[Archive] Ravening Hordes V. 1.1

[system]

Thommy H:

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.

Yes, I've given the Champions names. That's standard for 6th Edition onwards, so it seemed like a fairly obvious step. The only army that now uses the basic "Champion" nomenclature is Chaos. I haven't "dropped" the Sorcerers, I've just changed them into "Priests", which was always what the fluff said they were. The choice to make Hero-level Sorcerers into "Acolytes" was because I had to rationalise why Heroes were Ld 10 and not Hero-level Sorcerers, since the logic of Heroes being Ld 10 was "they serve the Priests and their power is absolute". If Hero-level Sorcerers are just less powerful Priests, shouldn't they have Ld 10 too by that logic? So I made them into something slightly different. They're still "baby Priests", but they're also engineers and daemonsmiths.

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.

I thought I made the aims of the project pretty clear? To create an Army Book-style document with background and rules. Now, if we're going to do that (and I thought it had been agreed that that's what we were doing here) then the only background any of us are going to agree on is what exists in canon: big hats, Hashut, daemon binding, Hellcannon, etc. I know you've introduced a lot of revisions to the background for your own projects, Grim, but there is nothing irreconcilable between the 4th/5th Edition background and the current mentions of the Chaos Dwarfs. It all fits together, as the background in this document demonstrates.

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.

I don't know what "7th Edition standard" is. A few people have mentioned it in this thread. The rules are what they are: if we start tinkering (halving the price of musicians, making Wolf Riders 5+ and losing fast cavalry if they have shields, changing the Hero's stats) then this is just another fan-made army list. The Introduction is really clear that this is a reformatting of the existing rules.

I don't mean to come across as confrontational, but every time someone says something about 7th Edition rules or laments that something doesn't quite make sense I think "Did you not read the thread and the Introduction?" It's just Ravening Hordes, cleaned up, incorporating errata and with all the relevant canon background. Why include background? Because there's nowhere to get this stuff from apart from our wiki these days, and that's not always internally consistent. To me, the background section of this is more important than the rules. Right now, I believe this document to be the only totally consistent account of the official Chaos Dwarf background that exists. Someone reading that would know as much as any other Chaos Dwarf fan here. Someone just starting out with the army we're trying to promote shouldn't have to pick up snippets from posts on forums and fansites: they should have one single document, like an Army Book, that they can read and think "okay, this is the official fluff."

[Grimstonefire]

Grimstonefire:

Yes, I've given the Champions names. That's standard for 6th Edition onwards, so it seemed like a fairly obvious step. The only army that now uses the basic "Champion" nomenclature is Chaos.

Thommy H

Ok.  Fair enough, but this only represents your opinion of what they should be called.  As a strict RH update they should still be called Champion.  Same with all the other names.  If we are presenting this as a definative alternative it cannot have our own opinions on names.

I haven't "dropped" the Sorcerers, I've just changed them into "Priests", which was always what the fluff said they were. The choice to make Hero-level Sorcerers into "Acolytes" was because I had to rationalise why Heroes were Ld 10 and not Hero-level Sorcerers, since the logic of Heroes being Ld 10 was "they serve the Priests and their power is absolute". If Hero-level Sorcerers are just less powerful Priests, shouldn't they have Ld 10 too by that logic? So I made them into something slightly different. They're still "baby Priests", but they're also engineers and daemonsmiths.

Thommy H

You've used the terms Sorcerer and Priest interchangeably throughout the fluff and list.  This is not evident in Ravening Hordes, nor as far as I'm aware in the canon fluff.  I don't have my WD presents book to hand to check, but RH superceeds that anyway, and in that they are called Sorcerers.

I thought I made the aims of the project pretty clear? To create an Army Book-style document with background and rules. Now, if we're going to do that (and I thought it had been agreed that that's what we were doing here) then the only background any of us are going to agree on is what exists in canon: big hats, Hashut, daemon binding, Hellcannon, etc. I know you've introduced a lot of revisions to the background for your own projects, Grim, but there is nothing irreconcilable between the 4th/5th Edition background and the current mentions of the Chaos Dwarfs. It all fits together, as the background in this document demonstrates.


Thommy H

You proved me wrong on that one.  The way you've written it is limited and very factual, therefore uncontroversial.

I don't know what "7th Edition standard" is. A few people have mentioned it in this thread. The rules are what they are: if we start tinkering (halving the price of musicians, making Wolf Riders 5+ and losing fast cavalry if they have shields, changing the Hero's stats) then this is just another fan-made army list. The Introduction is really clear that this is a reformatting of the existing rules.  

Thommy H

I don't know that other people mean, but IMO 7th edition standard is representing things as all other 7th edition books would present.

Having 5+ core unit size (as compared to the nearest equivalent).
Having 3 Crew for Death Rocket.  The BT probably should, but as the HE and DE don't I guess it's debateable.
Having shields as optional.
Having hand weapon and additional hand weapon for SG
Having all the command upgrades listed with appropriate points (as compared to the nearest equivalent).
Having GW, shield and Additional hw as seperate options for BC.
Plus the ones you mentionned.

As these are all personal preferences, they shouldn't appear in your update.  But make no mistake, RH was barely appropriate for 6th edition, so a '100% strict' update is certainly not up to 7th.  If we are presenting this on CDO as an alternative to ravening hordes, we have to make it clear with a disclaimer of sorts where it fits in terms of editions so people don�?Tt think its a �?~7th edition Ravening Hordes�?T and get confused. I.e. 'This is an strict update of the Ravening Hordes list as designed for 6th edition Warhammer.  It only brings in the limited 'official' errata that have been subsequently released'.

I really do understand your intentions behind this, but my issues are much more to do with how its presented and what it represents than why it�?Ts being done at all.  If you get what I mean ;)  In principle its good to have something that combines canon fluff and a better layed out RH list (+FAQ).  Stops people having to look all over to piece it together.

If it were simply a CDO fan project you could do it however you wanted and I wouldn�?Tt care.  But as you want CDO to use it as the definitive alternative we have to be totally clear about what it is, and what it is not.

[system]

Thommy H:

Ok.  Fair enough, but this only represents your opinion of what they should be called.  As a strict RH update they should still be called Champion.  Same with all the other names.  If we are presenting this as a definative alternative it cannot have our own opinions on names.

But there has to be a degree of editorial fiat here. In doing this project at all, we're altering some things - if we just want to have Ravening Hordes completely as is, let's just host the original PDF. What I mean is, if we're going to (for example) separate out Warriors and Blunderbusses, we're already departing from the RH list to a certain extent. We're allowed to make cosmetic changes, just as long as the rules are kept as they are. Most of my choices for names are actually pretty well established in the background (all Greenskin champions are 'bosses', Gorduz is a 'Chieftain', commanders of Chaos Dwarf armies are referred to as 'Warlords' in background sources). Others are included so that there's some reference to things that appear in newer background sources without adding anything new - for example, Warrior Champions are called 'Immortals'. It's a way of incorporating newer ideas into the old list.

I acknowledge that people may disagree with my exact choices, but is there anything explicitly contradictory in there? Is "Bull Centaur Elder" so different from "Bull Centaur Hero" that it spoils anyone's concept of what a Bull Centaur Hero is?

You've used the terms Sorcerer and Priest interchangeably throughout the fluff and list.  This is not evident in Ravening Hordes, nor as far as I'm aware in the canon fluff.  I don't have my WD presents book to hand to check, but RH superceeds that anyway, and in that they are called Sorcerers.

Not quite. 'Sorcerer' is just what Chaos Dwarfs call anyone with magical abilities. 'Priest' is what RH calls a Sorcerer Lord. So Sorcerer is used to refer to all of them, and Priest just to the Lord-level guys. It's pretty clear in WD present: CD that Sorcerers are the Priests of Hashut. It refers to them in that way multiple times.

I don't really know what "RH supersedes that" means...RH doesn't have any background, apart from one paragraph of text. Are we actually assuming that RH represents a retcon of what came before? I think it's fairly obvious that the RH list is a literal translation of the old army list in the WD book - it doesn't change anything that was established there. That's why the WD book is still valid background as far as I'm concerned.

Having 3 Crew for Death Rocket and Earthshaker.

The Earthshaker should have three crew (it does in RH), that was just an oversight in my list because I copied and pasted from the Death Rocket entry.

Having hand weapon and additional hand weapon for SG

They do have two hand weapons... I'm not sure what the problem is here.

And, as you say, everything else is personal preference, and they're things that aren't in the RH list, so they don't belong in this project.

Again, I want to reiterate this: the purpose of this project is to take the RH list and make it look like an Army Book. We're not changing any rules. We're not "updating for 7th Edition" (which I think is sort of silly anyway - 7th Edition isn't so different that the RH list is unusable. Most people on this forum, including myself, use it completely as-is against modern armies) we're just making the rules and a concise and consistent version of the background as it currently stands available to new players, instead of having to PM people illegal copies of the pdf once it goes offline for good.

The way I see it is this: once the pdf disappears (and I think there's no doubt that it will), we're going to have to host it here if we want there to be a Chaos Dwarf army list available. If we're going to do that, why not make our own version that looks and feels better? Why not use the opportunity to present all the background and incorporate errata? Why not make it better than an eight-year-old pdf? We can't tinker with the rules, because that defeats the purpose of even doing this, but we can alter the aesthetics.

I don't mean to get on anyone's case here, but it seems like most of the critique I've gotten so far is of the concept, not the actual document I've posted. The basic idea is not going to change now! If you don't want to add to or help with the project as it is, then stay out of the thread! :)

EDIT (cos you edited while I was replying):

If we are presenting this on CDO as an alternative to ravening hordes, we have to make it clear with a disclaimer of sorts where it fits in terms of editions so people don�?Tt think its a �?~7th edition Ravening Hordes�?T and get confused. I.e. 'This is an strict update of the Ravening Hordes list as designed for 6th edition Warhammer. It only brings in the limited 'official' errata that have been subsequently released'.

I think the Introduction is very clear about this, isn't it? Maybe it's not coming across as firmly as I think it is (could be because of the professional-type language I'm using).

Let me summarise the issues I'm getting from this:

* New fluff. Some of it is causing a bit of friction. Should we change names of things without discussing the best options? Is that too much editorial fiat being exercised by me?

* It needs to be made more clear what this is and what it's for.

[Grimstonefire]

Grimstonefire:

* New fluff. Some of it is causing a bit of friction. Should we change names of things without discussing the best options? Is that too much editorial fiat being exercised by me?

Thommy H

I think it's best to be consistent throughout. If it's called something in RH, its called it in RH V1.1.  That way we avoid all those issues that really aren't that important (but would require answering)!   :)

I for one would find it really annoying a year from now if people kept saying 'but you're calling warrior champions 'champions' when they're called 'Immortals' as in the pdf'.

As far as I'm concerned the rest of the fluff is pretty much fine.  I haven't proof read it fully, but from the quick read I did it sticks pretty much to what is uncontroversial.  The one point I would need to check in White Dwarf presents is that the hobgoblins are specifically refered to as allies (you refer to them as favoured slaves and allies).  It's been so long since I read that bit.

Another rules thing I think we needed to double check is to make it clear whether all the rules that apply to 7th ed O&G apply to the ones in our list.

* It needs to be made more clear what this is and what it's for.

Thommy H

Agreed.  Your preface, although interesting to read, wouldn't be necessary in its entirety in the actual pdf as far as I'm concerned.  All we would need is a half page condensed intro on what it actually is.

Just incase I wasn't clear before, I do appreciate what you're doing.  We will clearly have a problem once the australia website moves.  My only real concerns are making sure that this pdf is completed in such a way all the staff would be happy hosting it as representative of CDO.  A fan project is one thing, being representative of a forum is another (hence the keen staff interest in your thread ;)).

[system]

Thommy H:

I for one would find it really annoying a year from now if people kept saying 'but you're calling warrior champions 'champions' when they're called 'Immortals' as in the pdf'.

That's fair enough. I think people like the RH list because it leaves a lot open for interpretation. The issues start when someone who calls their Champions "Sergeants of the Tower" reads this list which calls them Immortals and it immediately turns them off. There's so much interpretation that's gone on in the past few years that even something that seems non-controversial to me may spark heated debate.

Can we agree to keep some of the more obvious designations though? I'm thinking Warlord, Hobgoblin Chieftain, Boss, maybe the Sorcerer names (again, because of the Ld 10 Hero issue) and please let's not lose "Sneakier Git". We can all agree it's the best thing in the army, can't we?

The one point I would need to check in White Dwarf presents is that the hobgoblins are specifically refered to as allies. It's been so long since I read that bit.

They're slaves. It says it all the way through. I've seen people get confused about this before, but I assure you, 100%, that Hobgoblins are slaves. They have higher status than other slaves (they don't have to work - they just do the whipping and fight) but they're still definitely slaves.

Agreed. Your preface, although interesting to read, wouldn't be necessary in its entirety in the actual pdf as far as I'm concerned. All we would need is a half page condensed intro on what it actually is.

I think we need to cover issues like copyright though, and also say more than just what it is. It's like an editorial rather than just a bare-bones explanation. I was actually thinking of having a BIG LETTERS explanation in addition to the Introduction.

Just incase I wasn't clear before, I do appreciate what you're doing. We will clearly have a problem once the australia website moves. My only real concerns are making sure that this pdf is completed in such a way all the staff would be happy hosting it as representative of CDO. A fan project is one thing, being representative of a forum is another

Yeah, I absolutely understand that. There is a fine line to walk between "personal project" and "something we can all endorse". That's why I want to get feedback for the fluff issues and the way I've done some other things. That said (and as I mentioned earlier in the thread) if we try to do every little thing by committee, we'll be working on this for months, arguing about every detail. The best solution (and I've found this in other collaborative endeavours, particularly online) is to have one guy just offer his own take and keep tweaking until everyone is happy enough. This project will never be exactly how you want it done, Grim, or exactly how Willmark wants it done or [insert name] wants it done, not unless you guys offer to do the bulk of the work instead.

But I am happy to keep editing until it's close enough to a consensus vision to pass muster as representative of CDO as a whole.

[cornixt]

cornixt:

I was a bit concerned this morning when I read this thread, so I wrote a lengthy solution offline to calm things down. I’m pleased that you have resolved this already. The second version is much more what I was expecting and I think a much more neutral version. It looks like a good place to start from.

[system]

Thommy H:

Well that’s at least one member of staff on board! Keep any thoughts on the content coming, everyone else.

[cornixt]

cornixt:

Some critique:

Slaves rule - Due to the use of O&G units, we should probably turn this around the other way. This means you don’t have to attach the rule to the O&G units. Give a rule to CDs and BCs so that they ignore fleeing HGs, O&Gs. It also means that Hobgoblins won’t have two different rules that do the same thing but to different units. We should not have the stats of O&G units in the bestiary since they aren’t in the army list.

Get rid of special rules with the same name as the unit. This creates a lot of confusion (I used to do it myself). It is not necessary to have a special rule regarding a unique war machine’s specific way of shooting, they usually just say “see page X”.

Some of the language in the rules is a bit confusing (Backstab, Blunderbuss).

Black Library books are generally not considered canon, so I don’t think we want to go too far when it comes to describing daemonic war machines.

The need for a note explaining that we only have 2 dispel dice is understandable. Dwarfs are the only army where an army-specific rule is in the main rulebook with no reason.

Why is the heavy armour missing from the Hobgoblin Cheiftain, and why are shields listed separately?

The exchange option on BCs has been handled in the new Chaos book as “Must have one of the following”

[system]

Thommy H:

Give a rule to CDs and BCs so that they ignore fleeing HGs, O&Gs.

That might be more elegant, yes.

EDIT: Although, I use the Slaves rule to also cover how Hobgoblin characters can't be the General and how Hobgoblins can't be Core. Maybe roll that into the Hobgoblin rule instead?

EDIT 2: Thinking about how to word this rule then... Do all Chaos Dwarf units, characters and war machines get a rule that says they ignore other units for the purposes of Panic? That's a lot of things to add a special rule to. It's actually easier to have the Slaves picked out as the exception than the non-Slaves, I think. The big problem is that there's two "ignore panic" rules in play: O&Gs ignore Hobbos because they hate them, and CDs ignore all Greenskins because they're slaves. Maybe the Hobgoblin rule could cover most of the stuff (everyone ignores Hobgoblins, they can't be Core or the General) and then the O&G thing is covered in their rules - that everything in the actual army list (except Hobgoblins) ignores them for the purposes of Panic.

We should not have the stats of O&G units in the bestiary since they aren't in the army list.

I included them because they're in the Chaos Dwarf summary at the back of the Warhammer Rulebook. It seemed nice to keep the format consistent in the bestiary.

Get rid of special rules with the same name as the unit. This creates a lot of confusion (I used to do it myself). It is not necessary to have a special rule regarding a unique war machine's specific way of shooting, they usually just say "see page X".

Then what do you suggest for the names of the special rules for Blunderbusses and Bull Centaurs?

Some of the language in the rules is a bit confusing (Backstab, Blunderbuss).

How so? Explain what confuses you specifically so I know what to change.

Black Library books are generally not considered canon, so I don't think we want to go too far when it comes to describing daemonic war machines.

I don't think I go very far at all really! It was just to tie them back into the Hellcannon and the Daemonsmiths. Even if BL books aren't "canon", I see no reason not to acknowledge the possibility of Daemons being an integral part of how Chaos Dwarfs build machines. Everything in the most recent books indicates that it's a big part of everything they do.

Why is the heavy armour missing from the Hobgoblin Cheiftain, and why are shields listed separately?

Because I don't like Hobgoblins in heavy armour? Just another case of editorial fiat, really. I didn't include light armour for Chaos Dwarf characters either since I can't imagine anyone takes it. I suppose I probably ought to throw the possibility of a Hobbo in a suit of armour back in there though...

Shields are separate because that's the format in the WOC pdf that I used as the basis of this style of army list.

The exchange option on BCs has been handled in the new Chaos book as "Must have one of the following"

That's much better! I'll use that.

Thanks for the input!

[system]

Thommy H:

One thing that will definitely appear in the third draft is a boxout explaining who ignores panic for who… Just a sort of candid designer’s note about it.

[Grimstonefire]

Grimstonefire:

You must include all the options in RH, even if you think nobody takes them.

Change ‘Scaly Skin (4+)’ to Scaly Skin (4+ Armour Save).

@cornixt

We have to keep the Blunderbuss special rule as it refers to a unit of Blunderbussers firing the blunderbuss.  If it was special rules for any model armed with a blunderbuss we could do it differently.

Overall I’m much happier with this version.

EDIT

I think this bit needs rephrasing (underlined)

Blunderbuss

Chaos Dwarf Blunderbusses fire in a unique way. They are used in the shooting phase like other missile weapons and may be fired if the unit moves (but not if they march). Measure 12�?� directly forward on either end of the unit and trace a line between the ends of the lines to form a �?~box�?T 12�?� on each side and the same width as the unit, like a template weapon. Any model with its base even partially in this area is a potential target and is hit on a 4+ - the only exceptions are models in substantial cover such as behind a hill or building. Any model hit suffers a Strength 3 hit, increasing to Strength 4 if the Blunderbusses have an additional rank (minimum of four models) and Strength 5 if there is a third rank. Additional ranks have no effect. A single character model in the front rank of a Blunderbuss unit will not affect their fire. Note that Blunderbusses still require five models per rank for the purposes of combat resolution, but their weapons will work with four models per rank. The Blunderbusses may not fire if there is a friendly unit (even Slaves!) in their area of fire or an enemy unit engaged in close combat with a friendly unit (as per the normal rules forbidding shooting into close combat).

Of course they will work!?!?

Perhaps to this:

Blunderbuss

Chaos Dwarf Blunderbusses fire in a unique way. They are used in the shooting phase like other missile weapons and may be fired if the unit moves (but not if they march). Measure 12�?� directly forward on either end of the unit and trace a line between the ends of the lines to form a �?~box�?T 12�?� on each side and the same width as the unit, like a template weapon. Any model with its base even partially in this area is a potential target and is hit on a 4+ - the only exceptions are models in substantial cover such as behind a hill or building. Any model hit suffers a Strength 3 hit. If the Blunderbuss unit has additional ranks of at least four models, this will increase to Strength 4 if there is a second rank and Strength 5 if there is a third rank. Additional ranks have no effect. A single character model in the front rank of a Blunderbuss unit will not affect their fire. The Blunderbusses may not fire if there is a friendly unit (even Slaves!) in their area of fire or an enemy unit engaged in close combat with a friendly unit (as per the normal rules forbidding shooting into close combat).

I.e. work on the assumption that it goes without saying that close combat ranks are 5 models wide. You don’t normally state this.

Leave the 4 models wide thing as a particular part of the Blunderbuss rule.

[system]

Thommy H:

Scaly Skin (4+ Armour Save)

Scaly Skin is always an armour save. The nomenclature is consistent with how it appears in the current Army Books.

Now, about these Blunderbusses. How's this for new wording:

"Chaos Dwarf Blunderbusses fire in a unique way. They are used in the shooting phase like other missile weapons and may be fired if the unit moves (but not if they march). Trace a 12�?� line on either end of the unit straight forward so that it forms a �?~box�?T immediately in front of the Blunderbusses, 12�?� on either side and the width of the unit�?Ts frontage. Any model with its base even partially within this zone is hit on a 4+."

A diagram would be loads better. Anyone have the photoshop skillz necessary to make one?

[system]

Viskar Zhragoth:

Hey Tommy H, sorry, a bit busy at work, but I can incorporate one in easily. Sorry, Can’t talk too much right now…busy at work, but I have some ideas…we can discuss later.

[system]

Thommy H:

Cool. If you can make a diagram like the one that’s in WD presents: CD, that would be ideal.

[cornixt]

cornixt:

I was going to answer each point separately, but I’ll do it all in one chunk.

I thought this was going to be a straight-up official copy of the list with only the FAQs and updates abosorbed into it and everything looking nice. If you are going to disallow Hobgoblin generals, Hobgoblins not allowed heavy army, etc, then it is an unofficial update. Nothing editorial about it. I have no problems with it being that, but it completely changes the intent of the project. You become a designer, not an editor.

If you’re going to change some things you might as well change a few more. Why not ban BC generals or make all Sorcerer Lords as level 4? Shields are included as armour for characters in the WoC book, and with all other additional equipment for the other units.

Since the O&G is a separate publication, I think we should keep this as self-contained as possible with regards to the rules of those units. That means not having their stats in there at all. Legal-wise there may also be some problems because they are current rules that are commercially available. Adding a rule to them for the CD army is a bit awkward since their other rules aren’t in there (although it would be much neater than the alternative I have below). I’ll think about it some more.

The number of units that follow a common rule isn’t really an issue IMO, as long as it isn’t every unit in the army.

All CD and BC units have this:

Slavers - Chaos Dwarf and Bull Centaurs automatically pass panic tests caused by the following units: Hobgoblins, Wolf Riders, Sneaky Gits, Goblins, Orc Boyz, Arrer Boyz, Black Orcs

HG units have this (hero and BT don’t really need it though):

Good Riddance - Hobgoblins do not cause panic tests in any of the following units: Goblins, Orc Boyz, Arrer Boyz, Black Orcs

I’ll address the other points when I have time (wording and names of special rules, daemonic war machines, I think that’s it)

[system]

Thommy H:

If you are going to disallow Hobgoblin generals

This is just an oversight on my part - I thought Hobgoblin Heroes couldn't be generals in the RH list but, looking at it now, that's not disallowed. The armour thing has been changed now too.

Legal-wise there may also be some problems because they are current rules that are commercially available

The basic characteristics are included in (free) summaries available online though. Also, they don't vary from the (free) rules in Ravening Hordes, so I don't think it's an issue. Certainly no more an issue than any of this project.

For the panic issue, this is how it's been dealt with:

- Hobgoblins have a rule which says they don't cause panic in any units except other Hobgoblins.
- In the Orcs and Goblins rules (the same place it says about them not being able to take magic banners) it says that they don't cause panic in any units from the Chaos Dwarf list except Hobgoblins.

Underneath this is a "Don't panic!" box, which candidly talks about how complex the panic rules become since Orcs and Goblins have their own hierarchy too and summarises who panics becaise of whom. There's also a "chain of command" diagram that serves as a handy reference to work it out, like this: Chaos Dwarfs/Bull Centaurs > Black Orcs > Orcs > Goblins > Hobgoblins

This reduces it to one special rule ("Hobgoblins") and a general rule that simply applies to all units taken from the O&G list, in the same way as the banners thing.

[system]

Thommy H:

Alright, another double post (don’t eat me, HB!) but I wanted to get the most recent revision uploaded before I went to bed so I don’t wake up tomorrow and see a load of feedback on stuff I’ve already changed. This latest version incorporates most of what’s been suggested so far and I have to say that I feel a lot better about it than I did the first version from yesterday.

EDIT: Grim, I didn’t see your comment about the blunderbuss rules until just now. I see what you’re saying there - the “still work” phrasing is a bit clumsy. Expect it to be fixed in revision #4!

[system]

AGPO:

Hey Thommy. Tad wierd as I had this idea myself about a fortnight ago and actually started work on it. Couple of points I came up wit hwhilst skimming through your work:

1) As we are inviting people to compare the rules, anything taken from the offical GW FAQ PDF (woah, lots of acronyms!) should be pointed out

2) Any Direwolf or GT FAQs should be clearly pointed out as unofficial. Not to knock these as I use them myself, but they are not from Ravening Hordes or the official PDF errata, and therefore aren’t ‘cannon.’ I would suggest an editor’s note something like the following:

Bull centaurs:

There is a grey area concerning the change in the rules from 6th to 7th edition regarding great weapons and cavalry as regards bull centaurs. The following is taken from the USGT 200X FAQ and is as close to an official ruling as we have (insert GT ruling.) Alternatively, applying strictly the RAW which defines cavalry as models on a 25x50mm base consisting aof a seperate rider and mount (not sure if this is correct btw) it would appear that BCs are not cavalry and therefore recieve +2S from Great Weapons and do not gain a +1 save bonus for being cavalry.

NB: In the Ravening Hordes list v1.0 it quite clearly refers to blunderbusses getting +1S for every full rank of four or more models behind the first. Therefore applying RAW it only requires four and not five models to gain the strength bonus even though five are needed to claim rank bonus in close combat.

Clearance could also be used on where the sneaky gitz ruling comes from and what is and isn’t official. I just think everything has to be 100% official if we’re presenting this as a reformatting and not a fan list.

Also (and please don’t take this personally) I think the intro could be more consice. Something like:

This list is a reformatting of the official Chaos Dwarfs army list from the Ravening Hordes booklet, plus the official errata, background on each of the units and rules clarifications as they apply. Where there are issues from the change from sixth to seventh edition rules, these have been pointed out and clarified where possible. We have attemtpted to clarify these by taking rulings from other publications, applying RAW (rules as written) and/or refering to various Games Workshop tournament FAQs. If your question is not covered then we ask you simply apply common sense.

[system]

Thommy H:

Given that there are already a few candid notes throughout, I think there’s no harm in adding some to the FAQd areas too. Thanks for the feedback, AGPO, there will be more indication of what’s derived from an FAQ and what isn’t in revision #4!

[cornixt]

cornixt:

I don’t have a big problem with Blunderbuss as a rule name, since the unit is called Chaos Dwarf

Blunderbusses and the blunderbuss is a weapon.

Bull Centaurs - A bit hard, maybe “Blessed of Hashut”, “Infantry Stance”

Hobgoblins - “Nobody Cares” comes to mind, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a rule

with the same name for Snotlings in O&G.

The confusingly written rules don’t look so bad on my second look, but we can learn some lessons

from the poorly written FAQ. Yours are an improvement, but I think we can still do better. I agree

that it should really be noted which updates you are applying to the list, especially since the

US-GT FAQ was never considered official (and there was 50-50 disagreement on this site about how good it was)

Rather than:

"At the end of every combat they may perform a Free Manoeuvre as described on page 46 of the

Warhammer Rulebook whether they won or lost. Conversely, when an opponent wins a combat against

Sneaky Gitz, they may turn to face them, but they may not increase their frontage to bring more

models into combat."

A clearer version:

"They may perform a Free Manoeuvre, as described on page 46 of the Warhammer Rulebook, even if

they lost that round of combat. An opponent that wins a combat against Sneaky Gitz, may turn to

face them as part of a Free Manoeuvre, but may not increase the number of models in their front

rank."

The rules about Hobgoblins not being Core should be with the army list, rather than only as part

of a special rule. You could add it as a note in the same way as the battle standard bearer, but

it needs to be in there.

My main problem with the daemonic war machine fluff is that it completely eliminates the non-daemonic style (which is still very common among current players)

There is loads more than I haven’t read in detail.