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.

Not keen on the sound of those. Bit close to going down the formations/detachments/whatever you call them that other GW games are straining under.

If they are option, then fine. I like playing in Middle Earth, not recreating the films.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Not keen on the sound of those. Bit close to going down the formations/detachments/whatever you call them that other GW games are straining under.

If they are option, then fine. I like playing in Middle Earth, not recreating the films.

It's not detachments or anything. It's just an army wide bonus if you keep the same theme. So like Azog's hunters, or Champion's of Erebor or Isengard, things like that. And the rules aren't anything spectacular. I think the Champions of Erebor one is a +1 Courage boost for troops if they're within 6" of Thorin.

It's only there to try and get people away from spamming unfluffy lists. Like taking black guard and then shoving an Isengard shaman in there so you can make use of fury with them.

Hopefully, but GW doesn't really have much of a track record for not piling more and more rules on top of something.

If its done well, then great and leave it there. But I hope it doesn't begin The Bloat.

It's not like this is anything new, Easterlings and the Harad and Umbar lists have had an army-wide rule for years (it allows their warbands that only contain certain warrior choices to have a 1/2 bow limit, rather than the normal 1/3).

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Hopefully, but GW doesn't really have much of a track record for not piling more and more rules on top of something.

If its done well, then great and leave it there. But I hope it doesn't begin The Bloat.

The game's been going on for 13+ years and never suffered any bloat. If anything, the rules have been slimmed down compared to how it was. And I trust Adam Troke and the team to do it well. They've already said they only see a few things that really need attention (like re-working special strikes) which will be dealt with when the new rulebook comes next year. So I think it will happily go along as it has been.

Bonuses? I am out. I was thinking about coming back into a good game ruleset. Have this crap in 40K. Also have it in Age of Sigmar. Don't need it in LotR/The Hobbit.

I hate the "free rules" crap for taking formations or what not. At least now in AoS you need to pay for those abailites.

Still I am out. I don't want to be playing the same game or I should say playing part of the same mechanic over and over and over again.

GW just never learns it seems sometimes.

Seems like an overreaction over nothing, but thanks for keeping us up to date

Not over reacting at all. Just made a statement. Didn't pull out my hair, didn't yell (all caps). Just because I have a differing opinion it's over reacting?

Ok if I made a mistake, please explain how I over reacted. Just woke up had no coffee yet and groggy. So maybe I made a mistake. Please correct me where I have over reacted please.

An overreaction doesn't have to involve any of that.

It's a tiny little boost for not combining unfluffy stuff together and this is making you never play again? Ok, that's ridiculous but it's up to you.

The only thing for games workshop to "learn" from this is they can't do anything without someone or other being unhappy about it.

Davor wrote:
Bonuses? I am out. I was thinking about coming back into a good game ruleset. Have this crap in 40K. Also have it in Age of Sigmar. Don't need it in LotR/The Hobbit.

I hate the "free rules" crap for taking formations or what not. At least now in AoS you need to pay for those abailites.

Still I am out. I don't want to be playing the same game or I should say playing part of the same mechanic over and over and over again.

GW just never learns it seems sometimes.

...Some of us really like the additional rules for taking specialized lists. I'd say GW has learned that we enjoy it, and have implemented a good idea across their ranges.

Davor wrote:
Bonuses? I am out. I was thinking about coming back into a good game ruleset. Have this crap in 40K. Also have it in Age of Sigmar. Don't need it in LotR/The Hobbit.

I hate the "free rules" crap for taking formations or what not. At least now in AoS you need to pay for those abailites.

Still I am out. I don't want to be playing the same game or I should say playing part of the same mechanic over and over and over again.

GW just never learns it seems sometimes.

So instead of grabbing your pitchfork and bashing GW for adding something, you can simply play without it?

As people have said, its nothing game breaking. Its a push to take fluffy lists/armies as there was an apparent dislodge from this when the game first came out.

Play it but don't use that rule?

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
These army boni sound like formations going LOTR. Really interested to see what's behind this.

I'm a bit concerned about this idea. I feel SBG was already one of the best rules sets that GW ever published so any significant changes to the basic rules worry me. The fact that they use formations in 40K and (IMO and YMMV) the 40K rules are currently a hot mess does not incline me see the SBG going down the same path as a good thing.

Oh, well. Maybe I'm worrying about nothing. I'll have to wait until I get my hands on the new supplement to make a final determination.

Davor wrote:
Bonuses? I am out. I was thinking about coming back into a good game ruleset. Have this crap in 40K. Also have it in Age of Sigmar. Don't need it in LotR/The Hobbit.

I hate the "free rules" crap for taking formations or what not. At least now in AoS you need to pay for those abailites.

Still I am out. I don't want to be playing the same game or I should say playing part of the same mechanic over and over and over again.

GW just never learns it seems sometimes.

Dude, relax. It ain't the Decurion or whatever the hell it is from 40k that gives free units. They're just simple bonuses for fluffy lists. Most of the bonuses aren't eyebrow raisers, quite the opposite. They're quite situational. Things like +1 leadership bubbles like I already said. It's not breaking the game, not in any way.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Hopefully, but GW doesn't really have much of a track record for not piling more and more rules on top of something.

If its done well, then great and leave it there. But I hope it doesn't begin The Bloat.

The game's been going on for 13+ years and never suffered any bloat. If anything, the rules have been slimmed down compared to how it was. And I trust Adam Troke and the team to do it well. They've already said they only see a few things that really need attention (like re-working special strikes) which will be dealt with when the new rulebook comes next year. So I think it will happily go along as it has been.

This is Games Workshop you are talking about. The reason LotR has been good for 13+ years is because they didn't touch it for a good number of those and left it alone.

If they do it in a decent way, then all good. Problem is that they ain't exactly got a good track record for this and can only be judged by past performance.

40K/WFB got in a mess by taking a lot of small steps.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Hopefully, but GW doesn't really have much of a track record for not piling more and more rules on top of something.

If its done well, then great and leave it there. But I hope it doesn't begin The Bloat.

The game's been going on for 13+ years and never suffered any bloat. If anything, the rules have been slimmed down compared to how it was. And I trust Adam Troke and the team to do it well. They've already said they only see a few things that really need attention (like re-working special strikes) which will be dealt with when the new rulebook comes next year. So I think it will happily go along as it has been.

This is Games Workshop you are talking about. The reason LotR has been good for 13+ years is because they didn't touch it for a good number of those and left it alone.

If they do it in a decent way, then all good. Problem is that they ain't exactly got a good track record for this and can only be judged by past performance.

40K/WFB got in a mess by taking a lot of small steps.

Hm, not really. I don't have my old supplements in front of me right now, but I think it was only really left in the dark for the last 2, maybe 3 years. It had quite regular support up until that point. And I will point out that the team behind it is small (only 4 people) and all of them do talk regularly to players on the GBHL face book page. They actually throw rules suggestions and queries out to the community. Don't be such a negative nancy and enjoy the support that's coming.

It's Adam Troke. It's not the GW design studio. There's absolutely nothing to worry about.

Ha, its the same company you know? Who does Troke work for?

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Ha, its the same company you know? Who does Troke work for?

It doesn't really matter. Each development team is essentially it's own hub. GW is just the parent group. And here's something to chew on. Every rule change, every new rule, scenario, everything has to be greenlit by New Line studios first. That's why it can take so long to get new stuff. Up to six months I believe. So if they don't think the rules are appropriate and don't fit with what they want, the don't approve it.

I like Adam, but if they could ever bring anyone else back, I would love for Matt Ward and Alessio to return to the team. They're essentially the creators of the game.

New Line gets involved in approving the rules for the game?

Sir, please.

BTW - Rick Priestley, not Mat Ward, co wrote LotR.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
New Line gets involved in approving the rules for the game?

Sir, please.

I'm quite serious. Because it's their IP. I know Adam Troke mentioned it. I think it was in one of the GBHL podcasts after Ardacon. I'll see if I can find the video later.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
New Line gets involved in approving the rules for the game?

Sir, please.

I'm quite serious. Because it's their IP. I know Adam Troke mentioned it. I think it was in one of the GBHL podcasts after Ardacon. I'll see if I can find the video later.

Sounds like too many cooks, but we shall see.

I can understand why 40k players are concerned. Since Fifth, 40k has seemingly shattered into a mess. But I doubt that is applicable here. Keep in mind SBG began as a scenario-based system. Army building was added later and has gone through several iterations. Along the way, staying true to Middle-earth has always been a priority even if it has mostly been a matter of "honour" rather than rules. There are only a few list writing restrictions in the current system: evil and good may not ally and you have to take a hero from list X to access non-heroes in list X. The latest changes are not adding further restrictions but rather offering incentives as a way to pursue that same goal - staying true to Middle-earth.

I stopped keeping up with this thread for a couple weeks, and totally missed my chance to order "There and Back Again". There aren't even marked up copies on Ebay. :-( I won't lie... i'm a little heart-broken.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I stopped keeping up with this thread for a couple weeks, and totally missed my chance to order "There and Back Again". There aren't even marked up copies on Ebay. :-( I won't lie... i'm a little heart-broken.

It'll be back soon. It and the lake town houses are supposed to be back in stock by January at the latest I believe.

"There and Back Again" only covers the Hobbit movies right? I have some of the LOTR sourcebooks and I'm using them to introduce my kids to tabletop gaming (they already enjoy board games like Z:BP) but I'm not going to prioritize getting it if it doesn't affect the books I already have.

Lots of self entitled Warhammer players complaining on the Forgeworld face book page. They've had an entire year of almost exclusively Warhammer 40K or 30K releases, and they go ape gak when the SBG gets just one modest sized release?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
"There and Back Again" only covers the Hobbit movies right? I have some of the LOTR sourcebooks and I'm using them to introduce my kids to tabletop gaming (they already enjoy board games like Z:BP) but I'm not going to prioritize getting it if it doesn't affect the books I already have.

Yup. If you don't play any Hobbit armies then it won't be relevant to you. Lots of Hobbit profiles have been updated and replaced, but so far as I know none of the core rules have been altered.

LOTR is coming next year.

@Prestor Jon - Yes, you're correct. I haven't bought the book either, for the same reason.

The book's second printing was pushed up and I believe the first restock has arrived at Warhammer World.

The great thing is that you can talk to Adam Troke and the Middle Earth design studio directly on Facebook with your questions and concerns. The property is in excellent hands.

Excellent news. Thanks guys. I plan to revisit SBG a ton in 2017 between this and the new core book.

 Mymearan wrote:
It's Adam Troke. It's not the GW design studio. There's absolutely nothing to worry about.

Sorry I don't know who this is. May you please elaborate please.