CDO Forums

I am fairly certain if we come out we will not be the last one in 7th ed.  

They might space us somewhere between bretonnians, wood elves, ogres and tomb kings because of the cost.

Well, considering the person to bring it up has 9 posts and this idea crops up every 2 months (on average), I'm disinclined to read the rest of that thread. Personally, unless I hear it from GW, and even then I doubt I will entirely, I won't concern myself with expectancy of an army book that isn't likely to come out for some time. That's my personal opinion, but as always, we live in hope, eh?

I seriously doubt that, unless the Warhammer market picks up greatly and GW sees potential $$ signs, we will EVER come out. They are just not making enough money to risk a brand new range.

I know that makes me a negative bastard but I am happy to be teased, mocked and generally abused if they do produce a new book and figures to go with them.

I'll just be happy to see the CD's back

I just hope that when they DO make a new book they will consult with us like they did with Druchii.net about the Dark Elfs.

Great run through Mark!

You often say this, Willmark, but I see no evidence for it save your own opinion. Plenty of current Chaos Dwarf gamers like the big hats - enough for them to be in short supply on ebay anyway. I would estimate that the majority of the armies in the showcase forum are based on classic models, for example.

The Chaos Dwarfs of 4th and 5th edition didn't fail because of one single thing, clearly - it was a combination of them always being a niche army (they were introduced through White Dwarf), being on the periphery of events in the background and having a style that didn't tap into an obvious fantasy trope (Mesopotamian imagery doesn't show up often in fantasy). You could possibly summarise the last as "no one liked big hats", but it would be just that: a summary, and not at all reflective of the other factors.

I don't mean to start an argument, but you do keep saying it, and it just strikes me as very odd. The whole "big hat" debate is completely insane to me - how can the failure of an army be laid at the feet or something so nebulous and dependent on personal aesthetics, for which there is no strong evidence?

I think what he is trying to get at is that, while yes, there are many people on these forums and HoH that favor big hats in their armies, that it is only a fraction of CD players. The reason why the army failed is because the models looked cartoony and ridiculous, mostly due to the big hats. Of course there are the people out there who loved them and still play with them or convert them, but the over all argument is that majority won, and majority was against the hats.
Thats what I get from his posts at least.

As do the current Vampire Counts (very popular), all Orcs and Goblins (always popular), many Empire troops - especially that robot horse thing (ditto), many of the Dwarf miniatures like Miners and Slayers (again, very popular) and probably lots of others. Warhammer is pretty ridiculous and cartoony overall - the Chaos Dwarf models weren't the problem: the lack of support after the initial release was.

Examine the fate of the Storm of Chaos army lists, or many of the variants (in 40K too) that never got more than a single supplement or article in White Dwarf. Did the Slayer army fail because of the goofy models (and they are goofy)? No, it failed because once released it was left to fend for itself and people stopped playing it. The 'tournament mentality' doesn't help either, because people think these niche lists aren't 'official' - another problem the Chaos Dwarfs have faced, as we all know.

An army has to be supported to thrive. Most of the least popular current lists are those that were released longer ago and need updating, such as Tomb Kings and Beasts of Chaos. The most popular ones are the ones with the newest army books and figures (Vampire Counts, Daemons, Dark Elves, High Elves). Chaos Dwarfs weren't even updated for 5th Edition, let alone 6th and 7th - they could never have had more than a brief lifetime because they only got one real release during 4th Edition.

And yet...they still have a following... Unlike those other niche lists from the last decade, which sank into obscurity. So, I question whether, by the standards of an obscure White Dwarf list, they 'failed' at all. People still want to play with them, despite exactly zero support from GW. Clearly, something about them was interesting enough to hold people's attention all this time.

You could equally say "they succeeded because of the hats, and in spite of the lack of support", because something has made us all like them.

Thommy H, it's always been said that GW stopped supporting CDs because of a lack of sales and this was due mostly (keyword is mostly) because people disliked the big hats. Yes, many people do now, but these aren't the same people as then and some may have changed their minds. As to sales on eBay, as aforementioned by others, rarity and OOP means they are wanted more and the fact that more of them are on eBay shows people don't want the 4th ed models for themselves as much, as well as (again, aforementioned by others) their larger production quantities.

However, that is not to say that because people then disliked the hats, they won't now. Alernatively, it appears that GW took note of the 4th ed model's failure and changed the look in their "test" or "new-look" model and so newcomers won't think of CDs as big hats.

Either way, I feel like not much is going to come along for us any time soon and that's if we're lucky enough to get anything.

If something does come along, it won't necessarily be to everybody's tastes and I believe that it's more than likely going to be the "hatters" that will like them least (not to say they will dislike them).

Yes, it's always been said - by you, and Willmark, and a couple of others. Not by any kind of impartial jury of gamers.

I don't know - this is what's debatable to me. The problem is that you don't like big hats so, from your POV, big hats were a contributory factor to the Chaos Dwarfs' demise. But I could equally say (because I like big hats) that they're a contributary factor to them doing as well as they have.

The only fact we have in this situation is that Chaos Dwarfs were not a success. You can either blame that on a factor of your choice (big hats, curly beards, Assyrian imagery, hobgoblins, bad rules, poor models, being a White Dwarf list, no support, etc. etc.) or acknowledge that it's a combination of gamer opinion about any or all of those.

What I'm getting at is that I have a problem with people blaming the big hats because they personally don't like them. There is no data to support the hypothesis that "big hats killed Chaos Dwarfs" and I think it promotes an unhealthy dichotomy (the old big hats vs. masks debate) in the community.

You may not like big hats, but that doesn't mean everyone didn't, and that that led directly to the death of the army.

Well I bought them. So did other people. As I say, the only data is "Chaos Dwarfs didn't sell well". You've arbitrarily selected big hats as the cause of that because you personally don't like them. That's what I have issue with.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Bear in mind that I haven't actually said anywhere that big hats weren't the cause of the Chaos Dwarfs' death - I'm just saying that it isn't necessarily so. Your sweeping statement earlier in this thread that big hats killed them and anyone who disagreed was performing "mental gymnastics" is what I think was unfair. Equally, had I said that big hats were great and everyone loved them, you'd be entitled to think the same thing.

So I'm not saying that I'm right, or even that you're wrong, but that you can't say for certain that big hats are to blame, and ergo it's unfair to cite them as a destructive factor. It makes those of us who like them feel pretty stupid when you say things like that (and especially when you accuse us of those aforementioned "mental gymnastics" to support our opinions), and this is what I take issue with.

Dislike big hats all you want - it doesn't bother me in the slightest - but when you tell new members that big hats killed Chaos Dwarfs as if it were gospel, I think that's a problem.

So big hats definitely are to blame then, as far as you're concerned?

Thommy, do not let this turn beyond simple debate. Also, I think you should re-read the posts before replying as you have said that those of us suggesting big hats are the cause are "not necessarily right", when we purselves have said that we aren't saying that's all that led to it. Also, I'd like to point out that it's not Willmark, myself and a few others as it was the generally accepted most widespread reason on HoH for starters. As for saying we dislike big hats, that's also incorrect as they're what started me off in the first place, so you're reasoning of "we dislike big hats, so everybody else did" is false. I love them and I still believe it's one of the primary reasons they failed.

Willmark and I already discussed this via PM and resolved it to our satisfaction. My issue was not with the topic itself, but with the way he was presenting the argument. I felt he was being dismissive.

Well actually, that's pretty much exactly what Willmark said - if he hadn't, I wouldn't have taken issue.

Which is not what I've been saying at all.

Let me explain, so we can just end this silly debate right here. I don't know if big hats killed Chaos Dwarfs or if it saved them. No one does: no one ever can - there is no data for it. You'd have to ask every single person playing Warhammer at the time (remember: the people who didn't actually buy any Chaos Dwarfs would be the main source of data for this hypothesis, not those who did, so asking around HoH isn't really that useful) and figure out how much big hats turned people off.

So I'm not actually on either side of this debate in any real sense. What I was actually debating was Willmark making a sweeping and (to my mind) dismissive comment about big hats and those who liked them - and the reason he did that, I felt, was because he personally doesn't like them. I believed it was somewhat improper for him to treat as gospel a conclusion for which there is no strong evidence.

Now, we can debate the evidence if you wish and try to decide once and for all whether big hats are the culprit, but I doubt there will ever be data presented by either side that will convince the opposition, and I doubt it will be at all a productive use of our time.

The issue between Willmark and myself, though, has been completely resolved.

It's good to hear the issue has been resolved.

However, there is one thing I'd like to differ with you on because you did say that.

Although you're quite correct on not being able to ask everybody, the majority of people on HoH didn't buy them at the time fot eh reason of big hats was what I saying. Since they are CD collectors as well, I thought it may provide a little more credence.

As for debating how true it was, that would be pointles because, as you said yourself, there is no concrete evidence. However, from the experience I have obtained of speaking to people about it, their major "turn off" was the big hats.

Once again, glad to hear that all issues have been resolved.

Aye. it seems, collectively, our experience says that big hats weren't THE singlemost primary and only reason. However, if 50% didn't like them (yes, that's not an accurate number), it's still fairly notable at least.

Not that I've ever meant to say (if I have) that big hats were the only reason.

My view of the reason GW stopped supporting the CD is only partly due to the big hat> low sales theory.

When you look at how they were released in the first place its very clear they were only ever an afterthought.  How many other 'armies' did GW 'officially' release with no official armybook?  Only other ones I can think of are Sisters of Battle and Necrons (not even so sure on those).  Beastmen was more clarifying which elements of Realms of Chaos fell where.

GW did what it always does.  They clearly defined where the boundaries are of what armies they would support from 5th onwards.  So IMO they dropped them because they had never really supported them in the first place, perhaps the lower than anticipated sales didn't help (which we will never know).  But going by the evidence of what we have seen in terms of armybooks, its clear they had no intention of major support from the start.  Why else release them piecemeal as a series of WD lists?

More of a gimic than a proper launch of an army.  5th ed was the end of the gimics.

Big Hats also have a certain kitsch or novelty value which time lends to some things.  This kitsch value, which seems to be a part of the appeal for some Hatters out there, wouldn't necessarily have helped push Hat sales at the time.

My own opinion is that GW, for reasons probably known only to them, simply didn't seem to care all that much about supporting CDs.  Their "army list" was just a compilation of White Dwarf articles (which in itself says a lot about GW's lack of interest) and also the model support wasn't all that it could have been.

It would be interesting to hear from people in the know in GW at the time why all this might have been so, but I doubt if we ever will.

Tomb Kings were only a WD list, then a RH list, before finally getting their book, while VC got their book much sooner after the undead army split.

I think stuff like that is excellent for us! It's not a rule book but it's still evidence of our existance in the warhammer world, which we didn't get for long time from GW, now nearly every new 'evil' book has some reference in it, more and more people will read it and more and more people will find out about Chaos Dwarfs.

It's all good.