Biggest Changes in the Middle Earth SBG! ~ Which edition is better?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ธ.ค. 2024
- In this video we break down the biggest changes in the Middle Earth SBG between this new edition and the previous ones. At the end I'll share which edition I think is better!
Kingdom of Noldareth Kickstarter: www.kickstarte...
Conquest Creations Webstore:
www.conquestcr...
Conquest Creations Patreon:
/ posts
For sponsorships or professional contact email me here:
theconquestcreator@gmail.com
![เปิดบ้าน โคตรสวย ป๋องกพล รู้จักตั้งนาน เพิ่งรู้ว่ารวย!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmgCF_2HfYI/mqdefault.jpg)
Like the new edition rules, I am a bit sad we lost flexabillity in army building
Im i touch disappointed to, but it makes sense that sauruman would not be randomly visiting lake town
@@PaulLewis-m3pmaybe I'm wrong but by just looking on the army lists from the leaks, they seem very unbalanced.. and im afraid we will end up seeing the same 3-4 lists over and over again, with even less variety then last version. I also dislike the concept of cross reading trough multiple army books in the future, since they seem to add more models to the existing lists once AoME is released
@@PaulLewis-m3pwhy not ?
I am surprised to see someone saying they seem unbalanced. I have only played a handful of games of the new edition but overall its looking really positive from a balance perspective. Especially when crazy armies like the Beornins, Dragon Emperors Host, and Assault on Lothlorien are currently gone.
@@ConquestCreations One thing they were saying was the smaller armies would be balanced with more special rules. However, many of the minor factions/niche forces really didnt get anything for that balance. Ents got one interesting rules, but it's restrictive at the same time. Eagles didnt get anything new, haven't seen Beornings yet (as an army, just the character) but I'm not expecting much.
Also having like 20 armies from Rohan, with the new edition being _all about Rohan_ is telling.
Given I play Fiefdoms, I'm very worried.
Im... disappointed with the army list restrictions.
I get the desire to have it reflect the moments in the movies... but there were a lot of off camera plausible lists that I was looking forward to toying with under the previous rules that would let me collect and play with models I liked.
For instance Saruman of the White Council alongside Rohan or Gondor, representing an early stage before his final turn.
And a lot of the fun in my mind was thinking about how to present such alliances and taking them to events.
Now? Every list at an event is going to be more or less the same. There are some points levels and list options that will become auto includes or impossible to take.
If all the lists were written with equal care, it might be better. For instance, the 3 trolls list is a fantastic exercise in providing options for different scales of play.
But then you have the various nazgul lists which feel almost punitive by comparison.
the rule changes seem fine but i can't stand the army selection, i know they are trying to be cinematic like the movies but it kills list variation.
As a newer player I feel that army list restrictions are unfun. Maybe the alliances were bad but cutting full faction lists is very limiting. For example I have Mouth of Sauron. I like the character and wanted to use him in my Mordor armies but in new edition he's only in Black Gate Opens army and I have to take Mordor Troll Chieftain (but I don't want to). I feel forced to buy a lot of specific minis to play the game because they are required in many Army list for "thematic" reasons. Part of the appeal for me was creating different armies, what if scenarios etc and now a lot of heroes/minis are limited to 1 or 2 lists. I love the movies and books but previous edition had better solution - big lists + Legendary Legions for rewarding thematic armies. I doubt Armies of Middle-Earth book is going to fix this. I know I can ignore army list building in my home games but it's not a solution...
My isungrurd zerks and trolls aren't a thing anymore I I loved that list but fuck us unique type players right😢
@@DylanJamesAdamsthis decision was obviously not made with players in mind
"I feel forced to buy a lot of specific minis to play the game" I strongly suspect this is the reason for the change.
I totally understand your point here. I think that Mordor was the most negatively affected by these changes. One of my favorite lists recently has been a random smattering of Mordor heroes with a horde of orcs which isn't playable now. When you look outside Mordor things are a lot better. However Mordor was unfortunate collateral damage .
To the comment "I feel forced to buy a lot of specific minis to play the game" I don't think this is the case at all. With most existing collections you have access to several army lists.
@ConquestCreations having looked through the leaks, I kinda disagree.
You may find lists to accommodate most collections, but the options are potentially very awkward to make fit or a lot of your collection won't be usable without buying several new units.
It also bothers me that there are a few units and models I am very fond of that become exceedingly limited in what list you can use.
Radagast the brown comes to mind.
My favourite change is Strike becoming D3, as so many strike-offs end up in both heroes becoming FS10. I'm not a fan of the new army list building mechanics. It sounds very one dimensional, and I expect there will be a handful of armies with an optimal list that we will see dominating tournaments, with no "outside the box" list building allowed.
The wysiwyg seems weird but the army lists is my main gripe, I’m newer and I like bringing varied
I’m mostly have the same opinion as you on the new edition. I have no problem with list building restrictions and gear restrictions for mostly thematic reasons. What I really don’t like is the fact, that they didn’t do a clear cut for what went to legends. You can’t remove relatively new Dunlendings etc. but don’t touch all the new Easterlings for the sake of them being popular/making you money.
Don't forget another book, Armies of Middle-Earth, will be released shortly.
Dunlendings are tied to the new movie. Licencing is the issue there.
Jacob You're a ray of sunshine in a world where a pall of darkness has spread from Mordor
Appreciate the positivity
Thanks mate! I couldn't be more excited for the future of MESBG
I overall like the new edition very much, and am happy with the new take on army building with a few exception (I see no reason why sharku and the warg riders couldn't be taken in the Muster of Isengard army list for example. Now the only way to play him is to have liks 50 warg riders). But some of the wargear and lists limitations are so blatantly profit-driven that it makes me a bit mad to hear them justify it as narrative. Mainly: shields on spearmen (or Gil Galad, who features one in the films), horse options for some of the heroes, and blocking everyone who hasnt bought a fell beast to play the witch king at all in most mordor lists. I 100% support thing like not allowing the WK to have the fell beatst or morgul crown on angmar lists, but you should be able to have him on foot or horse on the attack on minas tirith army lists (lets remember he enters the city on horseback in the books)
With the 2 current books being based on movies, there will likely be a few morodor lists with more flexibility on the wraiths in general. I really hate them not releasing all the books together as I hate the "3rd book will save the day" sentiment.
Yeah Isengard is a bit crap now being split up into 5 different army lists. No more Lurks for my warriors or crebain
@@robbo2099 now a person who had an 800 points Isengard army can only play 300 or 400 points games unless they buy lots of new models. I can understand that a ocmpany wants to earn more money, but dont disguise it as player-friendly. I find most of the army lists very cool and most restrictions reasonable. But its things like these and some of the wargear restrictions that make me angry
I think the Sharku one is because the only fight we see him in in the films, is a fight where it's purely him and other Warg riders, there are no other orcs or Uruk, so it's to recreate that battle scene.
Witch-King does enter the city on horseback in the books, but the first new book that is coming out is purely based on the films, the one based on things from the books isn't coming until next year, I imagine we'll see more horse-mounted WK in that one
I think a lot of the core rules changes are great. Simplified in the right places but still keeping a good level of complexity. However, looking at lists, when you account for all the models leaving the range a lot of lists are very thin on the ground compared to their Legendary Legion counterparts. Hopefully the armies of middle earth brings back a lot of the larger lists.
I definitely agree that Transfix is an awful spell, and I believe that the reason so many heroes have now been given Resistant to Magic is specifically because Transfix exists. Trouble is more Resistant to Magic just hurts more general magic play across the board.
Either it should go (which I am in more favour for), or should be reworked if it must stay. Perhaps upon a successful cast and failed resist you roll a D6 and have an assigned effect based on a table, with the full transfix only occuring on a 6.
I like a lot of the changes, in particular making Monsters more viable as they are some of my favourites. Though the release of the new edition is very strange, as Angmar and Arnor who just had a bunch of new models released are currently unplayable, as are relatively new releases like The Dragon Emperor, until the Armies of Middle Earth book comes out next year. I wonder perhaps if a new edition was in the works but then was rushed to tie in with the film release? 🤔
Personally I like Barad-Dur so I was hoping the army/LL equivalent would get some interesting changes, but all it really got was +1 courage to Orcs, meh. Sauron is better at least with Dominant 10 and Monster buffs, and I expect him calling Heroic Challenges will be a go to.
Minas Morgul seems scary with the Blades of the Dead on the Orcs/Orc captains.
I do like that they added basically 40 or so new LL to the game, though I do wonder whether that needed to sacrifice the more open lists?
I want to focus on the army building changes.
The alliance matrix will be killed off, which, I agree, is mostly good for the reasons you explained. HOWEVER, army building WITHIN a faction seems to have also come to an end! This is plainly dumb. It turns the game from a faction-based system to a legendary list-based one chokeholding creativity.
Why should we be restricted to how we play a SPECIFIC faction if we aren't committing any wild lore inaccuracies?
Given that this is arguably one of the biggest - if not the biggest - change to come to the game since its early years, I'm astounded that most content creators have been brushing it aside; it borders on apologism.
Thanks for the comment, from my perspective there is still plenty of list building within several of the factions. When the 3rd book comes out there will be more options. By having the army lists formatted like this we are able to access more special rules which emphasize the themes of each list. I understand that not everyone is a fan of the changes, most content creators are making content out of a love for the game and are some of the most passionate and dedicated fans so it makes sense to be excited about a new and fresh way of playing the game.
I am a fan of these changes. From my perspective almost every single list that I was playing was thematic so my army list writing hasn't changed I have just got more special rules to make my armies feel even more thematic and I am excited to see clearly non thematic armies no longer dominating the meta
@@ConquestCreations Thanks for the reply.
I'd look at it from a "Benefits-Drawbacks" point of view.
What are the benefits of going from a faction system to a Legendary List one?
1) Plenty of special rules
2) Very thematic lists
However, as many people have pointed out already, the theme ends when the match-up is unthematic. For example, why is a match-up between the Depths of Moria vs Assault on Black Gate a more thematic situation that a match-up between a Moria army that includes a Balrog + Cave Drake vs a Minar Tirith army that includes Aragorn + Denethor?
3) Am I missing anything else?
What are the drawbacks?
1) Severely limited lists leading players to pre-prescribed paths. ("Still plenty of list building within several factions" is a world away from wide list building in most factions. Hopefully the 3rd book will change this.)
2) Identity of factions takes a very big hit
At the end, GW could have avoided this situation by letting factions be but adding more LLs. I don't want to be a party pooper, since we don't have all info yet. It's good we get more hobby support, so let's see. Have a good one, man, and keep up the great work!
@@1GoodRiddance I agree a pro's and con's list is a great way of looking at it. On your lists I would have said that the identity of each faction has become a lot stronger because they now have more special rules and will be pushed into stronger identities instead of being mixed around with random other armies.
The con is the lack of player freedom but ultimately for me that is completely worth it. I would rather play against themeatic lists than strange soup lists, obviously that it up to individual preference.
I think my biggest conclusion is that this makes no where near as large of a difference as a lot of people think. When we look at factions like Mordor and Isengard that are the most effective the ability to make a list with a variety of heroes is totally gone. But at the same time there are some lists that have gained options like the Army of Lake Town, three trolls, and Thorins Company. Some of the major factions like Rohan and Gondor are almost entirely unaffected. The Reclamation of Osgiliath themed armies was one of the most popular armies of the last edition and now it is just exaggerated with more thematic special rules, it was very rare to see someone play Rohan outside a legendary legion and now they have more legendary legions.
@@ConquestCreations Thanks for the reply.
Sure, I agree that the alliance matrix had to go. But I'm talking about list-building within specific factions here.
The big question remains: Why kill off factions? Is there a net benefit? (Again, I'm referring to factions, not alliances.)
Let factions be and just maintain the rules that prohibit characters from different periods within a faction to be fielded together.
The Angmar PDF just released and the wording of some Skills leaves me slightly hopeful that faction lists may survive. But in any case, time will tell if this shift is good for the game or not.
another important thing is that now even thrown weapons are limited to 33%.
Poor Corsairs
@@karlzuhlke3114 now rohan infatry is a bit strange because the thronw weapon is also the support spear
@@karlzuhlke3114well they now have to buy the throwing weapons
I kind of hate this change as it makes some armys really hard to build and i didn't think they were a problem. If they did a 50% Limit it would be fine but 33% is evil.
Rohan and Army of Thror will really struggle with this change
@@grimgrauman7650 Its also super annoying playstile wise. Throwing spears you can see. But try to keep track who of your 40+ Corsairs has the Dagger
I couldn’t agree more with your synopsis. You articulated my thoughts exactly! Keep up the great work - fantastic channel.
New rules are better.
Old list building was better.
Great breakdown.
And add another voice to the "new rules are fine, forced restrictions in army lists are not".
Happy to see your review, its always easier for me to get an overview of changes rather than picking through books to see what's changed amd going back and forth.
Middle earth is my favourite game by gw and the only one i have played for some time. The changes sound good. I havent tried to build any armies yet so ill see if my lists are even effected going into the new edition.
I dont see why armies of middle earth was held back from this initial release however. Let people know their armies are safe and sound and avoid alot of the current doom and gloom
You rock!!! Thank you for this video, and all of the videos that you've been making about this!!
Thanks mate! I am having a lot of fun making these videos!
It feels like a whole new Game.. i Stick to the old version with my playgroup. We loved the old Version and our khazadum player is really sad.. Cant play his favorite Models
I agree with most things you said, though I do feel magic was nerfed way more than you think. All spells were pretty much increased in CV. There is more resistance to magic. All casting rerolls in the game are gone. Compelling doesn't transfux anymore, and most powers were weakened. I played the new necromancer, and after using ten will (20 casting dice worth), i got off, maybe 2 spells.
This month's Patreon terrain looks great can't wait to download print and prep it top job!
Thanks mate! This set was a lot of fun. I just need to finish off my Uruk Hai scouts now
I was super worried about this edition but now I’m less so. 90% of the stuff they’ve cut was dumb and gamey. Minis modelled to have a bow, spear, banner, shield and sword is super stupid, and allying in the spider queen and 4 bats to whatever evil list you want was also stupid. Only thing I’ll miss is the beast of gorgoroth.
I’m also a thematic player primarily, and I definitely feel that the new edition does a good job of bringing us back to a thematic game where minmaxxing and meta-gaming is less impactful overall. That said, I hope we see some more lists like the “Kingdom of Men”. Also I’m still nervous about the legacies book and the LOTR books army lists.
I'll ad my voice to the "not happy with list building crowd." How can I feel otherwise with my Defender of the Shire?
I guess I'll have to wait for the Armies of Middle-Earth book to be released to form a final opinion.
I'm interested in the new edition, but if I'm totally honest, the list building is very reminiscent of 7th ed. 40k's detachments, which was probably one of the least balanced things the game had. I can't pass judgement on it yet, of course, but the old edition was so good, I am somewhat of the mindset of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I like some of the profile changes I've seen, but do I like the edition as a whole? We'll have to wait and see.
“If it ain’t broke tweek some stuff and make them buy new books” - GW
Great notes and details on the new changes. As a new player, I'm excited to be learning the game with everyone else.
Yeah I can't even use mahuer anymore is really sad
I'm curious to see how the units from the third armybook will be handled. I wonder if we'll get more generic "grand army" lists with a wider variety of units instead of these legendary legions style lists with a severely limited scope of units. I think it would be a good move by GW and if they do it, they should announce it quickly in a dev blog to calm people down a bit.
The only down side for me is having to buy all the extra books but besides that I think the changes are great. Can’t wait for mine to come in the mail!!
Gonna say my biggest problem is frankly the arbitrary Legacy system. Everything else is fine.
As a Southern Kingdoms player my armies got gutted across the board while the Easterlings are just fine. Its not even consistent there interesting units like Half Trolls (not to mention Far Harad) are just gone despite mentioned in the books while the lame made up Serpent Guard just stays around. Same goes for the Heroes. Golden King? Fuck Him Special Wraiths gone. Raza the Horseless Bodyguard gotta keep him.
The South will rise again brother
Its the lack of consistency what makes GW explanations hard to believe.
@@Nico_G.Z It's all about $$$ - Easterlings sell well so they are staying but all the elite Corsair/Harad stuff hasn't actually been sold by GW for years so rather than allow people to make money off of 3D prints they were sent to legacy
I do however think if I was going to choose, my favourite change from the new edition would be the new way priority works! Feels like you have even more control and more reason to want to win the roll in the first place! Sometimes you really don’t want to go first! 😅
I totally agree. In the few games I have played it already makes the game a lot more interactive!
Thank you for the video! Great work! I love the little changes here and there. I'm curious to see how some of the units and heroes changed in the new edition.
I'm not super familiar with the rules so I'll wait to see what people think later on. The "themed lists" sounds very concerning tbh
so looking forward to picking up the new rules on Sat and of course seeing the new movie on Thursday
Gw doing gw things.. I'll be sticking with the old edition.
Much like warhammer, I don't need my hand held and told I can't make interesting lists because they want to sell more models with designated loadouts.
I really like the new rules. It is an improvement. What I dont like, it is all the nerf that most evil armies and evil characters are getting.
Regards!
I hate, HATE the new army building restrictions forcing players to buy minis thanks to scattering all heroes and units around.
I have 6 wargs, what i do with them? Can't use them unless i buy other heroes and units making a whole new army.
Still a great game, but those greedy corporate decisions are just bad and not at all making the game better.
Thanks for the comment, although I do disagree with you here. I don't think its a greedy corporate move to encourage thematic play. Ultimately the goal is to get more people to play the game. If people are choosing to leave the game then it would not be a good business decision. With the Warg riders I would wait until we see the rest of the armies. I am guessing they will be in Angmar armies. Remember that the armies released so far are just based on what we see in the films and the rest of the rules are coming in a few months
@@ConquestCreationsThe only way I could see that being true is if they decide to sell battle-hosts for every single new legendary legion, with all the various characters, but even if that magically happened it would still be misguided.
Players crave options. List building is what keeps so many people in the hobby long-term.
I love most of the new rules they made, and it looks like it will make the game more enjoyable, but if the whole restrictions on your army thing are as bad as i think then i plan on sticking to the old rules and maybe adding a few of the new edition rules.
2:00 - There is a big change to courage. With magic models can now get to 12+ courage, when before the highest roll needed was a 9.
So basically changes to rules good, changes to lists annoying, can no longer run a themey what if list, e.g. what if the three hunters had caught up with the hobbits so they were at Helms Deep, or a book accurate Helms Deep force with Eomer there when the siege began. But then again, surely that section of the rules are more like guidelines, if the community wants to ignore it, we can organise our tournaments and play our games to ignore it. Perhaps give people something like customisation points that can be used to add profiles into their army list that wouldn't be there otherwise, e.g. you use 1 point to add a different hero to your list, e.g. what if Celeborn went to Helms Deep instead of Haldir?
I'm a big fan of the new edition. I'm fine with the new list system.
I think you missed the biggest change with monsters been able to deal additional strikes against supporting untis if the kill the guy in front.
I am also sad that Transfix is still the same, but after going over all the magic casters a lot of them now cast ist worse by 1. (Sadly not the Nazgul, but at least the WK doesn't get any rerolls anymore)
Im happy with the new edition so far. Focus to big heros and big monsters will be fun, i hope. I actually like the new army building and troop gear selections. I hated seeing random power pieces added to armies (even if my favorite go to was Galadrial, Theoden and Grimbold, but i digress). While it does cut down on choices, i think it will put theme back into the game a bit. Balance passes can be done easier now, since you dont need to take 50 variables into account.
Liking how the new edition is shaping up to be honest, a lot of players I know went for theme in their lists anyway, I think armies of middle Earth will flesh factions out to more the old style lists minus the allies, which I can live with
I think the new rules can be summed up with the old saying: If it's not broken, don't fix it.
Hate the changes. It was the freedom in list building that made things interesting and fun- I’ve spent countless hours reading Tolkien and watching the films and enjoying various games- I think trying to perfectly recreate the events should be a scenario specific thing. Something already done with the prior books.
I’m going to keep playing the old.
I hope you review the new army books honestly also. I am picking up the starter set but not the army books. I plan to download those and then pay no mind to any of the restrictions. I feel like this is the best of both worlds
Great video as always. I bought the mordor battlehost just now but apparently it is illegal in game? haha whatever
transfix IS changed HUGELY, it cannot be channeled allowing you to halve fight value anymore; this option is completely removed apart from bat swarms (I assume) and ringbearers.
@ikkiiiieee and even then ring bearers lose that ability if they are in combat alongside a friend
So basicly all you can do against elves is pray they fluff? stupid... They pay marginally few points for their stats and rules when compared to other factions
@@ikkiiiieee pretty much. Or use Isildur (who at least remembered how to ride a horse...)
I am all for the new edition! Thrandaddy got nerfed alot, but I will still enjoy playing my Mirkwood army. Balance and change are good things, and it will be so nice to not have to play against yellow alliance soup all the time... The only change my playgroup is making is still allowing a second wargear option for banner bearers. It makes no sense for a banner bearer to no have a shield as well. I think only one faction (Azogs legion or whatever it is called now) has the option to run their banners with shields naturally, and that is an insane buff to one army. Hopefully that gets changed with an erata, but until then, my group will allow add ons to banner bearers.
Thanks for the comment! I don't mind banner bearers being unable to hold shields, as someone who has never held a medieval banner in battle I imagine it is a two handed job making it hard to also have a shield hahahah
@ConquestCreations That is a fair assessment, but in fairness, I do participate in many high level reenactment of medieval battles and sieges, and it is possible to hold a banner and a shield at once. It does make it more difficult, but it is doable. It is the fact that some get the option while others don't that rubs my group the wrong way. Still, we will have to see what happens in the future. I am playing my first game with the new edition tomorrow, so hopefully all goes well!
Thanks for the great videos and the great content :) If I may advise something, please work on your audio setup. Your mike seems to be too far from you and sometimes it's not that easy to understand everything clearly.
I do love most of the changes too, especially to monsters.
What I don't fully agree on is that shooting wasn't changed, since hardly any bowmen being able to take a spear and therefore having to fight in the front is quite a change I think.
I also do think magic was nerfed quite a lot - I guess if transfix really is your biggest problem I see why you don't think that way but having Black dart, blinding light, Aura of Dismey as well as compell nerfed heavily, is quite a chunk.
That is a good point about the lack of spears on Bowmen is an indirect nerf to shooting. I hadn't thought about it in that way. I do agree with your point on magic after looking back through the book, a lot of spells got weaker, a lot of casters lost their rerolls and a lot of models gained resistant to magic.
Regarding the army lists, does the new format imply that you can't use Saruman and Lurtz in the same Isengard army?
Yes
@@luisamador2318 Oh noes! :(
Can we even field Isenguard trolls. I don't think their ever depicted in the films.
Big fan of the Terror tweaks as well, instead of getting cucked after a throwing spear or heroic combat, you can now do your terror check at the very moment the terror model becomes chargeable.
Army lists might be hit or miss, it would suck if your favourite model is only available in a single list etc.
No mention of special strikes? I thought they got canned in this new edition?
This is a big change that I definitely should have mentioned! I wrote my script based on what was in the book and forgot to mention what had been left out!
@ConquestCreations hey it's ok. I thought for a moment I was going mad and had made it up!
im a bit upset with the restricted army building, feels like my creativity is been a bit stifled.
Just a correction on pikes, they only get +1 to wound against the mount and not the rider.
Totally missed that! Thanks for pointing it out before I played it wrong
Are you sure the 24 scenarios are not just including 6 scenarios for doubles?
Great point, I didn't consider that but it is a serious possibility
We definitely have to wait AoME book to have a fair opinion about army lists.
Magic is even more nerfed than we could think as a lot of big heroes gain abilities to resist to it AND with the new army lists magicians are pretty rare and expensive.
And I'm personnaly sad they didn't went further with Two-Handed Weapons as this "bonus" is only rule by luck and make it not consistant, and on the other side, there is even more profile that are forced to use it (no hand weapon).
I am super excited!!
Good video!
Yeah overall I’m super positive with the changes
In terms of army lists - I’ll reserve my full opinions until the armies of middle earth book comes out as most / all of my armies will be in that book. For example i want to run Rivendell elves with glorfindel not a “lindon” army. but yes possible about all the rules changes - I reckon a lot of people’s gripes about the armies will be answered when all 3 army books come out :)
I totally agree with you, I think a lot of complaining could have been avoided if all the books dropped at the same time but the next few months will be super interesting with only the movie armies
Fingers crossed the game is fun.
Old edition
Yeah I’m okay with having more themed list but I’m afraid that the good heroes are so good now that it will take less skill to do well. Also just waiting for the other book to come out becuase most of my list go out to legacy (love my evil men)
Jacob, There is a an echo in the sound.
Can you pur the exact link for the terrain under the video? (This or the next One) And does the shipment cover also Europe and Italy in particular? I would be so glad to buy and support. In the meanwhile, keep up the good work 💪🏻
5:58 Gorbag up to F8 matey He's F5 base now. :)
With the hard and fast army lists are double events dead?
I like most of the changes. Magic seems a bit nerfed, especially when you take into account the profiles too (which your review didn’t get into). To me it feels like most profiles got toned down. The exception being fight value.
Are there any of the Saxonia buildings in ruined form?
A question on the army list. Since Rohan has gotten new heroes from many years before in the lore, does that mean that you can not host Theoden and hammerhand in the same build?
it helps people build thematic lists, but, your opponent might not have a list that thematically fought your list. so i feel the change is moot.
Narrative list building and narrative match-ups are not the same and should not be confused.
Players have no control over their opponent's list, but they do have control over their own list and those should be thematic in keeping with the film.
@seanwilliams7073 absolutely, I understand that. what im saying is friends and fans would naturally come to making narrative match ups themselves. Because of the versatility of list building. The tournament scene will not look narrative at all. So I'm not sure what they were going for as it's restrictive.
They also don't stick to their narrative rules fully. Saruman being in the Muster the isengard list, when you never see him on the field of battle.
It's the imagination that I loved with list building. Not meta building.
Ciao Jakob, great video! is there a link where we can buy your official dice set?
Thanks for the comment, I am working with Baron of Dice to get them released. They should be available very soon
If u can only have 1 piece of equipment, what about models that come with 2 i.e. Spear and shield. Rivendell Elves and some orcs spring to mind
Army building is a big thing i dont like tbh. buuuut i get it and kinda makes sence but we still want the possibility to create our own armies IMO :)
Double strength seems a bit over the top, they give monsters buffs then have some heroes be able to S8 or S10 them back to reality
Thanks for the comment, I don't think we will see many heroes Heroic Strengthing VS monsters because it will take away their ability to Heroic Strike. I think double strength is a good difference from D3 where it was almost never worth it.
@ConquestCreations D3 was bad for sure.
I feel this guy just kind like everything to get gw favor #bought
Could it also be possible that he is a massive fan of the Middle Earth SBG and that this edition has some great improvements?
Are there army lists in the new core book?
No. You need the army book for lists and profiles.
What is the general hunter special rule?:)
If you kill the enemy General you get a point of might back
@ConquestCreations thanks!:)
@@ConquestCreations not as useful as I hoped but still Buhrdur got some way better in this edition:) cannot wait to play his legion:)
I think if you only add a new stat to stop people that want their old armies using the the old army books, you probably wouldn't metnion it much in the rules...
There are a few good changes that I do enjoy with magic being nerfed, dominant being a thing and the d3 strike is great, for fight value i would have spread them out more (make the cap 12 rather than sticking at 10)
However all the good changes are nowhere near enough to be okay with binning the ally matrix. I believe the game should be what you want it to be and not to be so restrictive on what I am taking. I run Numenor/rivendell but now both lists are lacking separately and together as the last alliance theyre still lacking compared to others.
I feel like theyve made changes not based on player feedback but purely based on bias. Changes that weren't needing being shoved into our faces.
I enjoy narrative play and there is a place for narrative play when playing casually and relaxed or even at a tournament bringing something I find cool to use like my last alliance army. But now I am forced into using pre set lists which I don't find enjoyable. As with a lot of people in my community they will be forced to use something that they don't want to use.
Last Alliance is like the best list now with it's special rules
Great video. I agree that the changes are positive. They could have made a few more and gone further on some of it aswell. I'm looking forward to the new books this weekend.
I like the narrative list building.
But Arnor and Rivendell do have times in the story where they ally. Just not in the movie. The worst thing about this edition is the same as the last and the movies. The army of the dead. Dumbest thing ever, unless they'r just being used to scare corsairs off ships
Arnor isn't in the books released yet so they will be covered in the Armies of Middle Earth book
@@ConquestCreations Nice well that's good news. I'm actually stoked to hear that. Not seeing Orophin or Rumil in the book was disappointing as I'm halfway through painting them.
I think they wanted to make 2 main thing:
- use the new movie as a kickatart point for a new era for the game. To do so, they resetted the game to basically a 2.0 version of first edition, with a lot of special or nitpick cases removed.
- to emphasize point 1, they also removed the alliance thing, making the list like historical platoon from any ww2 wargame. This way you know that player A is going to field that army in a specific way, and you could nerf or power up that list or the other one if something in the meta is found out to be too much or too low. Also, this avoid the begginner to be overwhelmed by the huge possibility that a full liberty army composition + alliance could give, avoiding any case of "wtf, i didn't know you could do THAT!"
I still think the new edition is completely unnecessary 😅 just GW trying to get me to spend £210 on a start box and two books!
Company wants to make money shock horror 😂
@ there’s making money and then there printing money and scaring people into thinking they miss out😅 GW are now worth £4.8B and about to join the FTSE100 on the stock market
I think the new starter set is great! I think the new edition is a great update particularly in the core rules. If you don't want to purchase anything then absolutely nothing is compelling you to. For myself I think the new miniatures are awesome and I am really enjoying having them. Ultimately if people weren't excited by their products then they would not be so successful. There is no FOMO with this release. It will all be stocked items that will be available for years
That wargear limit of 1 could be a problem if the limit includes shields. How many models are there that come modelled with a shield and something else extra? Iron hills dwarfs with spear and shield. Just released warriors of Rohan with shield and throwing spear. Plenty more spear and shield models.
If shields are exempt them problem solved but if not then there I’ll be a lot of cutting off of weapons I expect.
Edit: I have learned since that rather than it being you can take one item, it works via load outs. So if a model could take a spear and shield each for 1 point before it will now have the option of taking a spear and shield for 2 points total.
@@dalorasinum386 If a model has Spear and Shield (like warrior of Minas Tirith) you can take both. But you cannot take only spear or nothing in this example.
It wasn't clearly explained but "wargear" now is an actual loadout. To use the Warriors of Minas Tirith profile that was leaked a while back, the wargear options (in addition to the default 1-handed sword and heavy armor):
A) Banner
B) Shield
C) Shield and Spear
D) Bow
That means that you can still have multiple pieces of gear but only if it's a preset wargear option. No more randomly adding everything onto everyone.
Who has the PDF version lol 🤣
People can say what they want about wysiwyg and army list building. I love it. I absolutely love it. If you don't, you don't have to play the new edition. All the power to you for enjoying the game you want the way you want. This is the way I want, and am so stoked. And whose to say you can't mix and match rules in your own gaming groups?
So ultimately they didn't balance anything, they only removed models, reasons for having customizations on weapons (no special strikes instead of balacing), no customizations on armies. no real magic balancing either. bigger cost on models (lesser models on board). So they want 50-60$ pr book for what? almost no new rules or balancing, a lot of removevel from the old books and the only thing that is better is the priority role. why should I pay 60$ for one rule that is changed for the better? maybe 3 if you count in monster (but trolls got worse on two handed) and warbeasts. and a lot of rules got worse. Who whas it that said they have full faith in the person making the new ruleset? because I dont see anything other then money grap.
Your statement is so insanely wrong, I'm not even going to argue with you lol :D
@@BlumenkohlBroccoli1 in other words you just want to waste my time, looking at your useless statement. :D
@@BlumenkohlBroccoli1 How can my statement be wrong, when I didn't say anything wrong? and why waste my time on commenting on your useless statement?
@@darksnap89 "didn't balance anything" is wrong, "only removed models" is wrong, "no real magic balancing either" is horribly wrong, even if I understand why Lucas feels that way if he only cared about transfix, etc...
@@BlumenkohlBroccoli1 what did they Balance then?
you are right they did add models, but they removed more. and no I dont see so much balance in magic, that was the real problem. But even then.. do you think it is worth 50$x3? and I didn't even mention all the typo's in the book they made. If this is what you have problem with on my statement fine, but I am not wrong on my points.
Im sad all my armies are themathic like angmar with spiders and rhun with dragons... this is sad.
I quite like the new edition, even though I have a bunch of mordor orcs with spear and shield (tbf probably just run them as morannons)
The whining is beginning to annoy me though. A year ago, everyone was saying the game was dead, GW had lost the licence and complaining about the lack of support. Now we get a whole new edition, new plastic kits, new heroes, balance updates etc and everyone's complaining again
Such a good point. People are addicted to outrage, I guess, and can always find something to complain about
So you’re an “any change is good change” kinda guy eh
If youre fine splashing hundreds of £££ to satisfy gws insanely strict army building and love wasting hundreds £££ buying miniatures they'll happily axe then be my guest
@r3dcoat397 no but games do need support, new models and balance updates to thrive
@cbbartman1360 my brother in christ most of my models are 3d prints and proxies, including entire far harad and khand forces that are going to legacy. I'll just keep playing them anyway because they're... my toys. The only place the completely new rules will be enforced is gw events of which there's like 3 a year
The new list building is absolutely awful. It's probably ruined the edition for me. Other changes are fine. Although some things may have been overly nerfed.
I get that you need to suck off GW to keep your freebies, but the new ed army selection is absolutely drastic bollocks
I have literally no need to suck off GW for freebies. Integrity is worth a lot more than $370AUD. There are a large number of people, myself included, who are a fan of these changes and are excited to play the game.
@ConquestCreations honestly bro, no shade. I love your content and you get your bag. Being in GW's good books is worth way more than the cash value of the goods they give you, as both you and I (as a fellow content creator) know, with you being able to get bat reps, painting guides, etc. We've all seen the GW NDA which includes a no criticism clause.
As I say, I appreciate you have to play the game, but I'm hopefuly taking you slightly out of that bubble as I have seen zero excitement online or in either of my gaming groups for the new army selection. Zero.
@@NapoleonicWargaming I do absolutely agree that having products early gives me an advantage which is more than $370. In this case it hasn't been as large as it may seem given that a large amount of content creators have made very popular content about all the leaks which I have not been able to do.
I don't think my positivity is in a bubble. The thoughts presented in this video are purely my own based on the rule books that I have read. One of the great advantages of seeing the rules before everyone else was to come up with my own thoughts on the rules without the background noise of people online complaining. Other people disliking something has no impact on my own informed opinion on it. People online are overwhelmingly negative about a vast majority of what Games Workshop does no matter how good or bad it is. Social media is an echo chamber and unfortunately the loudest voices are usually the negative ones. When Games Workshop doesn't release anything people complain about no releases, when they have the largest release in several years people complain about change. Every week I hold a wargaming night in the studio and everyone in the local community is very excited about the new edition, we have all been preparing our armies and have managed to get a few games in. I totally understand that some people are not a fan of the changes and that's totally fine, however I am not going to pretend to not be happy about it to appease outraged people online.
@ConquestCreations and that's fair enough! I'm genuinely happy that you're excited about the new army selection, if you're being genuine (and I'll have to take you at your word that you are). There was absolutely nothing stopping you from taking these 'themed' armies before, you used dismounted GG and Elendil in your last alliance game for example. I'm hoping that with the 3rd book we get armies that excite me, but of the ones I can take, literally zero of them currently interest me (admittedly I am/was a Harad and Far Harad player, but even the harad list is incredibly boring)
I like the new army lists a lot. I'm especially excited to finally play Gandalf and Pippin on Shadowfax. I do wish there were more options for Ents, such as including them in the riders of Eomer or something, especially since they seemed to have improved monsters in this edition.
I'm a relatively new player who has started with the Dead of Dunharrow, and based on the leaks I've seen, I like the new edition. One change I have a love/hate relation with is the wargear selection. Yes, I'm in favor of having set wargear options based on what the unit is modeled with (no cramming every wargear option onto a single mini), it's a positive change that reduces powergaming. However, GW did not do the best job of laying out the wargear options. For example, the Dunharrow banner-bearer mini is obviously using a spear as a banner-pole, but cannot take both under the new rules. So we're now in a situation where a rule change meant to enforce WYSIWYG is doing the opposite in some cases. Hoping that gets fixed in an errata at some point.
Thanks for the comment. The Banner and spear one is always funny. In the past I always ran my banners with spears, but it doesn't really make sense in a battle line to stop waving your banner around in the air to stab someone with the spear on the end so I actually like the change hahaha.
@@ConquestCreations I suppose you're right there, and I suppose it does feel a bit gamey to have your banner be able to spear support. On the other hand, this means that your banner-bearer has to either risk his neck on the front lines or not contribute to the fight, which is less than ideal though I can see how that would balance things. Is passing a banner still a thing?
In fairness, part of my annoyance is that I tend to run my warriors of the dead with either a spear or a shield, but not both. A warrior with a banner is 29 points, making it the only thing in my army that isn't in a 5-point increment.
Huge disagree over the larger change. Look at how it is in the movies/books, archers can take other weapons. Who gives a crap if the model doesn't have it on it.
Let people customize how they want and see who is better. Same with the no allies rule. Let people play how they want.
There will always be sweaty gamers who take it too seriously and ruin the fun. Don't ruin other's ability to do so just because a few decide to be jerks.
Thanks for the comment, the only instance that I can remember of archers having multiple weapons was the rangers of Gondor who have kept the ability to have a bow and spear.
I really like the change because it makes the battle line a lot more interesting. In the current edition it's completely normal to have a back line of archers with spears and it takes the thought out of it. Now you will need to consider the positioning of a lower defence group of soliders
Thanks for responding and creating the amazing content!
The rangers do, and my main faction Lothlorien do for sure. I also remember the archers of Gondor having swords on their belts.
Again, I just played with some friends for fun, and I am love a lot of the other changes, but these two really annoy me.
I don’t understand this „huraa optimism” about MESBG being made more similar to other systems… like really? What is good about that other than my beloved system being stripped of charm it always had? Bit sad
Thanks for the comment, I think the only thing making Middle Earth more like other systems is the way that courage is written which is incredibly minor, I also don't think this is a good or bad thing. I just stated that as a reason why they made that change. I want Middle Earth to stay with its unique charm and I think that this edition has been true to the game.
@@ConquestCreationsthere are good changes, yes but there are also many bad ones like restricting gear options to a single choice and removing options that have no corresponding model present in range (e.g Elendils horse or Guards of Fountain court shields) this limits necessity of converting models EXTREMELY and distracts from the hobby. Another change is army lists only as legendary legions, and many people might not agree with me BUT this further cripples freedom of creating unique armylists and limits very important aspect on this field. Instead that they should introduce limits to the types of troops one can include in army with exception of hero or monster based lists of course. This way of introducing changes to army list building is shot in the heel unfortunately..
The new edition may be tighter on making armies but overall the games will be funner. The game was in a bad state, people constantly moaning about dice rolls as the allied matrix allowed players to get over army weaknesses. I.e everyone souping, galadriel, gwahir, cheap bozza as the army bonuses sucked and the benefits were too good.
Looking at results of tournaments the same lists won. Also these lists were not fun to play against and were too oppressive.
I don't think players should judge the new edition till all 3 books are released and you've played a few games
I totally agree, I understand that some people may not like the restrictions but I love how thematic armies are rewarded more heavily and there are more special rules to make them feel how they do in the story.
Whilst the new "Legendary Legions" for building Army Lists are restrictive (I don't mind them myself, will be interesting to see the Armies Of Middle-earth book) each miniature/unit already has a points cost listed on their profile, don't they?
So - whilst in properly matched play games at tournaments, yes, you'd have to adhere to the lists but there's nothing stopping anyone from just making the lists they made before in the last edition with friends or at stores, right?
Just use the ally matrix if you want to, or just make whatever you like and play "open" I suppose if you're using GW language.
As I say, I'm not a tournament player and I tend to play once in a blue moon with friends - so it doesn't change how I play my games vastly. BUT, maybe this is something people can take solace in when it comes to the new edition?
After all, a wargame becomes "yours" once it leaves the hands of the publisher.
I dont like they sent 60% of the heroes to legacy, nor the changes they did wargear, so many units removed as well, Im tired how WG ruins their own games