PDA

View Full Version : Chaos Dwarfs - What would you want for a 7th ed. list?



Dux Ducis
15-03-2008, 07:34
Having a look at a few Chaos Dwarf galleries and websites, I really like the whole theme and idea of the army and race. A lot.

What changes would you like to see happen to Chaos Dwarfs if GW decided to revamp them for 7th edition?

New units?

Major rules overhaul?

NakedBarbarian
15-03-2008, 08:51
Theres about ten threads on this topic dude.

75hastings69
15-03-2008, 09:06
I'd like them to use the search function ;) and to keep all the existing units and maybe add a few daemonic engines (Hellcannon, Collosus etc.)

Dux Ducis
15-03-2008, 09:22
Well I either:

- Create a new thread and people complain that I don't use the duplicate feature, or

- Update an old thread and be convicted of threadomancy and get another warning

NakedBarbarian
15-03-2008, 09:48
whats threadomancy?

I've been warned for using the g-a-y word mods seem to jump on everything here.

Anyways i would love a new Chaos Dwarf book but hope to high heaven they are not 'tagged' into the new HoC book as i believe this dilutes chaos plus CD are cool enough to get their own book anyway.

Odin
15-03-2008, 10:03
I'd definitely go with a style much more like the Hellcannon Dwarfs. Maybe a particular unit or character type with big hats, but only if they can make it look less stupid.

The theme should be around Daemon Engines (I'd have a sort of steamroller/lawnmower thing shaped like a daemon bull). Less focus on infantry than the normal dwarfs, and I'd make them Ld8 instead of 9 to represent the fact that they're more selfish and less willing to give up their lives for the clan like normal dwarfs.

On the plus side, they get fast cavalry (hobgoblin wolf riders) and a heavy cavalry equivalent (bull centaurs).

Not sure what they should do about Orc slaves. I think I'd just have Hobgoblins, and keep the other greenskins out of it.

LORDS
Chaos Dwarf Lord
Sorcerer Lord
Bull Centaur Lord

HEROES
Chaos Dwarf Hero
Sorcerer
Daemon Engineer (makers of the Daemon Engines - somewhere between a Dwarf Master Engineer and a Skaven Warplock Engineer)

CORE

Warriors
Blunderbusses
Hobgoblin Wolf Riders
Hobgoblins

SPECIAL

Bull Centaurs
Forge Guard (Elite Infantry)
Hobgoblin Sneaky Gitz (Skirmishing Scouts with 2 Poisoned hand weapons)
Death Rocket

RARE

Hellcannon
Foegrinder (steamroller thing)

....something like that would be my starting point.


whats threadomancy?


Posting on a thread that's been dead for a long time, thus resurrecting it.

Dux Ducis
15-03-2008, 10:12
Yeah that looks good, but I'd also like to see some more Chaos Dwarf units, rather than just greenskins that have been ported over from O&G.

Probably one more rank-and-file unit, or some kind of cool upgrade for only one CD unit - say a special type of 'mark' or chaos mutation upgrade. Like tusks (+1 S on the charge) or scary faces (-1 to enemy break tests) or cloven hooves (ignore the -1 for pursue and retreat) or something like that. Afterall, they've been heavily touched by chaos, so they should have some mutations showing, not just the sorcerers.

Maybe also officially rename hobgoblins to gnoblars and use the current models, with a slaver upgrade?

Odin
15-03-2008, 10:30
Yeah that looks good, but I'd also like to see some more Chaos Dwarf units, rather than just greenskins that have been ported over from O&G.

Probably one more rank-and-file unit, or some kind of cool upgrade for only one CD unit - say a special type of 'mark' or chaos mutation upgrade. Like tusks (+1 S on the charge) or scary faces (-1 to enemy break tests) or cloven hooves (ignore the -1 for pursue and retreat) or something like that. Afterall, they've been heavily touched by chaos, so they should have some mutations showing, not just the sorcerers.

Maybe also officially rename hobgoblins to gnoblars and use the current models, with a slaver upgrade?

Well, a couple of options for CD units would be a slightly longer-range missile unit - I'm thinking along the lines of Skaven Jezzails - i.e. 2 dwarfs on a cavalry base with powerful but expensive missile weapons. They shouldn't have long-range units like crossbowmen or thunderers, as unlike normal Dwarfs they have the advantage of cavalry.

For elites I'd probably have two different types. One a simple veteran-type unit, perhaps acting as a bodyguard for Lords (perhaps with Hatred or something like that). The other the Forge Guard, guarding the Sorcerers' Forges, and perhaps with some sort of magical ability due to being so close to all that magic all the time (magical flaming attacks perhaps?), or armour that gives them immunity to fire.

75hastings69
15-03-2008, 11:36
I like that list Odin, apart from the Bull Centaur lord as in the Fluff they are elite guards are they not? so I couldn't really see them leading CDs. I also think the only greenskins in the army should be Hobgoblins.

A good idea would be to include big hats as optional on the plastic and metal kits.

Great Taurus and Lammasu MUST stay! as must Astrogoth.

I would like a steam/deamon powered collosus above all other things.

Another idea I had (which I submitted to GW) was for a unit similar to Dwarf Miners, only instead of them "mining" i.e. using picks etc. they use stick of dynamite! (a much easier way to extract gold etc. than hard work with a pick!) they could throw these short distances and the army would only compose a small amount of them, a unit which I thought could acompany the CD Blasting Crew would be "Mountain/Fire Wyrms, basically very small (I'm thinking swarm style unit) underground dragon-like creatures. They are driven out of their underground homes by the blasting of the dynamite, they cannot see (as they spend all their time underground) and as such could have random movement which could be influenced by the blasting teams goading them forward with dynamite blasts. They would also have a very short range fire breath attack. They are NOT dragons, but look like very small blind albino versions of them.

Nkari
15-03-2008, 11:36
Big Hats.. keep the assyrian look and Im happy!

philbrad2
15-03-2008, 11:47
whats threadomancy?

Resurrecting old threads with no positive input to them. If its that earth shaking an addition you need to make to a thread, then create a new one. Let the old ones R.I.P.


I've been warned for using the g-a-y word mods seem to jump on everything here.And quite rightly, read the FAQ (http://warseer.com/forums/faq.php) if you need to know what you can and can't post. WarSeer has a PG13 level policy for posted content. You want to post 'potty-mouth' other forums are available.

If you are going to ask a question about an army first of all please use the search function to see what's been raised before. If those threads don't offer what you're looking for feel free to raise another.

PhilB
:chrome:
+ WarSeer Mod Team +

Chaos Undecided
15-03-2008, 11:50
Didn't the fluff written to accompany the Storm of Chaos results mention the Chaos Dwarves fielding a unit of "Immortals" heavy infantry wearing armour made from stone or something like that during the fight with the Dwarf Host holding the pass against Krom's horde (Battle of Thermopylae for stunties ...without the getting slaughtered bit :p).

Something like this would be nice considering the number of elite infantry in the normal dwarf host so long as they didnt insist on having an equivalent for each unit the normal Dwarves can field (these guys sounded very much like ironbreakers)

W0lf
15-03-2008, 12:01
Something equilivant to iron breakers.

That would amke me a happy happy man.

Jack of Blades
15-03-2008, 12:05
Don't mind the searchmonkeys...
I'd like them to shoot themselves in the leg, because CD never appealed to me.

Dux Ducis
15-03-2008, 12:10
The main consensus here seems to be no orcs (only hobgoblins/gnoblars) but more CD units in the form of a few special choices.

So how about a special unit with plate armour and options for shields, great weapons or flails; and another unit of special forge-guards or body-guards for sorcerers that have hatred or some other special rule?

Can someone tell me what they mean when they talk about big hats and mask/helmets? Is it something to do with the look and style?

I understand that some models have big hats (which I don't mind personally) and others have masks - is this just a style issue?

silashand
15-03-2008, 12:24
The only caveat I have here re: orcs is that the original fluff states that it was the Zharr Dawi who actually created the black orcs (similar to Saruman creating the Uruk-Hai). Thus in order to stay true to the background I think it is entirely proper that they remain in the list as slaves along with the hobgobbos. The rest can be dropped as necessary I think.

Cheers, Gary

Dux Ducis
15-03-2008, 12:40
This is what I'd generally see a completed Chaos Dwarf list would look like:


Lord
Chaos Dwarf Lord
Chaos Dwarf Sorcerer Lord
Some Daemon/Avatar of Hashut


Hero
Chaos Dwarf Champion
Chaos Dwarf Sorcerer
Chaos Dwarf Slave Master
Chaos Dwarf Forge Master (engineer)
Bull Centaur Champion
Hobgoblin Champion (cannot be general)


Core
Chaos Dwarf Warriors (one can be upgraded with minor mutations)
Chaos Dwarf Blunderbusses (range extended to 18", str3 (4 at close range))
Hobgoblins (no animosity, suffer hits from slaver to increase fighting ability)
? Another slave unit ? (minor beasts or mutants?)


Special
Elite Chaos Dwarf Guard (with plate armour, shield and GW or flail)
Chaos Dwarf artillery (death rocket, etc.)
"broken" orc slave unit (no animosity, suffer hits from slaver to increase fighting ability)
0-1 Black Orc slave unit per slave master in the army (no animosity, suffer hits from slaver to increase fighting ability)
Hobgoblin bolt thrower
Bull Centaurs


Rare
Hell cannon
Earthshaker cannon
? Some big beast ? (every army is getting one these days)
Animated petrified Chaos Dwarfs


More emphasis on the dwarfs themselves but still retaining the slave units and 'evil dominance' over weaker races. It would give the possibility of playing an all-CD army, a slaver army, or a mix in between.

theunwantedbeing
15-03-2008, 13:39
I'de like to see a move away from filling up the handful of CD troops and units with orc and goblin units.
Currently you have CD warriors,the deathrocket,dwarf bull centaurs and the earthshaker.
Thats 4 unit choices, not a lot.
You have this supplemented by orc boyz,goblins,hobgoblins,hobgoblin bolt throwers, black orcs and sneaky gitz. 6 Orc and goblin choices.

More CD infantry type units would be nice to see.
Some form of elite CD unit available in several incarnations..this'll help pad out the dwarf part of the list somewhat.
Another type of shooting other than the blunderbuss, prefferably not a move-or-fire weapon as to allow CD lists to be far more offensive than their normal dwarven counterparts.
Some form of ogre sized monster to the list, be it a daemonically created automaton of sorts or simply a mountain troll...again a split from what the normal dwarves have available to them.
More war engines.
Death rockets and earthshakers are all well and good....but we've seen that the chaos dwarves can make things like hellcannons. A close combat war machine as well as a slightly toned down variant of the hellcannon would be nice to see(no reason the hellcannon was a standard machine, Archaon paid the CD to make them I belive and they are certainly very dangerous to the user).

I'de like to see the great taurus and llammasu stay, specifically the llammasu.

My own vision of the how CD army should work is one where the army itself is screened by hobgoblin units and takes pot shots with a couple of fairly powerful but slightly unstable war engines. The Chaos dwarf warriors and such will slog it to the enemy behind their screen and some more heavy hitting and faster flankers like bull centaurs would be taking the flanks.

That'll allow for mostly slave armies and full on CD only armies and a variety of different builds from artillery heavy to no shooting lists.

As for actual imagery, the current babylonian/assyrian(I think) look works very well but that should be the more magical side of the army. The opposite side we'de have a more steampunk-eske dark daemonforgeing style more akin to what we see in the hellcannon. With war engines that are essentially alive and/or powered by daemonic energies.

Basically I want to see a more offensive twist on the current dwarves with some access to hoarde slave style troops but with a less effective mass shooting ability at range beyond about 12".

Da Black Gobbo
15-03-2008, 13:46
I'd say make them real crazy, but not random and uneffective, giving them rocket launchers, some kind of STANK maybe an underground driller maybe some kind of forge golems or steam robots, and changing their look, not making them the "Babilonian" theme of fantasy.

Mireadur
15-03-2008, 13:48
I would keep the orc slaves too. CD are enslavers as Dux said and they created the black orcs.

I wouldnt add greenskin artillery since they would just use them as fodder while trusting only their superior artillery machines.

I wouldnt mix demonology with Dwarves since they have never been entrusted to the chaos that way.

NakedBarbarian
15-03-2008, 13:57
Seeing as teh Chaos Dwarves essentially run giant factories, what about some sort of 'furnace' weapon, or catapult that launches molten steel? i imagine something with the small template S4, but with like neg 3 to armour to represent the molten steel melting through shields and armour plates.

I don't know who said it, but i love the idea of the 'immortal' chaos dwarf, the re-animated statues of chaos dwarves who've completely turned to stone. My take on this would be that the 'immortals' are actually quite slow and mediocre in combat, but have a standard 1+ save to represent them being made of stone, give em great weapons too and that would be one sweet ass unit. Hell, why not make them unbreakable too? its not as tho they fear death being already dead and all.

Following on from this, i believe in the Chaos Dwarf fluff the most powerful and ancient sorcerors were almost completely turned to stone. I love the idea of chaos dwarf sorcerors ONLY being mounted on a palanquin carried by Bull Centaurs, the gaurdians of the temples. In my mind it would work the same way as Lizardmen temple guard and slaan.

Plenty of Chaos Dwarf Units
Limited Greenskins
Heaps of crazy ranged weapons
Heaps of crazy daemonic siege engines

I will be a brand new Chaos Dwarf player and very VERY happy gamer.

Dux Ducis
15-03-2008, 14:37
I don't know who said it, but i love the idea of the 'immortal' chaos dwarf, the re-animated statues of chaos dwarves who've completely turned to stone. My take on this would be that the 'immortals' are actually quite slow and mediocre in combat, but have a standard 1+ save to represent them being made of stone, give em great weapons too and that would be one sweet ass unit. Hell, why not make them unbreakable too? its not as tho they fear death being already dead and all.
Ay, that's how I see them - the re-animated statues of past sorcerers and other chaos dwarfs who have been turned to stone by the winds of magic. Some kind of unbreakable, rare skirmishing unit.


I love the idea of chaos dwarf sorcerors ONLY being mounted on a palanquin carried by Bull Centaurs, the gaurdians of the temples. In my mind it would work the same way as Lizardmen temple guard and slaan.
That would be a cool idea for a special character, and uber-tough sorcerer lord.

I wonder if any Chaos Dwarfs would be the equivalent of the slayers - just absolutely bonkers who hate everyone and everything?

Urgat
15-03-2008, 15:06
The only caveat I have here re: orcs is that the original fluff states that it was the Zharr Dawi who actually created the black orcs (similar to Saruman creating the Uruk-Hai). Thus in order to stay true to the background I think it is entirely proper that they remain in the list as slaves along with the hobgobbos. The rest can be dropped as necessary I think.

Cheers, Gary

Background also had the greenskins revolt because of said black orcs, nearly wiping out the chaos dwarfs (who were only saved thanks to the hobgobs iirc). I'd think CD should be warry of using non hobgoblin greenskins in their armies after that...
I'm also for removing the orcs and gobs from the army list, really.

Dux Ducis
15-03-2008, 15:12
Background also had the greenskins revolt because of said black orcs, nearly wiping out the chaos dwarfs (who were only saved thanks to the hobgobs iirc). I'd think CD should be warry of using non hobgoblin greenskins in their armies after that...
I'm also for removing the orcs and gobs from the army list, really.

I have to admit the orcs are a little bit and burly for slaves who have been beaten into submission - hobgoblins/gnoblars seem just right - small and weak-willed enough. Don't forget they have a few other races such as Skaven and the odd human as slaves. I'm not suggesting units for them though - just a way to mix up the un-posable gnoblar units.

metro_gnome
15-03-2008, 15:20
i'd say cast off the shackles of green...
and rejoin the HoC... to the benefit of both armies...

Dux Ducis
15-03-2008, 15:25
i'd say cast off the shackles of green...
and rejoin the HoC... to the benefit of both armies...


If that ever happened, then say 'bye bye' to a new CD book anytime soon.

Besides, geographically the CD and HoC are in different areas, and the ultimate goals of CD differs from the rest of the Chaos worshippers (pillage and conquer vs build an empire with giant cities).

Anyways, CD don't even worship chaos - they've got their own god.

metro_gnome
15-03-2008, 15:32
and he is a chaos god...
with the expunge of daemons... i'd like to see HoC move away from the big 4...
and focus on the lesser chaos gods worshiped by the tribes of mortals in the north...
to which Hashut is a fine example...

a CD book is a pipe dream... GW is in no position to risk introducing another new army...

KeeganKatastrofee
15-03-2008, 15:46
Instead of everyone just talking about it, we should work on a base-codex or something.

Urgat
15-03-2008, 16:15
i'd say cast off the shackles of green...
and rejoin the HoC... to the benefit of both armies...

In the old CD army book, the CD try to enslave marauders everytime they can get their hands on them. It's not because they share the word "cahos" in their fluff that they're exactly friends :p If you were to follow fluff, there's other races CD have "friendly" links with: orcs and goblins from the World's Edge moutains that provide them with human and dwarf slaves, and the Ogres from the Ogre kingdoms, that provide them with human slaves too. Oh, and they provided gear to Grimgor's horde during the last worl campaign with the crown thing (and CD results were added to O&G results, not chaos). In fact, from a fluff point of view as well as a geographical one, they'd get as wel, if not better with ogres than chaos. Heck, the blunderbusses and the leabelchers technically work the same (and I have the feeling if CD were to have a new army book, they'd share the same rules too).

Kaos
15-03-2008, 17:02
I would love some daemon engine golems, the size of ogres, trolls and such. They could turn out to look really hellish with metal plates, spikes, engineparts, steampipes and some kind of powered weapon.. chainwhip or buzzsaw.. or such.

special choice, immune to psych, some 4+ save or better, 3 wounds d6 attacks.. perhaps impact hits. maybe some rule for the daemon inside going nuts now and then?

metro_gnome
15-03-2008, 18:43
well chaos is not exactly pally with other chaos anyway... so i fail to see your point urgat...

CDs are consistant diplomats... they trade all manner of weaponry for slaves of all types...
CDs are not racist... they slave ogres, orcs and men with equal vigour...
there's no need to tie them to green ones over any others...
especially as the fluff ran differently in their beginning...

Urgat
15-03-2008, 19:41
well chaos is not exactly pally with other chaos anyway... so i fail to see your point urgat...

CDs are consistant diplomats... they trade all manner of weaponry for slaves of all types...
CDs are not racist... they slave ogres, orcs and men with equal vigour...
there's no need to tie them to green ones over any others...
especially as the fluff ran differently in their beginning...

Yeah, indeed, I see you missed my point. It was not to tie CD to O&G or whatever sillyness like that, my point is, to take your sentence backward, that there is no more reason to tie them to chaos.
Nobody calls them chaos dwarfs in the warhammer world (excepted the army book and the players); they certainly don't call themselves that way.
They worship a god, yey, well, how is that different than worshipping Khaine, the Horned Rat or... what the hell, Sigmar? By the above logic (not yours, one posted before), any god is chaos anyway, so you could put the Empire in the Chaos book by that logic.
Also, they bind demons to machines. So? That would make wood elves chaos, since the treethings certainly look demonic to me. (by the way, 2 exemples in the chaos army, but, amusingly enough, none at all in their own army. Maybe the juggernaughts and hellcanons demonthings are just "customer request"? Surely seems odd otherwise that they partake in creating Khorne demons otherwise).
Calling them Chaos Dwarfs, geez, what a stupid thing for GW to do. I hope they're going the 40K way (Squat -> Demiurg) and rename them to something else so the confusion is gone forever...

Grimstonefire
15-03-2008, 20:04
Here is what I would like to see (as per the list in my sig)

Lord:
Overlord (standard CD lord) - Mount Option: Mechanical Mount (note this can be upgraded to look like the Taurus)
Sorcerer Lord- Mount Options: Lammasu, Palanquin

Hero:
Despot (standard CD hero)
Sorcerer
Arcane Engineer - Mount option: Mechanical Mount
Hobgoblin Khan

Core:
CD Warriors (destroyer upgrade)
Blunderbussers
Hobgoblin Boy (sneaky git upgrade) - not count towards core
Hobgoblin Wolf Riders (sneaky git upgrade) - not count towards core, no more than Hobgoblin Boys

Special:
Immortals (great weapon 3+ armour)
Brotherhood of Hashut (halberds, holy warriors)
Berserkers (appearing a little like miners)
Rocketeers
Battleragers (40mm based machines)
Soul Reaper (daemonic cannon)

Rare:
Earthshaker
Centaur Guard (Bull Centaurs)
Chaos Dwarf Hellcannon.

Special Characters: Astrogoth, Zhatan the Black and Gorduz Backstabba

metro_gnome
15-03-2008, 20:19
Calling them Chaos Dwarfs, geez, what a stupid thing for GW to do.
I disagree...
implausably siding dwarfs with greenskins was the stupid thing to do...

ghanson
15-03-2008, 20:46
I like the idea of a golem that's possesed by a daemon that is the equal of a bone giant on maybe a slave giant like the ogres. also there should be some sort of monsterous mount for lord level charicters.

txamil
15-03-2008, 21:44
I don't like the greens much either. I'd rather go along the demonic steampunk line started by the hellcannon.

NakedBarbarian
15-03-2008, 23:11
I don't remember....Is there are lore of magic specifically for chaos dwarves? Is there are lore of Hashut?

theunwantedbeing
15-03-2008, 23:18
Nope they justed used metal/fire/death and shadow.

Race specific lores seem to be the "in" thing these days so they should get their own lore.

Dartzstrong
15-03-2008, 23:19
No Here's the entry on Sorcerors in the Ravening hordes book:

Chaos Dwarf Wizards may use the Fire, Metal, Shadow, and Death lores from the Warhammer Rulebook.

Dux Ducis
15-03-2008, 23:32
I like the idea of having more CD units in a list, with less greenskins.

Fluff wise, CD have not been touched on for a while. I'd say the orcs (and black orcs) rebelled and left, leaving only the weaker hogoblins, skaven, humans, etc. left as slaves.

Any new list will still have to have a 'slaver' theme to it for people who wish to play like that - CD need to be a little more diverse since they don't have the relentless special rule that their Dwarf cousins have (always march move, can never be bloacked). This could be done by having some more ranged unit upgrades - go on, give them back their crossbows like they used to have in 3rd edition - the blunderbuss is their equivalent of the handgun.

They need to be a more aggressive Dwarven army who can maneuver around the board and still have some decent ranged support and war machines.

I'd be more than happy to work on a collaborative CD book with other gamers; hopefully if a decent effort is made, GW may sit-up and take notice.

A lot of people have mentioned how they don't like the big hats all that much - I could see a special sorcerer-guard unit that only wear the big hats, and/or unit champions wear big hats - a symbol of rank perhaps?

Dirty Fingers
16-03-2008, 00:05
don't think i'd mind having sneaky git skirmishers. it'd make sense and be pretty useful for a dwarf army.

Urgat
16-03-2008, 00:10
also there should be some sort of monsterous mount for lord level charicters.


They have two, the great taurus for the lord, and the lamasu for the magician lord. Both were rather nasty iirc, especially the lamasu.

Dux Ducis
16-03-2008, 00:12
The lammasu kinda sucks when it only has 2 attacks, and a wizard lord shouldn't really get into direct combat IMO. You're simply paying 200pts for something that can fly and cause terror.

It's a large target too, so that's another minus reason for taking the mount.

I like the idea of having sneaky gits as skirmishers - Chaos Dwarfs need at least one skirmishing unit.

Nkari
16-03-2008, 11:50
No Here's the entry on Sorcerors in the Ravening hordes book:

Chaos Dwarf Wizards may use the Fire, Metal, Shadow, and Death lores from the Warhammer Rulebook.

Actually in the 3-4rth ed they did have their own lore. =)

Its just that in ravening hordes they could not add a whole new lore.. :)

metro_gnome
16-03-2008, 13:29
4th-5th... in third they used the chaos lores...
it was a pretty cool lore tho full of volcanic imagery...
but each of the present lores has at least one spell that had an equivalent in the Lore of Hashut...

Commodus Leitdorf
16-03-2008, 14:17
At the moment, as much as I love the CD's....I dont even care if they GET a book at this moment...and I can sure wait if I must...but please. Just spend a hour or two and update the darn PDF! PLEASE! I'll do it for free GW! Just give me a call!

Urgat
16-03-2008, 15:41
The lammasu kinda sucks when it only has 2 attacks, and a wizard lord shouldn't really get into direct combat IMO. You're simply paying 200pts for something that can fly and cause terror.

It's a large target too, so that's another minus reason for taking the mount.

It cancelled all magic cast on it on a 4+, that was pretty nifty, if you ask me.

txamil
16-03-2008, 18:42
Too be honest I wouldn't mind being thown in with Chaos mortals though. CDs BBs Bull Centaurs Earthsaker and Death rocket (with new rules/point cost) in the Mortals list would be the bone I'm willing to accept at this point.

New units would great, but using the units I have without being treated like a pariah would be good enough.

zak
16-03-2008, 20:46
I couldn't have written my wants for a CD list any better than grimstoneforge. Fewer greenskins and more CD warrior types and deamon engines. I don't think GW should mix CD with Chaos or O+G's as there is more than enough material for them to fully justify their own book.

Dux Ducis
17-03-2008, 09:46
It cancelled all magic cast on it on a 4+, that was pretty nifty, if you ask me.

But the Ravening Hordes one doesn't, does it?

Urgat
17-03-2008, 10:57
I don't know, it might not, if it's the case, it's indeed pretty worthless now. Mind you, back then, they liked to put sorcerers on monsters, take the orc shaman on wyvern, or the necro dude on manticore.

Commodus Leitdorf
17-03-2008, 12:34
The lamassu effectively has MR2....so a large target flying mount with no armour toting around my expensive mage? uh-uh...nope, not putting my Sorceror lord on that!. Just slap your Sorceror Lord in a unit, I mean hes LD10 and T5...hes surprisingly resilient and holds your line together, no reason to have him flying around.

catbarf
17-03-2008, 14:05
I want the Chaos Dwarfs to stay distinct from Chaos. No mutations, save things like Bull Centaurs. I don't want them rolled into the Chaos Mortals list. Keep the Greenskin slaves. Don't make them like Dwarfs by adding Engineers and the like. And for Hashut's sake, keep the same Blunderbuss rules.

metro_gnome
17-03-2008, 14:22
well the BB rules are something that needs to be changed...
they are not well thought out.. and pants against multi-wound models...

I think 3x multiple shots at 12" range would be better... move and shoot... ignore modifiers...
with the same kind of stackable strength (S3 + 1per rank to a maximum of S5)...
Gives you the same kind of coverage as the template...
but deals with multi wound models effectively... without getting too complicated rules wise...
I'd also like them to be available in smaller units sizes... say 5+...

Dux Ducis
17-03-2008, 19:48
I thought with the blunderbuss they could be extended to a range of 18", at strength 3. Strength 4 when at half range. Move them into their own 'blunderbuss' unit, with maybe some other wargear options.

metro_gnome
17-03-2008, 20:55
no...
their strength bonus is measured by full ranks (of 4 no less) to a max of S5...
they always have 12" range...

the above is actually a nerf of their straight up fire fight potential...
it is not uncommon to trap whole units under the BB template... killing 25 models or more...
not to mention the other units that might get caught in the template behind the target unit...
leading to no end of FAQable questions relating to a) units in combat and b) friendly units...
and c) the importance of the BBs LoS to either a) or b)...

the above solution addresses the things that BBs are unrealistically bad at (multi-wound models and S&S)...
while curbing their brutality in a straight on fire fight... especially if they get the relentless rule back...
which I would expect they will... it also allows characters to use blundebusses...

when the same attack can cause 30 hits on a goblin unit but can only ever cause one hit on a Giant...
well you know the mechanic is poorly put together...
if it caused 15 hits on either it would be a consistent weapon you can rely on...

The SkaerKrow
18-03-2008, 00:48
We're never going to see them, so wishlisting seems kind of masochistic. Games Workshop is understandably hesitant about releasing entirely new lines of figures, which is why things like Chaos Dwarves and Dogs of War in Fantasy, and Dark Eldar in 40K keep getting delayed. Releasing new rules for these armies would be relatively painless, but comissioning new sculpts, casting said sculpts into figures and distributing them requires a major mobilization of company resources towards properties that, in the past, have had lackluster returns. Quite simply, as long as they follow their current business model of tying rules releases to large model releases, we shouldn't expect to see any nearly Squatted armies get revised.

catbarf
18-03-2008, 01:42
the above is actually a nerf of their straight up fire fight potential...
it is not uncommon to trap whole units under the BB template... killing 25 models or more...
not to mention the other units that might get caught in the template behind the target unit...
leading to no end of FAQable questions relating to a) units in combat and b) friendly units...
and c) the importance of the BBs LoS to either a) or b)...

In order to kill 25 T3 models with the maximum S5, you would need to have a total of 60 models on average covered by the fire zone. Exaggeration much?

Blunderbusses are short ranged, rely on ranks to be powerful, have difficulty aiming due to their fire zone rules, and leave the shooting unit (a substandard melee choice) open to attack in subsequent turns. They need to be improved against multi-wound models, but they're no more powerful than Dwarf Handguns.

Blunderbusses, in their current incarnation, are hampered with numerous shortcomings and flaws- but when in the right place at the right time, can cause absolute devastation. Making them more like handguns just dilutes their character and turns them into sub-par rifles.

Col. Dash
18-03-2008, 02:09
And quit saying include them with chaos list. They have nothing to do with chaos. They follow their own god which may or may not have once been a khorne LT. They have a completely different look. They may have built the hellcannon but they dont wander around in chaos stars wearing skins for clothes and just mindlessly go to war to appease some call to devastate an entire land leaving souls trapped in stone and crap like that. They are bad guy dwarves who raid for slaves, booty, and materials, have a relatively high technology level and worship a mesapotamian(sp) god. They appearently trade with chaos in recent years and sell out as mercs for cannon crews but thats where they draw the line. They are their own distinct race and army so quit lumping them in with the bloody, "we're bad, we wear spikes to show how bad" chaos guys. I read somewhere from a GW guy years ago, the only reason they gave them the name chaos dwarves is because they couldnt come up with a good name besides dark dwarves or evil dwarves and chaos kind of stuck.

metro_gnome
18-03-2008, 03:47
Blunderbusses, in their current incarnation, are hampered with numerous shortcomings and flaws- yes... which is why maintaining their current rule set is a silly proposition...

They have a completely different look. They may have built the hellcannon but they dont wander around in chaos stars big hatz are covered with chaos arrows...

thats where they draw the line. really? who says? you?
Grudgebearer has them marching to war with chaos marauders during SoC...

I read somewhere from a GW guy years ago... blah blah blah i've read all sorts of things from "some guy" over the years... but chaos dwarf are still called chaos dwarfs...
and as skaerkrow so succinctly puts it... a CD army is a pipe dream...
CDs in the HoC has not only been when GW has been targeting its current fluff...
its probably the last chance for CD in a company that can afford to take fewer risks...

catbarf
18-03-2008, 03:52
yes... which is why maintaining their current rule set is a silly proposition...

You're missing the point. They're hampered by numerous shortcomings, BUT when they can be brought to bear you can unload 20 S5 shots on a 20-man unit. That's the point- hard to use, but devastatingly effective.

metro_gnome
18-03-2008, 04:03
the rule set is clumsy and poorly thought out..
the unit is unrealistically inconsistent vs mutli-wound and in stand-and-shoot...
and the template approach leads to numerous situations which lie outside the rules...
leading to in depth discussions of the hyperbole and conjecture of LoS...
It may be some of the poorest rules writng in GW... and thats saying something...

the unit needs to be simpler and consistent...

Dux Ducis
18-03-2008, 19:44
So, instead of arguing over how vague the current blunderbuss mechanics are, how about we talk about new alternatives?

cornixt
19-03-2008, 05:21
Here's one off the top of my head:
Like normal handguns but
Range 16", S4, no penalty for long range. +1S at short range.

Dux Ducis
19-03-2008, 09:20
That's pretty much exactly what I said on the last page :P

Except I think they should probably be something like 12" range. I'd like to eventually see them as perhaps separate units to the normal rank-and-file combat units.

catbarf
20-03-2008, 19:34
Here's one off the top of my head:
Like normal handguns but
Range 16", S4, no penalty for long range. +1S at short range.

I don't know, I think this is still a little too much like Handguns for my taste.

Why not just revise the current rules? Perhaps say that you can hit a model once for every wound on its profile?

Dux Ducis
21-03-2008, 02:45
I'd like them to be short-ranged, as I said above.

Maybe auto-hit str5, 12" range?

metro_gnome
21-03-2008, 14:30
as long as we are pointing back to the previous page i'll mention my suggestion again...

I think 3x multiple shots at 12" range would be better... move and shoot... ignore modifiers...
with the same kind of stackable strength (S3 + 1per rank to a maximum of S5)...
same kind of basic coverage as we get now... just solves all the inconsistencies in the rules set...
its a really short ranged weapon... it should still deliver a lot of high strength hits...
and should be tailor made for stand a shoot reactions...

cornixt
22-03-2008, 04:51
Anything but the template. It's a real pain.

graydew24
22-03-2008, 05:07
I've held a long conversation with former conversation with a former CD player and they seemed to agree with my idea of an item system for them similar to ruins but called possessions. The way the would work is when whatever possession is used (or start of the game) you roll a D6. 2-5 works normal, 6 something great like double the effect, 1 horrible for the bearer.
Ex: Armor possession; 2-4 5+ ward, 6 3+ ward, 1 no ward and -1T
(side note, first post WOOT)

Dux Ducis
22-03-2008, 07:32
Uh.. what? Like, what 'ruins' are you talking about?

graydew24
22-03-2008, 18:43
Uh.. what? Like, what 'ruins' are you talking about?

Sorry, I have a bad habit of not including all the info when doing two things at once. I was referring to the ruins of regular Dwarfs.

Grimstonefire
22-03-2008, 21:10
@graydew.
Us CD fans would call the Dwarf runes 'ruins' ;)

Shameless plug here I know, but if GW produced my own humble efforts as an armybook I would be extremely happy:

http://www.freewebs.com/chaosdwarfsourcebook/index.htm

Its primarily focused on the alternative sourcebook that I've been working on (available there). There's also a gallery, some background fluff and a simple feedback forum.

I'm really chuffed with it (simple as it is), my own website full of years of work, and a feedback forum to boot! Never thought I'd have that.

Urgat
22-03-2008, 21:47
So, instead of arguing over how vague the current blunderbuss mechanics are, how about we talk about new alternatives?

My take would be to use the same rules as the leadbelchers, but with D6 instead of artillery dies (so potentially half the amount of shots per guy, but there's more guys per units, and no misfire), and keep the rest (strenght bonus per rank, etc)