Even more reason to airfry

RIP Grim Hammers

Thror? Why Thror? He got 10p more expensiv but now is immune to monster attacks and has acient enemys (orc). That is quite good

​@thehobbybreakfastshow grimhammers got buffed... it may not look like it but they can butcher your enemys with the new two-handed. (Yes they are more Limited)

@@grimgrauman7650 army of Thror got butchered. They had relatively cheap heros, then you could fill out Thror's warband full of S4 Grimhammers. That's gone now. The two handed rules that everyone has doesn't outweigh the limitations on them. The heros are more expensive and the grimhammers are much more limited. F4 isn't as unique as it was. They can't bring a banner so lose out on those VP's too. Army of Thror is basically just worse in everyway.

I think we were trying to point out that- if you're going to go to the effort of making the rules for legacy factions, why give them the label of 'legacy.' It wouldn't be *that* much work to FAQ a pdf once or twice over the course of an edition, and if you're modest in giving them powerful armylists, it shouldn't be an issue for competitive scenarios. The label 'legacy' is clearly too much for some to cope with- 40K being a good example (though admittedly the label means virtually nothing in Old World- though their legacy content is significantly larger). To your last point, I don't personally think its that difficult for Games Workshop to say 'we're not producing these models ever again, but here are some regular rules for them if you had old collections.' No need to gaslight or remove them as 'full' lists.

It is a shame that it needs to exist but agree if it makes tourneys run smoother then it's only a good thing - OT

KZbin only, sorry!

Did we dismiss everyone like that? I'm (Onod here) fairly sure I stated I wasn't keen on the army building, and I'm not at all competitive in my mindset. Some Legions are very limiting, others are not. I'm not sure I agree that playing Bilbo's Party is a waste of everyone's time- depends on what kind of game people are after. It's not going to win a tournament, sure, but not every game has to be played optimally as if you were at a tournament trying to win... I think the community would generally benefit from better discourse- people are either way too positive or way too negative about GW products in general- and the people in the middle ground seem to get hated on by everyone else unhelpfully.

@thehobbybreakfastshow Right at the top of the episode one of you did, that's who I'm responding to. In terms of lists like Bilbo's Birthday Party or Road to Rivendell, it's not even a matter of tournament play or not - it's getting curb stomped by your average player with a middle-of-the-pack army. Unless you've arranged to play a narrative scenario (which is the place for the list and was already accomodated for by the previous edition), outside of a chance to socialise, it's a waste of a game - whoever's playing against it is going to be bored to tears at the easy win. If the person playing with it is honest with themselves, they probably are too. As you know this hobby is a big investment of time and money, and it's only correct that people voice their concerns. For those who are rightfully critical of GW and the changes they've made, it's quite tiresome to be quite frankly ridiculed and condescended to by the toxic positivity crowd, or told by some of those 'level heads' in the middle who can't see beyond their own nose to settle down like frogs boiling in pot. GW is in many ways like the Imperium it promotes - a bastion for the hobby granted, but one upheld by deeply unfavourable practices, in this case for the consumer. The instances of them screwing over those that have made them the FTSE 100 company they are today is a lengthy litany, so I don't think it's out of proportion to extrapolate towards the negative. There are those who are for the changes or are in the middle who are not antagonistic towards those with criticism, but considering how many vocally are, one can be forgiven for being defensive.

Okay- it's a 2 hour video discussion- not a structured viewpoint. We discuss it in more detail, and you'll see that we in fact acknowledge much of the nuance you are alluding to. Even in the segment you refer to, Mayor acknowledges that we had used it for non-competitive purposes ourselves, but in his opinion, it's not something he's fussed by. A few minutes later, I point out that it is something that bothers me. I'm sure you can agree that, if you spoke for 2 hours, and I picked up on just 1 thing you said out of context in that time, that's not a fair reflection of what is being said. Sure- again, in a competitive setting, The Shire is not going to be a 'viable' list. I think that it's worth pointing out though that, a lot of people in the community won't take issue with that. My local club almost exclusively plays Battle Companies, for example, and would welcome this kind of list. Conflating 'casual' and 'narrative' isn't entirely helpful imo, we don't all approach the game in the same way. I think it is on people like yourself to say you don't want the game against the person who brings that list in this situation, rather than saying they're wasting your time. I wouldn't personally agree with comparing GW to an empire. They're a business. The only thing you can do that will be noticed by them is to not buy their products. We exist in a world where car companies don't recall parts they know will lead to fatal accidents, unless it costs them less to do so than paying for the cases where they get sued. In the much lower stakes of Games Workshop selling some over costed toys, they need to feel it in their pockets- so if people who are negative towards the system don't stop playing it, changes won't be made. On a final point, yes, I agree, the people who are so pro-GW as to ignore viable criticism are sometimes on the officious side. I'm really glad you've commented, and are engaging in a conversation, and I hope you don't take away from this that I'm being dismissive. I think it's also worth pointing out that, being overly 'defensive' means you've actually done the very thing you're annoyed by. You dismissed our centre-ground based on just 4 minutes of a 2 hour video. I think we actually agree a lot more with what you're saying, but the confrontation is what makes people in this community ignore each other (and then those of us in the middle get hated on by both sides). If you watch anymore of the video, we'd like to hear your thoughts, but no worries if you've not got the time to sit through 2 hours

​@thehobbybreakfastshow I'm by no means criticising everything said in the video, simply that specific part - from where I'm listening it sounded like Mayor referred to your thematic lists as exceptions to a rule. There are many things I agree with in the video, so don't take what I've said as a criticism of the podcast as a whole. I wrote what I disagreed with as there's less to discuss when it's just two people agreeing with each other. Regarding what you've said concerning lists like Bilbo's Birthday, it goes beyond marginal viability like a Shire list - it's a forgone conclusion. In terms of communicating my reluctance to play against a list like this outside of narrative play, I would discuss with an opponent ahead of time and make it clear that I believe we want to get different things out of the game and would be better suited to playing different people - if I knew ahead of time. Sometimes down the club or at a tournament it's not always possible to know in advance what people will bring - once I've turned up I'm not going to walk away from a game; I respect other people's time, unlike those who would spring such a weak list on others. I appreciate that different people have different ideas about what may be narrative, casual or competative, but where there's no possibility to communicate prior to a game, I believe these kind of lists are somewhat selfish. This is a collaborative experience afterall not a computer game. Furthermore, my comparison of GW to the empire of the Imperium was illustrative of their business practices and relationship with their customers. That being said, it's not unreasonable to compare a market dominant business with the concept of empire, in fact this occurs all the time in financial and business publications. In both instances the idea of self-interest in the name of profit is present, and by no means unreasonable. This does not mean that consumer advocacy or discourse should be limited to the trite "let your wallet do the talking". Your example of car companies is correct, but I don't think that either of us agree this is the way it should be - in high stakes examples like that lawsuits are a proportional response, and at the lower stakes of GW, criticism and consumer advocacy are likewise proportional. Although it has achieved little over the years, there has to be a spaces for discussion against some of GW's practices that goes beyond 'just walk away'. On the one hand this is 'just' a hobby, but it is also a community, a craft and consolation for many. It is regrettable that it is under the sway of GW - but finding non-GW games that are played widely is near impossible in many places. As an addendum, one can play this game without paying a penny to GW, so there is not necessarily a correlation between people not playing and GW taking action. Finally to reiterate, I have not dismissed your entire discussion, I've enjoyed much of the video, merely highlighted the particular comment that I strongly disagreed with. I wish no hate upon those in the middle or even those who are for change and do not act derisively towards those who are not. Perhaps you are correct regarding my defensiveness - I've found myself somewhat demoralised by the ardent and dogmatic pro crowd in spaces such as the GBHL Facebook page and elsewhere. I worry that with GW's eye increasingly focussing on this game that we are at risk of going the same way of their more mainstream games such as 40k, a game I stopped playing precisely for the reasons that I believe these changes are beginning to precipitate.

I never thought you were critiquing the whole video- merely pointing out that a single comment wasn't reflective of the whole discussion. I'm glad you're willing to share your views too- my comments have just been reflecting that your initial post came in 'all guns blazing' as it were, when I think we actually displayed a variety of viewpoints in the video- which it is fair that we acknowledge in our discussion. There is less to discuss if 2 people just agree, but sometimes you're discussing small nuances, rather than trying to find something to frame as being the counter opposite to your own view. I still think, personally, that it's not inherently selfish to play The Shire in the instance you describe. I think this actually speaks to a wider issue imo, one which you might not agree with, that the rules and communities (like the GBHL) have been slowly forcing different kinds of players into the same space. I think it should be easier to express the kind of game you are looking for within the community, so that someone looking for a 'challenging' game like yourself, can collaborate with likeminded people. Take a tournament for example. GBHL80s are often billed as the 'casual' option- but my experiences are that you can find just as competitive a person at an 80, with a top-tier meta list, taking advantage of the points on offer. If, like yourself, players don't want a 'non-viable' list at a tournament- I think it should be the TO making that choice- I don't think the player is being selfish playing a list they may enjoy for different reasons to what you get out of the game. Perhaps we're getting too bogged down in semantics on calling GW an Empire- I was more referring to the comparison to how you framed it as being like the Imperium in 40k. I don't think that the car company example is the way it should be- you're right, but I'm a realist. Late stage Capitalism isn't going to change due to anything we individually do. We should discuss GWs business practices (as we are doing), but fundamentally, though simplistic- not buying their products is the ultimate end goal of this discourse. If GW felt like fan feeling was going to impact profits, they would act. If everyone expresses anger, but their profits increase, and will continue to- I'm not so sure they would act. As you note, people have been hating on GW a long time, for as long as I've been in the hobby- but their profits continue to grow. I do wonder if, on your last point, playing a game is giving tacit support to the company, even if you don't buy their products. Aren't you helping to maintain and grow a community who do, in fact, go on to buy GW products? I think this is the big problem with what we're discussing- unless the community completely separates the game from the company, you're always in thrall to them, whether you like it or not- and your options are limited in how to actually make change. I've also found the discussion and polarisation depressing. I think, unfortunately, if GW wants to make money from the system, and your system is viewed as more of a 'standard' wargame- then they're going to use a template that makes profit, and that's going to be more like 40k than not. I wish that we could persuade everyone who are exclusively positive without cause, or exclusively negative without cause, to accept that in reality, it's a bit of both- but I don't think it's going to happen. And I think if there really was an effective boycott or the community decided to not buy from GW, that they would just drop the game. And then over time, you'd no longer be able to find the player base that you point out is one of the positives about a GW game. Just ends up being a bit of an impossible situation, and one which is going to play out regardless of what we as individuals actually do.

*wargaming podcast said we thought the changes were fine, expressed that we found both positives and negatives in the new edition, and I can assure you that only one of us plays Legion. It's cool dude, you don't need to listen to us, feel free not to. We're not going to lie and express only positive things about MESBG though, if we don't always like everything we see. Anyways, probably won't see you in the next one 👍

media1.tenor.com/m/2NI9qGfOS-YAAAAd/calm-down-martin-freeman.gif

The pople who truly love something are often its biggest critics, and let’s be honest, you don’t make over 100 videos on SBG without having a love for the game.

It's a rough one for the sweary liars in the community, that's for sure!

Yeah, I thought Wulf was fine, no different to any other evil man on screen we've seen- and more backstory than those in the original trilogy- Onod

Start the fan petition, light the beacons!

Cheers- we've really enjoyed your rules, went and picked up Space Weirdos in the end too 😂

New video discussing/reading the leaked magic rules coming soon.... or not

😂

F

Main change was the AI system- so rolling a dice to determine what the stormtroopers did. We fully upgraded Mando/Boba/IG- let them use all their orders, not just 6. The enemy had no upgrades except special weapons, and used just the base orders until Gideon arrived. We then rolled a D3 each turn and picked one of Gideon's cards based on that roll. That was it pretty much!

They're mostly made from the Frostgrave Soldiers box! OT was just very selective about which weapons and heads he used

I think there is strategy in the push your luck element to the rules- the order of activating units, and there a bit of rock-paper-scissors in what units are good against.

This is the way

The miniatures are honestly wonderful! Sword Weirdos ain't bad either!

We'll be trying it out again for sure!

So many great Indie Games out there

There are hundreds listed on Wargames Vault. Many are cheap or free!

Cheers! Yeah, I think house ruling scenarios is the route we're going down in future projects too

Oof- maybe season 3 will be better...

Id encourage you to play it, for sure. Like we discussed, I think you have to play the game differently, which we didn't do very well. The scenarios could have been designed in a way that would better suit how we want to play, but that wont be the same for everyone! I'd say if you're playing with a friend, just make sure neither of you feel like you're picking a side. Take the challenge on together somehow. I think the ruffians and hobbits are great to play against one another. They are a good match, which is important, it's just a lot of the scenarios dont feel like they have been designed to be balanced. - Mayor

I'd disagree and say the dwarves do the heavy lifting in the show. Celebrimbor stuff was probably second best for me. But overall, not a good show 😅

If someone makes a 45 minute cut of just the bit in the season that's relevant, then... I probably still wouldn't watch it 😂

There will be more narrative, just probably not scouring!