I like it, and I really appreciate you giving me credit. I would still like to see this happen in a more “complete” form somewhere down the line, but I suspect that that won’t happen if the people working on it are you and me, Cornixt - we disagree on some pretty fundamental things and I don’t think a compromise will ever satisfy either of us
Personally (as you know from my own version of this) I’d separate Warriors and Blunderbusses out, but it doesn’t really make that big of a difference.
EDIT: As a quick addendum to what I said, this is essentially what I wanted to see come to fruition when I first proposed the project. The Bestiary, etc. were things that got added as the project went on (or as the idea crystallised in my mind, at least) so actually seeing this initial idea created and downloadable is still a great thing as far as I’m concerned. Hopefully this is something CDO can endorse and put on the main site as the primary Chaos Dwarf resource.
Thommy - Separating out the Blunderbusses just made it look a bit odd, with too much empty space. Rules-wise there was no big difference anyway, unlike wolfriders.
Bestiary-wise you can have as many as there are members of the site, although only one that sticks strictly to canon will be endorsed but all the others can be hosted.
At least you didn’t add the Hell Cannon to the list, GW people have told me that the Hell Cannon IS NOT allowed in a CD army. The excuse was that no CD general would not trust or be foolish enough to use the Daemon infused weapon.
The excuse was that no CD general would not trust or be foolish enough to use the Daemon infused weapon.
That would seem to contradict a lot of what the Warriors of Chaos book says - Chaos Dwarfs made the thing, after all. The reason they can't use it is for the very good reason that it isn't in their army list. It's the same reason that High Elves can't use Forest Dragons or Empire can't use Night Goblins.
Bestiary-wise you can have as many as there are members of the site, although only one that sticks strictly to canon will be endorsed but all the others can be hosted.
I don't think "canon" is the issue, really. What I wrote brought together almost every resource, rather than a select arbitrary few (like White Dwarf presents: Chaos Dwarfs). My aim was to produce an up-to-date visions of Chaos Dwarfs, incorporating everything known about them from the most recent army books. If anything, leaving that stuff out would be less canonical than including it.
But we'll never agree on this. Like me, you're a man who only trusts himself to produce satisfactory work - that's why we keep clashing: neither of us can be happy with something that isn't exactly how we would have done it. That said, I would be happy to use this army list in its exact current form in any document to which I put my name. Do you think you could extend the same courtesy to my work and trust me to produce something that meets your standards? You won't like 100% of what I do, and it won't be the same way you'd do it, but that's kind of the idea of a collaborative project. I've learnt the hard way in the past that sometimes you just have to let other people do stuff their way - it's how all hierarchies work, after all. A boss trusts his line managers to interpret his desires, a general trusts his lieutenants to command without his interference, etc.
I don’t have the final say in anything on this site, I’m not even sure if I have any rank in authority other than general mod duties and I very rarely use them anyway. Even in WoH there are a chunk of my suggestions that aren’t acted upon in every issue. I still haven’t had any word on whether CDO will endorse this yet (Xander is out of action) and I wouldn’t mind if they do or not. There’s always going to be disagreements, so you can either make changes to please other people, or keep it the same and please yourself. You just have to decide if those changes compromise your vision of what you were trying to achieve or if they are valid complaints in the first place. I’m using the more general “you” here for anyone producing something, not at you specifically. By cutting out the fluff, I think I removed 99% of any disagreements on content, but if anyone has anything to say about it then I’ll welcome it.
For the record, I had no problem with you including the fluff that wasn’t in WDP:CD, only when you did it in such a way that appeared to eliminate fluff in the WDP:CD (which I felt didn’t need to be done at all), or when there was an extrapolation too far (in my opinion). The staff are more than happy to host your bestiary if you ever go back to it, even sticking in nice art and formatting, and there will soon be a page for these types of things on CDO.
