CDO Forums

i concur.  the races/concepts that GW completely did away with between the two games-zoats, squats, and the chaos god malal, have been completely written out of the fluff.  GW however, continues to provide teasers for the chaos dwarves, as exampled in another thread referencing all of the times they are mentioned in current and most importantly recent army books and other sources.  including even some new models with the hellcannon.

on the other hand, GW has given us the ravening hordes list.  when that was no longer in print they gave us the pdf on the website.  finally and most recently they have given us an errata blurb when the O&G book was released allowing us the use of new animosity rules and arrer boyz.  i think through this they have shown a reasonable effort to appease the chaos dwarf nostolgia and at least provide us with a legal (in the US at least), and dare i say effective and competitive army list.

baby steps gentlemen.  whether the hellcannon was a teaser to say we will get a redone list and model range, or just to say "hey, we havnt forgotten about you!"

the most we can ask is for erratta adressing the following:

bull centaur: infantry or cavalry?-important with hand weapon/shield and great weapons.  on the other hand, how did we treat this in 6th?  hw/s was still an issue and i beleive we can follow suit with the consensus from 6th.  also, since there is no profile for a mount my view is we are clearly infantry.

maybe something adressing sneaky gitz and wrap around.

post 100 on the thread, whoohoo!

Well all you guy can come over to the U. S. and play Chaos Dwarfs.Or start your owen Gt and state that Chaos Dwarfs Are Welcome.

in the back of the 7th edition rulebook, are Chaos Dwarfs listed like the other armies. maybe that could count for something?

asking him to look at the forum will get us no where.  he wont bother more than likely.  we should comppile the conversions we want him to see into a specific post or gallery, and link to it.

Haven't the rules regarding Bull Centaurs and Sneaky Gitz been clarified already in the US GT errata?  I believe that BC's count as infantry, and Sneaky Gitz are allowed a free maneuver at the beginning of each close combat phase.

DUH!  you mean this jewel:
http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/Rules/as...gt_faq.pdf

i think the problem is solved!

edit: problem solved for me
hows that.  i was referring to problem for people in the US.  it is at least something written by GW for a sanctioned event.  if nothing else, it is a starting point.

That is the most logical explanation of the wording.

The only other thing I would add is the spear for hobbo wolfboyz. The DOW hobbos have them why shouldn't  the CD hobbos have them? Probably fine too its not an earth shattering change.

hobgoblin wolf riders numbers and spears are not important changes right now.  they are an upgrade to hobgoblin, so we dont want to make a separate entry for them, it would aggrevate things further.

also note under sneaky gitz that enemies may not expand frontage against them.

Kids? Hell, farts are funny at 8 or 88!

Woah! Someone have an extra bowl of Snarky this morning? Most of us are in the same boat as you. However if the changes requested are small and/or of the clarification variety I see no problem with asking.

That is why I mentioned several pages back, keep it focused, keep it conscise and only ask for minimal that bring it in line with the other books. Again as we ate generally in agreement resist the urge for a rewrite. Simply correct the areas of concern, areas of vagueness.

And when this is all said and done the chances will still be quite low IMHO, doesn't mean we don't ask the question. After all at some point GW will have to change the list for 7th.

OK let’s recap again.

I am listening Metro. I get it has been asked before, I get you don’t think it will never happen; heck I’m inclined to agree to a point. I’m not advocating pestering JJ in any way shape or form. I work in an office environment full time and can pretty much guess what JJ’s workload must be like. Its pretty much the same everywhere when it comes to working in an office and I’m willing to bet GW is no different than any other company or any other office environment. Deadlines to meet, never enough hours in the day. Etc...

We make it clear concise, SHORT email and send it to Jervis, If he replies great, if not we go on much as before. I have no preconceived hopes or expectations “That GW will FINALLY listen to us”.

Again I’ll reiterate: As I have said all along, yet somehow seems to get lost time and time again: Make it a short, concise statement/email/smoke signal/coloring with markers sketch… what have you. Don’t ask for a rewrite

Simply look at the GW’s stance on the matter is a situation of their making.
- GW updated the CDs to a PDF list from the 4th/5th edition book at some point in the past.
- GW updated the PDF slightly with corrections and further comments/ rules clarifications at some point in the past.
- GW commented on CDs in WD #250 (with the updates) and included them in the RH, then later updated the PDF again.
- GW has not been consistent in their message regarding the use of CDs at tourneys in the UK or US, which one takes precedence? Both? All the while: they are the ones that created the rules.

The point is GW HAS updated the PDF list in the past, so what JJ is saying isn’t entirely true.

In the end this may be a moot point for a large degree anyways: unless you are playing against a-hole(s) at a store (which is why the clarifications need to happen) must rational individuals will be fine. If your playing amongst your friends its golden, we have absolutely no issues with fixing the lists we play with. For years we did such things with the horrendous 6th edition High Elf list. So much so that it is eerie how much GW changed the list to what all of us were advocating on http://www.asur.org.uk for years. Similarly speaking we have no issue with ironing out the “issues” with CDs for use as well. The problem arises with the “letter of the law” players out there that can’t see the forest for the trees.

In the end it may not matter as GW might never do anything other then keep CDs as a list on PDF in its current form; of which I am completely fine with. And if they keep us in the current 6th edition form I’m fine with that too for tourney play, hell, LD10 heroes rock. I’m unlikely to be playing in a GT anytime soon in the UK. Its simply cause for concern that a marginalization (more-so) may be going on…

Again a clarification of some of the points that doesn’t make sense (primary concern), after that anything is gravy. Even if it was asked 5 billion times it doesn’t make it immaterial. If we ask it once in a polite concise manner what is the harm? If we spam JJ then we should be slapped.

If everyone agrees I’ll put together a short email letter and send it off or Hammerhand can. I’ll post it here and everyone can agree before we fire it off.

One of the things I’ve often wondered is whether or not GW doesn’t listen because of the age of the fan base. Not intended to be a slam or ageism or what have you; these are guys in their 20’s, 30’s, 40’s and 50’s, less likely to listen to a (perceived) message from someone in their teens, would be my guess. I could be wrong in this, but I often wonder just how many “ZOMG, those rulz sux, Can’t you nOOB boYZ, do better” emails they get, hence their reluctance to change anything.

We discussed this enough lets figure out a plan or drop it all together. Fair enough?

Wow, you sure have a lot of faith in them! I remain much more skeptical as to how much play testing they do, but that is neither here nor there.

In which we are in agreement.

The question still remains should we just leave this as it is or actually send a reply. I'm fine with either tact.

hammerhand, i beleive you did the correct thing here.  kudos.  that deserves a slave methinks.

personally, im finished with the topic until new developments arise.

good call hammerhand, I completely agree.  He was polite enough to respond to us, and even though it wasn't what we wanted to hear, its only right to thank him for it.  It would be great if he responds, but until then I'll just remain cautiously optimistic.