Bolg:
If FW think there is merit in an idea they would hopefully consider it.It never hurts to try,even if its just to show our commitment/enthusiasm.
I'll be going to the FW open day in April so I'll happily hand over a list of ideas for them to consider.
Grimstonefire
Animatone:
Alright now for this thread I will try to handle this with kid gloves. There is a matter that we need to address as a community and see if we can get ForgeWorld to address it.Sounds reasonable... when forge world was demoing the rules for the CD's Infernals were cheaper then they are now listed in Tamurkhan. So I could definitely agree with the change to bring down the points cost.
We should all make our reasonable suggestions for change and once we get a list of items put together submit them to ForgeWorld as Errata. They took very well to the FAQ so now lets do the Errata side of that same idea.
Changing stats or cost of units.
I only have 2 changes I want to suggest both of which I am sure are very reasonable.
1 The number of attacks vs the initiative of the bull centaur models needs to be swapped. At 40points a model only having 2 attacks is a lil silly. Pushing them up to 3 attacks each at initiative 2, keeps well within the spirit of the unit and does not call for re-working of points cost.
2 Ironsworn, the point cost of this unit is 2 points too much as the rules stand. I suggest they either have the points lowered 2 points or give them an extra rule to make them worth the rather high point cost. As for extra rules I was thinking either stubborn OR +1 attack. So they have 2 attacks base each. Again a simple change that can easily be done.
Geist
Tarrakk Blackhand:
Forgeworld? Ha! I’m still using the CDO updated Ravening hordes list! 
Nebukadnezza:
I'm with Thommy with this. As far as I know the only time when GW changed their rules was in 6th edition with Dark Elves. And that was because of a MASSIVE wine of thousands of people around the world (and I assume a worrying drop in DE sells)...I recall that GW released an amended Dark Eldar codex circa 2000 because the original had some problems. And Chaos Space Marines got two codecies in third edition, an original and a revision.
Skink
Thommy H:
The second Chaos Space Marine Codex was totally different from the first one - it wasn’t a revised or updated version; it was just the next cycle’s Codex, ahead of 4th Edition. They did do updates of the Dark Eldar and Dark Angels Codecies though, but that was during a time period when the studio was very games designer led. We’re talking the era of Index Astartes and “army of the month” when every different colour Space Marine got a special rule to make them different. And even then, the tweaks were pretty small: Dark Eldar got vehicle upgrades, which they’d forgotten to include the first time and slightly tweaked Wyches I think. Dark Angels just got a few new options (plasma cannon in tactical squads - mostly because they’d made the model without realising it wasn’t already an option…), Master of the Ravenwing on a bike and cheaper Terminator Armour (because their characters already came bundled with Terminator Honours). So we’re not talking about major overhauls here; certainly nothing as drastic as changing basic points values and profiles.
As I drunkenly tried to explain last night, putting out a book is quite an investment. Where possible, you absolutely don’t want to invalidate anything in it. First, if you do a second edition, people who bought the old one are going to feel ripped off (the second editions of the codecies mentioned above came out some years after the first ones to alleviate this) and if you errata it too thoroughly, you make the actual publication feel worthless. And if people are buying something nice - which the Tamurkhan book is, as an object - you want them to feel like they’re getting something well made that they can use for a while. If that means ignoring some problems, well, from a corporate point of view that’s the lesser of two evils. The alternative is that they put out cheap rules pamphlets or just go entirely PDF. This is what People On The Internet seem to keep asking for. But you forget the value inherent in having a physical book that’s pretty and filled with art and background. GW games aren’t, and have never been, about providing an optimum gaming experience. The main draw of the hobby is the models, then the story, then the art and imagery. How many dice you get to roll when one toy soldier stands next to another toy soldier is a distant fourth.
Hashut’s Blessing:
Ultimately, feel free to do it, but the thread so far is leaning towards it being a personal/small group effort instead of a concerted CDO push.
To me, there’s not that much worth in doing it because 1) It probably won’t make a difference, 2) The FAQ is clariying, not changing (with a couple of notable exceptions), 3) It somewhat invalidates the information in the book (the more changes to the text int he book, the less it’s worth - you paid £45, then had to have three updates for some clarifications and then to make the product competitive, means it’s no valued at £45 any more and chunks of the book are worthless altogether) and 4) It’s a FW/WF product, not GW (directly) - result is that they don’t really ‘get’ how to balance things: genuinely, they make what they think is cool and feel like making. Always been the case and was even confirmed when I worked for the company and chatted to one of the FW sculptors. That’s why things get pushed back because they decide to make the 17th dreadnought for fun, instead of the (newly released) Dwarf Command we saw surfcaing some time last year.
If you do decide to do it, make sure to clearly list the names of only those involved. One other bit of advice is that you’re looking nt he wrong place for balance: Infernal Guard Great weapons should not be 3pts/model. In fact, the base cost could be dropped a point, but they definitely need each piece of optional equipment dropped by 1 or even 2 points.
wallacer:
Im just happy to have an army list. Im pretty old school and the fact i can use a legal Chaos Dwarf still makes me happy.Well, that saves me the trouble of summing up what I think.
gIL^
Karring:
I am agree with both opinions exposed above.
In one side, we can be grateful of having a legal-or pseudolegal-list after ages and ages. Nowadays CD are still a collector’s army, and Legion of Azgorh is, from my point of view, made for giving these collectors the chance of playing with CD, more than making a competitive list.
But in other side, the list fail in some ways, and proof of it is like most of the army lists are suspiciously identical. They are playable-at least, from my experience- but I miss some things on it.
Since FW has a politic quite different from GW, I think we do not lose nothing if we try.
To the “changes” I would added that Infernal Guard were amended as it was in the beginning, before Tamurkhan release. This is, 11 points, and options 1 point less in exchange of losing shield.
Ender SpiteSworn:
People wanting changes to point values of units is certainly nothing new. Unfortunatly Thommy H is right and that GW has a long history of not addressing this until the next army book (with one DE exception) . This is a slighltly different case as I don’t think Forgeworld plans on Updating the army book on an even irregular basis, so they might be more proactive, but I would think the best you could hope for is that they issue a more extensive revison in 2014 when 9th edition hits.
That being said, I use Bull centaurs as is. I just don’t use them to put a lot of attacks on a unit. They are an amazing meat sheild for a stubborn GW wielding Taruk though…
Plus if they were doing point revisions, they should probably also increase the Destroyer cost by 20 pts or so. . .
gIL^:
Plus if they were doing point revisions, they should probably also increase the Destroyer cost by 20 pts or so. . .more like + 70 points
Ender SpiteSworn
Grimstonefire:
more like + 70 pointsWhich would probably negate the benefit of a few points on ironsworn.
gIL^
Baggronor:
Ender SpiteSworn Wrote:Not at all. It's sooooooo easy to neutralise.
Plus if they were doing point revisions, they should probably also increase the Destroyer cost by 20 pts or so. . .
more like + 70 points
Skink:
Mh... Explain what you mean.Ender SpiteSworn Wrote:Not at all. It's sooooooo easy to neutralise.
Plus if they were doing point revisions, they should probably also increase the Destroyer cost by 20 pts or so. . .
more like + 70 points
There are just so many things wrong with LoA in terms of points and rules that an faq won't cut it anyway. In many ways it's the worst thing that could have happened to CDs.
Baggronor
Marduk:
Although I’ve accepted LoA as an army list that has several overpriced units that are internally balanced against a few underpriced special or rare units, I’d like to see some point cost adjustments.
Even if Thommy H is right, it won’t hurt to try.
Grimbold Blackhammer:
Some folks might not like my writing this but Bull Centaurs are priced correctly. We’d like them to have the stats of Demigryphs but then they’d be a lot more expensive. They really aren’t a very good unit but their point cost reflects that. Their big issue is they have no synergy with anything in our army. If they go off on their own, they’ll get pasted. If they don’t, they’re wasting their big movement. We don’t have any way to make them better through spells not magic items. Even adding an over-priced Taur’ruk can’t really make them overly killy. A unit of six has better damage output than ten Cold One Knights for basically the same price. However those Cold One Knights can be given ASF, Killing Blow, double or triple the number of attacks, Stubborn, etc and as soon as that happens, Bull Centaurs get left in the dust. They cost about the same as six Chaos Knights and have similar damage output. But Chaos Knights can be -1 to hit, have ward saves, become ItP, or Frenzied plus super characters of DOOM can join them. Empire Knights have a bottomless pit of buffs they can benefit from not to mention adding multiple characters to make them VERY dangerous. The list goes on.
Bull Centaurs are just sort of vanilla. But they are at least not expensive vanilla.
Geist:
So, I took a gander at what BC were in the ravening hordes list just to get a feel for where they came from to what they became. Upon inspection I noticed a few problems with the logic making them into what they currently are.
Old ones 25pts each T4 Cav. Everything else is basically the same.
New ones 40pts each T5 monster beast with stomp. Everything else is basically the same.
Here are the problems with that change, making them monster beast and T5 (ie +1 T) does not equal 15pts. That is way too many points for such a change. Look at the new 8th ed books were units are actually priced not just to other units inside there books they are also pointed to other like units in other 8th ed books. Long story short, the 2 changes to the BC (unit type from cav to MB and +1T) was pointed way too high. I would rather have them as cav at25pts each with all the old rules than as they stand now. At 25pts each and on cav you can damn near double up on the number of models you can take. Which means the number of attacks stands fine.
IE
210pts 4 with great weapons and horn. This is the current model and point cost.
Old rules.
210pts 8.5 models with horn and great weapon. These are the old rules.
8 attacks under new rules on bigger bases granting a crap ton more swings on them.
16 attacks under old rules on half the base granting a crap ton less swings on them.
The models were changed rules wise and pointed poorly. My argument for attacks increased does nothing but gain logical support. From a good heavy cav to a flank chasing who knows what that does not fit into the army. At this point cost give them 3 attacks each or drop cost down to reflect the actual cost of two rules changes.
Da Crusha:
So, I took a gander at what BC were in the ravening hordes list just to get a feel for where they came from to what they became. Upon inspection I noticed a few problems with the logic making them into what they currently are.your forgetting a couple pretty big points, they also have 3 wounds now instead of 1 from before, can wield great weapons with a +2 strength instead of +1 for being "mounted" unless cdo or grand tournament FAQed. they also have a 5+ scaly skin save and come with heavy armour that they didn't have before...
Old ones 25pts each T4 Cav. Everything else is basically the same.
New ones 40pts each T5 monster beast with stomp. Everything else is basically the same.
Here are the problems with that change, making them monster beast and T5 (ie +1 T) does not equal 15pts. That is way too many points for such a change. Look at the new 8th ed books were units are actually priced not just to other units inside there books they are also pointed to other like units in other 8th ed books. Long story short, the 2 changes to the BC (unit type from cav to MB and +1T) was pointed way too high. I would rather have them as cav at25pts each with all the old rules than as they stand now. At 25pts each and on cav you can damn near double up on the number of models you can take. Which means the number of attacks stands fine.
Geist
Grimbold Blackhammer:
I don’t actually think their frontage is much of an issue. Running three models wide means they are 150mm wide which is only 25mm wider than a unit of five regular cavalry. IMHO centaurs are pretty tough to get rid of in hand to hand combat so those extra attacks coming in aren’t a huge deal for so small an extra space. And as I said above, six centaurs throw out just as many attacks as a 5x2 block of cavalry for about the same price.
The models are amazing. The costs are in line with what they should be. The abilities of the unit do not match the awesomeness of the model and the unit is poorly designed to work with the rest of the army in general.
Based upon what the Internetz seem to think of Chaos Dwarves, I am loath to ask FW for a stat update.
tvandyke:
So, I took a gander at what BC were in the ravening hordes list just to get a feel for where they came from to what they became. Upon inspection I noticed a few problems with the logic making them into what they currently are.I don't know what BC's you were playing with but as soon as 8th edition rolled around, my Ravening Hordes BC's became the biggest waste of points in the army. Why? With only 1, T4 wound with a 5+ armor save they died in droves. In 6th and 7th edition, they at least had a pretty devastating charge. They were fast, so got off the charge in most cases and because the rules were different back then, they got to strike first. A unit of 6, with champ and GW's, could come in with 13, S6 attacks. Not bad. I used to run 2 units of 6. However, in 8th edition, attacking first went to the better initiative. With a initiative of 2, when did BC's ever get to strike first? If they took GW's, which what made them good, they never strike first. They'd charge in, lose 3 or 4 models, have 2 or 3 guys striking back, lose badly, end of unit. My BC's went to the shelf in 8th and never saw the tabletop. At least with LOA, the new BC's can take a beating and actually strike back and are now a nice addition to my army. I can guarantee you, if you were running a unit of 8 BC's using the RH list, you never got 16 attacks. There's almost nothing you can charge that wouldn't kill at least two of your models before you got to strike back, taking you down to 12 attacks. Charge anything decent and you wouldn't even have had that.
Old ones 25pts each T4 Cav. Everything else is basically the same.
New ones 40pts each T5 monster beast with stomp. Everything else is basically the same.
Here are the problems with that change, making them monster beast and T5 (ie +1 T) does not equal 15pts. That is way too many points for such a change. Look at the new 8th ed books were units are actually priced not just to other units inside there books they are also pointed to other like units in other 8th ed books. Long story short, the 2 changes to the BC (unit type from cav to MB and +1T) was pointed way too high. I would rather have them as cav at25pts each with all the old rules than as they stand now. At 25pts each and on cav you can damn near double up on the number of models you can take. Which means the number of attacks stands fine.
IE
210pts 4 with great weapons and horn. This is the current model and point cost.
Old rules.
210pts 8.5 models with horn and great weapon. These are the old rules.
8 attacks under new rules on bigger bases granting a crap ton more swings on them.
16 attacks under old rules on half the base granting a crap ton less swings on them.
The models were changed rules wise and pointed poorly. My argument for attacks increased does nothing but gain logical support. From a good heavy cav to a flank chasing who knows what that does not fit into the army. At this point cost give them 3 attacks each or drop cost down to reflect the actual cost of two rules changes.
Geist
Thommy H:
I have no idea why anyone would even try to compare the RH Bull Centaurs with the modern ones. Apart from the name, they have nothing whatsoever in common. The comparison of number of Attacks also isn’t taking into account Stomp and Monstrous Support either, and those extra Wounds swing the odds all over the place since they’re more likely to get into combat with their full hitting power intact anyway.