MMMMMWWWWAAAHHHHHAAAAAA Our feeble enemies shall known the wrath that is the Chaos Dwarfs! Now quick, one of our UK members get their army there stat!
Crap damn GW is scared we'll mop the floor with the other lists. The "man" is trying to keep us down
Agreed AGPO. I think we respond back with the following.We express to him that all that needs to be done is some simple updating to the PDF list and that will clarify the areas of obvious issue, such as:
1) Relentless?
2) Bull Centaurs (clarify the issues of infantry vs. calvary)
3) Unit size for hobbo wolf riders; as well as spear option for hobbos.
4) Points costs for musicians.
5) Heroes LD 9 for balance with the rest of the armies. perhaps the same stat line as the dwarf thane as well
6) Blunderbusses can hit a number of multi-wound creatures based on the ES of the unit fired on.
7) Earthshaker becomes 0-1 or Hellcannon option.
8) Change Sneaky Gits to scouts with weaponry options (throwing knives etc.)
Bear in mind there are many more then these issues (as we all know), but these are the easiest to achieve when simply updating the army list as it is now. the rules forum has many more ideas but I think should be tabled for a future point.
As far as changing the army, none of these are earth shattering and more common sense the anything else.
These are as easy as updating the PDF for download. GW has already set the precedent by doing minor updates to the PDF here and there. I work in IT and support a graphic design group, these changes are as simple as opening up the file that created the PDF, edit the text; replace on the download server.
As far as the comments about "demand" I agree with Jervis to a point. However all of us Chaos Dwarf players will spend many more times the "normal rate" right now to collect a CD army; as you need to raid several ranges in order to create a CD army, thus spending more money. I'm also unsure of just how much demand there will be.
We also need to communicate that we are not demanding the re-release of the 4th/5th edition figure range, rather an update to the PDF. Sorry to all big hat fans, but reading between the lines of Jervis' statements: Big Hats ain't ever gonna happen again. Sorry, but true. That being said the survival and viability of the Chaos Dwarf list and its use in any tournament with official GW sanction should be ALL of our primary concerns. It appears that (if I may infer) from his statements that GW is concerned the demand will be for big hats and GW should they bring the topic up again and they do not want to go down that road again. This only confirms my observations of CD current rule state being tied to the abysmal sales of the 4th/5th figure range. Whether or not we want big hats is immaterial for this discussion and frankly, not relevant; the survival and potential to change the PDF is.
I for one am perfectly fine with a simple update to the PDF and official statement from GW regarding their status. I don't need an army book, nor new models. Xander has led us and shown the way: You want a chaos dwarf army? Get cracking converting because all the pieces are there in the GW model range. You simply have to put the pieces together.
Also clarification on the conflicting statements that GW has right now regarding Chaos Dwarfs; the US GT rulings, the UK GT rules etc...
Lastly, we should not let this opportunity slip by. What do I mean by that. I can very easily envisage CDs slipping to the next, edition, or to the next after that. etc. It happens all the time in business "We'll get to it someday", well someday never comes and nothing gets done.
In closing minor changes to the PDF, that is what we are asking for.
Xander! Where the hell have you been man?
PDF PDF PDF! We have to make it crystal clear that is all we are asking for at the current time. We cannot, repeat cannot even begin to broach the near re-write topics in the army development forum. While great and all (most of it) our sole focus has to be the issues with the PDF this time around, along with clarification of the standing of CDs at tournamnets regardless of whether it is US or UK Grand tournaments or down at the local shop.
Thanks Xander. Glad you're back and doing better.
It could be argued that we have more experience playing CDs then GW. I'm also highly sceptical of just how much play testing is done now with the various broken armies in 6th, face it the main armies that are broken are still 6th edition lists.
I agree with AGPO to a point. Everything I listed could be done to the PDF without undue havoc. As Xander and I have stated change the PDF quitely and no one will be the wiser. The only thing all need to know about is strangely enough GW itself. As it sends an extremely poor message when everyone from the company is not on the same page.
repeat every six months for the past decade...
Doesn't mean that it can happen this time.
The excuse we'd (GW) need to do new models is just that, an excuse,
While new to the forum I have been playing Warhammer since 1991; longer then some of you have been alive...
hock. I have followed GW keenly over the years, and witnessed many bonehead move over the years. I have to tell you: this is the first time I have
EVER heard of a GW staffer, let alone on of the big guys contact anyone personally. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened before, just I've never heard it.
As regards to getting "squatted" i thought that to at one one point as well. However one thing changed my mind. the Hellcannon. I'm willing to bet it was a test the waters type of move. Seriously they could have very easily had anything other then Chaos Dwarfs crewing that thing. Plus the ogre fluff and black orcs already mention CDs...
Again all we want is updates to the PDF I could really care less about a full-blown army book. If we got it, great, if not: I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.
So because you have an "edge" to your posting (Metro) that gives you the right to be "snarky" in your replies everyone including me? Fail to see why you need to be so consistently negative all the time. Nor do I see whay I have to accept it from you.
If you are so bothered by the fact that we are hopeful that something might change, then why are you bothering to post in this thread? Sounds rather sadomasochistic to me. To each his own I guess <shrug>.
I'd expound further, but I don't really want to push the already stretched/stretching boundaries contained by this thread. Lets say we are going to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
et al:
Anyways, again all we are talking about is an update to the PDF, nothing more nothing less. The precedent(s) has already been set. GW has already updates the list a couple of times. And the shining example is the Dark Elf rewrite in 6th, which set the worst precedent in the history of Warhammer IMHO. Write back to Jervis saying we don't want new models, we don't want a new army, book, etc, etc... e simply want an update and most of us would be happy at that.
This was posted on by Kiyohira on asur.org @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:21 pm, I hold it up as one of the finest examples/framework for what arguing on the Internet entails.
http://www.asur.org.uk/ulthuan/viewtopic...&start=120
“I hate to have to break this to you, but this is the Internet. Nobody has ever had their opinion changed by a debate on the internet.
Arguing (
anything-emphasis is mine) goes like this:
Step 1: Enter debate with mindset A.
Step 2: Argue with mindsets B, C and D.
Step 3: Repeat step 2.
Steps 4 through 7: Roll a d6 and consult the following table:
d6 Roll ......... Result
1 .................. Repeat step 2.
2 .................. Repeat step 3.
3 .................. Engage in ad hominem attack.
4 .................. Hitler (comparison- thereby invoking goodwins law /
http://members.tripod.com/~goodwin_2/law.html - Added by me)
5 .................. Decry, bemoan or make reference to opponents' obviously inferior knowledge.
6 .................. Roll twice and apply both results this step.
Step 8: (optional) Declare debate to be futile and announce departure.
Step 9: (optional) Declare victory.
Step 10: Leave debate with mindset A.”
In this post he so succinctly boiled down “internet debate” he left me in awe… applies here too. So what step are we at, does it matter?
Willmark
Uzkul, I think were fine; no one is at each others throats; seems rational in discussion so far to me.
Metro- Goodwins law should be invoked in this thread because of...... what exactly?
Fair enough.
See Uzkul, no mods needed
"I can't give hope Lancelot, its all I have". Sir Percival from Excalibur
Xander- exactly the point. I'd give you a slave for that but... What's the point of that really?
Not really as they have been in this state since 5th edition.
Do you think when chaos dwarfs get remade they will look at this site to see what we want the army to be like?
Because GW NEVER listens to what the customers want.
Again because this keeps getting lost:
Update to the PDF is/should be the ONLY thing that matters for the glimmer of hope that JJ has offered us.
That being said we should NOT be doing any of the following:
1) Inviting JJ ti the site. That is wasting his time. I'm sure he's more then capable of finding us via Google should he want to.Nor is he going to waste his time as whether we want to or not we are fringe.
2) No links for photos of hats vs. Not hats. This is irrelevant for the purposes of updating the PDF. I can't think of one good reason to do this.
3) Bringing up the DE revision will get us no where. While a precedence, its a bad one. DE only got a update because of Gav's "man crush" on them. This is unlikely to ever happen again.
In short, as I have been saying all along, be hopeful, be encouraged, but don't go asking for everything under the sun. Now is not the time for this. Now is the time for clarification of rules and a blanket statement for all GT, tournies or what have you, regardless of where the game is being played.
DUH! you mean this jewel:
http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/Rules/as...gt_faq.pdf
i think the problem is solved!
Seems to be a rather persumptious statement.
As Zarkov points out the rules are not well thought out, nor are they universally accepted by the company that made the rules in the first place. Also reference back a couple if pages. We are also talking about logical changes that could be made by small addtions, rather then a total rewite.
Come on now Metro, that would make too much sense. And we know how much sense GW likes to make sometimes...