[Archive] Why do they continue mentioning the Chaos Dwarfs in other books armies?

Archive [Archive] Chaos Dwarf Discussion
21

Thommy H:

The part that annoys me though isn't the cool ideas being sacrificed for game balance-- for instance, you could have a group of Orcs that are armed with everything from long swords to maces to axes, etc. and just call them all 'hand weapons' instead of coming up with individual game rules for every imaginable weapon....
But that would be unplayable, wouldn't it? I'm not going to remember different stats for an axe or a mace or a sword or a club when I have a unit of thirty guys, am I? Plus if some are better than others (and they'd have to be), why wouldn't I give the whole unit the best one? That would make them look worse, and the alternative is to keep the "rabble" look, but take care to make sure the guys with the best weapons were lined up against the most dangerous enemies. I'd rather not have to switch my models around every combat round so the swords were always in base contact with the enemy characters...
Sometimes they'd give you whole army lists! I think the most signifigantly memorable ones were the Kroot Mercenaries and the Adeptus Arbites lists, but also the Dogs of War were all done through White Dwarf.
Ah yes - 3rd edition 40K and 6th edition Warhammer...the "Army of the Month" phase... Not good, actually. Do we really need a variant army list for every single Space Marine Chapter? What about absurdities like the Dark Elf City Guard list? Having to bring a dozen issues of White Dwarf to the table to play your army, never knowing what an opponent might spring on you, having literally no idea how many different army lists were out there and whether you should accept them all at face value when some horrible and badly-thought-out Space Marine variant was plonked down in front of you.

Also, Dogs of War had an Armies book in 5th Edition - the 6th Edition White Dwarf stuff was the equivalent of Ravening Hordes.

I guess I just don't agree that character is being sacrificed for game design and that more rules = more character. Having a variation for every conceivable version of an army, or every conceivable model does not make for a better, more fun game. It just makes for silliness like I've described above. Nor do I think a more "character driven" game design ethos would make Chaos Dwarfs exist. You don't need a rule for everything that's mentioned in the game.
22

Hobgoblyn:

Well, the thing is then Thommy that you honestly simply don’t want Chaos Dwarfs to have an army list then. Following your philosophy, one can’t imaginably advocate stacking yet another random ass army with its own random special rules to the already far too long list of WarHammer armies so that you don’t know what your opponent could be bringing to the table.

Certainly if one and ONLY one army could be added to fantasy, the only thing Chaos Dwarfs have going for it was that it already has “traction”-- presuming you could call it being released 10 years ago and totally flopping “traction”. The only way one could EVER concievably advocate Chaos Dwarfs being a fieldable army is if you go back to the “army of the month” concept where you can detach the writers and army design aspects of Game Workshop from the modeling and sales aspect.

Otherwise we should be expecting underselling armies like Ogre Kingdoms, Wood Elves, Beastment and Brettonia to be thrown away and seeing fewer and fewer armies in WarHammer or, in the very least, never expect to see another new army released ever again.

And if one was released? Odds are 10:1 that it will be Cathay. Which may seem “boring” or “just another human army”… but you know what? I’d buy the models and I bet a lot of you and many people on other boards would too, because I don’t know of any other model company that is releasing Chinese 3-Kingdoms themed Chinese models which is unfortunate because I’m certain they’d have a HUGE market. Unimaginably bigger than an “evil dwarfs” concept.

23

Grimstonefire:

I am certain we will see Chaos Dwarfs a long time before Cathay.

I am also fairly certain that when GW do get round to doing CD they will be an interesting and fun list. The models will be amazing and expensive. We will all moan, but love them really.

I think part of the issue with CD has always been the funding, and the willingness to devote time, energy and resources to them (along with all the other armies like Ind, Nippon etc). Realistically they would probably never have the time, as there would always be something they could be using resources on for existing armies.

However, the fantasy forge world area is a whole different ball game. Same money, but different sculptors, so separating their time and energy from the main armies.

One thing I am also certain of, Chaos Dwarfs have the potential to be a great customisable army through FW conversion bits. Maybe not the equivalent of warhammer space marines, but certainly because of their inventiveness they could be right up there.

24

Hobgoblyn:

Perhaps, Grimstone, but in that case you are looking at them as a White Dwarf “army of the month” which Thommy posits were a horrible abomination upon the game and should never be done again.

If Games Workshop were going to cut the writers and game design aspects free to fill White Dwarf or Summer Campaign books with “army of the month” designs, then most certainly Chaos Dwarfs COULD be at the top of the list.

What do you really need to play Chaos Dwarfs? Dwarf models painted red with maybe some minor conversion work done.

What does one really need to play Hobgoblins? Stick Goblin heads on human models and you are pretty set to go.

In fact, in this case Cathay and Araby are actually harder to create because their clothing styles would presumably be so far detached from anything we have in the exsiting model line that it would be hard to do.

But what if you are creating a brand new model line and looking at the world markets that are emerging and you’d like to get interested in the game? In this case, shooting directly for an Asian and particularly Chinese or at lease Chinese media fanbase army would be a better idea than an evil Dwarf army.

See, that’s the main difference. If you are talking about churning out army lists that one can create by converting existing models, Chaos Dwarfs is an easy one to put out. If you are talking about creating whole unique new model lines to bring in new players, Chaos Dwarfs are a fail and out of the 5 armies that exist within the WarHammer world but do not have a game presence, Cathay is the best sell.

Please, do understand that I am not saying this because I am a huge fan of Chinese literature or media, I think I’ve made my stance here perfectly clear. I’m just saying that it would appeal to a much larger audience. And I don’t expect that to necessarily be easy for members of this particular board to digest or accept, but if you can acknowledge that in terms of creating new model lines for sales that evil Dwarfs are not exactly at the top of the list, you’d feel better about the decissions to overlook the army for the past 15 years.

25

Kera foehunter:

Remember that the writers and the games designers are the same people though. You can tell when you read some of the modern books - Rick Priestly, Andy Chambers, Jervis Johnson, Nigel Stillman et al were writers who liked to design games, whereas the newer guys are hobbyists and games designers who try their hands at writing. Here's a drinking game you can play with the Space Marine Codex: take a shot every time you read the phrase "And so it was..."

Thommy H
all take you up on that game tommy
but like all great thing when the people that made warhammer in the early day they played it and lived it but like the real world
they could never replace the one that invented it
now it a corporation that decides thus the game is lost
26

Thommy H:

Well, the thing is then Thommy that you honestly simply don't want Chaos Dwarfs to have an army list then.
That's quite a leap of logic. All I said was that not everything that exists in the background has to have some correlation in the tabletop game. So we don't need to represent every different kind of weapon, every different kind of army, every single named character. We don't need special rules for each Empire Elector Count, or a variant list for every Skaven Clan, or every Bretonnian duchy. Some things can be rolled into other things.

I have no idea how that translates to "Chaos Dwarfs should never get any official rules in Warhammer". Just because not everything should be represented doesn't mean that nothing should.
27

Grimstonefire:

Let me rephrase what I said above.  I know that there have been greens of cathayans spotted (not sure if 3 up or not), however, I have not heard any comments from FW that they intend to do cathay as a whole any time soon (i.e. within the next year - 18 months).  The same cannot be said for Chaos Dwarfs, and if they mean business (and the rumours are correct) we will hopefully have a big range by this time next year.

If FW are doing CD (as it looks like they will be), the chances are it would not be the same people actually doing it as all the other army books.  It would not be a WD list ‘army of the month’.

28

Hobgoblyn:

Well, the thing is then Thommy that you honestly simply don't want Chaos Dwarfs to have an army list then.
That's quite a leap of logic. All I said was that not everything that exists in the background has to have some correlation in the tabletop game. So we don't need to represent every different kind of weapon, every different kind of army, every single named character. We don't need special rules for each Empire Elector Count, or a variant list for every Skaven Clan, or every Bretonnian duchy. Some things can be rolled into other things.

I have no idea how that translates to "Chaos Dwarfs should never get any official rules in Warhammer". Just because not everything should be represented doesn't mean that nothing should.


Thommy H
Here's the thing, Thommy...
Whether many on this board would like to accept it or not, evil Dwarfs is not exactly the most overwhelmingly popular concept. Normal Dwarfs are a hard enough sell as it is, evil Dwarfs is just pushing that line even further back. You could sell 9 types of Elves before you could sell Evil Dwarfs as a concept.

So fundamentally here's the problem... before you get to Chaos Dwarfs you have to be willing to accept or at least entertain the idea of all the army concepts that would either be more popular or roughly equally popular with the idea of Chaos Dwarfs.

So either you live in a world where GW churns out half-boiled concepts for Cathay as well as Chaos Dwarfs, Hobgobins, Ind, Fishmen, Nippon, Araby, Cathayan Undead, etc. OR you live in a world where not only do Chaos Dwarfs not exist, but GW eventually drops some of the existing armies as well because they just don't feel its worthwhile to fit them into the army book revision schedule.

Those are the onlytwo reaistic concepts-- either GW decides to defer to the creative department and comes up with tons of cool ideas which may or may not be perfectly balanced, but ultimately goes to represent many of the different sorts of overlooked aspects of the WarHammer world or GW defers to the sales department and aims to sell more and more of an ever-shrinking line of models.
29

Thommy H:

So either you live in a world where GW churns out half-boiled concepts for Cathay as well as Chaos Dwarfs, Hobgobins, Ind, Fishmen, Nippon, Araby, Cathayan Undead, etc. OR you live in a world where not only do Chaos Dwarfs not exist, but GW eventually drops some of the existing armies as well because they just don't feel its worthwhile to fit them into the army book revision schedule.
What? Why does it have to be either/or? That's ridiculous. Are you actually saying that the only way Chaos Dwarfs would ever get official miniatures or rules is if a load of other armies get them too and then, by necessity, those ranges would be half-baked because GW can't support that many armies? And, therefore, the only logical alternative is just a handful of armies?

Because that's insane. If GW want to support Chaos Dwarfs then they will. If they think they can make money on them and do them well then they will. It doesn't have to be one of two silly extremes.
30

Kera foehunter:

well do to the decline of the stubbie that gw doesn’t like!!! soon it will be called Elf hammer

then all the stubbies will be in pre history !!

2 new line of elfs

there first is god elves !!what army are left dies when there placed the god elf on the board

and anti god elves that combat the god elves throw nether is strong enough to beat each other

Warhamer in 2012

31

Hobgoblyn:

So either you live in a world where GW churns out half-boiled concepts for Cathay as well as Chaos Dwarfs, Hobgobins, Ind, Fishmen, Nippon, Araby, Cathayan Undead, etc. OR you live in a world where not only do Chaos Dwarfs not exist, but GW eventually drops some of the existing armies as well because they just don't feel its worthwhile to fit them into the army book revision schedule.
What? Why does it have to be either/or? That's ridiculous. Are you actually saying that the only way Chaos Dwarfs would ever get official miniatures or rules is if a load of other armies get them too and then, by necessity, those ranges would be half-baked because GW can't support that many armies? And, therefore, the only logical alternative is just a handful of armies?

Because that's insane. If GW want to support Chaos Dwarfs then they will. If they think they can make money on them and do them well then they will. It doesn't have to be one of two silly extremes.


Thommy H
No, your bias leads you into some weird alternate reality where the concept of an "evil dwarf" army is so popular it can sweep every other concept, even half the existing army concepts, aside and assuming some sort of position of crowning achievement. The greatest and most dominant above and beyond all else, so that nothing else should ever be considered....

And that's just not reality. The reality is that Chaos Dwarfs is an army concept that GW tried long ago when the direction of the company was in favor of being creative and experimental. That's not the direction the company has headed in for the last decade. There have been a few half-hearted pursuits in that direction over 5 years ago, but that was the last gasps of the experimental phase.

If GW tries to be experimental, wants to release new army concepts, then perhaps as much as your dellusional world view would like to believe otherwise evil dwarfs are NOT at the top of the list. They tried it and it failed. It didn't just sorta half-fail... no, the idea failed absolutely miserably. That idea is gone and done. Those who sell WarHammer would never be in favor of doing it again when the writing department has come up with Tiger and Monkey people or a Chinese army or an army made of squid-headed people and fishmen that they could try out instead. Ideas that HAVEN't already failed.

So you have to get on board with two entirely opposed concepts. Either you believe that GW should actually churn the ideas of the writing department out into rules that you can convert models for and field...

Or you defer to the sales department exclusively where you only make rules for models you intent to release and only release models you know will sell high volumes.

The middle ground is to write Chaos Dwarfs off as a failed concept along with half a dozen other army concepts they never tried and perhaps a number of them that are still officially supported armies.

You need to understand that your whims are not going to be favored over those of 10x or 100x as many people unless you could actually commit to buying 10x or 100x as much as those people could or would... which you cannot.

If you are going to be in favor of the direction that would bring about a resurrgance of Chaos Dwarfs, then you need to be in favor of the steps that would lead in the direction (ie, the other armies new or existing players would prefer to play more than Chaos Dwarfs).

If you are going to flip the bird to all the other steps in that direction, then you are not in favor of them ever bringing Chaos Dwarfs back into the game.

The main thing that you need to understand is that they did try Chaos Dwarfs and they did not sell. However, they haven't even given a shot to Cathay or tiger-people or monkey-people or fish-people yet and they ought to get a shot. And you want to know something that is above and beyond ironic? As few people as I can get interested in at Hobgoblin Khanite army in terms of game design... the Hobgoblins were the best selling of the Dogs of War line and the Sneaky Gitz were some of the best selling in the Chaos Dwarf line.

In short, there are 4 other concepts that have shown better or equal sales or have better or equal sales potentiality as Chaos Dwarfs. Either you need to be in favor of a direction that favors them all being brought to the table or you need to be in favor of a direction that sees none of them being brought to the table. You decide!
32

Thommy H:

No, your bias leads you into some weird alternate reality where the concept of an "evil dwarf" army is so popular it can sweep every other concept, even half the existing army concepts, aside and assuming some sort of position of crowning achievement.
Okay, you need to stop basing all your arguments on extreme positions. When did I ever say Chaos Dwarfs were capable of supplanting any current army? When did I say anything that even implied that Chaos Dwarfs would ever become anything more than a niche army? I mean ever. In the history of me posting here, or indeed my whole life. I don't know who you think you're arguing with or what imaginary position you think I'm taking up, but nothing in the above paragraph applies to me in the slightest.
In short, there are 4 other concepts that have shown better or equal sales or have better or equal sales potentiality as Chaos Dwarfs. Either you need to be in favor of a direction that favors them all being brought to the table or you need to be in favor of a direction that sees none of them being brought to the table. You decide!
You're following a perverse train of logic. "Chaos Dwarfs should sell as well as
33

Grimstonefire:

No, your bias leads you into some weird alternate reality where the concept of an "evil dwarf" army is so popular it can sweep every other concept, even half the existing army concepts, aside and assuming some sort of position of crowning achievement.
I am just plain confused now.  This is not Thommy's opinion, possibly not mine (depending on what else they have in mind).  The facts speak for themselves.  This is how GW see them...

The Chaos Dwarfs will hopefully get models before every other new army.  So regardless of how cool any of the other concepts are, GW seem to think that 'evil dwarfs' are what they want to do first.

Have hope people.
34

Baggronor:

Frankly, if GW release a totally nonsensical (in the sense of army popularity and logic) book like Ogre Kingdoms, then anything is possible.

The number of people who’d buy and play a Chaos Dwarf army? Oh, perhaps 100. The number of people who’d buy and play a Chinese army? Probably 5x that (regardless of what the internet polls on WarHammer fansites might indicate, because a Chinese model line would more bring in people who aren’t already on those WarHammer fansites than an evil Dwarf army).
I honestly can’t see Cathay playing all that differently to Empire; I certainly don’t feel there is more demand for Cathay than CDs. Plus, if you want to play medieval China then there’s always Warhammer Ancients. This site alone shows there are a lot of CD fans, and many people who I have spoken to at tournaments, clubs and so forth have indicated serious interest in a CD revamp.

I think the reason they keep mentioning CDs in the fluff is simply because they work really well as a sinister, largely unknown entity, which may or may not get released.

35

Grimstonefire:

The number of people who'd buy and play a Chaos Dwarf army? Oh, perhaps 100. The number of people who'd buy and play a Chinese army? Probably 5x that,

Hobgoblyn
Missed this bit before.  Do you seriously believe only 100 people will buy CD!? :o

I don't really know what to say to that...  You will be proven wrong. Why in principle would any less people buy them than Dwarfs? There are thousands of Dwarf players out there.
36

Swissdictator:

The difference between Chaos Dwarfs and Cathay, Ind, Araby, Fimir, etc, etc, etc… is that Chaos Dwarfs have had a longer and stronger presence than any of those. Probably combined. Especially if you take into account RH making them legal to play to this day (with some exceptions). I was able to go to all three 'ard Boyz events with Chaos Dwarfs! They are already established. They just need fine tuning/expansion.

The problem with several of the armies you mentioned it is “Yet another human army” for most of them, and Fimir is controversial at best. GW can really only do one more human army and have hopes of it being distinct from the other ones (Brets, Empire, and WoC to a degree). Cathay could probably be done and have a unique feel to them. The rest, I strongly doubt. Also, there is something to be said for them being mystical and isolated. Whereas CD are distinct enough from the western Dwarfs via magic, slaves, and deamonic/chaos influences.

Plus Thommy is right. If they perceive profit, they’ll do it. They don’t need to have Space Marine popularity, they jut need to be worth the investment. With fairly established background, and army list… and several ideas of where to go with it…the development is FAR easier than a fresh new army like Cathay. Yes, the figure side of the equation will be the same, but they at least have a good idea of where to go with the CD. Look at some recent army releases and the lack of figures made (Seekers of Slaanesh, the giant rat, hellpit, forsaken, etc). Plus, with CD, some of the figures (in terms of our slaves) do exist, or are done with minimal conversion. So it still isn’t as much of a physical investment as the others.

It does not automatically translate into a snowball effect. If those other armies don’t have profit potential, they won’t do them. I could see possibly Cathay, although unlikely. The others, I can’t see. Even if we assume four armies have the same potential, they can decide to do just one or two… be it because of the level of investment… or simply because they want to.

I’d be willing to say more people would play Chaos Dwarfs than Tomb Kings or Brets. I’d actually say that CD have been more active in my area than either of those two armies. I don’t see GW dropping either of those. They’ll still update them, but probably do less updates on the figures. Whereas popular armies might get more updates in figures. You only need to look at the popularity of this site to get an idea of the interest in CD… and realistically we’re only a small fraction of that base. Plus, having been a tournament regular with Chaos Dwarfs, I can tell you people often react with delight at the idea there are Chaos Dwarfs present. It is not uncommon for me to hear them say how cool it would be if they were updated.

Your all or nothing concept just doesn’t make sense. They can do whatever they want. Even if several could be profitable… they can pick and choose. Plus economically there is a difference between doing 1-2 “new and fresh” armies vs 4. 1 to 2 might actually be more profitable even if all 4 have equal potential. Furthermore maintaining an army is also A LOT cheaper than a new one.

37

Thommy H:

I'd be willing to say more people would play Chaos Dwarfs than Tomb Kings or Brets.
Nah, Bretonnians are pretty popular, aren't they? Knights are a very iconic concept.
38

Swissdictator:

You would assume so, but I so rarely see them. I was not joking when I said I’ve seen CD more often than I have seen Brets! Perhaps that is just a reflection of my area though.

39

Baggronor:

Brets do seem to have declined somewhat, although a large part of that may just be the fact their book is looking pretty dated. They were everywhere for a while, very common at tournaments too.

Plus, with CD, some of the figures (in terms of our slaves) do exist, or are done with minimal conversion. So it still isn’t as much of a physical investment as the others.
Not to mention one of the main centre-piece models, the Hellcannon, is already made.
The number of people who’d buy and play a Chaos Dwarf army? Oh, perhaps 100.
I’m pretty confident I could personally go and find 100 people willing to play and collect CDs without leaving London tbh, just through clubs and tourneys.
Plus, having been a tournament regular with Chaos Dwarfs, I can tell you people often react with delight at the idea there are Chaos Dwarfs present. It is not uncommon for me to hear them say how cool it would be if they were updated.
Yup, they love em :slight_smile:

40

Hobgoblyn:

I really don’t see the Hellcannon being a strong arguement for creating an entire army of Chaos Dwarfs. If that were the case, we could expect to see a Halfling army before a Chaos Dwarf army because there are more Halfling models in the current range than there are Chaos Dwarf models and Halflings have certainly been around longer and had a more central role in WarHammer games.

Furthermore, having had models in the past which they no longer produce is also not an arguement in favor of creating Chaos Dwarfs instead of another new army. You know, GW did once produce models for Fimir… so does that mean they made new armies of them before they made new ones like Chaos Dwarfs, Lizardmen, Ogre Kingdoms, or Dogs of War?

They also produced Zoat and Squat models at one time, and modifying Skaven models to make the Hrud would have been easier than creating ranged for Dark Eldar, Necrons, Tau, or Kroot.

The record has shown that GW is more likely to try new ideas than trying to ressurrect dead ideas that have failed and been discarded. And make no mistake, that they have allowed the Ravening Hordes list to be tournament legal for a decade as an apology for having produced a model line and then totally discarded it is not solid proof that they intended to ever start the range again FROM SCRATCH. And that’s really what you are talking about. It wouldn’t be harder to make any of those other armies that have been included in the background than it would be to make a Chaos Dwarf army in the same way that it wasn’t any harder to make Tau or Necrons than a Squat or Space Skaven army. The only Chaos Dwarf-y thing in the entire line is the Hellcannon-- and if you are just going to use ancient, dated models instead of buying new ones? Well then, there couldn’t possibly be less motivation for them to create it. Better to create an army that can be equally popular and people would have to buy brand new models for.

The role that Chaos Dwarfs might be permanently subject to is that of the Hellcannon crew and maybe being crew for other WoC warmachines in the future.