Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The two wizards, I think perhaps unconsciously on Tolkien's part, take up a role not dissimilar to Harut and Marut considering the presence of "magic cults" in the Easterling lands.

I think good-guy or at least grey Easterlings and Haradrim fighting Orcs is certain to have happened - those lands were subjugated by Sauron and there was sure to have been a resistance against that.

Jackson's Easterling designs are fairly cool, but I always thought they were supposed to be more of a mix of Mongolian and Russian influences. Khand obviously has some Mongol influences in the game, but the Easterlings themselves are very different to what I imagine from reading the books.

Aesthetically quite cool, and my headcanon is that they're actually the "black numenoreans" because I think them being ALL mini-Mouth-of-Saurons is silly.

 Overread wrote:
Yep I don't think we ever hear anything of them, even in the notes Tolkien made. The only thing that suggests they might have fallen is that we never heard of them taking the White Ships; but then again as we never see them in the books, it stands that we likely never saw them depart either*

But yeah its very likely that two wizards would have caused all kinds of trouble for Sauron in the East. Sam even remarks that the Men of the East are not true evil and just missguided and so forth.
They are indeed just men, not creatures birthed and twisted by evil like the Orcs are



*even if they did, I seem to recall that Radagast never departs?

It's never mentioned what happened to Radagast as far as i'm aware. But he could have gone back and it just not mentioned. The other possibilities is that he was actually considered to have failed in his mission to oppose Sauron and wasn't allowed, or he could have just gone full druid and never wanted to go back.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yep I don't think we ever hear anything of them, even in the notes Tolkien made. The only thing that suggests they might have fallen is that we never heard of them taking the White Ships; but then again as we never see them in the books, it stands that we likely never saw them depart either*

But yeah its very likely that two wizards would have caused all kinds of trouble for Sauron in the East. Sam even remarks that the Men of the East are not true evil and just missguided and so forth.
They are indeed just men, not creatures birthed and twisted by evil like the Orcs are



*even if they did, I seem to recall that Radagast never departs?

It's never mentioned what happened to Radagast as far as i'm aware. But he could have gone back and it just not mentioned. The other possibilities is that he was actually considered to have failed in his mission to oppose Sauron and wasn't allowed, or he could have just gone full druid and never wanted to go back.

Yeah the impression I got is that he basically goes "full feral" and just lives out in the wilds of Middle Earth.

I think also unlike Gandalf and many others, he didn't deal with Sauron directly so I don't think he had any corruption from things like the Ring to contend with.

I think...I might...just order a box of "bad-boys-gone-good" guys. So I'm thinking that they had something with the Blue Wizards, and having just watched an episode of Robin of Sherwood - the Sheriff's men were wearing some very lovely blue capes, which I think the Merry Men should have mugged them for, but they didn't but I would have...

...sorry, I was lost in thought there, but blue Easterlings sounds good.

 Da Boss wrote:
I think good-guy or at least grey Easterlings and Haradrim fighting Orcs is certain to have happened - those lands were subjugated by Sauron and there was sure to have been a resistance against that.

Jackson's Easterling designs are fairly cool, but I always thought they were supposed to be more of a mix of Mongolian and Russian influences. Khand obviously has some Mongol influences in the game, but the Easterlings themselves are very different to what I imagine from reading the books.

Aesthetically quite cool, and my headcanon is that they're actually the "black numenoreans" because I think them being ALL mini-Mouth-of-Saurons is silly.

Apparently evil Easterlings also fought each other, and probably the surrounding groups. They seem to have been a group of tribes that occasionally unified.

Lets face it the western peoples in Middle Earth also fought each other as well. There were wild tribes/barbarians as well as other groups that warred.

 Da Boss wrote:
I think good-guy or at least grey Easterlings and Haradrim fighting Orcs is certain to have happened - those lands were subjugated by Sauron and there was sure to have been a resistance against that.

Jackson's Easterling designs are fairly cool, but I always thought they were supposed to be more of a mix of Mongolian and Russian influences. Khand obviously has some Mongol influences in the game, but the Easterlings themselves are very different to what I imagine from reading the books.

Aesthetically quite cool, and my headcanon is that they're actually the "black numenoreans" because I think them being ALL mini-Mouth-of-Saurons is silly.

Eh, I'm okay with depicting Easterlings as looking oriental. When western people think of eastern folk, Chinese/Japanese/Korean/etc. are what comes to mind for many, after all. The bigger change between the book and movie was the Haradrim. In the books, they were described as having dark skin, and with them being from the south I expect Tolkien was thinking of Zulus or other African peoples. I expect the filmmakers didn't want to show black people as being the bad guys so they made the Haradrim look more like Arabs or something instead, which worked okay.

 Overread wrote:
Lets face it the western peoples in Middle Earth also fought each other as well. There were wild tribes/barbarians as well as other groups that warred.

Oh, absolutely. It is merely that the discussion was focusing on Easterlings.

As far as GW goes it is more like what armies that I am not interested in. When I started in WFB and later in 40K, I knew after reading a synopsis of the armies(BRB, Armybook/Codex, WD etc.) whether I liked the army or not. My first impression really has not changed much over the decades.

However, I do have one that may qualify. Necrons are growing on me over the past few years. An army that I never was that really interested in, but as of late my mind is changing. I guess that as I am watching the original Terminator movie as of late from time to time, I am starting to get some inspiration on this army?

Feel free to salivate over non GW armies and games here too.

Personally I only liked Necrons in their 3rd edition cosmic horror phase

Droids.
Since watching The Phantom Menace; say what you will about the movie in general, I loved the droid army and (most) of the battle scene.
Why send people when droids will do?

Since then an army of robots has appealed to me, even though I'm not much of a Sci-Fi wargamer.
In the event that I do get into Sci-Fi, like my stint with Infinity, robots are the default.
I only played 40k because I could with deamons, but if I were to get a army for only 40k it would have been Necrons or maybe AD Mech.

Kroot. Something about their aesthetic really does it for me. Bought into the dark for their kill team and I'm really leaning into get a pure 40k army of them. I'll probably get constantly smashed but I would enjoy collecting them.

How does everyone feel about the urge to collect an opponent army to your main force?

I've seen it mentioned a bunch. I myself feel like I have so many bad guys that I should have some good guys to oppose them too. And what if I met someone who wanted to play but didn't have an army?

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:
How does everyone feel about the urge to collect an opponent army to your main force?

It's an interesting sentiment but I haven't been able to pull that off myself. In order to sink the amount of time, energy and soul into an army it needs to stand on stronger legs than "just" being a reflection of one I like more.

I've been "into" pretty much all armies across both fantasy and 40k but I'm an Undeader for life (uh..) and since I tend to cyclically re-do previously finished miniatures I often fall back to working on yet more undead things.

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:
How does everyone feel about the urge to collect an opponent army to your main force?

I've seen it mentioned a bunch. I myself feel like I have so many bad guys that I should have some good guys to oppose them too. And what if I met someone who wanted to play but didn't have an army?

My current overarching project is essentially this- I'm building two opposing battlegroups for my Armageddon forces. One built around my core of Imperial Guard with some support from other Imperials, and one built around Orks. The(very long term) plan is to have several companies and warbands facing off.

I am also going to build up my Chaos units for the later phase of the war, but that is less of a priority. Will be similar with various Lost and the Damned warbands as the core supported by some Chaos Marines and daemons.

Warzone (Mutant Chronicles wargame) -Cybertronic always had a warm place in my heart when I played that game. If I was not a mono army player it would be my second choice after my beloved Mishima. All those cyber enhanced soldiers and robots are so cool looking on the battlefield.

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:
How does everyone feel about the urge to collect an opponent army to your main force?

I've seen it mentioned a bunch. I myself feel like I have so many bad guys that I should have some good guys to oppose them too. And what if I met someone who wanted to play but didn't have an army?

<Looks at the Ultramarines and Tyranids on the shelf>

I have no idea what you are talking about.

One thing that draws people to the game is the lore and the narrative. There is a draw to having your rival army.

I definitely want to do 'both sides', and often think of forces as thematically opposed sides.

That was partly the drive for me to get both axis and allies in bolt action, or why I plan to have a chaos army someday to play on all three imperium/xenon/chaos tables.

Then I love to mix their homemade Backstories with one another!

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:
How does everyone feel about the urge to collect an opponent army to your main force?

I do not approach games that way.
I simply collect forces I like.
So for some games I might only have 1 force, some several, and then there's WHFB/Sigmar/Old World & 40k where I have many.

What determines if I like a force or not comes down to the models. If i like enough of a factions models to make a legal force, then I'll consider building an army....
It just so happens that most games have multiple forces I like.

I do not worry about others having forces.
Well, at least not beyond "is this game played in my area/are there any opponents?"
For ex, although there's enough models I like in the Drop Zone Commander game? It'd be a pointless waste of time/$ to build a force as there's zero interest in that game A) within my owb circle, B) in my area in general.

Edit:
Oh, and in any game that I have multiple forces for?
I don't have a "primary" or "main" army.
And I rotate between forces regularly.

For armies I don't already own, I am most intrigued by armies have the vibe of RT and/or are most like the Jon Blanche style of art that pervaded that era.

-Squats (old style, not Votaan)
-Mechanicus
-Inquisition
-Sisters of Battle
-Genestealer Cult
-Chaos Cultists (and some Marines)

Of these, I've only acquired a unit or two of each and none are painted. The only exception is Squats where I've got a full army worth of RT Squats waiting for paint and a couple units painted.

Not sure if I'll ever get around to painting any of that.

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:
How does everyone feel about the urge to collect an opponent army to your main force?

I've seen it mentioned a bunch. I myself feel like I have so many bad guys that I should have some good guys to oppose them too. And what if I met someone who wanted to play but didn't have an army?

Its demanding but ultimately rewarding.

I have three forces for Adeptus Titanicus, but each is only 1K points. For 40K I have an Eldar collection that can take me to a 2K game, but Knights that barely reach 750 points - with one of them stuck on the pile of shame.

In the case of AT, games have dried up in my area, so I'm glad I went for three small armies instead of one large 3K army, as it means I can at least host small games at home. If I find it lacking in variety I can just get a pair of Warhounds with the alternative weapons, or even the Direwolves - I can split them for two of those armies. For 40K, I have my Eldar on standby but for the Knights I can once again host a small game at home, and they make for ideal solo games with their low model count and sheer power.

After the Stormcast fiasco, I now like the idea of two armies so I can alternate my primary army for every edition. I spent a bit on my Stormcasts for 3rd edition, and I really don't like the idea of replacing it's battletome and Sacrosanct models so soon. With Nighthaunts sitting in a box, I could enjoy a different book for 4th edition, and might only have to make the odd model purchase. I can return to Stormcasts later in 5th, when they release even more new Stormcast models and probably for giggles nuke Thunderstrikes and replace them with Lightningbolt Stormcasts - or whatever nonsense they come up with. 6th edition I can return to Nighthaunts when they've had six years to update their models...

For any game I play, I always get 1 force and an opposing force. That way, if I have the rules and the two forces I can always play a game in the future no matter what happens to the game itself.

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:
And what if I met someone who wanted to play but didn't have an army?

Just realized I missed this point before. If you have an army of decent size you should be able to split it in two to have a game with someone else. A little healthy infighting never hurt anyone, right? For Chaos it basically writes itself and for Undead I could easily do a vampires vs necromancers showdown to see who really rules the night!

For middle earth:
Ent army
Hobbit army

For 40K:
- Flanderized Iyanden with few things but wraith constructs
- Pure phobos Marines
- 30K Mechanicum

Other:
Red army/ Cold War soviet army, maybe quite historically inacurrate mixed (Ak47 and KVI or what have you) because it's more to be used in 40K/OPR

Whole army of pig faced orcs/pig beastmen
Saw the awesome sculpts from warp miniatures and mom miniatures the other day and instantly wanted an army of them

Cebalrai wrote:

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:
And what if I met someone who wanted to play but didn't have an army?

Just realized I missed this point before. If you have an army of decent size you should be able to split it in two to have a game with someone else. A little healthy infighting never hurt anyone, right? For Chaos it basically writes itself and for Undead I could easily do a vampires vs necromancers showdown to see who really rules the night!

That's true, but for people who are even remotely interested in the narrative aspect of gaming, having two distinct opposing forces is very appealing.

For whatever game I play I try to have 2 or more clearly opposing forces whenever possible to engage new players. Also helps when running convention games.

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:
How does everyone feel about the urge to collect an opponent army to your main force?

I've seen it mentioned a bunch. I myself feel like I have so many bad guys that I should have some good guys to oppose them too. And what if I met someone who wanted to play but didn't have an army?

I have never specifically collected an army just because it is opposing force to my main, but I end up doing, and to be honest I really don't have a main force. I like the armies that I collect based on their own merit and my personal taste. It just so happens that my first army is my Dwarven army and then my next army is my Goblin Horde, and then High Elf, and... you get the picture.

Having said that I am collecting a home made space marine chapter that I intend to be played as a straight up loyalist or renegade depending on my mood, taste or requirements for the campaign or battle.

 Eilif wrote:
That's true, but for people who are even remotely interested in the narrative aspect of gaming, having two distinct opposing forces is very appealing.

For whatever game I play I try to have 2 or more clearly opposing forces whenever possible to engage new players

Very much this for me. For example I don't think I would ever collect WHFB Empire in a vacuum, but as an opponent to my Chaos they are very tempting.

 Eilif wrote:


That's true, but for people who are even remotely interested in the narrative aspect of gaming, having two distinct opposing forces is very appealing.

Assuming you're speaking from the perspective of being the one who provides all the miniatures for a battle then yes, I agree. Otherwise, that's what other people and their armies are for, right?