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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
h. There's been a surge of new players a year ago with the big box and battleforces,

Source?

leopard wrote:
the priority thing I dislike, previously fate could really screw you over so you had to plan for it, now its "easier" in a way it didn't need to be

I really don't see how this change makes much difference.

Previously (currently?), if you didn't want priority, you wanted to lose the roll.

Now (in the future), if you don't want priority, you will want to win the roll.

The probabilities don't really change.

leopard wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I really don't understand this invalidation nonsense when there's been a six year gap between this and the previous ed.

its more given how many campaign books etc there are for this, replacing them for no real reason is a needless expense - this could have been a pdf you can download to "patch" each books profiles - as well as updated copies on the shelves

Yeah, it's around $1k of printed materials that have just been outdated, plus the buy-in to replace them being......roughly 4x $80-$100 just to get started, and we haven't even touched the potential outdating of models (fortunately I wasn't using any niche armies, so that won't be too bad, I guess not being able to get the last Orc FW hero release was a blessing).

With the cost of GW printed material being what it is, I'm leaning heavily to selling it off.

Looks like most of LoTR army book has been leaked.

Here's the Contents page (Spoilered because huge!)


And something that caught my eye, they're bringing back Ent variations! Although I seem to recall there being more then just four.
I don't like the restriction placed on how many of what kind you can take, but eh.. I'll take it.

So everything is a Legendary Legion now? If it wasn't a scene in the movie, you can't have it?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So everything is a Legendary Legion now? If it wasn't a scene in the movie, you can't have it?

I sort of get what you are saying, but some of those sound pretty generic: Kingdom of Rohan, Legions of Mordor, etc.

I'll need more info before I pass judgement.

 Snrub wrote:
Looks like most of LoTR army book has been leaked.

Here's the Contents page (Spoilered because huge!)

Spoiler:

And something that caught my eye, they're bringing back Ent variations! Although I seem to recall there being more then just four.
I don't like the restriction placed on how many of what kind you can take, but eh.. I'll take it.

Spoiler:

Oh that's cool. I'll look up later how they compare with the original variants

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So everything is a Legendary Legion now? If it wasn't a scene in the movie, you can't have it?

Frm what I understand there's going ti be another book or pdf for freer army lists and for those forces removed from this edition.

 .Mikes. wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
So everything is a Legendary Legion now? If it wasn't a scene in the movie, you can't have it?

Frm what I understand there's going ti be another book or pdf for freer army lists and for those forces removed from this edition.

Both.

A book for non-movie stuff they are keeping in the range, and a PDF for non-movie stuff they are killing off.

this "everything is a legendary legion" concept smacks slightly of the formation garbage that wreaked 40k a few editions back, a special snowflake list centred around a hero or two, special rules and remarkably little concern for balance

now it could be they do it well, but prior history is not that hopeful

for how often I actually play I'm just sticking with the current edition and not bothering with the new one, still have plenty to finish painting up anyway

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Oh that's cool. I'll look up later how they compare with the original variants

Did they ever appear in any of the source books? I've got a copy from White Dwarf #282

7 Variations as opposed to the 4 listed in the new rules, although I suppose there could be more on the next page, although I somehow doubt it given how much space is left.

No, only in the WD and WD compilation.

Very different, which i'm not unhappy about to be honest. I'd rather they put more thought into it than just copy/pasted from old material. But it's nice to see further thought for the Ents.

While I don't disagree in principal, it sort of feels like someone said "Name me 4 species of tree and let them do something." Where as the previous style actually looks like they've put some thought into what attributes a tree of the type would have and gave them a special rule accordingly.

On this occasion, I wouldn't have been disappointed to see a straight copy/paste.

And the list building:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/m9f0rghw/middle-earthtm-strategy-battle-game-army-building-in-the-new-edition/

From looking at the examples they've given I don't mind so far. I'm just concerned something will go awry and be horribly unbalanced.

They just feel a tad restrictive for me so far. I know they're going for theme and character over breadth of options but when the example of a more generalist one, the Legions of Mordor list, is lacking relatively basic options then it's certainly making me wary. Obviously a small sample size and there's a huge amount of lists apparently but it feels like they're doubling down on an aspect of the previous system (and their other games) that isn't necessarily that appealing.

I don't really mind it. While wacky lists are amusing at times, it was always kind of odd seeing characters like Aragorn or the Witch King appearing in lists they couldn't possibly have been in and did feel gamey.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I don't really mind it. While wacky lists are amusing at times, it was always kind of odd seeing characters like Aragorn or the Witch King appearing in lists they couldn't possibly have been in and did feel gamey.

I'm all for thematic/canonically accurate lists in principle but, based purely on the examples shown, I'm just a bit concerned that they might have gone a bit too far and focusing on specific scenes strips away some player agency. For example, if say Boromir were only going to be available to Gondor as part of the Reclamation of Osgiliath list (not saying that will be the case, just an example), that seems unnecessarily reductive. Like it would remove the potential for him to be fielded alongside Citadel Guard or Fountain Court Guard; a scenario which doesn't necessarily happen 'on screen' directly but is incredibly plausible, to the extent that it would be weirder if it didn't happen 'off screen' in some capacity.

Nah not for me. Especially the focus on film scenes rather than book scenes. No interest from me, think it's a terrible decision.

I think you'll need to wait and see for the final book, as that seems to be the one that will cover the more unique and general lists.

On another note, Héra.


https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/l1m49wph/middle-earthtm-strategy-battle-game-heratm-the-bride-of-death/

Like the general pose and shield.

That's a cool miniature!

While Hollywood is definitely overdoing the whole Girl Boss thing right now (and that's a discussion for another time and thread), that mini is very nice. I love the pose and the shield she's holding. Also I saw on a Facebook group earlier where someone had leaked her stats and she's actually got two profiles; one for her "Girl Boss" persona as depicted here (the Bride of Death) and another much tamer profile. My google-fu is failing me and I haven't been able to find a link, but the Bride of Death persona seems extremely strong for the points (she's 125, or 130 with the shield).

JimmyWolf87 wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I don't really mind it. While wacky lists are amusing at times, it was always kind of odd seeing characters like Aragorn or the Witch King appearing in lists they couldn't possibly have been in and did feel gamey.

I'm all for thematic/canonically accurate lists in principle but, based purely on the examples shown, I'm just a bit concerned that they might have gone a bit too far and focusing on specific scenes strips away some player agency. For example, if say Boromir were only going to be available to Gondor as part of the Reclamation of Osgiliath list (not saying that will be the case, just an example), that seems unnecessarily reductive. Like it would remove the potential for him to be fielded alongside Citadel Guard or Fountain Court Guard; a scenario which doesn't necessarily happen 'on screen' directly but is incredibly plausible, to the extent that it would be weirder if it didn't happen 'off screen' in some capacity.

Da Boss wrote:Nah not for me. Especially the focus on film scenes rather than book scenes. No interest from me, think it's a terrible decision.

The exact lists and the specific focus on books scenes does feel overly restrictive, agreed.

Sure, there certainly have been many armylists from tournament players in the past that were clearly constructed for optimal game effect rather than any thematic purpose. Even if all individual profiles and points costs were perfectly balanced, this is probably unavoidable when allying in a wizard or even just some cavalry is clearly beneficial in basic gameplay and specific scenarios, to allow for things (magic, speed) that your army may otherwise lack. At the same time, there are many scenes from the books not covered in the movies, or depicted very differently. Morever, there are many plausible what-if scenarios one might want to play out in their games. Combine highly specific army lists with restrictive wargear loadouts with the recent removal of a chunk of the range, and a lot of space for creativity is lost. Some things will be improved I'm sure, but I am not so sure if this has not taken these restrictive designs too far. (Especially when many lists rely strongly on named heroes, which to me always feel more restrictive than anything: they avoid Saruman or a Nazgûl showing up in every list, but now force players to take Boromir or Théoden in their respective lists, even though Boromir surely wouldn't have been around for every single fight on every square metre of Osgiliath...)

Inquisitor Gideon wrote:On another note, Héra.


https://www.warhammer-community.com/en-gb/articles/l1m49wph/middle-earthtm-strategy-battle-game-heratm-the-bride-of-death/

Like the general pose and shield.

With her absence in the main box, I was starting to wonder if she would just be resin rather than plastic, as is now confirmed (unless the 2nd profile mentioned above will be represented by a plastic mini). Which seems surprising given that she very much appears to be the main character based on the trailer?

 Coenus Scaldingus wrote:
With her absence in the main box, I was starting to wonder if she would just be resin rather than plastic, as is now confirmed (unless the 2nd profile mentioned above will be represented by a plastic mini). Which seems surprising given that she very much appears to be the main character based on the trailer?

Movie trailers have definitely never given the wrong impression before...

Also, IIRC from the old days of LotR, they tended to be given a limited number of stills and such, not the whole plot, so even if she is the protagonist it may not have come across in the material given to GW.

She also has a second profile apparently. So she may well get a seperate plastic more based off the images already seen.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Snrub wrote:
Looks like most of LoTR army book has been leaked.

Here's the Contents page (Spoilered because huge!)

Spoiler:

And something that caught my eye, they're bringing back Ent variations! Although I seem to recall there being more then just four.
I don't like the restriction placed on how many of what kind you can take, but eh.. I'll take it.

Spoiler:

Oh that's cool. I'll look up later how they compare with the original variants

I can't see dwarven holds in there, does that mean there is no dwarf army for LotR? The list of removed models only included characters like Balin, not the normal troops so I figured we'd still see those. But from this it looks like they just can't be used at all?

Is it only in the Hobbit lists that we'll see any dwarf armies?

The kingdom of Khazad dum is still listed under LotR on the GW website....

 Hellebore wrote:


I can't see dwarven holds in there, does that mean there is no dwarf army for LotR? The list of removed models only included characters like Balin, not the normal troops so I figured we'd still see those. But from this it looks like they just can't be used at all?

Is it only in the Hobbit lists that we'll see any dwarf armies?

I suspect they would limit the duplication across both books, so can see the dwarven armies concentrated in the Hobbit book. Noting outside the seven lords and Gimli and compatriots at the council, they aren't actually in LotR (movies) and only barely referenced in the books.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:


I can't see dwarven holds in there, does that mean there is no dwarf army for LotR? The list of removed models only included characters like Balin, not the normal troops so I figured we'd still see those. But from this it looks like they just can't be used at all?

Is it only in the Hobbit lists that we'll see any dwarf armies?

I suspect they would limit the duplication across both books, so can see the dwarven armies concentrated in the Hobbit book. Noting outside the seven lords and Gimli and compatriots at the council, they aren't actually in LotR (movies) and only barely referenced in the books.

Did we see armies of Khazad dum in the hobbit? I suppose technically we saw their corpses in LotR, but they're not really a force that appears in either trilogy so I was expecting they'd disappear entirely. But then the hobbit has the son of Beorn? and seemingly post hobbit models that didn't appear in the film.

It's all very confusing, I'm unsure what they consider 'core' when they still include stuff that wasn't in the films...

Khazad Dum is probably going to be in the 3rd Book, Armies of Middle-earth. If i've understood the WarCom article correctly, then because they were "present" at the time of the War of the Ring, but not directly linked to any of the on-screen events, then that means they get shunted to the non-movie based book.

Ah I must have missed that bit of news. I thought they were shrinking everything down to just what happened in the movies.

my understanding was they had two separate licences for the book content and movie content so they could make a range of stuff that didn't appear on screen. But Their licencing seems to have changed acronym, so no idea what they're allowed to make now.

They're removing glorfindel despite him existing in the books. I figured because he clashed with Arwen's appearance in the movie, but he could have still hung around as Elrond's best bro.