[Archive] What would it take to have GW include Chaos Dwarfs as an official army?

Clinkz:

I just think they have a lot of other work to get done before a CD army ever goes into the pipeline, there are still plenty of fantasy armies that GW actively supports that they will update first, If CD’s were an army GW was considering going back to,i would have to imagine they would be at the end of a very large To Do list…as least i think so anyway. Still doesnt stop me hoping though :slight_smile:

snowblizz:

@snowblizz

That's a pretty negative view and also, IMO, way off the mark.

GRNDL
And the proof of the opposite is what? That GW loves us so much that they ignore the army for over a decade? I'm a cynic pessimist (so I tend to only be positively surprised), but looking at how much has happened so far...
Not saying I don't wish and hope... but I do the same with the stock market and I'm not surprised when ti doesn't deliver.
First off, using CDO figures as the sole target demographic of a new CD line of models and army book isn't particularly accurate: GW intends to sell its models to all Warhammer players and tailors their lines to them and design them to entice non-Warhammer fans and even non-players to buy them. In other words, as a company GW design models to sell to any and everybody, not just fans. Current CD fans and players will obviously buy some, but don't be fooled that they would be the only ones.

GRNDL
And here I thought this was exactly my point? Baggranor suggested that the talent here on CDO would limit GW's interest in making CDs as *we* wouldn't necessarily need new models. I was trying to point out that we are a pretty marginal group in the grand scheme of creating a permanent addition to the product line.
Secondly, the role of marketing is to get interest in the product out there, amongst as many potential markets as possible. This means that when marketing is done right, people who do not usually buy something, buy this product. CDs have lain "dormant" so long that a lot of new players don't know of their past and would be interested in trying something new. So, with this, your comment about us being marginal is irrelevant. Sure, on strict numbers, we won't be providing much return on investment for GW, but then with a relatively large company embarking on a new product line, we wouldn't have to: the goal is much, much larger than us.

GRNDL
My point exactly! A decision on a Chaos Dwarf will be made completely independent of us. We are in complete agreement.
Thirdly, 40K is not a direct competitor to WHFB. While there is overlap between the two games, players of one system do not automatically play the other. This means that a new space marine chapter is not direct competition of CDs or any other WHFB army.  Also, the two brands are exactly that - two distinct brands. They have their own marketing and licensing budgets, so at a developmental level, new marines or 40k armies won't cut into the WHFB budgets.

GRNDL
I guess that depends on how you choose to look on it. But I'd like to point out that this wasn't *my* original idea. Nor am I the only one to hold this view, I've seen it expressed before.
The bottom line is ironically the bottom line. What makes the most money for GW. Regardless of how they split it up, all money is "company money" and putting it to use where it does them the most good is the only rational option. Will a pound invested in Space Marines or CDs give GW more money? This is a fundamental question. Now I'm not beyond agreeing that GW may very well not be asking this question (it would explain their financial performance for one), but that would be irrational behaviour from a listed company.
Lets forget about the Space Marines. That's not the important detail. We agree that GW has a finite amount of resources? That must mean CDs are in direct competition for resources with all other things GW could do or not do (even just letting the cash sit in a bank account has a return). CDs may or may not be a competing with Space Marines, though I tend to use that as a metaphor. It illustrates rather pointedly what the problem is.

Hammerhand:

I think I should just point out that everybody, although wording it differently or coming from different angles, is actually saying the exact same thing!! Whatever it will eventually take to get CDs back in the mainstream, it is not going to be done by us.

Jervis Johnson has said one day - so one day it will be!

nitroglysarine:

…i’m think sacrifice of the first born son

and maybe three successive blue moons.

dedwrekka:

@snowblizz

That's a pretty negative view and also, IMO, way off the mark.

GRNDL
And the proof of the opposite is what? That GW loves us so much that they ignore the army for over a decade? I'm a cynic pessimist (so I tend to only be positively surprised), but looking at how much has happened so far...
Not saying I don't wish and hope... but I do the same with the stock market and I'm not surprised when ti doesn't deliver.


snowblizz
Hrm. I know this might fall into the hopelessly optimistic category, but Chaos Dwarfs have not been entirely forgotten, or ignored. In fact, if anything, they're more included in the background and interaction with other armies than when they had an army book.

Last edition we had a blurb in the rulebook, a picture (possibly), and a dozen references in various army books with different armies in different ways. This edition the tradition has kept up and we're not only mentioned several times in the rulebook, but we're given new juicy pieces of Chaos Dwarf culture and interaction with other races that haven't been seen before.

And others who started out sharing our fate as it seemed? Where are the Dogs of War? In truth, rather than looking at us as the Squats of Fantasy, I think we're much closer to the Dark Eldar of Fantasy.

Though, I do think that right now the way to get GW to do Chaos Dwarfs is for a lot of people to invest in them. If half the people who played GW games invested in them, they'd have more than enough money to do what they like rather than just what's economically and immediately profitable, and the players would have a voting interest in the company.

Baggronor:

How is keeping an army at a mere 2481* players doing them a favour?
Because it doesn't cost them anything, and we buy lots of Dwarves and Chaos and run a fansite for them. That is favourable, no matter how small. I'm not saying its the biggest issue regarding viability of CDs, just that in terms of CDO, we make them a bit of money on an army they don't have to pay to support, and we do the marketing for it too.
In truth, rather than looking at us as the Squats of Fantasy, I think we're much closer to the Dark Eldar of Fantasy.
Although for a while they were rumoured to be getting 'squatted' too ;)

AssurBahniZharr:

I prefer to have an optimistic point of view, just as Dedwrekka.

There are some interesting hints in the rulebook and it think it is not “per se” or just to write something nice in a page (why describe an assault tower as forged by a CD Sorcerer? Can’t some marauders with a Chaos Sorcerer do the same on their own?).

Why describe wishepers of the Hotgar’s return among his kin?

Anyway ; let me tell you something:

In most cases you are right, but econoimics, room in magazines are not the only point…

First of all consider GW’s designers have not created new horror minis or daemon prince or Trolls yesterday (last products). They might be ready by 2008 or even before and Just waiting to be released to have maximal earnings.

I bet They are ready with zounds of prototypes now (where the digital era grant to study them on a pc).

Moreover what it takes to have a sellable army (even of pokemons) are the rules.

During sixth edition Gw seems to have forgot this. Not in the 7th Edition…

Each of the new army was stronger than the previous,

Reading the Skaven Armybook i found something seen during only in early editions…rules without minis!!! Rat-Palanquine, Giant Rat ridable mounts, the Hell pit spawn itself.

In short, give to CDs T5 S5 lava spitting golems, give them an T10 Deamon-bound-steam-powered Tenderizer, some Atomic-Missile, frenzied slaves, some magic with no miscast and a set of chaos Dwarfs Daemon bound runes, a bit of fluff and you will have your sell!

Let me say also…aren’t tau, lizardman skaven, ugly enough for this world?! Isn’t it more cool an ill-tempered, rune covered, fire spitting, really angry chaos dwarf?! :wink:

Willmark:

And others who started out sharing our fate as it seemed? Where are the Dogs of War? In truth, rather than looking at us as the Squats of Fantasy, I think we're much closer to the Dark Eldar of Fantasy.

dedwrekka
This.

I think this is the closest to a honest assessment as I have seen.

aka_mythos:

GW really didn’t like how Dogs of War messed with the balancing of armies. Its too much mix and match that couldn’t be supported by GW’s vision for future model ranges. As they pushed more and more for plastics an army almost exclusively viable in metal became hard to keep around.

cornixt:

The funny thing is that GW have completely given up on balancing armies lately, so that argument is contradictory to everything else they have said in recent times about players regulating it themselves.

GRNDL:

@snowblizz

Maybe we’re saying almost the same thing, but I’m the side of optimism. Saying that just because we are a marginal group that might not influence anything and because of that assuming GW will never address the lack of CDs issue is pretty pessimistic and not something I want to think about. CDs are part of the Warhammer world, a source of fluff and aren’t going anywhere, so as a potential resource for GW that’s pretty strong, IMHO, and one that might be mined by them if we keep bringing attention to them.

I don’t believe that GW is going to squat CDs , otherwise they’d have done it already. The comment about us being the Dark Eldar of fantasy is closer to the mark, and the rumours of DEs getting a codex in the next business cycle are growing thick, so I think we should be optimistic.

aka_mythos:

The funny thing is that GW have completely given up on balancing armies lately, so that argument is contradictory to everything else they have said in recent times about players regulating it themselves.

cornixt
You have to consider it from when they made that decision rather than their current state of mind. GW isn't a hive mind with a singular driving motivation, they can change their minds. Its been a while since they decided that and while their opinions on that type of mix and match thing may have gone backwards, to supporting DoW, the format they might want to do DoW may not have gone back to an army book. For example, they maybe thinking about doing them as an expansion book rather than a stand alone army book that carries that lax allying options.

Also, even if they were in favor of bringing them back it doesn't change the fact that with as many character driven units, the only viable way to do all the models is metal at a time where GW is trying to move away from metal regiments as much as possible. Or maybe they'll leave it to the "Warhammer Forge" to do; what better way to help them get off the ground then to offer units that the largest number of different armies can use.

zobo1942:

Maybe someone should manufacture a beautiful hardcover version of ThommyH’s rulebook, and send it to Jervis, along with a note saying this:

“I thought you’d like to know: people are playing Warhammer without your rules or your miniatures because you’re ignoring them. This is a collection of the ‘house rules’ you encourage players to make. It is a beautiful, well thought-out work which rivals the quality of an army supplement produced by Games Workshop. And it was created because the company with whom you work has decided that these clients, who have spent thousands of dollars on your products, aren’t worth the time or effort to include in the future of Warhammer.

The longer you wait to create an official FAQ to the Chaos Dwarf Ravening Hordes list, the easier it will become for people to factor the work you do out of their games, their hobby budgets, and their future purchase considerations.

It’s their hobby - but it’s your job. Pay attention to both.”

Thommy H:

That’s not why I created my book.

zobo1942:

You can sub that out and insert << any other high quality player-made book >> if you like. Just an example - no offence ment.

And excellent work, by the way. Most impressive!

Thommy H:

Thanks. I just didn’t want there to be any confusion about why I made it. Its very existence is not a slam on GW and their level of support - indeed, if they fully supported Chaos Dwarfs I’d never have bothered to make it so, in a way, I’m glad they don’t.

I’d much rather my book (or something like it) was used as a lever to say, “look, there are passionate fans of this army out there, and you could make money supporting them.”

dedwrekka:

And others who started out sharing our fate as it seemed? Where are the Dogs of War? In truth, rather than looking at us as the Squats of Fantasy, I think we're much closer to the Dark Eldar of Fantasy.

dedwrekka
Alright, so, as is my luck, just when I posted what I thought was the best example of another army in the same situation, no more than a week later Dark Eldar got an announced release.

Now I just need to find something to compare to Chaos Dwarfs and we'll be set!

nitroglysarine:

Now I just need to find something to compare to Chaos Dwarfs and we'll be set!

dedwrekka
Squats!

aka_mythos:

The difference is GW has insisted it wants to revisit CD. Squats they insist are gone forever.