Going through the new source books

Pindergorn · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:54 pm

General Elessar wrote:

King Ondoher wrote:

Raukov wrote:

The whole thing seems rushed imo. Like, the warbands system is a great idea but the actual books themselves seem like they were flung together in a hurry and not all that carefully.

As with most things with GW these days.

Most things, or just LotR?

Actually, I don't think I phrased that correctly. I'd say, everything.

Example.

GW jacks up prices exponentially, at a time when disposable incomes are plummeting.
=people buy less products and less often.

GW shuts down international shipping to Australia.
= end result is much fewer Australians buying GW products.

GW switched to Finecast without adequete Quality Assurance put in place
= end result is vast amounts of miscast minatures sold and a large loss made on GW's part thanks to having to replace or refund miscasts.

GW introduces WOTR, a game requiring huge numbers of models.
=the game falls flat on its face thanks in part to the prohibitive costs involved. (Metal Fiefdoms army, anyone?).

GW ignores LotR source material in favour of inventing original concepts for its post-trilogy White Dwarf releases
=fan reaction is very lukewarm, love-hate. Many Tolkien purists despise the new concepts, and there are significant criticisms of the new rules.

GW ignores LotR for a good three years or so.
=no new interest in LotR is generated and the game stagnates until 2012.

GW abandons the LoME principle, of restricting people to somewhat themed armies.
=end result is people creating armies comepletely contradictory to the LotR lore.

On the 40K side.

GW deliberately ramps up Codex creep. We LotR players may complain of Stat creep, but 40K has it much worse.
=entire armies are invalidated because they're just so out of date. Remember Necrons, Witch Hunters, Daemon Hunters and Dark Eldar before the recent updates.

GW halves model count of boxes, and do not adjust the prices proportionately.
=end result, again, people buy less.

GW doesn't think concepts through.
=we get the Flying Brick, also known as the Storm Raven. And Lord Draigo, the Warp travelling Crusader who kicks the Chaos gods collective asses. Over. And Over. Again.

General Elessar · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:40 pm

Do you think 40k and Fantasy players are as fed up with GW as we are?

Pindergorn · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:47 pm

I don't, I don't pay much attention to Warhammer Forums (I only play 40K, have no experience of Fantasy). I'm on Sons of Corax, but thats a forum specific to Raven Guard Space Marines so not a large sample population. One thing is indisputable though.

GW is a case study in the law of unintended consequences.

Syrath101 · **Joined:** Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:41 pm **Posts:** 36

I've got mixed feelings on the Easterling Army List
Pro's
-Black Dragons
-Dragon Knights
-War Priest
Amdur
Kataprhats
Con's
-No Drums for basic Easterlings, or War Horns
-Easterlings still over coasted
-Khamul remains as Devlan Mud as ever

And yes, being a player of Chaos Daemons I feel GW's getting as much money as possible into their pockets before their company collapses.

Pindergorn · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:17 pm

What I think the problem with GW is, in one sentence...Its being run by people with NO affinity and love for the Hobby, the games and the respective Universes.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:21 pm

I wouldn't say that Easterlings are overcosted, especially now that their pikes cost only 1 pt, but that certain other units (dwarves, elves) are undercosted.

Pindergorn · **Posted:** Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:45 am

Draugluin wrote:

I wouldn't say that Easterlings are overcosted, especially now that their pikes cost only 1 pt, but that certain other units (dwarves, elves) are undercosted.

Its generally not the Good forces that are undercosted, its more common with the Evil forces.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:23 am

While that is usually the case, dwarves and elves are the few good guys who are undercosted, and they're the only ones I fight.

Wah Wing · **Posted:** Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:16 am

I noticed in one of the scenarios, "The Deeping Wall," (Fallen Realms sourcebook) that it was missing a very important detail for the attacking Uruk-hai:
How many siege ladders can they have? Without them, they have no hope what so ever of winning.

Thoughts?

Sticky Fingersss · **Joined:** Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:20 am **Posts:** 1776

I find it so pathetic that people think GW are getting a quick buck before they run out of money. People have been saying that since the bubble burst and GW is still standing strong. I don't like their prices so I don't buy from them. Simple as that. I don't like some of the models, so I don't buy them. This new release has generated lots of new players and in the end GW wants to make money just like every other buissness.

Galanur · **Joined:** Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:28 am **Posts:** 1389

Now I got a question related to this new scourcebooks.
As every 1 notice, they divided the books like "army factions", can we still mix units bettewn diferent books?
My newest project will try to remake an army of Minas Tirith based on the defenders of the city during the seige, with gandalf the white leading it, the only thing im curious to know is that gandalf being at the free peoples army book, can he be mixed up with the kingdom of men´s one in order to do this themed army?

Hilbert · **Joined:** Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:07 am **Posts:** 2088

Yes you can ally any army list between Good

The same for evil

emre43 · **Joined:** Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:30 pm **Posts:** 176

So I could have a Gondor/Rohan alliance?

Oldman Willow · **Posted:** Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:10 pm

Quote:

So I could have a Gondor/Rohan alliance?

Yes. Gandalf can join as a single figure ally.

Raukov · **Posted:** Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:04 pm

emre43 wrote:

So I could have a Gondor/Rohan alliance?

Of course, that would make sense. You can also form alliances that make less sense (Isengard and Harad?!)

Then again, there's scope for creativity there - I can now theme an Angmar army from the height of the kingdom's power by combining Mordor and Angmar units and allying in Dunlendings as barbarians of Carn Dûm, which is pretty cool.

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:22 pm

What would be more cool is if Angmar had options for Barbarians of Carn Dum and Ghosts in SBG.

Pindergorn · **Posted:** Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:34 pm

GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:

What would be more cool is if Angmar had options for Barbarians of Carn Dum and Ghosts in SBG.

+1. I want to see some kind of Ghost profile, weaker than the Army of the Dead. Maybe something like the Golbin statline, but with the relevant Spirit type rules (strike against courage etc).

e.g. F2 S3 D4 A1 C3 for 4-6pts.

And Barbarians of Carn Dum, something similar to the Dunland Warriors.

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:42 pm

The Ghosts as you put them are the same us the pre-lome unofficual spectres, which I like, though you'd need to add spectral wargs.

Barbarians, higher figh, lower strength than Dunledings.

ChristsSoldier · **Posted:** Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:17 am

Are there still rules about allying in guys from the same general time period? No Durin with Gimli, right?

Also, can anyone elaborate a little more on Eomer, Knight of the Pelennor's special rule (without giving away too much of course). And is he the same points cost?

Caputo · **Joined:** Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:29 am **Posts:** 40

ChristsSoldier wrote:

Are there still rules about allying in guys from the same general time period? No Durin with Gimli, right?

Just a recomendation that you dont do it, but there si no rule forbidding it

Going through the new source books

Who is online