Yeah, sorry about that. I did not mean to get so excited over so small a thing.

I do think using Gwaihir would be OP so I guess that's just got to be taken into account. Maybe allow Sauron to ride a fell beast in exchange and the scenario can be what if Sauron got the ring, in which case Gandalf on Gwaihir could actually make sense. on the other hand Gandalf on a great eagle as an independent hero is doable, just, I think.

Now that you mention that I'm reminded of the Great Battle at Thangorodrim where the eagles defeated the dragons and Earendil, flying on Vingilot, killed Ancalagon the Black. That just shows even Earendil wasn't allowed to ride them!

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"

First off: Whafrog is such a bro.

Second off: Why have people got in such a heated debate with a new user? We might not all be admins but we can still let him know if he's doing/saying anything against the forum guidelines. This is also the first time I've ever really seen people going for each-other on this forum. C'mon guys we're not like the rest of the internet, we're the nice, innocent part of it!

Also, i really don't think gandalf riding Gwahir would too far fetched a model, there are rumors about Dain riding a boar and Thranduil already rides an elk, so i wouldn't put it pass pj to put Gandalf on an eagle, which may well have happened, Bilbo is asleep and misses the entire battle of the five armies so, while it is still un-tolkeiny, PJ could put it in and kinda get away with it... (I am probably massively wrong about this)

In game terms, i would love for this to happen! Evil have plenty of big bad monsters well up in the 350-450 area (Dragons, Balrogs, Sauron etc) the most expensive thing good has is viggo mortensen with a shiny sword. A great big gandalf on an eagle would work perfectly to balance out the two forces.

@Meltchn The points for this sorta thing, if you're thinking of using it, should probably be no more than 280, or possibly even the points of the two together..

Whafrog speaks with wisdom.
However it is in some way encouraging that people are actually quite passionate about the subject whether it be Tolkien, the models, the rules or the movies.

Back on thread, I still like the idea of the Gandalf model on Gwahir, no matter how much it irks my Tolkienesque feelings towards the interpretations of the movies and models.

It remains a game.

_________________
"Naur an edraith ammen!", no thanks, we have central heating.

But Gwahir DID carry Gandalf. The Grey and the White. In the books and films. As a display piece it wouldn't be one iota out of place. Rules-wise, I think it's pretty lame that a Spider Queen counts as a monstrous mount but a Great Eagle doesn't. You're telling me a bird with a 20-foot wingspan swooping down wouldn't cause a cavalryman to fall off his mount? Or knock a foot soldier prone?

The whole argument GW had at the time about Eagles not being monstrous mounts because they're not ridden is silly. Great Eagles are intelligent enough to be capable of speech and at certainly enough to not need a dude prodding them on. I know this is borderline off topic, but it's something that has bothered me since the rule was changed. Especially since Evil has several different Monstrous Mounts and I can't think of a single one for Good.

_________________
Gondor: 2339pts
Rohan: 1318pts
Dwarves: 2482pts
Elves: 1091pts
Mordor: 2305pts
Isengard: 1762pts
Moria: 1463pts
Evil Men: 381pts

But only as rescue, and not into battle. I agree they should have knockdown, though the new monster rules should help make them more valuable.

I too feel like Gwahir could have benefited from the Monsterous Mount classification, even if he can't actually have a rider (like the Spider Queen and Shelob). I think the new Monster attacks will make Eagles effective on their own but the Lord of Eagles could really have had the extra punch of Monsterous Mount IMO.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

This.

My feeling is that all Eagles should count as monstrous mounts but only Gandalf (or possibly Saruman and Radagast as stated above) would be able to ride them.

As for whether he should be ridden into battle that doesn't really trouble me. Sure we only see him being ridden as a rescue mission/taxi but equally we never see the Balrog fight a Third age army of Rohan and I'm pretty sure many of the members of this forum will have seen that on the tabletop at one point or another.

I personally play the game to use elements I have enjoyed from the various books/films in a fun and engaging tabletop war-game, not to slavishly stick to the events of the film or the book.

It would also make an awesome model which as far as I'm concerned is a reason in itself

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

I think that the moth needs to be a piece of wargear for gandalf that can summon in eagles..

How would you do that: Moth - 100 points - summons a Great Eagle to a corner on the map of the players choice?

_________________
"... Telchar wrought it in the deeps of time."
-On Andùril, The Lord of the Rings

Maybe just a single use ability, you nominate when you are going to use it, then d6 turns later your entire army can move 24" in any one direction?

Really I mean no offence, but you probably shouldn't have such strong opinions about things you clearly don't understand, because the above is so far from true it's not funny. And for the record, I say this as both a writer and a film maker.

_________________
"Do not be naive enough to think a small group cannot change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has"

There's no need to tell someone they don't know what their on about, especially when you aren't even going to expand on your points, all you did was make a bold claim and reference your profession as if that makes you instantly correct.

Also i'm not sure what your getting at; Meltchn had a good point about how games need to be made fun and rewarding, even if that means somewhat going against the source material. So i'm assuming that you are responding to his claim that films are 'a different ball game'. In which case i don't see how he was being stupid, as obviously the sort of changes that get made to make games fun shouldn't be applied to films. Could you expand?

Ok, I'm making a new thread in the film section to discuss this. It's obviously a point of much more opinion than I first thought when making the topic. If you want to discuss why films are different to games go there, leave this for Gandalf mount posts.

Edit: Here you go: http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=24866

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"

I never said he was being stupid, you are putting words in my mouth, which is kind of silly given that you've quoted what I actually said. I'll expand on my point in Meltchn's new thread.

_________________
"Do not be naive enough to think a small group cannot change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has"

Er, I'm not sure how else to read "you probably shouldn't have such strong opinions about things you clearly don't understand". Them's strong words, and condescending to boot.

Telling somebody they don't understand something they clearly don't understand is a statement of fact; it is not calling them stupid. If you said that a star did not need gravity to maintain itself and I subsequently told you that you clearly don't understand astrophysics, would you say I was condescending you and calling you stupid?

The OP said films don't need any changes to adapt from literature; this is incorrect, so therefore he must not understand the process. I pointed that out since he was getting so vocal about it. If I'm going to call somebody stupid, I will tell them straight up that they are stupid; I don't believe in pussyfooting around semantics.

_________________
"Do not be naive enough to think a small group cannot change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has"

You do not know whether he has any prior knowledge of the subject matter, so you are just throwing around slanderous comments, something this website neither condones or appreciates. Either stick to constructive comments or take them elsewhere, please

_________________
Veritas Vos Liberabit

Arguing for the sale of it then? I'm actually in agreement with GodlessM here. To think that you can just copy a book word for word and still have it entertain and be successfull as a movie is just naive. That's why they're called "film adaptations"

People chill. I don't remember saying "films don't need any changes to adapt from literature", perhaps you could find where I said it and I can clarify? That's not what I think so I don't think you'll have much luck. I did say it was a bad adaptation, I sand by that.

_________________
"When the god had in mind the making of a world through a word (logos) his first thought was Athena"

Right here:


Though after further discussions, maybe this isn't what you meant, however many of your posts are incredibly unclear to be fair.

_________________
"Do not be naive enough to think a small group cannot change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has"