PDA

View Full Version : Good+evil in a single army?



Lord Asuryan
09-04-2009, 17:23
What do people think about the rule that allows to take a good list with evil allies and vice versa? I think it makes some sense, and lets people pick more open armies, but it's just looking for fluff shattering abuse. Aragorn led gondor-with allied Nazgul! or mordor with allied gandalf! I can see a few ways to make sense of it (and have a neat idea for a cave troll+handlers conversion) but it does seem very open to abuse

Reinholt
09-04-2009, 17:24
What do people think about the rule that allows to take a good list with evil allies and vice versa? I think it makes some sense, and lets people pick more open armies, but it's just looking for fluff shattering abuse. Aragorn led gondor-with allied Nazgul! or mordor with allied gandalf! I can see a few ways to make sense of it (and have a neat idea for a cave troll+handlers conversion) but it does seem very open to abuse

My response is a resounding NO to this.

Unless someone were constructing a special scenario to mimic a specific battle from the background, I would be strongly, strongly against this.

Sarah S
09-04-2009, 17:31
You can't do it.

Page 85:

When you've chosen your faction, you'll also have made a far more profound decision, indeed one that could determine the final fate of Middle-Earth. The decision in question is your allegiance to Good or Evil.

So you pick your faction, and your faction determines whether you are good or evil. Choosing your faction IS choosing your allegiance because the factions have allegiances.


Your allegiance is very important, as this dictates the allies you'll be able to take, and the Fortunes or Fates available to your army.

You may spend up to a quarter (25%) of your total points on allies. Allies can be selected from any of the other factions with the same allegiance as your army, i.e. a Good army can choose allies from any other Good factions and an Evil army can choose allies from any other Evil factions.

So you've picked your faction, which determines your allegiance, and you can only take allies from the same allegiance.

miker1
09-04-2009, 17:34
What do I think about it??

Load of cobblers!!

You want Evil, take THAT Allegiance.

Lord Asuryan
09-04-2009, 17:46
read the whole page...

some might say that you should choose your allegiance to the free peoples or to Sauron before you select a faction, but the truth is that even the noblest heart can be tainted by the desire to wield the dark sorcery of the Nazgul, just as the darkest soul can be redeemed by the glory of the elves-choose the army you like most, and your redemption or corruption attend to itself. Your allegiance is very important, as this dictates the allies you'll be able to take, and the fates and fortunes available to your army.

I'm not objecting to the rule, ijust think it should have been planned out better. for instance, you may only take epic heroes from your allegiance.

jaws900
09-04-2009, 17:48
I can see why you would but other than the king of the dead i wouldn't see anyone fighting for evil. and even the king is a big maybe.

Sarah S
09-04-2009, 17:50
Yes, but you don't get to choose your allegiance. The section you quoted says the exact opposite actually:

choose the army you like most, and your redemption or corruption attend to itself.

So you choose Gondor, then you're good.
Your allegiance will "attend to itself."

Nilhouse
09-04-2009, 17:53
I've thought about something like this but it would require either two very good natured opponents, or someone running a narritive campaign where you were exploring alternate histories.

For example, what is Boromir did take the one Ring from Frodo, and was able to unite all human kingdoms, including Easterlings, Haradrim etc., against Sauron? Obviously Boromir would eventually sucumb to the effects of the ring, but it would make an interesting story!

"True-hearted Men, they will not be corrupted. We of Minas Tirith have been staunch through long years of trial. We do not desire the power of wizard-lords, only strength to defend ourselves, strength in a just cause. And behold! In our need chance brings to light the Ring of Power. It is a gift, I say; a gift to the foes of Mordor. It is mad not to use it, to use the power of the Enemy against him. The fearless, the ruthless, these alone will achieve victory. What could not a warrior do in this hour, a great leader? What could not Aragorn do? Or if he refuses, why not Boromir? The Ring would give me power of Command. How I would drive the hosts of Mordor, and all men would flock to my banner!"

Lord Asuryan
09-04-2009, 17:55
tell me, why would they even have that section if it wasn't for that purpose? that whole bit about noble hearts turning to dark sorcery, etc, the fact that yuo don't have to choose your allegiance BEFORE you faction-makes it pretty obvious. plus, the army builder lets you do it.

Sarah S
09-04-2009, 17:57
plus, the army builder lets you do it.

Game. Set. Match.

Never rely on that.

You don't choose your allegiance period.

Nowhere in the rules you or I have quoted does it say you get to pick your allegiance.
What it does say, repeatedly I might add, is that you pick your faction, and that decision will determine your allegiance.

"will attend to itself"
"you'll also have made a far more profound decision"

Past tense. No room for player decision. It is simply not an option.

What the section is saying is that you shouldn't choose to play evil or good, you should pick the force that you like and just roll with it. That's all.

Lord Asuryan
09-04-2009, 18:04
eh. I play a straight good army, so it's really not worth arguing about. I still think you can do it, and I wanted to see what players thought, rather than starting an argument fest.

the army builder was just a plus.
even though it doesn't mean something is so, on it's own, when backed up by other canon textual sources, it increases the weight of the argument.

Rirekon
09-04-2009, 18:32
If your opponent agrees to waive the rule normally forbidding it then go ahead.
It's your game.

miker1
09-04-2009, 20:17
eh. I play a straight good army, so it's really not worth arguing about. I still think you can do it, and I wanted to see what players thought, rather than starting an argument fest.

the army builder was just a plus.
even though it doesn't mean something is so, on it's own, when backed up by other canon textual sources, it increases the weight of the argument.

Whats the problem?

RULES say choos a FACTION. *** The choice is GOOD or EVIL ***
It lists the Armies available for THAT Faction [Except Forgotten Kingdoms ].

Allies on P86 Says that a Good Army can only take Good Allies and an Evil army can only take Evil.

THERE ARE ONLY THREE PLACES WHERE THE WORDS GOOD AND EVIL ARE MENTIONED; IN ARMY SELECTION, THE ALLIES SELECTION AND IN THE PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS;
<paraphrased> "by choosing your Army you have chosen your Allegiance"

The bit on P85 about "some people say..." is just a fluffy statement; hence the "SOME people...".

tabletopnews
09-04-2009, 20:22
Aragorn led gondor-with allied Nazgul! or mordor with allied gandalf!

If you want to do this sort of thing why would you be playing a game based so heavily on a series of books that clearly don't allow for this sort of thing? :confused:

miker1
09-04-2009, 20:35
read the whole page...


I'm not objecting to the rule, ijust think it should have been planned out better. for instance, you may only take epic heroes from your allegiance.

You too should read the WHOLE page:)

The para before your quote says
<quote>"when you've chosen your FACTION, You'll also have made a far more profound decision, indeed one that could decide the fate of Middle-earth.The decision in question is your allegiance to Good or Evil"

See? By chosing your FACTION you HAVE chosen your Allegiance! Ergo Good or Evil and therefore you have chosen where your Allies come from.

Damien 1427
09-04-2009, 20:38
I can see a regular opponent perhaps letting this slide, but I doubt this would go down well at a pick-up game. Perhaps less-so at a tourney. Where they would kill and eat you.

Lord Asuryan
09-04-2009, 20:51
I do not play mixed armies, nor do I wish to. just making this clear.

Steam_Giant
09-04-2009, 21:42
I wonder why the writers were so ambiguous about this, in a rulebook that would be scrutinised by one of the most hardcore fanbases the world has ever seen i.e. Tolkien fans, who think nothing of learning a few new languages.

Since ive questioned it several times at my local Games workshop and had the same response, my Evil Gondor army is well underway. But with my fluff to cheese swing heavily in fluff-town, a hardcore tolkien fan has nothing to fear from me.

takaetun
10-04-2009, 01:28
Didn't some of the dragons used to be good, or at least kinda neutral? The Hobbit also makes reference to evil dwarves allying with goblins.

Rules wise it's a resounding no, but the background is more reasonable in some cases.

Mr_Rose
10-04-2009, 01:50
I wonder why the writers were so ambiguous about this, in a rulebook that would be scrutinised by one of the most hardcore fanbases the world has ever seen i.e. Tolkien fans, who think nothing of learning a few new languages.

They, uh, weren't. The only ambiguity to exist is born in the minds of those who can't pay attention for more than a paragraph at a time. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, you pick your base list and that determines your allegiance. There is no other option bar wishful thinking and special scenarios.

starlight
10-04-2009, 01:50
Playing Gondor as evil, or Mordor as good? Sure why not?

Mixing army lists so you can take Gimli with a Mordor host? In a friendly or scripted game, maybe, but I'd be leery in a pickup game. It would be like taking Repeater Bolt Throwers in a Mortal Chaos Army, or Harlequins in a Necron army... :(

JHK
10-04-2009, 02:40
...some might say that you should choose your allegiance to the free peoples or to Sauron before you select a faction, but the truth is that even the noblest heart can be tainted by the desire to wield the dark sorcery of the Nazgul, just as the darkest soul can be redeemed by the glory of the elves-choose the army you like most, and your redemption or corruption attend to itself. Your allegiance is very important, as this dictates the allies you'll be able to take, and the fates and fortunes available to your army.

I must admit I had to read it a few times to get the actual point... mainly because its not written very clearly. They are actually talking about YOU (the player) being tainted by desire or redeemed by the elves, not your army choice.

I can;t see anyone taking good and evil allies in the same army, since it seems t contradict the main "story" of the game, but w"hat I do think is interesting is that they leave it quite open for good vs. good or evil vs. evil battles in the book, even stating it as a possibility, which was more absent from the SBG.

Steam_Giant
10-04-2009, 09:44
They, uh, weren't. The only ambiguity to exist is born in the minds of those who can't pay attention for more than a paragraph at a time. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, you pick your base list and that determines your allegiance. There is no other option bar wishful thinking and special scenarios.

Congratulations on your amazing attention span :rolleyes: I believe all that has been pointed out in this thread are different interpretations of the rulebook, since my local GW shop have indicated otherwise, Ive called this interpretation into doubt. For further clarification I emailed GW this morning and I will post up the reply.

My opinion is that weather allowed to "pick and mix" from both factions or only one, the Power gamer intent on maxing a list out will do so with no regard for Tolkien's legendarium. Why should that impede players who want to play a "What if" list ?

miker1
10-04-2009, 15:23
Congratulations on your amazing attention span :rolleyes: I believe all that has been pointed out in this thread are different interpretations of the rulebook, since my local GW shop have indicated otherwise, Ive called this interpretation into doubt. For further clarification I emailed GW this morning and I will post up the reply.

My opinion is that weather allowed to "pick and mix" from both factions or only one, the Power gamer intent on maxing a list out will do so with no regard for Tolkien's legendarium. Why should that impede players who want to play a "What if" list ?

I don't know what "weather" has got to do with it :rolleyes:

If you play the rules you can only have troops from the same Faction - THAT IS WHAT THE RULES DO SAY.

If you wish to ignore THE RULES that is upto you and whoever you play. The reading critique of a GW employee nonwithstanding...............

Hellfury
10-04-2009, 16:07
I completely agree with Sarah S.

Another poster on another site had this to say about the subject as well.

Allow me to shed some light on the subject.

pg. 85, under the heading "Choose a Faction".


"First of all you need to choose a faction to build your army around. (snip) When you've chosen your faction, you'll also have made a far more profound decision, indeed one that could determine the final fate of Middle-Earth. The decision in question is your allegiance to Good or Evil."

I need to comment here. It doesn't say that you have to choose a faction and then an allegiance. Instead, by choosing your faction, you have already chosen your allegiance.

pg. 85, continued


"Your allegiance is very important, as this dictates the allies you'll be able to take, and the Fortunes or Fates available to your army."

Thus, we see that choosing an allegiance (by choosing your faction) limits the allies you can take. How is this limited, if not by the Good/Evil split? Also, Fortunes are only available to Good armies, and Fates are only available to Evil armies. Is a Dwarf army allied to Goblins a Good or Evil army?

And now for the pièce de résistance, pg. 86 under the heading "The Decree of Allies"



"You may spend up to a quarter (25%) of your total points on allies. Allies can be selected from any of the other factions with the same allegiance as your army, i.e. a Good army can choose allies from any other Good factions and an Evil army can choose allies from any other Evil factions."

This is not to say that you and your gaming group cannot choose to change the rules for a special game, but a general pick-up army must abide by the army construction rules. I'm surprised that this debate has gone on this long.

And just like the other thread on that site, the debate on legality marches on.

To me it is very cut and dried. I do agree that it could have been worded better. But common sense and a bit of reading comprehension will see you through.

That said, if someone were to claim that they could mix and match allegiances like this in a pick up game.... I wonder if I would ever play such a person.

Steam_Giant
10-04-2009, 17:52
If you play the rules you can only have troops from the same Faction - THAT IS WHAT THE RULES DO SAY.


No that is your interpretation of the rules, which allthough you may not agree are very ambiguous.

Nowhere I have read (so far) in the book is it clear that armies have fixed allegiances and allies. Im happy to eat my words should GW make a ruling on this I just wanted to make my position clear.

Spider-pope
10-04-2009, 18:05
The wording on page 85 is fairly clear, your choice of faction dictates your choice of allegiance. First time i read it i too thought that you could choose a Good faction and use it as evil, but im afraid its clear that you cant. The following paragraph, as others have said, is referring to you the player not the faction you have just chosen. Its that second paragraph that is causing all the disagreements and confusion.

Personally if someone made up a what-if campaign where events led to a good faction being evil, i would certainly allowed this rule to waived. In fact a friend of mine, who used to post on here, came up with such a campaign that we are getting ready to play through - what if Wormtongue didnt get thrown out of Rohan.

But not in a standard game, where its more likely that the person wishing to use a combined list just wants to powergame the feth out of me.

miker1
10-04-2009, 18:24
duplicate post

miker1
10-04-2009, 18:33
No that is your interpretation of the rules, which allthough you may not agree are very ambiguous.

Nowhere I have read (so far) in the book is it clear that armies have fixed allegiances and allies. Im happy to eat my words should GW make a ruling on this I just wanted to make my position clear.

Then I SUGGEST that you re-read page 85 [Choose a Faction] Paying CAREFUL attention to the wording;Good Faction and Evil faction - from which you choose your base army.

Having read that you will see that you now have an army that is of the EVIL faction or the Good faction.... follow?

The next para after that tells you that BY CHOSING YOUR ARMY [and hence your faction], please note the past participle here, you have now done something "profound"...... You HAVE chosen Good or Evil.....

Next para = YAWN - Fluff;


Turn to page 86 and look at the "Decree of Allies", where it says Good army can choose allies FROM ANY OTHER GOOD FACTIONS and an Evil army can choose allies fom any other Evil FACTION.
Okay?

These are the RULES for Army selection - no others - [aside from Rare and Legends] its really simple..........

Now go on - give an CLEAR explanation, using rules please, where this is not right - if you still do not understand, that is.........

starlight
10-04-2009, 19:14
Enough with the sarcasm... :eyebrows: If you can't play nice, find another place to play... :eyebrows:


starlight

StanMcKim
10-04-2009, 19:21
I think they're talking more about the background of your army rather than the rules, as well as opening things up for models and conversions. For example, maybe you're playing Gondor but you've decided your Gondor army is lead by a defector and works for Sauron. You've decided to model your captains as Black Numenorians and have taken allied Ents but are using troll models to represent them. See? All of a sudden I'm playing an "evil" Gondor army. As far as the rules are concerned I'm playing a Good army, and so my ally decisions and whatnot must follow the rules but my personal take on the army is evil.

-Stan

Hellfury
11-04-2009, 09:42
I think they're talking more about the background of your army rather than the rules

WotR Page 86 (which states rules) emphatically disagrees with your assertion that it is merely background.

"The Decree of Allies"

"You may spend up to a quarter (25%) of your total points on allies. Allies can be selected from any of the other factions with the same allegiance as your army, i.e. a Good army can choose allies from any other Good factions and an Evil army can choose allies from any other Evil factions."

Just because it doesn't strictly forbid taking allies from another allegiance doesn't mean that you can.

Its a permissive ruleset.

miker1
11-04-2009, 10:10
WotR Page 86 (which states rules) emphatically disagrees with your assertion that it is merely background.

"The Decree of Allies"


Just because it doesn't strictly forbid taking allies from another allegiance doesn't mean that you can.

Its a permissive ruleset.

Oh, for Pete's sake..................... Its not "Permissive" its EXPLICIT!

The Army you have chosen is of WHICH Faction??
The Allies HAVE to come from the same Faction. End of.

Whether you think of yourself as Hitler or Churchill is immaterial to the FACTION that you have chosen your Army from.

Mr_Rose
11-04-2009, 10:32
Aaand this is what I mean about people who can't pay attention for as much as a whole paragraph.
Miker, do you know that you are agreeing with the point of Hellfury's post? In that both you and he are saying that you cannot take evil allies if you chose a good faction, and vice versa?
Because you seem to be attempting to argue with your own position there.

Hellfury
11-04-2009, 10:36
Oh, for Pete's sake..................... Its not "Permissive" its EXPLICIT!

The Army you have chosen is of WHICH Faction??
The Allies HAVE to come from the same Faction. End of.

Whether you think of yourself as Hitler or Churchill is immaterial to the FACTION that you have chosen your Army from.
Wow...just "wow".


Aaand this is what I mean about people who can't pay attention for as much as a whole paragraph.
Miker, do you know that you are agreeing with the point of Hellfury's post? In that both you and he are saying that you cannot take evil allies if you chose a good faction, and vice versa?
Because you seem to be attempting to argue with your own position there.

QFT

Miker, you need to take a chill pill dude. I am not trying to berate you but...reading comprehension is your friend.

shimond
11-04-2009, 12:41
pag 217

To represent these mixed forces ... the Allies rule (on page 86) allows a player to take up to 25% of his points total from any friendly force.

Maybe the rule is bad worded but this is the meaning of it i think.

Just my 2 cent.

majinga
11-04-2009, 13:03
what you do with your own group is entirly up to you .

Within the mithology saruman could have corrupted the Rohan (thats what he was trying to do) .Denithor was very nearly corrupted bu Sauron via the palantir ..

Elves could not be corrupted not in this way .
Dwarfs could be ( and were in the past)

You would struggle to bring Orks etc onto the good side.

Harad etc could consevebly fight on either side.

miker1
11-04-2009, 13:51
Aaand this is what I mean about people who can't pay attention for as much as a whole paragraph.
Miker, do you know that you are agreeing with the point of Hellfury's post? In that both you and he are saying that you cannot take evil allies if you chose a good faction, and vice versa?
Because you seem to be attempting to argue with your own position there.

I know what Hellfury said - I was disagreeing with the concept of the rules being PERMISSIVE - they are not, they are EXPLICIT.

Why don't you "pay attention" and read the first line? The subseqent lines were the "proof" of my contestation!

Mr_Rose
11-04-2009, 15:12
I know what Hellfury said - I was disagreeing with the concept of the rules being PERMISSIVE - they are not, they are EXPLICIT.

Why don't you "pay attention" and read the first line? The subseqent lines were the "proof" of my contestation!
So instead of people being nice and assuming you simply misread his intent we now have conclusive evidence that you are just plain ignorant? Do you really think that that's an improvement?

WotR, like nearly every other game with written rules ever, is permissive; it starts with the assumption that you are unable to do anything, then tells you what you can do, which leaves anything you are not specifically permitted (hence permissive) to do by the rules as outside them and therefore not possible.
The opposite of permissive is exclusive in this context; I don't know what you mean by explicit exactly, but you evidently believe it to be "not permissive" which is quite silly, since an exclusive rule set for WotR would probably require the entire book (and then some) to be taken up with incredibly dull conditional exclusions and neither pictures nor army lists would have made it in.

I have no idea why you think Hellfury's statement of fact needs rebuttal, nor why you seem so angry about it, but then I really don't care; what I would like is for you to stop "helping" because you really aren't.

Sarah S
11-04-2009, 15:43
WotR, like nearly every other game with written rules ever, is permissive; it starts with the assumption that you are unable to do anything, then tells you what you can do, which leaves anything you are not specifically permitted (hence permissive) to do by the rules as outside them and therefore not possible.

You're using the terminology backwards.

A permissive ruleset would be one where any action is permitted unless it is forbidden.

Mr_Rose
11-04-2009, 16:13
You're using the terminology backwards.

A permissive ruleset would be one where any action is permitted unless it is forbidden.
That's funny, because I have never heard it that way around. Literally never, before you said that. How strange.

Spider-pope
11-04-2009, 17:22
Permissive:per·mis·sive (pər mis′iv)

adjective

1. giving permission; that permits
2. allowing freedom; esp., tolerant of behavior or practices disapproved of by others; indulgent; lenient
3. Archaic allowable and at one's option

Explicit :ex·plic·it (k-splst)
adj.
1.
a. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
b. Fully and clearly defined or formulated: "generalizations that are powerful, precise, and explicit" Frederick Turner.
2. Forthright and unreserved in expression: They were explicit in their criticism.
3.
a. Readily observable: an explicit sign of trouble.
b. Describing or portraying nudity or sexual activity in graphic detail.

Sarah S is right, you have your definitions backwards.

Sarah S
11-04-2009, 17:52
I think some people were operating under the assumption that "permissive" rulesets are composed of a series of specific permissions to be granted for any action, like "you can do X" while a restrictive ruleset is composed of a series of specific prohibitions such as "thou shall not Y."

I do think that's an inappropriate use of the word permissive, for the reasons Spider-pope gave in the definitions - while the rules are composed of a series of permissions, the ruleset itself is explicit because you have to assume that anything not permitted is forbidden. I also think it would be impossible for any game system to operate as an "exclusive" ruleset, in their meaning. While such exclusions can work for criminal codes and real life, where the default position is "do whatever you want," it would be impossible to define a game using "don't do X" statements.

In that way, every game system is "permissive" in the way that (I think) Mr_Rose meant it.

That said, I do think the regular meaning of permissive and explicit is more useful here, where explicit rules would define the entire scope of actions allowed within the game, and permissive rules would allow for actions not strictly defined. This is in keeping with their military use (for example explicit rules of engagement define all courses of action that soldiers can take, while permissive rules of engagement allow soldiers to engage in actions that are not strictly defined on the basis of their own judgment).

The ruleset, by granting a defined set of permissible actions, is explicit in that only the actions so defined are allowed to be performed. The breakdown of communication seemed to occur when some people equated the rules being composed of permissions to mean that the rules were permissive.

Mr_Rose
11-04-2009, 19:44
Permissive as I (and hellfury) used it takes exactly the meaning you surmise. It is less than obvious though and also technically game developer jargon, so I can understand that some people got confused.

That still does not excuse people getting irrational over it.

Math Mathonwy
11-04-2009, 21:18
Permissive as I (and hellfury) used it takes exactly the meaning you surmise. It is less than obvious though and also technically game developer jargon, so I can understand that some people got confused.
Also used in that way in legal jargon AFAIK.

miker1
11-04-2009, 22:33
Anyway, So in answer to the OP;

"No you can't mix Good and Evil as has been explained."

HsojVvad
17-04-2009, 01:55
Hello everyone. Just got my copy of WotR. I read it, and will reread it again. (thanks sarah s for pointing me to this post again.)

From what I read, this is how I take it. Please correct me if I am wrong. I did read all the posts here. I still don't see it as how it was explained. Please correct me where I am wrong.

It says choose your faction. There is a chart that shows evil factions and good factions. No where can I find a chart for good allegince and evil allegince.

Since you choose your faction first and allegince second, (it even says in the book you choose faction first not allegince) I take it I can take Gondor, and make them evil. Why else would they say choose faction first and allegince second then?

Then if you read Allies rules, it clearly states any of the other factions with the same allegince as your army. So as to how I read this, is I am using a Good faction of Gondor, but my allegince is Evil. Therefore I can take Evil Factions as allies.

It dosn't say Good faction takes allies of Good faction. It says Evil Army witch is Gondor as Evil allying up with an Evil Faction. This is how I read it.

I will repeat. I just reread it again. I am paraphrasing since we can't quote word for word.

I can take allies from any of the other factions with the same allegince of my army.

As their example it says Good Army can ally up with a Good Faction not Good Faction ally up with Good Faction.

So Gondor can be an Evil Army and ally up with an Evil Faction.

Or if you want to make your Goblins a Good Army it can ally up with a Good Faction.

Unless I am missreading this, please correct me where I am reading it wrong.

Sarah S
17-04-2009, 02:08
Since you choose your faction first and allegince second, (it even says in the book you choose faction first not allegince) I take it I can take Gondor, and make them evil. Why else would they say choose faction first and allegince second then?
That isn't what it says though. It says that by choosing your faction "you'll also have made a more profound decision...The decision in question is your allegiance to Good or Evil."

So by choosing to make an army of Gondor and Arnor, you have chosen to have an allegiance of Good. Those choices are inseparable. By making the first choice, you automatically make the second choice.

There is no freedom at all in the text of the rule.

Also, the factions are the army lists, as per:

Each faction has its own army list, as shown below.
Page 85.

Furthermore, under Choosing a Leader, it says:

With your faction and allegiance reconciled...
And I would posit that if you are trying to take Gondor and Arnor as an evil faction then they are certainly not reconciled.

So to sum up:
Your allegiance is automatically determined by your faction, which is synonymous with your army list.

Steam_Giant
17-04-2009, 10:39
Ok well I finally got my email back from GW (askyourquestion@Games-Workshop.com) Thought id post it up to put this argument to bed, even though im gutted the option to take an evil gondor numenorean force cant include allies from evil factions :(

Hello,

No. You cannot use good and evil models in the same force.

Thanks!

John Spencer

Customer Service Specialist

Games Workshop
Customer Service
6711 Baymeadow Drive Suite A
Glen Burnie MD 21060


Couldn't ask for a more direct response ;)

takaetun
17-04-2009, 10:58
Awww, stupid GW! Now I have to take all the dead orcs off my Rohan bases! ;-)

Spider-pope
17-04-2009, 11:04
Ok well I finally got my email back from GW (askyourquestion@Games-Workshop.com) Thought id post it up to put this argument to bed, even though im gutted the option to take an evil gondor numenorean force cant include allies from evil factions :(



If you really want to take Evil Numenoreans just convert some and use them as counts as Morgul Knights, or Black Numenoreans. Or if you want Evil Rohan just use some as counts as Dunlendings etc.

If you are just looking to have a unique theme for an army, there is nothing to stop you from converting up Evil versions of Good armies and counting them as stuff from the Evil lists.

As long as its clear to your opponent what everything represents, there is nothing stopping you.

The only people who this rule hurts, are the ones who didnt really give a stuff about a themed corrupted force, but instead just wanted to combine Aragorn and chums with Sauron and a few Balrogs or Mumaks.

Lord Asuryan
17-04-2009, 21:40
I agree--I wasn't trying to abuse the ruleset, just open up discussion and get clarification, because the rule didn't seem to make much sense. now it does. now can we please stop wasting valuable internet-forum space?

HsojVvad
17-04-2009, 22:11
Awww, stupid GW! Now I have to take all the dead orcs off my Rohan bases! ;-)

LMFAO, see your models are not WYSIWYG, GW said so, so you can't use your Rohan forces since it has Orcs on them now. yes they are dead, but they can be dead orc allies LMFAO. :p

Lord Asuran, this is a great topic, and it's not taking up valuabe space. If you really really want this topic to cease, you can lock it yourself by going to edit and using the miscellaneous options I believe to lock this thread.

I would strongly disagree with you locking this. If you do lock it, this will come up again and again, and you have good answers here for pro and against the rule question. I strongly suggest you keep it open, but it's your thread. This will come up from time to time.

Even though GW says you can't do it, I will do it eventually, and I will let you guys and galls know ahead of time, and use it if you accpet, if you are my opponent, (most likely not since we live so far apart, but you never know) if not, just use a pure force then.

Just to add some fuel to the fire though, the Ask GW a question, from what I hear, that is not official, and if you call GW hotline 5 times, you can get 5 different answers.

But what I would like to know is why some people are so against having an Evil Gondor force or a Good Goblin force?

I do like what you said Spider Pope, I will keep that in mind after I do my Mordor and Goblin force.

Lord Asuryan
17-04-2009, 22:23
that was mostly in joke-if people think it's helpful, by all means.