this project is. There are many, many small changes I could have made to smooth things out, but that's not the idea. It's literally the rules as they are, reformatted.
A note may be useful to clarify that slave black orcs cannot carry magic banners as they can in the O&G book
In there already. Page 12: "They follow all the rules given there, but may not take Magic Banners."
I may have missed this, but there should also 10000% definitely be a note that CDs do not get the +2 army dispel dice for being Dwarfs.
I don't see why, really. It should be fairly obvious they're a different race. They also don't get Relentless, Rune magic or Gyrocopters. Possibly because the Dwarfen magic resistance is mentioned in the rulebook...but I'm not quite sure where I'd put it.
That is not the plan. I mean, I actually have a document on my hard drive right now that would do that - an army list I wrote months ago! - but that’s not the idea of this project. The Bull Centaur rules haven’t changed, they just take into account the clarifications from the US Grand Tournament FAQ, as discussed in the Introduction.
This isn’t an army list of my own - it’s literally just a reiteration of the Ravening Hordes rules to a) make them more attractive and b) deal with the possibility that they’ll be offline soon.
If I understand correctly, I think the point of all this is only to merge RH and all existing ‘official’ errata into one document. Change the layout mainly for aesthetic reasons, but also to simplify visually how to upgrade commands etc.
IMO if you are simply to change the presentation and do a few minor rules tweaks, you should keep all the names of things exactly the same (I thought that was your intention?). You’ve changed a lot of champion names throughout, and dropped the Sorcerers.
If it were up to me I’d take out all fluff, just have rules. The RH fluff hasn’t been updated so no need to re-write. The fluff that would have gone with RH died with RH. Anything else (daemon binding, Hellcannon etc) is no longer appropriate in context.
Lots of the rules in there aren’t even up to 6th edition standard (not your fault), but I guess if were being ‘strict’ then they must stay. So if this is a CDO endorsed pdf we’d have to make it clear that it merges all ‘official’ information together, but it isn’t up to 7th edition standard.