PDA

View Full Version : So who's excited for the re-release?!



Nubl0
28-01-2012, 03:23
I know I am! I just dug out all 100 and somthing of my easterlings and friends! Repainting has begun. I personally hope it brings more players into it. Down my local gw a fair few of us have armies but rarely play due to tables being eaten up by 40k kids. With this new release I hope for it to become a fairly regular thing to see games of LoTR down the shop like back when the movies were out.

One thing I was worried about was even though all the new models just came out, would I need any of them? I play fallen realms with a heavy easterling theme. Upon hearing rumours that armies are now made up of individual warbands consisting of 1 hero and 12 of his buddies I am just hoping that it can be done cross book aslong as the are the same faction (evil/good) then I have an excuse to get me a beast of gorgoth!... probably still stick easterlings in the howdah though :)

ForgottenLore
28-01-2012, 05:00
I'm not sure how I feel about this stuff.

On the one hand, I have only played WotR, so the price hikes, smaller boxes and a shift in focus back to SBG are disappointing. On the other hand, I can fully understand WHY SBG is back in the spotlight, what with the Hobbit movie coming out and all. In fact, they should have started rebuilding LotR support 6 months ago.

I think a lot of these models are pretty lame, and in finecast. I MIGHT pick up the 2 goblins, just because I have a goblin army, but the goblin king one, whatever his name is, is one of the most ridiculous poses I have seen on a model. "It's SUPER-GOBLIN, able to leap tall runestones with a single bound!!", and what's up with the metal top hat? WTF! The Ashrak guy seems like he is retreading Druzhag's schtick (although the easier to say and type name is nice).

The 360 view of the Watcher in the Water has kinda won me over to the design, but there is no way I am buy a model that size in anything other than plastic.

Basically, I just don't know what to think now.

sigh.

Nubl0
28-01-2012, 05:34
Ah well, I myself never enjoyed WotR as it had some pretty bad balance issues. The new infantry boxes seem abit odd, but given the fact that a warband is 1 hero+ 12 warriors it makes perfect sense, having not read the books I know nothing about points cost but I think you could make a working army with just 3 boxes and a few characters, muddle around with it if you include monsters.

Gonna have to agree with you on the new goblin characters, when I first read their descriptions and saw them I actually thought they were just new models for the existing heros, and yes the super goblin looks dumb as hell. I'm also annoyed that I will have to fork out £20 just to get the mounted amdur even though I already own the metal on foot one :(

Rosstifer
28-01-2012, 06:19
The Dweller looks awesome, I'll be picking up 2 so I can have one built each way. Someone in the other thread described him as like a medieval woodcut of the Devil and I think that fits him perfectly. I also really like what they did with with the Watcher.

The Marshel
28-01-2012, 08:19
I'm excited for the possibility of a game wide profile update. some profiles are fine as they are, but many could do with a touch up.

Easterlings for example are by far my favourite lotr army, but they are frankly just bad gondor in that warriors just WOMT with the phalanx rule (which can be counter productive with how trapped works and you get so few you have to convert extras to really use it) and kataphracts being just KOMT with less hitting power for a not really notable increase in survivability. You're basically gondor's core units, but none of their fantastic elite and hero support, so i'd really like to see a boost to warriors in general, but at the very least significant improvement to kataphracts which I honestly believe are one of the worse cavalry units in SBG in terms of value for points

updated core rules don't rally interest me that much as there aren't really many issues with the rules as are (just the profiles for armies) but on the off chances gw have made a large change to how things like fight values work, should be interesting

as for this 12 warriors to 1 hero stuff, not keen on the restriction at all. I hope that its far more flexible then this blanket 12 per hero junk but it doesn't seem that way. 6 might points is perfectly sufficient at 500 points, which spreads out over 3 heroes, so 36 warriors available. this isn't bad for say gondor, but hurts armies like moria with their lesser heros and lesser warriors. anything above 500 points has jsut become very unattractive to me. i like fielding 60+ infanrty because of the freedom in selection and formation offered by the rule system. that's going to take me 5 heroes now. usually I can easily manage this with 3 heroes without feeling short of might or general hitting power. Unless new core rules and profiles really shake things up, captains generally aren't much good compared to their point cost in warriors and high power combat monster heroes tend to struggle against a well played group of 10-15 or warriors. Perhaps this system will favour the borormirs and aragorns as they can run around easily killing captain level heroes and then enjoy the reduced number of warriors but tbh, i've never liked taking high cost heroes like those and i'm not about to start now

overall, i'm excited to see some SBG love from gw, but this one little warband thing threatens to really rain on my parade

destroyerlord
28-01-2012, 10:10
I'm excited for this. :) New profiles for all existing models and new army composition rules (superseding LoME from the looks of things) allows for a complete re-balance of the various factions without touching the core rules at all, I love the concept.

As for the new models, I've wanted a watcher since the first movie came out, and love what they have done with the model, equally liking the 'mini balrog', which will hopefully allow us to use him in smaller battles. Not so keen on the new goblin characters, but the old ones were perfect anyway and we will see new ones at the end of the year for the Hobbit in all likelyhood. Not sure about the warg riders, will have to see them in person before I make judgement.
The Great Beast of Gorgoroth also looks ace, though I would have preferred plastic at that size.
The new Gondor 'Knight of the White Tower' is pretty ace too, and looks more to scale with the plastics than the other giant command models.

All in all I'll be very happy to start collecting LoTR models again, even if I don't play the game. Of course that is dependant on whether I can get models shipped from UK suppliers again, because no models are worth what GW Aus charges.

Nubl0
28-01-2012, 10:41
On the profiles, I too really hope easterlings get made more elite overall. I lvoe them but when playing them they did feel a bit bland. Just read the WD and kataphracts have the option to be upgraded to "black dragons" gives them ft4 and c4. Amdur looks like hes gotten a buff seeing as in the battle report he fights aragorn on fairly equal terms.

The Marshel
28-01-2012, 11:22
On the profiles, I too really hope easterlings get made more elite overall. I lvoe them but when playing them they did feel a bit bland. Just read the WD and kataphracts have the option to be upgraded to "black dragons" gives them ft4 and c4. Amdur looks like hes gotten a buff seeing as in the battle report he fights aragorn on fairly equal terms.

they're the elites of sauron's armies. on that basis f4 wide like they are in wotr doesnt seem that bad with the appropriate points cost. that way the comparison to gondor is more like more variety vs better "core" which is much better balanced.

Glad to hear there is some sort of buff option for kataphracts at least, and an amdur boost is welcome, i was really hoping for a 3A 3W hero with him

As they are, easterlings are poor as a mono eaterling force, but really solid as allies to harad, mordor and Black numenoreans, all of which plug some gap in the easterling army

ChrisLS
28-01-2012, 14:00
Interesting idea on the 1:12 hero to warrior ratio. It would certainly keep the numbers more under control - some of the nastiest lists I've faced are led by only one or two heroes while piling in massive amounts of infantry - Legion of the White Hand and Galadhrim spring to mind. At the same time, that actually punishes big point heroes - you are putting lots of eggs into one basket, but you're STILL having to get a lot of auxiliary heroes to make up the difference. I've been toying with a Army of the High King list for years, and it barely works with 45 models, including Elendil and one captain. If I have to put two more captains in, the list will cease to function against almost anything, particularly against Goblins with their 35 point heroes.

Spider-pope
28-01-2012, 14:19
I'm excited to see new LOTR releases, some of the new stuff in White Dwarf looks absolutely great, and its exciting to get new rules and source books. But on the other hand i'm not excited at all, because i know no matter how great the new rules are, how brilliant the models, i'll still never find an opponent to play against in Liverpool so i'll still be stuck looking at my collection and sighing "if only...".

Orphic
28-01-2012, 16:03
they're the elites of sauron's armies. on that basis f4 wide like they are in wotr doesnt seem that bad with the appropriate points cost. that way the comparison to gondor is more like more variety vs better "core" which is much better balanced.

Glad to hear there is some sort of buff option for kataphracts at least, and an amdur boost is welcome, i was really hoping for a 3A 3W hero with him

As they are, easterlings are poor as a mono eaterling force, but really solid as allies to harad, mordor and Black numenoreans, all of which plug some gap in the easterling army

The buff is not specific to the kataphracts. The White Dwarf gives examples of Gilgalad buffing his warband etc etc

Codsticker
28-01-2012, 16:35
Not "excited" but definately interested; mostly in what changes are made in the rules.

Whitwort Stormbringer
28-01-2012, 17:56
I like most of the new models. forgottenlore's right about the goblin king's pose, way OTT, but I figure I'll just convert him to be standing instead. I'm just happy to see some more named heroes for Moria.

I can't really say I'm a big fan of the "warbands" method of force composition though. Presumably there will be rules allowing some deviation from the 1:12 set-up since it would be pretty difficult to build balanced forces in many cases, and certain obvious forces like the Fellowship are made impossible, but we'll see. For a larger-scale battle game it's an alright way of doing things (I liked the 5th Ed. Chaos book for WFB), but for skirmish games I really prefer much more open force-building restrictions.

Wildcard
28-01-2012, 19:11
The Fellowship and White council are specific warbands made entirely of heroes.

decker_cky
28-01-2012, 20:11
Isn't the restriction max 12 soldiers per hero? That makes the fellowship and white council perfectly viable, and just limits armies that depended on a total swarm tactic, forcing more heroes to be taken.

Whitwort Stormbringer
28-01-2012, 22:17
The Fellowship and White council are specific warbands made entirely of heroes.

Isn't the restriction max 12 soldiers per hero? That makes the fellowship and white council perfectly viable
Right, I mean I kind of assumed that they'd have some means of allowing those "historical" groups to be played legally. But what about a fantasy-Fellowship? Or just an all-heroes force for an invented scenario? Obviously house rules will allow that kind of thing anyways, but then people can be funny about house rules...
If warbands are "1 hero and 0-12 warriors" then of course you could build an all-hero force in which each "warband" is a hero with 0 warriors.


...and just limits armies that depended on a total swarm tactic, forcing more heroes to be taken.
That's the real kicker, I think, but I guess we'll see. It just seems obvious that all forces shouldn't have the exact same restrictions in terms of building warbands, since goblins are going to need more footsoldiers than elves. Either by upping the number of warriors allowed for swarm armies like goblins or making the troop component of the warband based on points instead of a flat, across-the-board limit.

I'm still overall excited about the new releases, though, and I'm sure I'll end up getting the new books and hopefully some of those new figures as well.

Spiney Norman
28-01-2012, 23:03
I'm very excited to see what they've done with the game. After much deliberation I've decided to begin by revamping my Haradrim army and Ive begun painting up the plastic raiders I never got around to. I'm going to lead with my favourite lotr miniature in the range currently, the golden king of abrakhan, I just hope the "fatties" are as good in the new rules as they used to be.

decker_cky
28-01-2012, 23:34
I just hope the "fatties" are as good in the new rules as they used to be.

I'm pretty sure that Abrakhan guard were one of the the obvious examples of rules creep, since they were essentially uruk-hai scouts without a penalty for two-handed weapons, for the same price.

Xelee
29-01-2012, 00:11
It's probably not for me either, though it raises the level of support for WOTR as a byproduct. One other happy accident is that LOTR players who seem to dislike WOTR but don't seem to know enough about how the game actually works will have something else to occupy their attention and stop repeatedly making things up :p However, if I hear REALLY good things about it, I may give it a look as long as I can use my Vikings in it. Skirmish generally isn't my thing but got given SAGA for Christmas and have been really liking that and know of at least one of my regular opponents who might give SBG a go. So I'll wait and see how the rules turn out.

I do like that watcher model. And the cool Rhino-Tank. Unless it's in an actual movie I don't tend to bother too much with GW models though so I guess I'd be waiting to see if I like how things look in the Hobbit.

Cheers

Enfid
29-01-2012, 01:33
As a WotR player, and not much interest in SBG, this shift really disappoint me. As some has said: finecast, price hike, and smaller boxes. Those also discourage me to buy anything, considering I'm also living in AUSTRALIA. The new big guys (rhino and Watcher) costs 118 Australian dollars, compared to 71 American dollars...

unknownps
30-01-2012, 03:46
me, any content is welcome

Peregrin
30-01-2012, 16:15
Any support is welcome but my first reaction was the same as the other WotR players. Price hike and less support.

Not overly impressed with the models. Some look silly, others just don't look 'Tolkien' to me... nothing specific to say they're wrong, though. For instance, they did a good job on the Watcher model, except that every indication from the book and movie is that it is an aquatic animal, not some kind of cockroach with tentacles. Just kind of seems a bit off kilter in my own mind. Love the Mordor beastie though. On the plus side, as a Gondor/Rohan player I don't really have to pick up any of these figs. I'd have to be really impressed with the profile to bother paying for 3 extra figures just to get the knight in the Gondor command pack.

I will be picking up the new Kingdoms of Men codex. I'm hoping the new profiles make my Rohan army viable but I'd settle for Minas Tirith. Either way, as a WotR player, I have plenty of models for SBG.

The 12-1 rules makes sense to me for a skirmish game. It affects very specific horde armies, of course, but most units would have been commanded by some kind of leftenant or junior officer at least, lorewise. I suppose it's possible that there are specific warbands that allow more units per hero, and that would make sense for a few forces, like Moria.

On the other hand, if what you want is to field hordes and hordes of figures, consider joining us in WotR! ;)

Noobie2k7
30-01-2012, 17:09
As a person who is just starting to get into the WotR hobby it's not looking good for me really. Price hike and less models per box is going to be fun. I'll expect to have my army ready by what? 2014 maybe? Seeing as i love the idea of WotR and not the idea of these supposed new 1 hero to 12 warriors SBG warbands. Just seems silly. Going to end up just seeing the same heroes in every army copy/pasted cause their the best value for points and not seeing as many of the big heroes cause they're no longer worth it.

Codsticker
30-01-2012, 17:25
I wonder if GW intends to package products differently for WoTR. If that is their intention I don't think we will really see it until well after The Hobbit is released. I may be wrong though...

Noobie2k7
30-01-2012, 17:35
Ihopethey do. Like offering larger formation box sets, including the round bases and larger squares bases to stick em on in their companies. Even if each formation box is only the legendary ones and offering like the hero plus 2 companies worth of dudes. It would help with the game in general but it just seems that GW and forcing WotR to be just like the Apoc for SBG. Despite them totally different games just with the same minis. Tbh i've always though WotR should be the core game and having SBG be a small mini version of that fighting like 1 formation against the other in more skirmish game.

Whitwort Stormbringer
30-01-2012, 19:40
As a person who is just starting to get into the WotR hobby it's not looking good for me really.

Unless you're tied to Citadel figures for some reason (play in a GW store, for example, or you have a specific aesthetic in mind), then I'd strongly recommend looking into some alternative manufacturers for your armies. There has been a boom in 28mm multipart plastic figures for historical gaming recently and many of those could be readily adapted to LotR armies. Most of these come at a fraction of the cost of the GW LotR figures.

I started typing some options out and the list grew too quickly so I'm just going to jot down a few manufacturers and what I think they have to offer:

Wargames Factory makes armored and unarmored Vikings and Anglo Saxons who could easily be used to build a Dunland or Rohan army. They also have ancient Celts and Germanic Tribesmen who could make decent Dunland Wildmen or Carn Dum barbarians. They have late Republican Roman legionnairies who could probably pass as fiefdom troops of some kind, and they have generic orcs that aren't terribly far off from the LotR aesthetic. Their sets vary in quality a fair bit, though, and some have awfully soft details. I'd say the Vikings and Saxons are their best by far.

Gripping Beast has armored Saxons and Vikings as well.

Warlord has a bunch - Celts/Britons/Germans/Dacians could work as Carn Dum or Dunlending barbarians, and Roman Auxiliaries might pass for fiefdom troops of some kind.

Conquest Games makes plastic Norman cavalry, and is working on plastic Norman infantry, which would make good Gondorian/fiefdom cavalry and troops.

Fireforge Games just came out with plastic Teutonic Knights who could be good Swan Knights or maybe even Morgul Knights.

Noobie2k7
30-01-2012, 19:48
This is assuming i want to use men and not monsters :P Monsters are better, if i wanted to do men i;d go play a historical stratagy game and actually give into my friends incessent demands for me to play with his real, historically accurate toy soldiers.

smaul
30-01-2012, 19:50
It's probably not for me either, though it raises the level of support for WOTR as a byproduct. One other happy accident is that LOTR players who seem to dislike WOTR but don't seem to know enough about how the game actually works will have something else to occupy their attention and stop repeatedly making things up :p However, if I hear REALLY good things about it, I may give it a look as long as I can use my Vikings in it. Skirmish generally isn't my thing but got given SAGA for Christmas and have been really liking that and know of at least one of my regular opponents who might give SBG a go. So I'll wait and see how the rules turn out.


Im with you, its not for me, I tried it, even own the rules, just not my thing, but WOTR is my all time favorite game right now and we have a good group here in Fargo. Im hoping it will bring some over to WOTR with the interest, Im a little more optimistic then day 1 news about WOTR getting back burner at best, after seeing some new models, but I hope they give WOTR some attention on new unit stats, and a faq, go from there I guess.

smaul
30-01-2012, 19:53
As a person who is just starting to get into the WotR hobby it's not looking good for me really. Price hike and less models per box is going to be fun. I'll expect to have my army ready by what? 2014 maybe? Seeing as i love the idea of WotR and not the idea of these supposed new 1 hero to 12 warriors SBG warbands. Just seems silly. Going to end up just seeing the same heroes in every army copy/pasted cause their the best value for points and not seeing as many of the big heroes cause they're no longer worth it.

there are still great deals on ebay, so you dont have to pay full price, once in a while it goes crazy, but I still find figs at 60-30% off old 20-24 figs pricing, so hang in there. :)

Noobie2k7
30-01-2012, 19:54
I just heard from a GW employee that WotR is going to end up being like Apocalypse for 40K. Just the same game only on a bigger scale.

Codsticker
30-01-2012, 19:58
I just heard from a GW employee that WotR is going to end up being like Apocalypse for 40K. Just the same game only on a bigger scale.

Redshirt? ;)

Noobie2k7
30-01-2012, 20:07
Redshirt? ;)Cannot remember what colour shirt he was wearing ;) Lol, just one of those stupid speculation things they they spurt at you i guessed. But in the past he has generally known his ****.

Codsticker
30-01-2012, 21:14
I am not sure what he could mean by that comment though. As it is, WOTR already is to SBG what Apocalypse is to 40K.

Noobie2k7
30-01-2012, 21:36
Maybe it is something that is to come with the rules. I hope for the love of god they don't just merge the two games. And in my opinion they're not at all like 40k and apoc. Asides from the FOC 40k is exactly the same as Apoc while SBG and WotR have almost completely different rules.

Whitwort Stormbringer
30-01-2012, 22:59
This is assuming i want to use men and not monsters :P Monsters are better, if i wanted to do men i;d go play a historical stratagy game and actually give into my friends incessent demands for me to play with his real, historically accurate toy soldiers.
That's true, for something like orcs that are well-represented in the movies it's a little tougher to find alternative miniatures and still feel like you're playing Lord of the Rings. You could get the aforementioned orcs from WGF, although the detail is noticeably softer than the Citadel minis. Still, if you're building whole armies then there's nothing wrong with using them as unit fillers behind a rank of better-looking figures.

ForgottenLore
30-01-2012, 23:24
I am not sure what he could mean by that comment though. As it is, WOTR already is to SBG what Apocalypse is to 40K.

Not really. Up till now WotR has been a completely separate game. The two games just happen to share a universe and model range, while Apocalypse has always been explicitly an expansion to 40K. You play a game of 40K, but use these changes to the regular rules to play apocalypse, not you play SBG with these stats and rules and WotR with this completely different set of stats and rules.

Thematically they are both "play games with more models" but that is about where the similarity ends.

If their intention is for WotR to be an expansion of the SBG, they we are likely to see WotR's rules reworked shortly before the second movie to make them more connected to the SBG.

Codsticker
30-01-2012, 23:38
I guess I do not see the difference between the two rule sets as being so significantly different as to be entirely different games (I know they are marketed and sold as such- you do not need the SBG rules book to play WoTR). The differences between the two largely only there to allow a model based skirmish game to become a larger, unit based wargame.

ForgottenLore
30-01-2012, 23:46
I guess I do not see the difference between the two rule sets as being so significantly different as to be entirely different games (I know they are marketed and sold as such- you do not need the SBG rules book to play WoTR). The differences between the two largely only there to allow a model based skirmish game to become a larger, unit based wargame.

That is true. If you dig below the surface of the WotR rules you come to see that they are actually very similar to the SBG rules. Which is why I always get annoyed at SBG elitists who claim the WotR rules suck while the SBG rules are the paragon of gaming perfection. The two of them are, however, separate, stand alone rulesets. You don't need to reference any SBG books to play WotR as there is nothing connecting them. I suspect that will change in 2 years.

Xelee
30-01-2012, 23:55
That's true, for something like orcs that are well-represented in the movies it's a little tougher to find alternative miniatures and still feel like you're playing Lord of the Rings. You could get the aforementioned orcs from WGF, although the detail is noticeably softer than the Citadel minis. Still, if you're building whole armies then there's nothing wrong with using them as unit fillers behind a rank of better-looking figures.
It is softer than that Orc Box GW do? I am pretty critical of some of WGF's kits (Celts... *shudder*) but the Orcs are actually pretty good and for once the awkward poses work in their favour. I think that visually they fit quite well - not least because they are all derived from the same underlying artistic influences. At least Peter Jackson brought his artists on as credited consultants, WGF's artists seems not to have credited his sources... norty norty.

Joewrightgm
31-01-2012, 01:19
I've got a large Mordor army sitting in the closet, so I'm totally stoked! that and they've FINALLY included everything that was White Dwarf only available for the longest time, really really excited and happy!

Noobie2k7
31-01-2012, 01:59
Next time i'm at my nans imma big up all the LotR models i have left. Maybe like 20 Uru-hai and about 30-40 goblins + Lurtz and sauruman.

Plus my old metal fellowship box with added gwaihir.

someone2040
31-01-2012, 02:12
I'm interested, but gonna see how much steam it picks up.
I reckon I have enough of my fiefdoms with me that I'll be able to play at my local GW, but don't really intend to get out the rest of my models from storage unless it looks to really be picking up some steam.
The plus side is, I think the smaller warband size fits the GW 4x4 boards a lot better than the people trying to play 2000+ games of Fantasy on them.

So sure, I'm gonna pick up the books I need for the game. But certainly not excited enough at this stage to drop everything and grab out my LOTR models (or at least not without plotting out an army anyway).

Whitwort Stormbringer
31-01-2012, 02:17
It is softer than that Orc Box GW do? I am pretty critical of some of WGF's kits (Celts... *shudder*) but the Orcs are actually pretty good and for once the awkward poses work in their favour. I think that visually they fit quite well - not least because they are all derived from the same underlying artistic influences. At least Peter Jackson brought his artists on as credited consultants, WGF's artists seems not to have credited his sources... norty norty.
I suppose I shouldn't have said that with any certainty, because I don't have any WGF orcs for a side-by-side comparison to GW's LotR orcs. I'm just going off of the photos I've seen of the WGF orcs on their site and my experience with the Citadel orcs.

I agree, though - aesthetically they fit with the WETA/Peter Jackson orcs just fine and they're far from the worst of WGF's sets. The painted minis really look quite good.

bufordbugman
31-01-2012, 05:00
Very excited about this! At my place LotR and WotR have been shelved for several months, but they'll come out now that GW is paying attention to them again.

I chuckle at the WotR players who are annoyed that SBG is getting the love right now -- SBG got totally hosed by WotR for a long while there, with no book releases and rules merely thrown into WD when some WotR stuff came out. So turnabout is fair play! WotR will surely get some attention in turn.

The Marshel
31-01-2012, 14:06
Something I noticed in the Easterlings army workshop in this months WD, page 80, in the second paragraph down. "the main battleline will be formed of my easterling warriors, who should be able to hold their own against almost any foe with their increased fight value." this implies easterling warriors have recieved f4, though doesn't make much sense given how clearly it's been shown that you need to pay to upgrade kataphracts to f4 in the same WD. To make warriors f4 and kataphracts f3 would be wierd, so prob just a common WD error/over hyping, but of not, I'm very pleased

smaul
31-01-2012, 16:04
I was online looking at the stuff last night. I have never liked how the SBG played, but Ill likely buy the Men and Mordor books and give it a try one more time, maybe Ill like the warband approach, problem was the game just seemed more clunky, maybe it is all the savings throws that are not in WOTR or something. I also didnt like when you fired a bow, if I remember right, you had to fire to hit, then if you did and fired over intervening terrain, you had to then roll to see if you hit that or the target, then they could save if you hit them? just kind of clunky.

I enjoy WOTR so Im hoping we will get some trickle down here, otherwise, for our group WOTR is fine as is, with plenty of units still not ever put on the table.

Whitwort Stormbringer
31-01-2012, 20:50
problem was the game just seemed more clunky, maybe it is all the savings throws that are not in WOTR or something. I also didnt like when you fired a bow, if I remember right, you had to fire to hit, then if you did and fired over intervening terrain, you had to then roll to see if you hit that or the target, then they could save if you hit them? just kind of clunky.
Hmm, the only saving throws anyone should be making in SBG are when heroes use their Fate points to try and save from a wound, but ordinary soldiers don't normally get any kind of saving throw. Unlike the other 2 big GW systems, the effects of armor and physical resilience are rolled into one Defense stat, usually resulting in higher to-wound rolls but skipping saving throws.

You're dead on about ranged combat, though - "in the way" rolls can be a bit clunky and I think a -1 or -2 penalty for cover would be more fitting.

Peregrin
31-01-2012, 21:59
Heroes can resist magic but even that is limited.

Hellfury
01-02-2012, 07:36
So who's excited for the re-release?!
Certainly not me, even though I REALLY want to be.
The new prices are all but going to kill WotR. I do not mind it playing second fiddle to SBG since I think that is how it should be.

But these prices made a game that was already difficult to garner interest in, into a non existent entity now.

I am excited by what may lie in the new books for SBG, but that's it. The new models are a really poor showing in my opinion and the fact that they will never be available in metal really make me saddened and resitent to GW trying to win me back.

Their LotR license is the last remaining reason why I even bother cursory interest with GW at all any more. They are quickly losing ground on that front too.

smaul
01-02-2012, 14:48
Ill have to check, I have the rulebook, but maybe that was from the first LOTR softcover, the dark blue and black one, that was my only experience with LOTR, I have the hardcover so Ill have to check, did it change maybe or am I just remembering wrong?

like I said, Im going to give it another try either way, maybe it was just the older version I didnt like.

Spiney Norman
01-02-2012, 15:36
I am not sure what he could mean by that comment though. As it is, WOTR already is to SBG what Apocalypse is to 40K.

I'm not sure thats fair really, in one sense Apoc was designed to sell more 40K models, but another strong motivating factor was to allow people a forum to use their big forge world models without seriously crapping on the mechanics of the game. Also Apoc was fundamentally the same game as 40K, and while WotR is similar to SBG there are fundamental difference, like interactions between heroes and the magic system. Ironically if they'd simply ported the SBG magic system over to WotR it would have worked so much better in WotR.

If they'd spared so much as a single thought to actually making the WotR rules work with the packaging of models in the LotR range I think the game as a whole would have been more successful. Warhammer fantasy would be in exactly the same position if they sold the troops in sets of 8 elves with spears, 8 archers and 8 swordsmasters. The problem that WotR had was that all the troops were packaged for SBG and made it really difficult to build a WotR army without being forced to take 4 companies of pikemen, 8 companies of swordsmen and 8 companies of archers because thats how the minis come. Unfortunately flexibility in army building in WotR means being willing to discard half the models you buy. Whereas if I could buy a set of easterlings where I could assemble all the models as either archers, pikemen or swordsmen the game would be much, much more accessible.

Shrapnelsmile
01-02-2012, 19:12
Agreed Spiney. So long as they continue to mention WoTR and sell the rule book in the main section I will be ok -- my group has a lot of stuff to paint.
It is a huge detriment to new players, however.

Noobie2k7
02-02-2012, 00:50
Yeah, i'm new to WotR/SBG and i'm really not looking forwards to how much it;s going to cost me for even a small formation.

Optimus Anakin
02-02-2012, 02:38
I was thinking of getting back into LotR since 40K was becoming to expensive. This was before Christmas before anyone I believe knew what GW was doing for LotR and thinking it was dead. Then I saw the prices of LotR and saw it got more expensive, so basically it's getting out of the GW hobby now, not just 40K. They are basically pricing me out now. So not sure what I want to do now. While most of the minis are beautiful, I just don't like the price hike at all.

Codsticker
02-02-2012, 03:57
So not sure what I want to do now.

Historicals... or, if you can find opponents willing, play WoTR (or use the WoTR rules) with historical plastics.

smaul
02-02-2012, 15:16
ok so looking up the rules to clarify my earlier posts

in the SBG you have to roll to hit and then roll those hits to try and wound
shooting is the same, but if there is intervening terrain like a wall, once you roll to hit then you roll to see if you hit the "wall" or the figure, then wound

wotr you just figure out your dice and then roll to hit and that's if, you either hit or don't, rolling twice in SBG is what I found clunky (3 times if shooting with an obstacle involved)

but like I said, Im going to give it one more shake with the new books coming out, but anyway, just wanted to clarify my thoughts (no savings throws)

Peregrin
02-02-2012, 15:43
Compared to WotR, I agree with you smaul. Considering those rules, and things like the siege rules, I always felt SBG was a much more detailed game than WotR... nature of the games from the size of the forces, scenarios, etc., right on through.

How does it compare with other GW games though? I'm told there are a lot of saves, etc., in the WH games as well, but I've never played...

Noobie2k7
02-02-2012, 15:47
Yeah, WHFB and 40K is a dice rolling frenzy. Gotta roll dice for everything in those games. to hit, wound, saves, terrain, various other rules and things too. Pretty much everything in WH you have to roll dice for.

Jobu
02-02-2012, 17:07
Yeah, WHFB and 40K is a dice rolling frenzy. Gotta roll dice for everything in those games. to hit, wound, saves, terrain, various other rules and things too. Pretty much everything in WH you have to roll dice for.
However I feel that the strength and weakness of both systems is the diversity. There are many many different space marines with a multitude of special rules, special weapons etc., and there are specials for every other race as well, which adds to the depth of the story line but makes it very difficult to balance. Essentially the same thing for WHFB just without the space marines. I think the depth of play, as far as mechanics go, can sometimes get lost in the minutiae of the rules/rolling dice. I like the 40K fluff, but not the models(although that has changed a little over the last couple of years) or the rules enough to play it on the tabletop. I just do not like WHFB at all, but that is a personal thing. I feel that LoTR and to a certain extent the basic rules of WoTR are much simpler systems. Some people don't like that because it may not reflect reality enough for them, that's cool, I can understand that. But one thing I like is the you go I go move/shoot mechanic. Keeps one involved in the game a little more often.

decker_cky
02-02-2012, 17:12
However I feel that the strength and weakness of both systems is the diversity.

Agreed. The systems are different, each with advantages. Complaining about having to roll a mass of dice is like the complaints that LoTR is all about being the player who rolls the most 6's. Maybe some truth to it, but it misrepresents the depth of the game.

Noobie2k7
02-02-2012, 17:40
Well i've been a 40K player for many years and have a rather large Blood angels force. I only actually had my first couple games of WotR the other weekend and the game just seemed to flow a lot smoother than anything i've played before. I think the LotR system allows you to actually enjoy the game and what's going on more instead of just having to pick up your dice every 5 seconds, or get bogged down with too many complicated rules. I mean after one game and a brief read of the rulebook i pretty much understood all i needed too. Unlike 40K where there are so many rules that are either worded really badly or are over complicated.

Whitwort Stormbringer
02-02-2012, 20:55
wotr you just figure out your dice and then roll to hit and that's if, you either hit or don't, rolling twice in SBG is what I found clunky (3 times if shooting with an obstacle involved)
That's interesting - so in WotR there is no separate "to hit" and "to wound" roll? Makes a lot of sense for a large-scale game, and definitely streamlines gameplay quite a bit. How are things such as the varying effectiveness of different weapons (an uruk crossbow is surely stronger than a normal bow?) and how the target's armor factor into the roll?

I don't mind rolling to hit and rolling to wound separately in a skirmish game, but I've never been a fan of the "in the way" rolls in SBG. I'd much prefer a hard penalty of -1 for soft cover, -2 for heavy, or something along those lines. Peregrin is right, though, at least from what I've read/heard about WotR SBG is much more detail-oriented in nearly all respects. It can be used for large-ish battles but becomes a very clunky system, and I think it's much better suited to small engagements. I'm not too big on the 1:12 warband structure, but I do think that it's at least closer to the ideal scale for SBG - a handful to a few dozen models per side.

brightblade
02-02-2012, 21:58
Well. I purchased the rule book today. I have piles of middle earth miniatures to paint just for fun but am finding myself drawn to this game more and more. Mainly because I am finding warhammer less and less satisfying due to it turning into a big monster arms race.

So, yeah, I am excited. I started in gaming a long time ago with merp and am disgusted I have not played this latest incarnation of middle earth fun.

I am in. :)

Xelee
02-02-2012, 23:35
That's interesting - so in WotR there is no separate "to hit" and "to wound" roll? Makes a lot of sense for a large-scale game, and definitely streamlines gameplay quite a bit. How are things such as the varying effectiveness of different weapons (an uruk crossbow is surely stronger than a normal bow?) and how the target's armor factor into the roll?

I don't mind rolling to hit and rolling to wound separately in a skirmish game, but I've never been a fan of the "in the way" rolls in SBG. I'd much prefer a hard penalty of -1 for soft cover, -2 for heavy, or something along those lines. Peregrin is right, though, at least from what I've read/heard about WotR SBG is much more detail-oriented in nearly all respects. It can be used for large-ish battles but becomes a very clunky system, and I think it's much better suited to small engagements. I'm not too big on the 1:12 warband structure, but I do think that it's at least closer to the ideal scale for SBG - a handful to a few dozen models per side.
I think WOTR benefits a lot from being one step even further removed from the baseline GW games. A save is just a fraction - so as a rule of thumb, saves are unnecessary dice rolling and that fraction should be rolled up into the base target number. One good use I have seen them put to, in other games, is to differentiate between missile fire and melee (so 4+ vs missile, 5+ vs melee) or to allow extra abilities to modify the defensive capabilities of a unit. Both of those could be handled with straight modifiers though.

Crossbows get twice the strength as bows in WOTR, which makes them lethal. Too lethal IMO and Elven bow in particular compares unfavorably.

Peregrin
03-02-2012, 15:34
To clarify, in WotR you calculate the number of dice to be rolled based on unit size, number of attacks, relative differences between attacking and defending fight characteristic, special abilities, supporting units, etc. Once that's determined (quicker than it sounds) you simply compare the units strength to the defending units defence. The number of dice that hit or exceed that number is the number of wounds taken on the defending unit. Quite simple.

In the case of missile weapons, a unit's accuracy can affect the number of dice rolled. The bow used affects range and strength. Ranges are as expected beginning with the short bow (used by Dwarves, Goblins, etc.) and going up to the longbow, with the crossbow range being nearly, but not quite, the longest. All missile weapons except thrown weapons and crossbows have the same strength. Crossbows double that but restrict movement.

Tuscuttar
03-02-2012, 17:44
Wow it's been a long time since I posted here, but I thought I'd come back for The Hobbit and all that jazz.

I'm very excited to see the Watcher in the Water get proper treatment (We only had tentacles prior... Fun...) and the new Great Beasts look VERY interesting. I don't know what to think of the Dweller in the Dark, however.

Jobu
03-02-2012, 17:51
Wow it's been a long time since I posted here, but I thought I'd come back for The Hobbit and all that jazz.

I'm very excited to see the Watcher in the Water get proper treatment (We only had tentacles prior... Fun...) and the new Great Beasts look VERY interesting. I don't know what to think of the Dweller in the Dark, however.
From what I have read, it is pretty strong, F7, multiple attacks( I thought i might have only one ) regains wounds when it delivers one ( may only be to heroes though ) high strength and cheaper than a cave troll.

Sounds pretty OP to me, but I will have to play with/against one to really know.

thesheriff
03-02-2012, 20:56
Well, im really exited. I hope these books will give the Lotr system a good boost. All the changes I have seen look positive, and it has finally pushed me to do my ranger army Ive always wanted.

I wonder how the warbands mechanic will work in conjunction with the "4 Dunidain/Rangers = 4 extra bows". If they havent got rid of that.

But regardless of that, looking forward to tommorow to get my hands on the books :D

bringerofdecay
04-02-2012, 19:25
Well I was really excited but after having spent a not inconsiderable amount of time at my local GW today where, instead of the lord of the rings games that should have been running, I was subjected to 40k, I'm now feeling a little deflated about the new release.

The books seem to be get-you-bys, I doubt very much they'll be around in a year or so, and if that's the case then we could have quite easily stuck with LoME et al until a more substantial and well thought out set of stats/points costs were released. The fine cast models that were being assembled by the staff were shockingly poor, the watcher and the gorgoroth beast were both poorly cast with missing detail and extra resin lumps all over the place, the halves of the beast didn't match at all and we're out in one place by a good third of a centimetre, the connecting pieces of the watcher didn't match up either, I'd have been unhappy paying £14 for each of those kits let alone £44.

I have been painting a lot of my lord of the rings collection up for what I'd hoped would be a bit of a revival but if GWs own stores aren't going to support it well and the models/casts GW bring out for the future are all of the same standard then I can't see LoTR/hobbit returning to even close that of the hustle and bustle it created during the original films.

I wanted to buy the free peoples book, the Galadhirm command and some wood/Galadhirm elves but didn't get anything out of disgust, didnt even spend the money on anything else in store. I'm voting with my wallet and will continue to snap up eBay specials.

The Marshel
04-02-2012, 20:39
The books seem to be get-you-bys, I doubt very much they'll be around in a year or so, and if that's the case then we could have quite easily stuck with LoME et al until a more substantial and well thought out set of stats/points costs were released.

I agree that they seem to be more place holders then finished products, but i doubt expect to see them replaced till after gw is done releasing hobbit related products

My guess is that we'll see a new core ruleset when the hobbit comes out and "journey books" for the two hobbit movies. once gw has finished releasing hobbit specific mintures i reckon we'll get the "2nd editions" of these new books with proper background sections and updated list.

as for whether the current run are needed, perhaps it wasn't vital, but having all the profiles in one place for your army rather then hunting around for 3 white dwarfs, the core rulebook and a sourcebook is significantly more convenient. I cant comment for all the armies, but the small tweeks and additions to the eastern kingdoms look likely to make a huge improvoment to mono easterling armies, so if there are similar tweeks in the other books there will be overall benefit for LOTR.

It hasnt been the epic reboot of SBG we were all anticipating, but i don't think it's as bad as some people are making it out to be

SaintTom
05-02-2012, 05:21
I'm excited for it, though I'm much more happy that I bought one of the old 24 packs of troops just before they switched it.

Started up on my lil Rohan warband lead by sister shield maidens.

Going to pick up a couple of the source books to keep updated for my other forces too, though that will be about all I pick up now til I see more.

Peregrin
06-02-2012, 15:13
Disappointed to hear about more fail-cast for the price they're charging. I'll definitely be avoiding that.
I never did get the source books, etc., so I pretty much need the new book for my army. It will cover profiles for heroes and other figures I already have for WotR.

Frobozz of the Nine
06-02-2012, 17:15
I am excited that GW is finally showing some love to the SBG. It's been a long time coming. I'd really like to see some redone plastic kits for core infantry like Mordor Orcs and Fighting Uruk-hai. These two kits are sorely lacking in details, options, and are small scale compared to everything else. The High Elf infantry (second age) are in need of an update also. Maybe we'll get that along with some HE cavalry and chariots. One can only hope.

I just ordered a Great Beast of Gorgorth and mounted Easterling War Priest. Yes, they are both Finecast so we will see how the quality turns out. :eek: I'll repost once I have the figs and give a review of the GBoG kit, which looks pretty good from what I can see from the 360 view on GWs site. No, I did not pay full retail for these as I ordered them from an Ebay store. :D

Leonardis
08-02-2012, 15:26
I am intetested to hear about the GBoG as it would be good to have two flank my Gorgoroth Orc horde when they release the WotR stats.

fracas
08-02-2012, 17:24
I think the current army books will stay for a while. Next up will be replacement rule book with hobbits rather than current lotr list

Peregrin
08-02-2012, 18:29
Any sign of WotR profiles for some of these beasties?

bufordbugman
09-02-2012, 04:39
...i doubt expect to see the [new sourcebooks] replaced till after gw is done releasing hobbit related products

My guess is that we'll see a new core ruleset when the hobbit comes out and "journey books" for the two hobbit movies. ...

as for whether the current run are needed, perhaps it wasn't vital, but having all the profiles in one place for your army rather then hunting around for 3 white dwarfs, the core rulebook and a sourcebook is significantly more convenient. ...


+1 to the above as quoted.

I remain excited about this release and think GW deserves credit for it from LotR fans. Even if the new material is limited in quantity, pulling all the scattered rules and profiles together into these army books is a real boon, and breaking it up into 5 books makes it more affordable for those who are only collecting an army or two, and so will only need to buy one or two of them. (Deep-pocketed Tolkien freaks like me with 7 WotR-sized armies will want to buy all 5, so one big fat book would have been even more convenient, but I'm not the demographic GW needs to think about with its pricing.)

I'll have to see the new books to comment on the (apparently minor) point adjustments they've made. Things weren't terribly out of whack in the SBG as it was, so no major surgery was required IMO.

About the models: most look very interesting. Only two things concern me, and only one has to do with these models themselves. The other is about the apparently continuing problems GW is having reliably making Finecast models. If it remains a common occurrence that Finecast models come with gross errors (and I'm not counting large pieces that don't quite fit together -- plenty of GW metal models had that problem!), then GW has really screwed it up and I'll have to think twice before buying them, which would make me sad. Pricing isn't the issue -- Finecast seems to me to be no more expensive than the equivalent metal models would have been by GW's inflated scale. People hating on Finecast for the cost are misguided. But if the models often come busted, that's inexcusable.

The other issue is the invention of new creatures and combinations. I'm not outraged (like some are on other threads) that GW would dare to make up a Beast of Gorgoroth or Dweller or what have you, but I do think they need to exercise some caution. Rather than doing it on a lark, they should be asking questions like "Does that particular army need such a new creature for game balance or interest?" and "Does something like this fit the spirit of Tolkien's few comments or descriptions of this part of the world or people?" If the answers are yes, then go for it. I think GW has done a marvelous job filling out armies like Harad and the Easterlings, and taking bare references in the book to goblin drums or half trolls they've done wonderful things. But I get nervous when they make up something out of whole cloth. The worst offender of these new releases, to my mind, is the 3-goblin warg. Why? Because this bit of light-hearted silliness is an obvious import from the Warhammer world's interpretation of goblins, those lovable goofy greenskins who ride crazy animals and get themselves in trouble doing lots of damage. Nothing wrong with that IN WARHAMMER, but I hate to see that vibe imported to LotR.

Anyway, mostly want to give GW kudos for this release, from what I can see so far...

Stargorger
09-02-2012, 19:24
+1 to the above as quoted.
Nothing wrong with that IN WARHAMMER, but I hate to see that vibe imported to LotR.

Anyway, mostly want to give GW kudos for this release, from what I can see so far...

I agree. I dislike Finecast because of itís price, not because of its value, and there is a difference. Itís not that I think nicely-cast resin shouldnít cost more than metal of the same thing (although Iíve seen that the resin is not, actually, as nice as some of the metal kits), itís that mainly, on a personal level, I will never be able to justify spending 20$ on a single 25mm miniature. That just seems like such a waste of money for a game piece, no matter what itís cast from. (Although as some have said, the prices do seem to suggest the resin is actually ground from unicorn horns ;-)

As far as theme: Iím with you. I see nothing at all wrong with the Beast or the WatcherÖthose are both explicitly mentioned in the LOTR books. Donít like the insect body they attached to the Watcher but, the Watcher itself is canonical.

The warg riders donít bother me as much because goblins DO ride wargs in the booksÖbut I agree the number on the beast and the poses seem a bit out of theme.

What really bugs me is the Dweller in the Dark. They pulled it out of the most obscure reference they could find, and made it this odd balrog-copy. In Tolkienís world the Balrog of Morgoth was either THE last or ONE of the last of its kind. There are no hidden swarms of demons lurking beneath the Misty Mountains, and with Gulavhar already a stretch, Iím worried theyíre gonna start making more and more of these demi-demons. This, as youíve said, isnít WFB guys.

The day they come out with a ďBalrog PrinceĒ model, I quit.

bufordbugman
10-02-2012, 05:08
Yeah, they need to tread carefully with the non-Tolkien creatures. The "Balrog Light" feel of the dweller is annoying, and I do hate the WHF comic element in the triple goblin warg.

But there's nothing here -- yet! -- that makes me say GW has ruined it. Still pleased overall about the release....

Mr_Foulscumm
10-02-2012, 11:52
On the other hand, Tolkien himself thought that other people would add to his world at some point. If a mythology is a good one, people will naturally tend to want to contribute. And that's a good thing. And I can't blame GW, because the LotR mythos is one of the best ever. Of course it needs to be done with tact. Now adding new stuff to an established setting is hard, but the great thing about this is, that if you don't like what others have added you can choose to disregard it. Promise, it's been done before.

I mean even the Jewish/Christian/Islamic mythos has a ton of fan made add ons and people disregarding those as well. :D

Codsticker
10-02-2012, 15:27
... sadly I cant find where the hell the rules are on this forum

Rules for the Forum can be found here (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=the_forums#faq_rules)(under FAQ).

Spiney Norman
10-02-2012, 15:27
Grobs crown reminds me very much of the old chaos dwarf hats from the fantasy range, I think its the odd "up-arrow" which seems to dominate the inner part of it, and yes I think its wholey inappropriate for the LotR setting, might look nice on the white witch of Narnia though.

I've never really liked the Moria goblin aesthetic, but I particularly disapprove of the zaney direction they've taken in this release with Groblog and the Roller-coaster warg. That feel works fine for the goblins in the fantasy system, but they're not supposed to be a comic race in LotR

Stargorger
11-02-2012, 17:32
Grobs crown reminds me very much of the old chaos dwarf hats from the fantasy range, I think its the odd "up-arrow" which seems to dominate the inner part of it, and yes I think its wholey inappropriate for the LotR setting, might look nice on the white witch of Narnia though.

I've never really liked the Moria goblin aesthetic, but I particularly disapprove of the zaney direction they've taken in this release with Groblog and the Roller-coaster warg. That feel works fine for the goblins in the fantasy system, but they're not supposed to be a comic race in LotR

Yeah same here. Good point about the arrow...hopefully they arent trying to sneak-in Chaos symbols lol!

Dr Grant
13-02-2012, 14:03
Iíve noticed that thereís a fair bit of (well-reasoned) negativity directed towards the new releases and thought Iíd play devilís advocate and say why Iím feeling quite positive about all the new stuff (long post coming!)

Firstly, thereís new stuff! LOTR (particularly SBG) has been rotting on the shelf for a couple of years now and hasnít had any real attention in ages. If you bear in mind that the other main LOTR thread on here at the mo is called Ďsome hope for 2012,í the idea that thereíd be 5 new books and a whole host of new figures this early in the year seemed ridiculous as recently as December and so Iím just thrilled that the game is getting a bit of exposure. I was assuming that theyíd save all their resources for the new Hobbit release at the end of the year so to get so many new toys far earlier than expected is quite a bonus.

As far as the new sourcebooks go Iím also fairly impressed. I can only comment on the 2 Iíve got (Free Peoples and Moria & Angmar) and I didnít want to write anything until Iíd read through them thoroughly but, having now done that, I like what theyíve done. Both books do a great job of assembling all the disparate info weíve had spread around up until now and itís nice to have army list rules, points cost and profiles together in one book. I think the Moria list in particular has really benefitted from this collation as we now have a very broad, comprehensive list with a lot of choices rather than the old school ĎKhazad-Dum + Dol Goldur alliesí approach. Itís certainly the army Iím most keen on expanding at the moment. I also think Moria is the only army to have not been screwed on itís finecast commanders; their set is £20 which (correct me if Iím wrong) doesnít seem that much more than the old metal versions no? Werenít the metal versions: Drum £8-10, Captain £4.10, Shaman £4-7? Seems a bit strange considering the uber-hike the other sets have been hit with. On a personal note the other great thing about the books is that they have that same smell thatís been a major draw for me of GW books since 4th edition Warhammer back in 92 :-)

As far as the figures go it seems Iím also a little more optimistic than most. The Easterlings look cool but donít really interest me, the new command figures are mainly lovely and the casualties are perfectly meh. Somewhat controversially, Iím also very keen on the Watcher in the Water. Tolkien was incredibly ambiguous with his description of the beast (in the book itís not even clear if itís one creature or multiples) and I think the GW model does fit the description given in the book. Before I get torn apart, itís OBVIOUSLY not what Weta/PJ had in mind, any number of marquettes and concept drawings show that they conceived the beast as a traditional Kraken type monster. However, I think itís a fairly admirable attempt by GW to take what was seen in the film and turn it into a land-based creature without it clashing with the book. However, itís also clearly a business decision by GW and Iím not denying that (10 people will buy a creature that can only appear in water features/scenarios, 100 people will but a creature that can be used in any game etc.). I think Groblogís pretty good too, I think the figureís suffering from the normal bright garish GW paint job and I reckon he could look good with a muted paint job (even with the stupid hat). His special rule is pretty cool too, definitely a good option for Moria lists. The Great Beast of Gorgoroth is very cool looking and completely canonical, it looks just like the ones pulling Ghrond and a howdah of orcs is perfectly reasonable.

The only ones Iím not convinced by are the Dweller in the Dark and the Warg Marauder. I think the DITD idea is fine and fits into the world but the figure just looks a bit awkward. The Warg Marauder figure is, as many have pointed out, a bit Warhamery and light-hearted, the concept is good though and Iím looking forward to seeing what my knife, some plastic Moria goblins and a couple of plastic Wargs can achieve :-)

Obviously the finecast prices are ridiculous, no point denying that, unfortunately however it seems thatís the way GW are going now though. I canít comment on the quality of the resin as Iíve yet to buy any finecast figures. Although as Iíve said, Groblog, Moria Commanders and The Watcher in the Water might finally change that.

To sum up, the books are nice, a lot of the figures are lovely and the prices suck. However, SBG is getting a shot in the arm and decent attention and that can only be a good thing.

P.S. I havenít mentioned it but the plastic infantry price debacle is absolutely disgusting, I managed to beat the system and pick up some Wood Elves and Haradrim warriors on the day the new sets came out. Ha! Thatíll teach you GW, youíre not getting my money! Oh....

P.P.S. Anyone else notice that Gandalf the White seems to have lost his ĎWhite Riderí rule with no reduction in points cost? Do we think thatís a mistake on an intentional change? I havenít noticed any other figures that have lost rules but I havenít done a detailed comparison. The only thing I wondered was if there was a separate entry for him in the Gondor list in the Kingdoms of Men book but I doubt it.

The Marshel
14-02-2012, 04:06
i think the main problem with the new books is that their aim was so much to update lotr as it was to reorganise it into a more new player friendly format

lets face it, before the new books, lotr sbg was a scary prospect for new players. rules all over the place, a full priced rulebook/starterset for a highly untouched game, not real clear army building format beyond the marginalised/ignored lome, I wouldnt imagine more people have started playing sbg over the past years then what i could count on my fingers.

the books bought all the profiles together and added in army building rules right there in the same book. to us vets this isnt anything that big (though i find it very convenient) but if you were thinking of starting lotr, its fantastic. Just look at all the extra traffic this sub forum is getting! a friend of mine who has been thinking of starting lotr for ages has finally taken the plunge with the new source books too!

This release, particularly the books, wasnt really meant for us, because to use lotr was never dead, but to those who havent ever played, lotr sbg was not starter friendly, and before gw can please us, they have to create a market for the game again, otherwise they wont think it worth it.

sure they've missed a lot of opportunity to reballance and fix mny things with these books, but at least it's something. its a start, lets see where else it gets us.

Stargorger
14-02-2012, 13:19
@Dr Grant

Lol uh oh! ;-)
True that, true that. Better something than nothing I suppose (if we ignore Groblog’s crown ;-)

About the Watcher: that’s true. Looking at it from a purely gameplay and book perspective, it’s fine. I personally don’t like the appearance (seems bulky, clashing types –insect and squid-which I don’t like) and I dislike that they strayed so far from Weta’s version, which is really what I wanted to see. Heck I would have been happy NEVER owning a Watcher in the Water, as long as the one they made was the ‘accurate’ one ;-)

The thing I don’t like about the GGB is the shape change….yes, I like that it looks like those pulling Grond, but both the ones in the film AND the ones GW originally sculpted for their Pellenor Fields battle were somewhat more squat and round…these are kinda tall and slim…cow-like, as opposed to Rhino-like. Make sense?

Eh…I think the DitD fits with the world…but not the tone. Tolkien meant the Balrog to be the mysterious last of its kind. Not just the big-daddy-demon. I like the warg marauder concept but not the 3-goblins. Would prefer two, and the pose is a bit odd.

PS: lol yeah same here. I’ve been rushing to buy-up all the plastic kits on Amazon and ebay ;-) Shhhh….

Peregrin
14-02-2012, 15:28
@Marshel - agreed. I'm a good example. I decided to focus on WotR partly because I already had some skirmish style games and wanted something bigger, but also because the source material was hard to get my hands on and I wasn't even sure which books I needed. These new source books solve that for new players or those who haven't done much since the original core hardcover came out.

Noobie2k7
14-02-2012, 16:51
Like me :P I gave up on SBG years and years ago when the rules got kinda scattered to the four winds with all the sourcebooks and WD entries. Now that everything has been made available in an easy to find place with names are quite obvious to those wanting to find what their looking for i may start playing SBG again. Just got to find my old models but i may just start playing elves.

I'm liking how it;s now easy to find exactly what i'm looking for and have all the rules i want in one book. (unless i wanted to collect more than 1 army then i'd buy more than 1 but that's never stopped me in WH)

ashc
14-02-2012, 17:08
I know it certainly has us interested again.

Spider-pope
15-02-2012, 11:49
Well the excitement of the revamp has rubbed off a bit more on me, i've actually bought Lord of the Rings models for the first time since WOTR's release - a box of Galadhrim warriors. I doubt i'll ever get to use them, but heck they are some really nice sculpts anyway so at least i'll have something pretty to put in my display cabinet.

Red7-1
24-02-2012, 22:32
Here is my two cents.

Some of the new releases, especially the new Easterling sculpts, are very good.

There are a few problems as I see them.

Warg Marauder
This Warg sculpt represents the ongoing GW trend of moving away from the Weta 'wolf, hiena, wild dog' look, and producing an aesthetic which is more feline or 'big cat' in nature (the initial metal models were more in line with the Weta designs and remain very good sculpts IMHO).

The Watcher in the Water
This design also represents a deliberate move away from the Weta designs (see p 166-173 The Art of the Fellowship of the Ring). The replacement of the movie designs sharp, apex predator teeth with gums and bovine molars seems strange. The introduction of insect like exoskeleton legs is not a good biological fit with a creature which is basically a cephalopod. The application of barnacles all over the creature is also biologically incorrect as barnacles are exclusively marine, and are found in shallow and tidal waters Ė not the deep water environment found at the entry to the Mines of Moria. I will probably get one but I will not use the insect legs, will have to introduce more aggressive set of fangs, and removing all of those barnacles will be a major task. Overall, the model skin and legs/fins etc. need to be more like the creature design for the Korean horror flick ĎThe Hostí.

Dweller in the Dark
This design represents an unfortunate animal husbandry experiment, the cross breeding or unholy union of the Balrog and Bill the Pony.

Apologies if Iím repeating what may have been stated in previous posts.

Regards,